Chelsea Clinton just made the most barbaric statement about Christianity

Chelsea Clinton is the biggest proponent of modern feminism.

She also happens to be the most outspoken.

What she just claimed about Christianity in an interview left Christians disgusted.

Chelsea was recently interviewed on SiriusXM’s “Signal Boost.”

There she claimed it would be “unchristian” to put restrictions on abortion.

Clinton told the host:

”When I think about all the statistics that are painful of what women are confronting certainly today in our country, and what even more women confronted Pre-Roe [referring to Roe V. Wade] and how many women died and how many more women were maimed because of unsafe abortion practices. We just can’t go back to that. Like that’s unconscionable to me. Also, and I’m sure that this will unleash another wave of hate in my direction, but as a deeply religious person it’s also unchristian.”

Since 1973, more than 60 million babies have been aborted as a result of the decision of Roe v. Wade

This is “Christian” to Chelsea Clinton even though she would be hard-pressed to find many Christians to agree with her.

She is hiding behind the lie that abortion is “healthcare.”

Chelsea exposed herself for being the demagogue that she is. She provides no legitimate reason to believe abortion is morally defendable and acceptable.

The other panelists nodded along in agreement, of course, without providing any form of discourse or push back on what she said.

Self-proclaimed feminists like Chelsea Clinton whine that there is a war to take women’s rights away.

The truth is, it’s abortion advocates like her who are championing to take the rights away of unborn little girls (and boys).

But their rights don’t matter to her of course.

You may also like...

194 Responses

  1. yimba says:

    Isn’t Chelsea a member of that “Pygmy Ladies Soccer Team?” You know the one, “The Dumb Cunning Runts?”

  2. Jeff says:

    What are you concerned about, not getting your chance to freely murder? She isn’t a Christian, she was raised by two demons so how could she be? Besides Christians do not believe in the murder of innocent unborn and born babies!

  3. Savior says:

    What do you expect, look who are her parents !

  4. Proud vet says:

    Just little Bucktooth ugly little skank is going to burn How is far along with her murdering parents and Rapist father.

  5. Vasu Murti says:

    Do secular arguments overrule religion?

    My own experience with pro-life Christians is they adhere to a double-standard. They’re willing to cite secular arguments and/or secular figures when it comes to protecting the unborn:

    The federal government imposing a fine upon anyone destroying a fertilized bald eagle egg

    It would be a crime to administer a drug to toddlers which prevents them from actualizing their higher learning potential

    Dr. J.C. Willke, former head of National Right to Life (who looked a lot like the character of Les Nessman from WKRP in Cincinnati!)

    John Morrow, a pro-life student at Rutgers University, successfully debating pro-choice liberals (who were dominating the discussion) on USENET in the late ’80s

    …but secular arguments to protect animals are met with the cry “MOVE” !

    Can pro-choice Christians do likewise?

    Can pro-choice Christians cite biblical sound bites like “three times…” and “so much garbage” to exempt themselves from having to protect the unborn? Or do secular arguments overrule the religious?

    Can pro-choice Christians say, “Les, Les, Les…” or “So much Les….” ?

    Can pro-choice Christians say, “Morrow, Morrow, Morrow…” or “So much Morrow…” ?

    Can pro-choice Christians say, “Bald eagle eggs, Bald eagle eggs, Bald eagle eggs…” or “So much Bald eagle eggs…” ?

    Or do secular arguments to protect the unborn overrule unprovable religious beliefs in favor of killing?

    If secular arguments overrule the religious when it comes to protecting the unborn, why isn’t it the case when it comes to protecting animals?

    I can cite secular data from John Robbins, Jeremy Rifkin, PETA, The Worldwatch Institute, etc. documenting that the institutionalized killing of billions of animals has led to social injustice: global hunger, global warming, the energy, environmental, population, and water crises, etc.

    But pro-lifers respond with glib sound bites, often biblical in nature, like “so much garbage,” “three times…” and think they’re exempt on religious grounds from secular arguments.

