New York Times Columnist Nicholas Kristof Rewrites History In Defense of Abortion

New York Times columnist Nick Kristof made a bold historic leap in his most recent column in which he more or less pens an ode to a “Southern Christian Abortion Provider.”

Kristof, who previous wrote that he is not a particularly religious Christian, decided to ignore 2000 years of history in order to praise a child killer as near Christlike. Kristof wrote

If that seems incongruous, let’s remember that conservative Christianity’s ferocious opposition to abortion is relatively new in historical terms.

The Bible does not explicitly discuss abortion, and there’s no evidence that Christians traditionally believed that life begins at conception. St. Thomas Aquinas, the father of much of Catholic theology, believed that abortion was murder only after God imbued fetuses with a soul, at 40 days or more after conception.

This is demonstrably not true. It is not true going all the way back to when the gospel accounts themselves were written. The gospel account spends a good bit of time on Mary’s conception. Why? Because that is when the holy spirit entered her body. In fact, a belief that existed within the early church carried over from Judaism at the time was that a prophet died on the same day he was conceived.

Tertullian, one of the most famous Christian apologists of the early church, carried that belief over to give justification to Christmas falling on December 25th. Tertullian set out determining Jesus’s date of death, which he placed on March 25th, which meant Jesus was also conceived on March 25th. Therefore, nine months later, it was okay to commemorate Christ’s birth on the same day as a pagan holiday. To be clear, though, the early church put more emphasis on the death of Christ, not his birth.

Gregory of Nyssa, a famous early church leader in the monastic movement, believed life began at conception. So too did other church leaders. The argument over the indwelling of soul came later, but was never, ever confused with when life actually began.

Likewise, during the years of Roman persecution, one of the grievances the Romans had against early Christians was that they treated life as sacred. Romans would leave unwanted babies in the city dump only to see Christians rescue and raise them. Pregnant women were given great deference by the early church. The Christian treatment of life raised the hackles of Romans.

Yes, it is true that American evangelical Christians in the 1960 were not particularly good on life issues, but the Catholic and Orthodox churches has been consistent for 2000 years. Church history before 100 AD put emphasis on conception as a starting point for life.

If Kristof wants to commend a baby killer as Christian, he has that right. But he has no right to rewrite history to do it.

Husbands With Guns

In an apparent attempt to prove once and for all that it understands guns about as much as it understands religion, the New York Times has unleashed Nicholas Kristof on an unsuspecting public with a missive that somehow manages to conflate immigration policy with domestic violence, gun control, and the prospect of sudden death whilst partaking of the loo.  Not wanting anybody to be confused by this mishmash, Kristof slaps on the headline, “Husbands Are Deadlier Than Terrorists“:

Consider two critical issues: refugees and guns. Trump is going berserk over the former, but wants to ease rules on the latter. So let’s look at the relative risks.

 

In the four decades between 1975 and 2015, terrorists born in the seven nations in Trump’s travel ban killed zero people in America, according to the Cato Institute. Zero.

 

In that same period, guns claimed 1.34 million lives in America, including murders, suicides and accidents. That’s about as many people as live in Boston and Seattle combined.

So statistically, the risk of being shot is a lot greater than being killed in a terrorist attack.  I’m sure an insurance actuary would be very impressed with Kristof’s research here.  But then he hops a freight car on the stupid train, like a low-energy version of a hobo straight out of a Roger Miller song:

Above all, fear spouses: Husbands are incomparably more deadly in America than jihadist terrorists.

 

And husbands are so deadly in part because in America they have ready access to firearms, even when they have a history of violence. In other countries, brutish husbands put wives in hospitals; in America, they put them in graves.

Damn, there’s that toxic masculinity rearing its ugly head again.  If it weren’t for guns, we could totally get these guys to take up something constructive, like needlepoint.  Or, as is more likely, they’ll just take up something else–like a golf club, or a baseball bat, or whatever else happens to be within easy reach.  Following Kristof’s logic, after gun control we’ll need to institute some form of husband control.

Kristof then prattles on about how those wascally Wepubwicans want to give guns back to mentally unstable people (actually, it’s a measure to restore 2nd Amendment rights to SSI recipients, which even the ACLU has supported) and make silencers legal (pro tip:  “silencers” are actually suppressors, and are nowhere near silent)–stuff that’s way more dangerous than what he calls a “repugnant” travel ban:

Trump is raging about a risk from refugees that seems manageable, even as he talks about relaxing rules on another threat, guns, that is infinitely more lethal.

This reminds me of certain segments in the British government during the Troubles, during which they spoke of an “acceptable level of violence” from the IRA.  Here, Kristof argues much the same thing:  so long as the bodies don’t pile up too high, the terrorism that comes with a mass influx of Muslim refugees is an acceptable risk–especially in light of all the gun violence in the United States.

And you know what?  Statistically, he is correct.