    Why is it when it comes to protecting animals, pro-life Christians think they’re exempt from social progress?

    Aren’t pro-choice Christians similarly exempt from having to protect the unborn if they don’t want to?

    Or do secular arguments overrule the religious?

    Chelsea Clinton was raised in a pro-choice Protestant Christian denomination. Christians have found themselves unable to agree upon many pressing moral issues–including abortion.

    Exodus 21:22-24 says if two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the child is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus. On the other hand, the Didache (Apostolic Church teaching) forbade abortion.

    “There has to be a frank recognition that the Christian church is divided on every moral issue under the sun: nuclear weapons, divorce, homosexuality, capital punishment, animals, etc.,” says Reverend Andrew Linzey, Anglican priest, Oxford theologian, and author of dozens of books on animal rights and Christianity, and animals and theology in general.

    “I don’t think it’s desirable or possible for Christians to agree upon every moral issue. And, therefore, I think within the church we have no alternative but to work within diversity,” he concluded.

    Genesis 38:24. Tamar’s pregnancy was discovered three months after conception. This was proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime.

    If Tamar’s fetuses had any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth.

    There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

    Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.

    Born-again author Brian McKinley comments: “Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.”

    This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman’s miscarriage, which kills the fetus.

    If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman’s husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

    Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that: “the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day.” Afterward, it is considered subhuman until it is born.

    Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus ‘lav nephesh hu — it is not a person.’

    This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman’s miscarriage, which kills the fetus. If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman’s husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed.

    This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.
    Judaism supports abortion access for women. Polls show ninety percent of American Jews supporting abortion rights.

    Pro-life apologists are quick to point out the fetus has some value in the Old Testament, if not actual personhood, but the New Testament is more permissive than the Old!

    Jesus, a rabbi, repeatedly upheld every jot and tittle of the Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17), as did his direct disciples (see chapters 10, 15, and 21 of Acts).

    Paul, who never met Jesus, not only claimed the Law has been abolished and referred to his previous adherence to the Law as “so much garbage,” but claimed the risen Jesus said to him three times, “…my grace is sufficient for thee…” (II Corinthians 12:8-9).

    Some Christians misinterpret this verse thinking they’re free to do as they please, conveniently ignoring the rest of the moral instructions Paul gives throughout his epistles.

    The late Reverend Janet Regina Hyland (1933-2007), author of God’s Covenant with Animals, (it’s available through People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA) told me Christians who cite “three times…” are quoting Paul out of context.

    Paul, she said, not only taught moral instructions along with the saving grace of Jesus to remain in a state of grace, he actually practiced what he preached to others. and was very strict with himself:

    “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection; lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” (I Corinthians 9:27)

    Regina Hyland said this verse indicates it’s possible for one to lose one’s salvation (a serious point of debate among born-agains!).

    Christians citing “three times…” as a license to do as they please MUST be quoting Paul out of context, because otherwise it doesn’t make any sense:

    On the one hand, Paul gives moral instructions throughout his epistles, often warning that those who fail to observe them will not receive the kingdom of God, and that coming to Christ means giving up sinning (e.g., I Corinthians 6:9-11)…

    ….and, on the other hand, “three times… ‘my grace is sufficient for thee’ …” means you can do whatever you want?!

    Why then did Paul give the moral instructions in the first place (often warning that those who fail to observe them will not receive the kingdom of God, clearly indicating accepting Christ means giving up sinning, etc.) ?

    I’m surprised LGBT Christians aren’t citing “three times…” to justify same-sex relations! What about marijuana or prostitution or anything else conservative Christians might find offensive?

    Can’t pro-choice Christians similarly cite “three times” to justify abortion, to say they don’t have to protect the unborn, and dismiss any meager concern given to the unborn in the Old Testament as unnecessary “work,” not a requirement of the faith, merely an implied idea not clearly spelled out in Scripture, or as “so much garbage”?