But that doesn’t mean his argument isn’t balderdash.

Typical Americans don’t walk around in fear of gun violence, because in a country of 330 million people, the odds of anybody being a victim of gun violence is infinitesimally small.  The same holds true for terrorism, of course–but think about the other ways in which terrorism has affected the life of every American since 9/11.  You get herded like cattle through airport security lines, forced to remove your shoes and toss out all your liquids before you’re allowed to board a plane.  Old ladies get picked out at random for enhanced security screening, and have to suffer the indignity of getting groped–all for the privilege of flying from Point A to Point B in a supposedly free country.  The federal government monitors our phone calls, emails and web browsing.  Security cameras follow our every move, everywhere.  Privacy is a thing of the past.  The impact of all this on civil liberties is staggering.

And none of it happened because of domestic violence.  It happened because of terrorism.

Now think about another mass-casualty attack inside the United States.  Would it turn us into even more of a surveillance state?  If it’s big enough, how will it affect the economy?  Stocks took a trillion dollar hit after 9/11.  What would happen if there were simultaneous attacks on major American cities?  How big of a national disaster would that be?

Now can you see the difference, Monsieur Kristof?

A Horrendous Lie In The New York Times

The New York Times is proud of the fact that they used the word “lie” in a front-page headline, referring to President Trump, but they’ve countered with their own horrendous, jaw-dropping lie.

Nicholas Kristof, the columnist who questioned Pastor Tim Keller on what it means to be Christian if you don’t believe in the virgin birth, resurrection, or salvation through faith, penned this monstrous mountain of prevarication.

Yet the costliest presidential falsehoods and delusions are not the ones that people are talking about, such as those concerning the inauguration crowd or electoral fraud. The most horrific chicanery involves Trump’s new actions on women’s health that will cause deaths around the globe.

It followed the weekend’s stunning women’s marches: At least 3.2 million people apparently participated in all 50 states, amounting to 1 percent of the U.S. population. In a slap at all who marched, Trump this week signed an order that will cut off access to contraception to vast numbers of women, particularly in Africa.

It will also curb access to cancer screenings and maybe even undermine vaccination campaigns and efforts against H.I.V. and the Zika virus. The upshot: Thousands of impoverished, vulnerable women will die.

Because Trump signed an order reinstating the Mexico City Policy, which disallows U.S. taxpayer funding of abortions outside the United States, Kristof makes the totally unsupported, outlandish claim that “vast numbers” of women won’t get contraceptives, and “thousands” will die.

I thought the president had an outrageous streak in him, but Kristof trumped him with that whopper. He may as well have blamed Trump’s executive action for global warming, terrorism, and the dinosaurs’ extinction.

Let us proceed to unpack the layers of falsehood here.

First of all, we know that there’s money in the world outside of American taxpayer dollars. I know this is a surprise to most New York liberals, but it’s actually true. The Netherlands is raising money to meet the insatiable sexual needs of impoverished, vulnerable African women. Because the Dutch have money too.

Second, Trump’s executive order in no way cuts off contraceptive access to women outside the United States.

I further direct the Secretary of State to take all necessary actions, to the extent permitted by law, to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not fund organizations or programs that support or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

Even the Washington Post, one day ago, debunked the lie that the Mexico City policy stops access to abortions for women outside the U.S. (a lie which is promoted by NARAL Pro-Choice America).

“Performing” abortions is self-explanatory, but what constitutes “actively promoting” abortion as a family planning method? Per USAID’s 2007 handbook, an organization is “actively promoting” abortion when it commits resources “to increase the availability or use of abortion” as a method of family planning. Abortion-rights advocates call it a “global gag rule,” since it limits the discussion of abortion in counseling sessions, with some exceptions.

This includes:

  • Providing advice and information about the benefits and availability of abortion for family planning, even if abortion is legal in the country.
  • Lobbying a foreign government about abortion as a method of family planning.
  • Conducting a public information campaign about abortion as a method of family planning.

However, “actively promoting” does not include:

  • Referrals for abortion for pregnancies that resulted from rape, incest or that endanger the life of the mother.
  • Treatment of illnesses or injuries after women have already received an abortion, legally or illegally.
  • Responding to a question about obtaining a safe, legal abortion if a pregnant woman has already decided to have a legal abortion.

That means organizations can discuss abortion if it is in the context of those three exceptions — despite NARAL Pro-Choice America’s claim that it kills funding for any group that “even mentions abortions.”

Every Republican president since Reagan has used the Mexico City policy to limit American taypayer money from being used to pay for sterilization and abortion-based population controls (the Malthusian myth). Every Democratic president has suspended the policy. Liberals always claim that “thousands” of women in Africa will die.

What we do know is that thousands, if not millions, of unborn babies have been saved from the abortionist’s forceps. And whatever horrendous lies the New York Times or Nicholas Kristof want to spread, that’s the God’s honest truth.