    If this were three hundred years ago, couldn’t Christian slaveholders resist the abolition of slavery as unnecessary “work”, citing “three times…”, etc.?

    Usually, conservative Christians are wary of anyone preaching what they think is a false gospel. Otherwise, why aren’t they still following Jim & Tammy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, etc.? If Ted Haggard were to try and rationalize his homosexual affairs with “three times…” would conservative Christians take him seriously?

    As recently as 2014, after Jimmy Carter said, “I never knew of any word or action of Jesus Christ that discriminated against anyone,” adding that discrimination based on sexual orientation was like prejudice against a person for their skin color or financial status, a couple of pastors in North Carolina accused the former president of having embraced a hippie Jesus.

    Secular arguments are religion-neutral and thus applicable to everyone, including atheists and agnostics.

    The pro-life movement ALREADY HAS the support of organized religion.

    Instead of preaching to the choir, i.e., wasting time with religion, pro-lifers should focus on embryology and prenatal development, DNA, RNA, etc. to make their case to mainstream American secular society.

    Chelsea Clinton was vegan for a number of years; her wedding in 2010 was strictly vegan. Steve Kaufman, head of the Christian Vegetarian Association, was raised Jewish before coming to Christ, and is now serving in the United Church of Christ, America’s largest pro-choice Protestant denomination.

    Steve expressed interest in Democrats For Life, his only reservation was whether Democrats For Life favors criminalizing abortion. Many animal advocates (like Catholic vegan columnist Colman McCarthy) oppose abortion, but don’t think criminalization is the answer.

    In 1994, faced with the secular political reality that the Republicans soon would retake Congress, Hillary Clinton characterized abortion as “wrong,” but was quick to add, “I don’t think it should be criminalized.” (That’s the way I feel about marijuana.)

  6. Robert Ewing says:

    Chelsea Clinton is a Pagan who was raised by Pagans.
    She is certainly no Christian. I don’t judge her or her parents. The Word of God judges all of us.

  7. N says:

    Liberalism is a mental disorder and Pelosi, Behar, Hillary and Waters are just some of the poster girls in the deranged NAZI Commie Demoncrat party!!! Here is just another Liberal useful idiot on display!

  8. The scriptures note that babies are a gift from God Himself. With each conception, each new baby is given a one of a kind, truly unique gift from God. That gift no other creation, no matter how seemingly intelligent it might seem to be, maybe alive but is without it. That gift is an endowment of a spiritually empowered soul! That is, the very nature of God. Check Genesis 1:26-27.
    How or why would God, who is all knowing and all powerful go through so much to endow humanity as He has, and then condone the barbaric abortion of that very life? Abortions are vile and contrary to the very loving nature of God Himself. To believe otherwise is proof positive that they know nothing of God and for the human creation He created…Or my Bible and its text teaches!

  9. Sharon Peacock says:

    The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree!

  10. dlmstl says:

    Fret not, this cipher’s profile will disappear once POTUS BJ and the Hunchback of Chappaqua head back to Little Rock and the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor at room temperature.

  11. Joseph Gerald Vincent says:

    She is marries. Mrs. Mezvinski is out for her future. A political one. Is she embarassed to be married . Or did she marry him for another reason. Chelsea Mezvinski is thinking about her future . If not hers than her husbands .

  12. sandy beech says:

    Well, that question would be a good “pro-abortion” ad. Imagine how much nicer the world would be without this agitant to deal with.

  13. Rex Whitmer says:

    With parents like Bill and Hillary could we expect anything less? With a letcher for a father and cheat for a mother, it would almost be impossible for her to be otherwise! Makes’ you wonder what Her baby will be like? I understand that HE’s pretty much like the rest of the family! We may have to endure their presence in this life, but I’ll bet that there’s nice spot reserved for the whole clan in HELL!

  14. Perhaps Chelsea should push back from her Wicca beliefs and refresh herself with Christian teachings/beliefs before making a complete a** out of herself. It’s unbecoming a supposedly educated young humanist who has all the answers albeit the wrong ones.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: