SoapboxFive

It's just sex

2012-01-07T14:03:00.005-06:00

I remember the day a friend of mine joked about her favorite celebrity. She - a married woman - said, “If I ever met him and had the chance to sleep with him, I’d do it!” I must have looked shocked because she laughed and said, “It’s not a big deal, it’s just sex!”

All things considered, my friend could have been joking. But it got me to thinking: some people do seem to have the idea - or at least live as if they believe - that sex is no big deal; it’s just a physical act between two consenting individuals.

But can we be honest, here?

STDs, unplanned pregnancy, abortion, and pornography are big problems. There are so many more societal ills related to the misuse of sex that I only have room to mention a handful. I especially hope that if you're a young (or even not so young) person reading this, and you're considering having sex, this short listing will make you consider the topic in a different way.

On one hand, humanity claims sex is “not a big deal,” and on the other hand, humanity - for all practical purposes - worships it. But maybe that’s the problem... we’ve gorged ourselves on sex to the point where it’s lost its savor.

Sexually transmitted infections are rampant. Why? Simple, really. Indiscriminate, non-monogamous sex. Chlamydia is currently the number one STD in the US. Syphilis is on the rise, especially among homosexual men. (And I’m not even touching the homosexuality topic here because the research on its health effects is just plain scary.) The human papilloma virus is responsible for the majority of cervical cancer cases. This site has some pretty dastardly statistics as well, including the fact that one in four college students has a sexually transmitted infection. When you catch an STD from some “no big deal” sex, I would think at that point, it has become more than “just sex.” One moment of carelessness can lead to a lifetime of... well, you get the idea.

Unplanned pregnancy is nothing new. But there were times in our not-so-distant past when an unexpected pregnancy (within marriage, at least) was viewed as more of a happy surprise, a joyful blessing from God. Today, it’s a different story. When an unplanned pregnancy occurs between two individuals who are not in a committed relationship, and/or the individuals have no intention of remaining together or of considering raising a child, we have problems.

Come close, and let me whisper in your ear, friend: Heterosexual sex creates children. It’s not only a pleasurable experience, it’s one that comes with the utmost responsibility because of the possibility that, for about 5 days out of every month in a woman’s cycle, she has the ability to conceive a child. Forget this fact and you end up with something that’s not “just sex.” It’s a new human life you’ve created.

Which brings me to my next point: abortion. Some view this as a way for women to “be like men” and have so-called consequence-free sex. Hey, if men can get away with just walking away from a one-night stand free as a bird, why can’t women do the same? It may seem unfair, but the bottom line is, we women were given highly specialized organ, the uterus, for the purpose of human reproduction. This isn’t a pain; it’s a privilege. Once fertilization occurs, a new human life has been created. Period. There is nothing that can “undo” this. An abortion does not give a woman “reproductive freedom.” It simply kills the growing human who is the result of sexual activity. And to date, more than 50 million of these growing humans have been extinguished legally in the US. This isn't "just sex" and it's a very big deal when innocent humans have to pay for our irresponsible sexual practices.

And last on my very short list: pornography. You can’t even watch commercials today without some sort of soft-core porn hitting you in the face. Heck, we even have restaurants named after coarse terms for female anatomy. But the real problem is that pornographic images and sex are viewed as impersonal, harmless entertainment and titillation, when in reality, porn is a destroyer of relationships, families, and healthy sexual attitudes. It doesn’t enhance true intimacy or trust; it erodes it. Porn addiction has a strong link to separation, divorce, and extramarital affairs - which, in turn, affect not only the couple involved (or future partners) but also any children who might be in the picture. I could go on about rape and other sex crimes and their links to pornography, but if you're reading this, I know you can Google. So much for the “no big deal” nonsense.

Those who don’t make the connection between the “it’s just sex” attitude and some major societal ills are either being dishonest or short-sighted. What happens between consenting adults in the bedroom most certainly can affect the rest of society.

And what happens in Vegas really never stays in Vegas.

This one's for the skeptics

2011-08-10T12:45:00.006-05:00

After many conversations over the years with various pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike, I've come to realize that many are either willfully ignorant or just naive about what's going on in the world regarding abortion.

"Nobody's really pro-abortion," they say. "They're just for a woman's right to decide what happens to her body."

Let this be your wake up call.

Americans seem to have a myopic view of abortion because in this country, abortion is legal and is promoted under the guise of "reproductive choice," "freedom," and "women's rights." But I have news for you - it's only like this in the Western world (and even that could change in the very near future).

A few honest friends of mine have admitted why they truly support groups like Planned Parenthood, however. It's not really about "choice" for them. It's about saving the planet from ourselves. These individuals, while feminist at heart, don't seem to bat an eye at the oppressive governments elsewhere which wield abortion as a weapon against their own people. It is, after all, a means to an end.

Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women's Rights Without Frontiers, a group committed to opposing and raising awareness about forced abortion and sexual slavery in China, hit the mark in a press release this week when she said:

Make no mistake. China's One Child Policy is enforced through forced abortion, forced sterilization and infanticide. Women are dragged out of their homes, strapped to tables, and forced to abort babies they want, up to the 9th month of pregnancy.

Women sometimes die during these violent procedures. The One Child Policy is China's war on women. Adopting it world wide would hurl women's rights back to the dark ages.

So while American pro-choice advocates bicker about how everyone else should pay for their contraceptives, women in China and other parts of the world are actually living in the dark ages of oppressive regimes - regimes that do things like this:

[Photo via Women's Rights Without Frontiers]

This photo shows a young woman who has just been forcibly aborted at 7 months pregnant but is unable to pay the government officials to dispose of her child's body, so they have left the child in a plastic bag next to her on the bed. If the look on her face doesn't move you, you need a heart check. If her testimonial doesn't make you angry, I don't know what will.

The population alarmists seem to be out in record numbers, writing articles and letters to newspaper editors praising the new HHS mandates requiring every woman's (and child's) contraception - including the abortifacient "morning after pill" - to be paid for by American taxpayers. Eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger would be so proud. No doubt her sentiments are echoed today by a former PP director (and "family planning" population control advocate) Norman Fleishman, who wrote in a letter to the editor of the Napa Valley Register this week:

Ah, how I remember “Every child a wanted child,” our motto at Planned Parenthood. And I do welcome this [HHS contraception] legislation.

Half the pregnancies in America are “accidental.” Increasingly younger, unmarried women (or, as we might say, “girls”) find themselves mothers for life — long before they have an inkling of parenthood’s titanic, endless consequences....

Global population numbers having just passed the 7 billion mark (twice what it was when I opened a vasectomy clinic in Texas), it is overwhelming to contemplate the world struggling with this flood and its inevitable threats (including starvation, drought, pollution — and what leading scientists predicted long ago would be the main danger to civilization: war).

Unless we act (this legislation, along with China’s “one child” policy, is a start), the world is doomed to strangle among coils of pitiless exponential growth.

This is a PP director lending his approval to things like what you see pictured above.

Fleishman also pulls back the curtain on the "every child a wanted child" mantra, revealing that population control advocates don't believe it's necessarily the woman's view of a "wanted child" that matters - but that of the society in which she lives.

Convinced yet that some people really are pro-abortion? UK-based Optimum Population Trust's chief exec, Simon Ross, also recently condemned soccer star David Beckham and his wife Victoria for having a 4th child:

There is a big issue there, family planning is cheap, yet many people don't use it properly and accidental pregnancy rates are very high. We need to change the incentives to make the environmental case that one or two children are fine but three or four are just being selfish.

"The Beckhams, and others like London mayor Boris Johnson, are very bad role models with their large families. There's no point in people trying to reduce their carbon emissions and then increasing them 100% by having another child.

Ah, yes, those sacred carbon emissions. Soon they'll dictate the lives of every single one of us, regardless of the junk "science" and fudging of research behind the global warming and rabid environmentalist movements.

Since its inception as Margaret Sanger's Birth Control League, Planned Parenthood has been up to its elbows in eugenics - the "weeding out" of "undesirables" in society (remind me again where most of their clinics are located...). This organization works worldwide in support of China and other regimes that forcibly sterilize women, often without full disclosure to the women. This should be no surprise, as PP performs abortions in America without full disclosure to their patients, and fights against every informed consent law they can find, keeping women from knowing the truth about what abortion is and does.

As for me, I'm angry today. I'm angry that women like the one pictured above are being brutalized and their children stolen from them by these predatory governments. I'm going to go hug my children now - my "parenthood's endless, titanic consequences," (according to Fleishman) who bring me so much joy and purpose in life. My children are not titanic consequences and neither are anyone else's.

Skeptics, do your homework, and leave the dark side. Come into the light of the pro-life movement, where women and their children are more than just numbers or carbon emissions. They are loved and valued as they should be.

The sham of Planned Parenthood

2011-03-04T17:12:00.009-06:00

Kirsten Powers has a great article in the liberally slanted Daily Beast today, picking apart Planned Parenthood's "charitable nonprofit, here only to protect women's health" facade.

First myth on her list: Without access to birth control, women will have more abortions.

In fact, says Powers, the Guttmacher Institute (research arm founded by PP) tells a very different story - that the majority of women who abort actually have access to and are users of contraception:

54% of women who had abortions had used a contraceptive method, if incorrectly, in the month they got pregnant. For the 46% who had not used contraception, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy; 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods; 26% had had unexpected sex, and 1% had been forced to have sex.

Not one fraction of 1% said they got pregnant because they lacked access to contraception [emphasis mine]. Some described having unexpected sex, but all that can be said about them is that they are irresponsible, not that they felt they lacked access to contraception.

And the real kicker?

Guttmacher reported that only 8% of women who undergo abortions have never used a method of birth control.

Eight percent? So much for the old "abstinence education makes people pregnant" tripe. Most women know about birth control, know how and when to use it, and have access to it. So, why is Planned Parenthood perpetuating this lie?

Second: By existing as a women's health provider and dispenser of contraception, we reduce unplanned pregnancies and abortions.

Powers points out these statistics are unchanged from 3 years ago - and yet, the amount given to this organization which claims to help reduce unplanned pregnancies has skyrocketed. When Powers questioned the fact that PP had actually done nothing to decrease the unplanned pregnancy rate, she says:

I was pointed to a Planned Parenthood study that showed that one in three women voters reported having struggled with the cost of prescription birth control at some point.

Here's what I noticed: the key word here is prescription. Granted, some women in difficult financial straits might have some difficulty scraping together $25 bucks for the Pill every month, but did anyone ever hear of condoms? Spermicides? These things are cheap, over the counter options. (They also wreak less havoc on the female body, but that's another topic for another time.)

My OBGYN's office has bowls of condoms just sitting out for anyone who wants them. Even Planned Parenthood gives out condoms - for FREE! (Oh, but wait - remember that 2005 Consumer Reports research, showing PP's condoms as the least quality and least reliable? Hmm....) Perhaps one should just plunk down the $8 for a box of something else. I don't think I'd be trusting America's #1 abortion store to give me reliable contraception. Repeat business is one of their staples.

And another thing: PP charges. For everything. They've admitted going to a health department is cheaper. At least one PP stated on video that a pre-birth control appointment costs about $80. If a woman can't afford the Pill, how are they to afford the appointment? I thought PP got all this taxpayer money to provide low cost "women's healthcare." PP uses a sliding scale for its patients, but if your local health department does the STD testing for FREE, why not go there?

Please tell me again - why is PP necessary for birth control dispension, STD testing, Pap smears, and breast exams?

Third - an eye opener: We're just a charitable nonprofit, concerned with women's health.

Oh, really? Powers notes:

According to its most recent tax filing, the purpose of Planned Parenthood Federation of America is to provide leadership in “[a]chieving, through informed individual choice, a U.S. population of stable size in an optimum environment; in stimulating and sponsoring relevant biomedical, socio-economic, and demographic research.”

So it is, in reality, a population-control organization. Funny, this was never mentioned in the gauzy $200k advertising campaign launched last week. It also doesn’t make it into the “About Us” section of the group’s website, which repeatedly claims its mission is to protect women’s health, when in fact the real mission is to keep the birth rate at whatever level the leaders believe it should be.

Powers arrives at the conclusion that PP isn't the "charitable nonprofit" they purport to be, and that taxpayers shouldn't be funding it - and I'm inclined to agree. Funnel that money to actual community health centers which provide low to no-cost medical care for the uninsured and underinsured, and that do not provide child-killing "services." We'll all be better for it.

Trickle-Down Exploitation

2010-12-18T01:42:00.005-06:00

In general, I'm not a fan of the National Organization of Women (NOW). But they've got it right this time, filing formal complaints against the Hooters franchise for marketing their tawdry gear to children.

A friend of mine wrote a post on her blog quite a while back, taking Hooters to task for their exploitation of women. Women rushed to Hooters' defense, accusing my friend of being a jealous, ugly, unaccomplished and unintelligent hater (so far off the mark it's laughable), all because she dared to denounce the way the corporate organization markets itself. She's still getting hate mail, and she wrote the post 3 years ago.

Seriously, Hooters, enough is enough. According to CA NOW's press release:

In the late 90's, Hooters, Inc. told the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that their main function is not providing food, rather their executives characterized Hooter's Restaurants as primarily a provider of, "vicarious sexual entertainment." They have used this designation as a way to avoid compliance with regulations against sexual discrimination in the workplace, yet Hooters also advertises themselves as a family restaurant, and fails to comply with regulations for providers of sexual entertainment.

Holy carp, Batman, this is a bombshell! It's bad enough to do what Hooters does, in my opinion, but to admit to the EEOC that you're an adult entertainment franchise (as I've believed all along, thanks), and then continue marketing yourself as a "family restaurant?" Is this because they know they'll make more $$ if perv Daddies can bring their wee ones along and buy them kiddie meals while they order the "More than a Mouthful" burgers (oh, yes, check their menu - that's what they're actually called) and ogle the waitresses while their wives suck down the hot wings and pretend not to notice? Hmmm. I'm guessing that's a big, fat YEP.

The press release goes on:

On a typical evening, Hooters, Inc. serves children younger than 18 years of age and offers child menus, high chairs and booster seats. They also display and sell products of prurient nature, including t-shirts in child sizes with statements such as “Future Hooters Girl.” According to Hooter's own employment material, a “Hooters Girl” is employed as a sexual entertainer and as part of her employment can expect to be subjected to various sexual jokes by customers and such potential contacts as buttocks slaps. Hooters of America Inc. v Phillips, Case 173 F3d 933 (4/8/99)

Local and state authorities should demand that Hooters, Inc. either comply with EEOC prohibitions against sexual discrimination, if they wish to be a family restaurant that serves children, or comply with regulations covering providers of sexual entertainment, which prohibit children from the premises.

The sexualization of children is trending younger and younger. This isn't something anyone should be encouraging. And Dads, if you wouldn't take your 7-year-old son to a strip club, why on earth would you set a pattern for him to begin objectifying women at such a young age? Why would you buy him the "I only date Hooters Girls" t-shirt? You think he doesn't see you staring at the Hooters girls while Mommy is sitting there? You think it's no big deal? This is a pattern that, once learned, is difficult to undo. You think your little girl doesn't notice that Daddy stares at other women's chests and rear ends? You think that doesn't affect her self-image?

You're mistaken. And Hooters, you're just one big mistake.

In other news: TV programming isn't helping the "sexualization of minors" trend.

Fearmongering, feminists, and "fake clinics"

2010-10-12T09:24:00.015-05:00

More on the assault against pregnancy resource centers comes from NYC, abortion capital USA. Two female NYC City Council members are trying to force pro-life pregnancy centers to post signage stating what services they do NOT provide. Try this with any other business or social service, and you'd probably be viewed as some sort of nut. (Sorry, we do not serve sushi at this Mexican restaurant. Sorry, we do not sell Nikes in this Adidas store.) But when it comes to the evil, nasty centers that offer women free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, adoption referrals, maternity housing and baby clothes... well, we must put a stop to those sorts of heinous places immediately.

As I pointed out in a previous post, pro-aborts balk when pro-lifers claim women can be misled by the abortion industry, claiming women who go to abortion mills are there of their own volition (in reality, over 60% were coerced in some way) and they are "empowered." However, when it comes to CPCs, who do not charge for their services, pro-aborts engage in all sorts of emotional hand-wringing about their "deceit" of women. As I said before, you can't have it both ways. You cannot say a woman is clear-headed when entering an abortion mill and confused when she is entering a CPC.

A recent NY Times article seems to promote this exact view, however:

They [CPCs] do not, however, provide a full range of alternatives (like the morning-after pill) or condone all choices. To the contrary, they oppose abortion, and their staff members try their hardest to talk women out of having one, even if that means, according to Planned Parenthood of NYC, showing them graphic images and telling them that “God will never forgive you.”

The accusation about God not forgiving women is really horrid. It's also completely untrue. Note that no CPC client was quoted here - but Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider worldwide. I guess if someone's hedging in on your profits (from killing unborn children), you have to make up bogus "facts" and feed them to pro-abort "journalists" who will regurgitate them like mindless parrots. Too bad those feminist journalists never report on the women actually harmed and killed by the abortion industry...

Also from the NYT article:

A yearlong investigation by Naral Pro-Choice NY found that crisis pregnancy centers — in addition to the E.M.C. centers, there are at least four others in the city — feed women information that has been medically refuted....

NARAL? Really? I suppose a stalwart of the abortion industry wouldn't have any sort of vested interest in the demise of CPCs, now would they?

Partly in response to findings in that report, Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker, and Councilwoman Jessica S. Lappin, Democrat of Manhattan, are proposing legislation that would require the stance of these crisis pregnancy centers to be clear to all women who visit them — either intentionally, or by accident while seeking a Planned Parenthood clinic across the street, or because the word “abortion” loomed much larger to them on that subway sign than the word “alternative.”

Well, perhaps a NEON SIGN advertising "No abortions here!" would please these people. Planned Parenthood doesn't do pro-life counseling. As Chris Slattery, president of a CPC chain stated so well, “Why don’t we have on Planned Parenthood’s door ‘No pro-life counseling, only pro-abortion counseling’ — O.K.? Let’s just have a level playing field.” And by the way, isn't the name "Planned Parenthood" a little misleading? I mean, they abort children. That's not exactly planning parenthood, it's snuffing it out.

Further:

To compensate for ambiguities like unclear signage at the centers, the bill, set to be announced on Tuesday, would require, among other things, signs at the entrance and in the waiting rooms to inform women that the center does not provide abortions or contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and that it does not provide referrals for those options, either. Signage would also need to make it clear if no licensed medical professional is on the staff.

Funny how the article's pro-abortion, pro-contraception author felt the need to qualify contraceptives "approved by the FDA," as if those who do not use contraception are foolish and anti-science. Tell that to the World Health Organization...

And as I've also stated before, many CPCs DO have licensed medical professionals on staff. Just a thought: maybe we should have Planned Parenthood posting "No licensed social workers on staff; no actual adoption counselors. Only salespeople who are trained to sell abortion."

All of this really begs the question: why attack CPCs? If these organizations help women with basic needs so they can feel more able to continue their pregnancies, why are feminists and pro-"choicers" so against them? What are they so afraid of? And whose payroll are they on?

Eradication is the only solution

2010-09-23T13:02:00.004-05:00

Several pro-abortion groups have recently attempted to demonize and "expose" the workings of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). The main reason for this is that pro-"choicers" are about as much for women's actual choices as I am for the "right" to kill unborn children.

We've been led to believe a contradiction. On one hand, we're told women who seek abortion services are "empowered," (who needs to know those pesky biological facts about fetal development?), and on the other hand, women are "victimized" by those sly, evil, and nasty CPCs (how dare they try to give me baby clothes!). But you really can't have it both ways.

According to The Abortioneers, a pro-abort, after having her eyes opened to the eeevils of these pregnancy centers, took the time to phone one herself to expose their "deceptive practices."

The blogger seems to take issue with the fact that the center's social workers answered honestly. They didn't pretend to be a medical clinic. They told her there was no doctor on staff, but that they had free urine pregnancy tests. But naturally, she still had certain issues:

1. No doctor - or nurse, or physician's assistant, or nurse's assistant, or dental hygienist - was employed. They are not licensed to practice health care or give medical opinions (at least credible ones)

CPCs do not claim to be health care centers, and are even listed under "abortion alternatives" in the yellow pages. CPCs are primarily social service centers, so it's understandable that social workers would be there. Many CPCs, however, DO have doctors, nurses, or trained ultrasound technicians on the premises. I really don't see how #1 is an issue.

2. No clinically significant pregnancy test is administered, meaning they have no diagnostic/laboratory capacity. They buy stick tests from the drugstore that you could easily administer yourself.

As does my doctor's office. How is this even a valid complaint? In all of my pregnancies, I only had 1 laboratory blood test done. One. The others were in-office urine pregnancy tests which confirmed my pregnancies. CPCs order urine pregnancy tests from medical suppliers (not the corner drugstore), and they don't charge patients for them, which is nice if you don't have any money and you're panicking, and maybe you don't want to have to view the test results alone. Moral support is always good.

3. Ambiguous clinic name. I don't remember what it was when I called, and it didn't say on the bus signs, but I remember being confused by the name. It was very unclear what kind of enterprise this was.

I guess abortion clinics with the name "women's health center" are somehow... unambiguous? Right.

4. Insisting that I come to the center! They would not talk to me about anything over the phone.

CPCs are not going to dispense medical information over the phone (and that includes the standard pamphlet on fetal development). Neither will an abortion mill. Also, without a positive pregnancy test and a LMP date, how could they even tell a caller about an estimated stage of fetal development over the phone?

They wouldn't refer me to any external resources (not even external anti resources, which I found surprising). They wanted me to come in so they could hold me hostage and force feed me propaganda.

The "hold me hostage and force feed me propaganda" line is a real laugh. No one at a CPC will force a woman to stay inside, with no contact with the outside world, strap her down, or make her do something she doesn't want to do. I believe the blog's author is confusing an abortionist's chop shop with a CPC.

The author later laments, "Why can't they just say, up front, WE DO NOT PROVIDE ABORTIONS."

Actually, if she'd have asked them that question over the phone, that is the answer she'd have likely received.

She also lists some questions she thought about asking, but knew her ruse would be exposed if she asked:

Please cite the research that you use to determine that 50% of women die within one year after having abortions."

WHAT?! I've never heard this information given at a CPC. Not once. I've never even heard the most strident pro-abort claim a CPC told them that.

"Please describe the physiological mechanism by which abortion causes cancer of any kind."

Dr. Joel Brind can do that for you.

"Please explain why you have no health care professionals present to substantiate these health risks."

Oh, you mean like the health care "professionals" at Planned Parenthood who even deny to patients the actual facts about fetal development (a.k.a. basic human biology)?

"Is this center affiliated with any religious institutions? If so, why?" (After all, there must be some atheist antis out there!)

Why? Maybe because putting faith into action is important. Most food banks are also religiously affiliated, as well as homeless shelters, as well as many drug treatment programs, and many youth outreach centers for inner city kids. (Are we to assume since they're "religious," that somehow negates their benefits to the community?) These are faith-based, non-profit organizations. (Heaven forbid they should offer to pray with those who come there!) Sounds to me like someone has a bit of a religious hangup. As for atheist "antis," yes, they exist.

Bottom line: CPCs are places where women can go for support, information, and free services if they experience unplanned pregnancies. Unlike Planned Parenthood, they offer women choices other than abortion, as well as counseling for women suffering from past abortions. These services are needed and are certainly not being provided to women by the abortion industry.

If pro-aborts truly cared about women, they would stop touting abortion as the sole solution to a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy. Their rabid support for the killing of unwanted, preborn children has caused them to see the world (and therefore, help for women AND their children) through blood-colored glasses. To them, eradication is the only solution.

[Thanks to Jivin J for bringing this to my attention.]

Biology, not theology

2010-08-30T15:20:00.008-05:00

I'm noticing an interesting bait and switch that's happening in the abortion debate. Many pro-choicers with whom I interact consider themselves people of science. This tends to morph into an angry anti-theism, as well, to the point where they can't seem to avoid setting up religious straw men when the pro-lifers they're debating haven't uttered a single "G" or "J" word in the first place.

But for all this, science gets chucked out the window in favor of philosophy when pro-lifers present them with the science that a new human life is created at conception. The typical response usually goes something like this (all emphases mine):

Pythagorean Greeks, early Christian church fathers, Talmudic rabbis, Sunni and Shia thinkers, Hindu brahmin and modern bioethicists have grappled with the fundamental, ultimately unknowable, mystery: At what point in our biological development are we infused with a soul? At what point do we become human?

Very interesting questions. But not necessarily related.

Read on:

On May 14, the final day of their legislative session, MO lawmakers declared the answer, and last month, by withholding his veto, Gov. Jay Nixon signaled that he agreed. On Aug. 28, their answer will become the law of the land.

No, Missouri lawmakers weren't trying to define when we are "infused with souls." Frankly, when we are "infused with souls" is irrelevant to the abortion/life issue. And then:

"The life of each human being begins at conception," according to SB 793, which will add new regulations to the state's 24-hour informed consent law for abortions. "Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being." Those words will be displayed "prominently" on brochures that abortion providers will be required to hand out to every woman seeking the procedure — even if they don't happen to believe the Christian theology the words represent.

Wow, no media bias here! Since when is the scientific fact that a new human life is created at the union of sperm and egg (amphimixis) "Christian theology?" Oddly, I don't recall reading that in my Bible, but I do recall studying that in biology and health class.

When a human life begins is SO basic a concept that it's easily searchable online. Here's what WebMD has to say about "conception":

When the sperm penetrates the egg, changes occur in the protein coating around it to prevent other sperm from entering. At the moment of fertilization, your baby's genetic make-up is complete, including its sex....

Your developing baby is called an embryo from the moment of conception to the eighth week of pregnancy. After the eighth week and until the moment of birth, your developing baby is called a fetus.

Imagine the nerve, using "baby" and "fetus" in the same sentence, actually equivocating the two terms! Oh dear, Planned Parenthood and NARAL aren't going to like this...

But back to the original article, where thankfully, the common sense brigade came to the rescue:

But supporters of the new law say they see no conflict between religion and the law's definition of life.

Sen. Jim Lembke, R-Lemay, one of the sponsors of the bills, said the language on the new brochures "is not a religious statement. It's a scientific statement."

Those with differing beliefs "will have to take all the information given to them and make an informed decision," Lembke said.

And what could be wrong with an informed decision? I mean, it's not like the multi-million dollar abortion industry preys on women's fears, dispenses misinformation about fetal development and abortion risks, or refuses to let them see their own ultrasounds... er... right?

The sentiment expressed in the first of the new brochures' two sentences — that life begins at conception — has been part of Missouri law for nearly a quarter century. And scientists agree that when a sperm and egg unite, a living organism results.

But for philosophers and theologians, things get more complicated with the new law's second sentence, which asserts that abortion ends the life of a 'separate, unique, living human being."

"The distinction is between human life where you're talking about an organism as opposed to a human life in a moral sense," said Bonnie Steinbock, professor of philosophy at the State University of NY at Albany....

Notice, this article gave one sentence - ONE sentence - to the fact that indeed, scientists know when life begins. And then it gets philosophical. But why?

Could it be that in order to justify our actions (the deliberate killing of unborn humans to suit our own purposes) we must circumvent science? Must we assuage our consciences with the sentiments of "Well, okay, yeah, it's a human life, but..."?

Radical "Unparenting?"

2010-06-03T00:56:00.004-05:00

Homeschoolers so often get a bad rap (especially from those who have never met a homeschooled student). It isn't because homeschooling is inherently bad or substandard. It's because of people who misuse the privilege of educating their children, instead promoting laziness, illiteracy, and isolation.

Did I just say that? Why, yes. Yes, I did. This story provides an excellent example of what I mean.

I have nothing at all against so-called "unschooling." In fact, I have known a few homeschoolers who have used it successfully with their children. The idea of teaching children what they're most interested in is a wonderful way to excite those "hard to reach" students about learning/school. In fact, Montessori schools utilize the same principle. But the woman in the linked story is, to put it plainly, off her rocker.

She suggests not only that children should have zero structure in their school day at home, but zero discipline and zero limits on what is acceptable behavior, as well. She also freely admits that she doesn't even think about their future (high school or college) or how ill-prepared they might be. Her response is simply to turn philosophical and rhetorical: "Well, do YOU know what career your child will choose?" This is not education or proper parenting. This is a surefire way to raise children who don't function well in society; who don't learn accountability toward other human beings; who are wholly self-focused. Have we learned nothing from the permissive parenting that so permeated the past? (Excuse the extreme alliteration.)

As I sit here, praying and agonizing over which curricula and techniques might better educate my own homeschooled students this next school year, my jaw drops at the lack of common sense utilized by this woman, and the fact that people actually LISTEN to her (and invite her into their homes) as if she is an educational guru. (The video at the link is a must-watch.)

Writing a book doesn't make you magically qualified. Anyone with a thousand bucks can have a book self-published. (I'm sure with no educational materials purchased for her children, she had no trouble forking over that cash.) Don't throw out your God-given parental instincts just because you're desperate for answers, and don't waste your time or money on THIS woman's version of "radical unschooling." It's really just "radical unparenting" in disguise.

Blame-shifting won't help

2010-02-12T15:32:00.003-06:00

Well, this news from Port St. Lucie, FL (though it truly could be Anytown, USA) has me shaking my head. Not because I can’t believe it, but because I’ve seen this before, and the problem just seems to be getting worse...

A Port St. Lucie 1st-grade student was handcuffed and committed to a mental health facility because of her classroom behavior, and her parents are furious that the school took such extreme measures.

...Deputies said... Haley got upset and stormed out her classroom when her teacher asked her to do something. The report said it then escalated into a temper tantrum in the principal's office.... [A] deputy said Haley was out of control... she "kicked the wall, went over to the desk and threw the calculator, electric pencil sharpener, telephone, container of writing utensils and other objects across the desk."

...A deputy was called to the school [the next day] after Haley had another tantrum in the classroom and principal's office.... The sheriff's report said she was yelling, throwing things and hit the principal, who is 8 months pregnant. This time, she wasn't handcuffed. She was committed to a mental facility.

Wow! So, the parents surely took action to get their angry child some help, right? Surely they apologized to the school for never showing up to the “several” meetings school officials have attempted to have with them. Surely they didn’t make the problem worse by saying this incident was all the school’s fault, right?

Wrong, of course.

"I was terrified," mother Kathy Franklin said. "I left work crying, terrified. Where is my baby? What are they doing with my baby?"
Haley's parents said their daughter has a temper problem...

Gee, I’d never have guessed...

... but has no history of mental illness. Her mother said the school should have called her so she could pick up her daughter rather than have her committed.

Right, because obviously, you are so effective at parenting and have taught your daughter that throwing things at teachers and hitting pregnant women is unacceptable.

"They have looked at her here," Franklin said of the New Horizons mental health facility. "There is absolutely nothing wrong with my child. I work in daycare. I know what a child that has problems -- you know, I know how to deal with them. I know what they act like."

Yes, I’m sure you do know what they act like, because you have one at home! However, you clearly don’t know how to deal with your child. The fact that she was taken away in handcuffs and the NEXT DAY did the same, cements the fact in my mind that she does not understand the seriousness of her situation.

This child is only 6 years old, so it would be difficult for her to show a “history of mental illness,” anyway, especially since her parents seem to be excusing all this behavior. A child who blows up when given instructions by an authority figure has issues with authority. I wonder, how many domestic incidents have these parents had with their little girl?

Sir and Madam, I’d like to offer you some words of advice: seek help for your daughter immediately! This is NOT normal behavior, therefore, extreme measures may be warranted. You cannot expect the public school system and teachers to effectively correct behavior you are not willing to correct at home. You were sought out to correct this problem and you didn’t show up. These teachers and principals are there to teach, but they cannot do so until you hold up your end of the bargain and provide effective parenting and DISCIPLINE at home!

I am sorry that your daughter was taken away in handcuffs. I really am. But based on your comments in the linked article, I believe you would have been angry regardless of the method used to stop Haley’s behavior.

The problem I mentioned above that seems to be getting worse is this: lack of parental involvement. I know parents have to work. I know they can’t be there every second of every day for their children. But parenting involves more than simply feeding and clothing your children and shipping them off to school, fingers crossed, in hopes that someone will fix their underlying issues. What your kids need is YOU. They need time with you.

Maybe Haley is acting out because of some deep-seated anger, or maybe she actually does have an undiagnosed mental disorder. Maybe she is acting out to show you she needs boundaries and desires your attention. Regardless, I will reiterate: this is not normal behavior. Get her some help, and get yourself to some parenting classes. There are no perfect parents, and we need the wisdom of others, at times, to help us. Please. Your daughter’s future is at stake, and she needs you. She needs your love, not your excuses and blame-shifting.

In Their Best Interest

2009-11-19T14:26:00.003-06:00

Recently, I had to sign and initial a very looong and detailed page at my local Claire’s jewelry store so my 10-year-old daughter could get her ears pierced for the first time. Big milestone for her.

But somewhere today, a little girl is having an invasive medical procedure done without her parents’ knowledge. Somewhere today, your little girl’s little girl may have her life snuffed out at the end of an abortionist’s suction cannula. And you’ll never be the wiser.

The fight against parental notification of a minor’s abortion just keeps getting uglier. Today, WorldNetDaily reports:

California's San Juan Unified School District sought to change its own policy from one that prohibits students from being absent without parental knowledge except during medical emergencies to guidelines that would allow a student to leave for a "confidential medical appointment."

Thankfully, the policy didn’t make it. It lost, 3 to 2. Parents, who had “flooded” the meeting “clapped and cheered” at the result.

More and more, the rights and responsiblities of parents are being ignored, and the safety of children jeopardized in the name of “reproductive choice.” As Pacific Justice Institute staff attorney Matt McReynolds put it:

“They can't drive themselves anywhere, so some adult or somebody with a driver's license would have to get them to those so-called 'confidential' medical appointments that aren't so 'confidential' after all when you really think about it," he said. "You're talking about an older boyfriend, a boyfriend's parents, maybe even a school official? Somebody has to get them there when they're that young."

Right. And Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, is salivating over the prospects. PP spokeswoman Raquel Simental obviously didn’t agree with the district’s decision NOT to allow 7th graders off-campus without parental permission. "It's the law that they have access to these services," she told a local news station.

Wouldn’t you like to think so, Ms. Simental. But the fact is, McReynolds continued:

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU tend to always threaten these school districts with lawsuits if they vote differently than those groups want them to vote... They claim it would be illegal, but they've never actually filed a lawsuit when the school district adopts a parent-friendly policy.

I wonder why that is. Think they might get a bad reputation from fighting directly against the parents in a school district? I’m sick of PP acting as if parents are the enemy. Newsflash: The large majority of parents are not committing incest with their children. The large majority are responsible people, trying to protect their kids from the predatory behavior of others.

PP likes to come off as “reasonable” and having great concern for young women, but the bottom line is...their bottom line. They have, to date, railed against every parental notification law on the books.

Because parental involvement in a child’s life is bad for the abortion business.

So the next time you have to sign those school permission forms to let the school nurse give your daughter a Tylenol for her headache, remember: not everyone has your children’s best interest at heart. Ask a lot of questions.

Breastfeeding is "traumatic?"

2009-08-05T18:09:00.005-05:00

My husband found an article on Fox News today and asked me "What's your take on this?"

At first, I have to admit, I laughed at the "Bebe Gloton" ("gluttonous baby") doll who comes with a nursing top instead of a plastic bottle (encouraging the idea of breastfeeding as opposed to bottle feeding)...until I read further at what some clearly ignorant, twisted people had to say about it.

Now, I'm guessing that the opposition or favor of this doll will be divided mostly along the lines of moms who breastfed their children and those who did not. That's to be expected. However, comments such as the following really are over the line:

“Pregnancy has to entail maturity and understanding,” [Dr. Manny] Alvarez said. “It’s like introducing sex education in first grade instead of seventh or eighth grade. Or, it could inadvertently lead little girls to become traumatized. You never know the effects this could have until she’s older.”

Hold the phone, there, Dr. Alvarez...what about little children who witness their own mothers nursing their younger siblings? Is that traumatic for them? Or is it only our horribly over-sexualized society that seems to cringe at such contact?

Many little girls see this as commonplace behavior and mimick it with their dollies already, without the aid of a specialized, decorated halter top. Are they scarred for life because of it? Hardly.

And comparing early sex education (where it's totally acceptable for some to introduce the concept of "two mommies" or "two daddies") to breastfeeding is just absurd.

The article continues:

“What’s next?” wrote Eric Ruhalter, a parenting columnist for New Jersey’s Star Ledger. “Bebe Sot — the doll who has a problem with a different kind of bottle, and loses his family, job and feelings of self-worth? Bebe Limp — the male doll who experiences erectile dysfunction? Bebe Cell Mate — a weak, unimposing doll that experiences all the indignation and humiliation of life in prison?

"Toy themes should be age appropriate. I think so anyway.”

Really. Well, thanks for that enlightened assessment...comparing a totally natural and healthy experience like breastfeeding to drunkenness and erectile dysfunction. Wow. I don't even know how to respond to that except to say that this "parenting columnist" may want to prepare himself for some very unhappy emails from nursing moms!

My opinion is, if you are comfortable with letting your kids play with Barbie dolls who are anatomically imbalanced examples of womanhood, what's your hangup with letting them play with a doll that empowers them to realize that those anatomical parts aren't just for "male pleasure," but can serve to nourish new life as well?

The UN has two faces

2009-06-17T17:52:00.003-05:00

I am not a fan of the United Nations.

While lamenting the loss of US funding for lending its passive approval to China's family planning policies (which include forced abortion), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) addressed the frequently asked question among prospective donors, "Will money be used for abortion?" Answer:

No. UNFPA's work is guided by the Programme of Action of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo, Egypt. It states that abortion should not be promoted as a method of family planning. UNFPA fully subscribes to this and does not provide support for abortion services. It works to prevent abortion through family planning, and to help countries provide services for women suffering from the complications of unsafe abortion."

And yet, 6 years ago, UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) came under heavy fire for violating this "family planning" policy (in paragraph 8.25 of the 1994 ICPD Programme of Action: "In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning....") by recommending that "governments should make abortion legal, safe, and affordable."

According to a 2003 Life Site News article:

UNESCO appears particularly concerned about adolescents' access to abortion, recommending that "Legislatures should remove legal restrictions to access of abortion and family planning services to adolescents" and that "Wherever the law allows, Governments should guarantee the privacy of those seeking abortion services, especially adolescent women." UNESCO also recommends that, "Where abortion is allowed, the legal system should provide means of redress for those denied access to the services that should be made available to them," without explaining what type of redress it has in mind.

UNESCO takes aim at parental consent laws, stating that, "It is common, for instance, to require adolescents to obtain parental consent for abortion services...This alone can dissuade an adolescent from seeking a proper medical procedure and leave them to seek alternative, illegal and unsafe abortions elsewhere."

UNESCO was later chastised for stating these views so publicly.

The UN is known for going against cultural and religious norms by pushing its own agenda. Just take a look at the UNFPA's State of World Population 2005 under "Reaping the Rewards of Family Planning." Apparently, regardless of what any given culture states, the UNFPA views "high fertility" as a family with 5 children. (In the early 1900s, families with 10 children were not uncommon. My own grandfather was the 7th child of 10.) By pushing the issue of contraception as "the norm" - especially to third-world countries - the UNFPA (wittingly or unwittingly) contributes to the acceptability of abortion worldwide.

And yet, here's one of those cases where the right hand seems unaware of what the left hand is doing. While promoting contraception (and even abortion), thereby undermining the worth of each child from the moment of conception, the UN also somehow believes it has the right to state what is best for each born child...

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is possibly one of the most insidious pieces of legislation to emerge from this self-anointed purveyor of "rights." Among the guiding principles of the Convention are "non-discrimination; adherence to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development...." (emphasis added)

It seems terribly hypocritical to promote the "right to life" for each of the world's children when the UNFPA would prefer that those children never be conceived and/or carried to term in the first place. But what's really frightening is the "participation" guideline of the Convention (again, emphasis added):

Children are entitled to the freedom to express opinions and to have a say in matters affecting their social, economic, religious, cultural and political life. Participation rights include the right to express opinions and be heard, the right to information and freedom of association....

... [P]arents in particular should tailor the issues they discuss, the way in which they answer questions and discipline methods to the age and maturity of the individual child.

Remember, we are talking about minors here. Children. According to the UN, parents are unqualified to make decisions regarding their own children - unless, of course, the parents are choosing to prevent their births.

Unabashed pro-abort Sen. Barbara Boxer of CA is pushing for the Convention to be ratified here in the US. According to Fox News, Boxer had this to say:

"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected."

The Fox article is worth reading in its entirety. When you hear a pro-abort attempting to sound pro-life, you know something's up.

Any governing body that urges citizens to avoid families it deems "large" and then seeks the right to dictate parenting techniques to those same citizens is not to be trusted.

Danger, Deception, and Babies

2009-05-11T16:11:00.008-05:00

The Catholic News Agency has a recent blog about Heartbeat International’s “Babies Go to Congress” campaign, where mothers and their children spoke to Congress on the benefits of crisis pregnancy centers.

This is an issue close to my heart, as I used to operate a pregnancy care center. It was an incredibly rewarding job because of the visible impact made on the lives of moms and babies. These are the “dangerous and deceptive” centers that supporters of Planned Parenthood despise so much... these centers, offering women choices beyond abortion, which have encroached on the enemy’s territory. You know you’re making an impact when you start to encounter angry, irrational opposition. They claim things like:

CPCs do not provide abortion services or access to contraceptives. The vast majority of CPCs are not actual medical clinics and are therefore not required to meet the legal and ethical standards for medical facilities (including to provide complete and accurate medical information) or to respect patient confidentiality.

They’re right on a few counts. CPCs do not provide abortions or contraceptives, and they don’t claim to. They are non-profit organizations, staffed mainly by volunteers, which survive on donations from individuals (unlike the so-called “non-profit” number one abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, which receives millions in funding from the government every year).

And guess what else? CPCs do not claim to be medical clinics! They offer free pregnancy testing (urine tests, just like at home, only the women don’t have to pay for them), pamphlets on fetal development, information on possible abortion risks, referrals to adoption agencies, and occasionally, ultrasounds (just like you can get in some malls - which are also not medical clinics) done by trained technicians, doctors, and/or RNs.

When a client calls a CPC and asks “do you do abortions?” the standard response is, “No, we do not. We offer free pregnancy testing, information on fetal development, possible abortion risks, and counseling. Would you like to make an appointment?” Let me tell you from experience: the answer is rarely “no.” The women know exactly what to expect once they arrive, and they find compassion and confidentiality (contrary to what the biased article states above. CPCs do not give out names of clients, and will not confirm that any person has ever received services from them).

And here’s a neat little tidbit: Abortion facilities have little to no medical regulation, and they are medical facilities. Pro-lifers have fought for YEARS to get these clinics to hold to standard hospital regulations (anesthetists present and monitoring patients at all times, resuscitation equipment on hand), and the clinics fight tooth-and-nail in resistance.

Planned Parenthood's abortion numbers are up. Why are they so threatened? Because when it comes to “choice,” PP assumes that there is but one choice for most of the women who find themselves on their doorstep.

But don’t just take my word for it. These are the words of Dori Eddols of Columbus, Ohio, one of the women who spoke to Congress on behalf of CPCs:

We were not married and I got pregnant and so we went to a Planned Parenthood because I didn’t know there was a difference between a Planned Parenthood or a pregnancy crisis center... I didn’t even know there were crisis pregnancy centers.

The article goes on to say:

Believing Planned Parenthood would explain her choices, she said she and her then-boyfriend Greg, to whom she has now been married for 15 years, went in to a clinic for a pregnancy test.

Though Eddols expected she would be called back into a room to hear her test results, a staffer came into the lobby and announced that Eddols was pregnant.

"She said, ‘OK you’re pregnant,’ right there in the waiting room... ‘When do you want to schedule your abortion?’ I just turned to my boyfriend and said, ‘We gotta get out of here.’

"Crisis pregnancy centers are good for America. They are good for women. It’s not just about abortion versus pro-life. It’s about these are your choices. It explains what they are.”

Joe Young, VP of Ministry Support with Heartbeat International, added:

A lot of these members of Congress have a pre-conceived idea of what pregnancy centers are. A lot of that was formed from the Waxman Report a few years ago that was very negative about pregnancy centers. So members of Congress thought that pregnancy centers were manipulative, the religious right and (were) scaring women...

We actually get to bring clients and women who serve in these centers to meet members of Congress and say ‘Our heart is for women; it’s to serve women; it is not manipulative at all. We are going to lay out the truth about what we do and how we can serve you. And how we are going to serve you no matter what choice you make.

When women share their stories about the situations they’ve come out of, what their choices were and the help pregnancy centers have given them, they’re overwhelmed.

What the Children are Taught

2009-03-19T16:06:00.006-05:00

A North Carolina judge is under fire, and rightly so, after he forced a homeschooling mother to enroll her three children in public schools. Because they were receiving such a poor education at home? No. In fact, WorldNetDaily reports the judge's comments:

...Ms. Mills had done a good job [in homeschooling]....It was great for them to have that access, and [I had] no problems with homeschooling. I said public schooling would be a good complement."

And yet, he also told the mother:

It will do them a great benefit to be in the public schools, and they will challenge some of the ideas that you've taught them, and they could learn from that and make them stronger.

Really? A 10, 11, and 12 year old child should be "challenging" what their mother has taught them, even though their home education had been "good?" It seems to me that this judge is speaking out of both sides of his mouth and clearly knows nothing about properly parenting children.

But the plot thickens: this is a custody dispute between an adulterous father and a churchgoing mother. Who has the judge sided with? Why, the adulterous father, of course:

The father's submitted a statement admitting adultery, but the judge's ruling said he "became completely miserable in the marriage" and attributed that to "Ms. Mills involving herself and [the] children in the Sound Doctrine Church to such a degree that [the] entire household was turned upside down."

Ah, yes. It's all the mother's fault. How dare she come home and quote Scripture to her adulterous husband! How dare she pray in front of him! How dare she try to get him to attend church with his family instead of carousing with other women!

Hey, hubby, newsflash: Why didn't you get up off your posterior and take your family to church in the first place? You left the spiritual leadership of your home to your wife, you selfish--okay, you get my point.

This is appalling to me. Not only did this father shirk his spiritual responsibility to his wife and children, he is fighting spiritual accountability now by requesting that his children be forced back into the indoctrination of the secular public school system. Is it for their "good" or is it just to spite his non-adulterous wife? What are his children being taught by their adulterous father?

Way to go, Dad. You're a real winner. So is the judge who fell for your "poor, neglected husband" act.

Suleman's Choice

2009-02-06T09:31:00.005-06:00

It's all over the news.

A single mother gives birth to IVF octuplets with six other children at home. She lives in a home with her mother. She is college-educated and doesn't live on welfare, and plans to go back to college to obtain her Master's degree to support her family. Talk about a woman who has decided that she can have it all, without the help of a man! The feminists should be rallying round her, shouldn't they?

No. None of that really matters, of course. What people really seem to have an issue with is the fact that this woman chose to have a family of 14 children. (When the famous Duggar family has more children, the public reaction is always, "Are they nuts? What's wrong with them?" They are accused of using their children for publicity, as if no one could possibly want such a large family in this day and age. It is practically viewed as mental illness. In fact, in Suleman's case, that's exactly what's being insinuated.)

The Today Show has published an interview with Nadya Suleman, the babies' mother. Read it here. In the interview, the "calm, poised and articulate" Ms. Suleman tells Ann Curry, "All I wanted was children. I wanted to be a mom. That's all I ever wanted in my life. I love my children."

In response to this, psychiatrist Dr. Gail Saltz (no doubt a "liberated" woman herself) had this to say: "I think she’s in a bit of denial here and quite defensive, because in fact she does talk about the fact that this has been her life’s mission: to have babies, have babies, have babies. There’s an obsession to this, and I think it’s quite disturbing. When you don’t have a connection in childhood, you go see a therapist. You don’t have 14 babies.”

Elizabeth Cady Stanton (founding foremother of the Feminist Movement) had seven children herself. She did not begrudge them, but celebrated their lives in a manner not considered acceptable by many in her day: she raised a flag at her home for each new birth so the whole world could know the power of her womanhood and the power of new life. THAT is true feminism: embracing the power of womanhood and our ability to give birth to the next generation while making our voices and actions heard in society in whatever other ways we see fit.

Now, don't get me wrong...I believe that what's best for children is for them to be raised by two parents, a mother and a father, in a stable and loving home. However, I myself was raised by a single mother who sacrificed and worked incredibly hard, so I know that what's "ideal" isn't always what's possible. This is the real world. But to treat a woman's desire for a large family as a "disturbing obsession" is appalling to me. My own great-grandmother had ten children, and I'm certainly glad that today's pervasive mentality (aided by the advent of readily available birth control) was not the driving force in her day. My grandfather was the eighth of the ten children, and I am thankful for his life as well as my own!

The bottom line is, Nadya Suleman made her own choice. She chose to give life to 14 children (in an unconventional way). Had she made use of the choice of abortion or selective reduction, the modern feminist outcry would be nonexistent. We are on very dangerous ground when we as a society begin to tell persons how many children we feel are appropriate for them.

Forget the false argument that society will have to support this woman and her children (and hey, what happened to "it takes a village," anyway?). After all, our government can gleefully fund abortion in other countries while seeking to do the same here in the States, and I've yet to hear any pro-choice feminist outrage over that decision. If "pro-choicers" believed in true "choice" then they would not condemn Nadya Suleman for hers.

I will close with another quote from the Today Show interview, from Dr. Nancy Snyderman:
"...some of these children will be physically or mentally challenged, there’s a looming price tag out here. The hospital bill alone will run $1.5 to $3 million. Forget about getting to college; just to get through special-needs stuff — it’s going to have to come from somewhere, either the taxpayers of California or her family or her church or the hospital. But she can’t do it alone.”

That's right, Dr. Snyderman. None of us can do it alone. We weren't put on this earth to "do it alone." We need each other. I hope that the public (especially the pro-life and Christian communities) will rally around Ms. Suleman and her children instead of treating them as drains on society. They need our love and support.

Divided, Not United

2009-01-22T21:12:00.004-06:00

On June 16, 1858, Abraham Lincoln spoke these words:

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, North as well as South.

Spoken at a time when slavery was the issue of the day, here we are 150 years later, and there is nothing new under the sun. Picture Lincoln's quote in the light of another grave injustice: the extermination of unborn human beings.

With the inauguration of President Barack Obama, people now speak of "unity" and "hope." I find myself more filled with despair than ever. I do not understand how people can insult President Bush as he steps on to the dais at the inauguration, and then in the next breath, demand that the rest of us should be unified with them. I did not agree with our former President very often, but to do something like that shows the immaturity and recklessness of many who were present that day.

I cannot and will not pretend that America became politically or morally united overnight. I have nothing for which to rejoice and no one for whom to cheer. My reasons, however, may be different than you might think: I am a single-issue voter, and I'm not ashamed to say it. In my opinion, there is one issue that trumps all others, and that is the issue of life.

Understand this: the fight for the right to life is not a "cause," and neither was the fight for abolition. It is the defining issue of our day in America. It defines who we are as a nation, as slavery did in Lincoln's time. This is the issue of humanity.

Will we defend the humanity of an oppressed portion of the population, or will we turn a blind eye for the sake of unity?

Our nation seems to have decided that they prefer that some remain slaves to the wills of others. They grieved over the 9/11 attacks which claimed over 3000 lives...and yet that number is exterminated EVERY DAY in this country in the name of "choice." If they are not human lives, then what are they? If they are not "fully human" then are they, say, only three-fifths human? Who decides? You? Me? The President? (No, wait, that's "above his pay grade." I forgot.)

You know, I've spoken with at least one pro-choicer who claimed that "if someone stuck a pencil in your eye, you'd remove it, right?" That was his defense for the "removal" of an unborn human being from the body of his/her mother: the comparison to a foreign object being lodged in one's eye. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but human beings beget human beings. The fruit of the womb is not a foreign object with no greater value than a pencil. This is what pro-choice society thinks. If you are shocked by this and you voted for Obama...well, I really don't know what to say to you.

If this issue matters at ALL to you, please inform yourself. Please do not become cynical, claiming that all testimonials of the women harmed by abortion are unverifiable nonsense. Please do not shrug off the unborn as if they were no more than unwelcome pencils in the eye of mankind.

Our nation is poised to "[become] all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of [such a grave injustice] will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, North as well as South."

For all of the comparisons to President Lincoln, I am waiting for President Obama to truly show that he has Lincoln's greatness. Perhaps one day he will realize that this nation cannot morally stand firm on ground that is drenched with the blood of the innocents. We are already sinking.

"You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother’s womb.
Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it. You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born." -Psalm 139: 13-16a

Yes, He Can

2008-11-05T09:06:00.004-06:00

I have to say, I think it's about time America elected her first African-American president.

I just wish I agreed with him on...well, anything.

The supporters of President-elect Obama are hailing this as a great day for the future of America's children. In one sense, it may be--for the born children, at any rate.

But the election of a man who has said the answer to when a baby gets human rights is "above [his] pay grade" grieves me to my very core. This man refused to vote in protection of children born alive during abortions, because he believed it would "burden the original decision" of a woman to abort her pregnancy. This is appalling. If our President is not willing to protect the most vulnerable among us, then what kind of a society have we become? Can we elect a man with such callous disregard for human life? Yes, we can. And we have.

Obama has stated that the "first thing" he would do is enact the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which could essentially nullify states' existing laws restricting abortion (parental notification for minor abortions, etc.). So this President-elect will make it his business to ensure that minors can just go and have their mistakes "erased" without their parents ever knowing or being able to speak to them about the ramifications of such a decision. Can we elect a man who will enable pedophiles to continue preying on children, raping them and destroying the evidence through repeated abortions? Yes, we can. And we have.

Obama has stated that those who do not want more taken from them in taxes to distribute to those who choose not to work are "selfish." He has stated that he believes our Constitution is flawed and that the Supreme Court should have, but never has, addressed the issue of wealth redistribution. Joe Biden believes that paying more in taxes is "patriotic." Obama also stated (months ago, but it was just released this week on audio) that he would see to it that the coal industry was bankrupted by his energy plan. Can we elect people with these radical views? Yes, we can. And we have.

Obama has strong connections with some people well known for their hateful rhetoric and actions. Some would choose to disregard all evidence of this, but it remains, no thanks to the mainstream media's muzzle on the information. Obama has never had to explain these connections because the media has given him a free pass. Can we elect a man connected with terrorists, terrorist sympathizers and hate mongers? Yes, we can. And we have.

We looked to a man we know so little about for "hope" and "change." We will get change, that's for certain. But the One who can give us hope does not reside in the White House.

I want to thank John McCain for his service to this country, though I don't agree with all the decisions that he has made as a legislator. Americans chose not to elect this POW, a hero of our country and well-known public servant, and instead elected someone who has less experience than--yes, let's just say it--Sarah Palin. For all the media's whining about her lack of experience, they've elected a man who spent less than 150 days actually doing his job in the Senate. Can we say "double standard?" Yes, we can.

And regarding Sarah Palin: Without her, John McCain wouldn't have received as much support as he did. McCain has long been disliked by the conservative base of the Republican party, but when Governor Palin joined the ticket, the base was energized.

The media quickly showed their bias, however, toward a mother of five who didn't have to abort any of them to achieve her career success. They quickly seized on her "inexperience" when it was clear that Obama had even less. It didn't matter. A pro-life woman who walks the walk in her own personal life is considered extremely dangerous (if not insane) by the liberal media elite.

And by the way, she didn't become the governor of Alaska by being stupid, though the media would like to portray her (and her constituents) as such. Palin is a true feminist, much like Elizabeth Cady Stanton (who proudly raised a flag at her home for the birth of each of her seven children), a far cry from today's idea of feminism. She was a breath of fresh air in the McCain campaign. The hatred spewed at this woman from other "Christian" women is something that I will never forget. It is something my young daughter had to witness, and I am ashamed of my "sisters in Christ" for tearing down someone with such great integrity and Christian values. Let's not pretend that she was disliked because of her "lack of experience." If that were the case, our President-elect would not even BE our President-elect.

I will be praying for President-elect Obama and for this nation as we step into uncharted territory, led by an untested man with questionable character and associations. I pray that freedom of speech and religion will continue unhindered (and that the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" will not be reinstituted, as there is nothing "fair" about it), and that our freedom to educate our children as we see fit will be preserved. I have doubts that Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned by the Supreme Court. I've always felt that the pro-life battle must be won in the hearts and minds of individuals before we will see a change, regardless of any court decisions. I know that the Holy Spirit is moving, turning the hearts of mothers back to their children...one by one. Yes, He can.

God is ultimately in control, and I can't say that I am surprised at this outcome. However, I also know that we reap what we sow. If we sow destruction, we will also reap it. I fear that the time for reaping may come sooner than we expect. I pray that the Lord will turn the hearts of His church back to Him. Yes, He can.

"I must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day. The night is coming, when no one can work." -(Jesus) John 9:4

What America Stands For?

2008-09-05T11:15:00.004-05:00

A friend of mine just sent me this quote from a message she received after joining an online group:

"Hi, I do respect the opinions of others, but i have a question. I have two daughters and if they were raped I would not expect them to carry the baby to term. There are things such as the morning after pill. Is it true that Sarah Palin said that. If they take the choices away from our children what will they have. This is what America stands for."

Not sure I fully understand this quote, since it doesn't actually specify what Sarah Palin allegedly said. However, I believe I hear the concern behind it.

American women today have the right to abort their unborn children for any reason, from conception to the day of the delivery. Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton (the rarely spoken-of law which was a companion to the first) solidified that right. This concerned parent really has nothing at all to worry about. Abortion proponents in this country like to frighten people by insinuating that "those conservative pro-lifers will take away all your RIGHTS!" If people could look past the liberal propaganda, they might learn a few things.

A woman who is the victim of rape or incest is routinely given a "morning after pill" in many states as part of her hospital treatment unless she refuses it. If the pill is not offered, a doctor can prescribe it, and *poof* she was never pregnant and never raped (no, wait, sorry, that's not right...a pill can't undo those things, just as a surgical abortion can't make a woman "unpregnant").

The reason why many pro-lifers (such as Sarah Palin) are against "emergency contraception" such as the morning after pill (Plan B) is because it is a possible abortifacient--a pill that can cause the destruction of human life--and because abortion proponents are pushing to allow it to be dispensed without a prescription.

As defined by one prescription drug information site, "Levonorgestrel [Plan B] is a female hormone that prevents ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary). Plan B also causes changes in your cervical mucus and uterine lining, making it harder for sperm to reach the uterus and harder for a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus." The italicized text is the problem and why many pro-lifers oppose Plan B (as well as the Pill, for that matter, which offers lower dosages but claims to possibly have the same effect). The Plan B website actually states that Plan B "is not an abortion pill--it can't terminate an existing pregnancy." One problem with that: fertilized eggs, last time I checked, were newly conceived human beings. I'm pretty sure they still are. (This is just my personal opinion, but I don't like any form of hormonal birth control, because it disturbs the natural processes that were designed to work in our bodies.)

We do not typically dispense doses of hormones without regulation to individuals, including the birth control pill--they are available with a physician's prescription. However, this is what many are suggesting be done, which would make Plan B readily available to young women (who are not victims of rape or incest but rather products of their own life choices) as "emergency contraception" after nights of unprotected sex. It could very quickly become a regular "birth control" item on the lists of teenage girls, but it was never intended for that purpose. We already deal with the problem of young women thinking they don't need to use condoms to prevent disease while on the Pill--do we really want to go down this even messier road?

I am also honestly wondering about some faulty reasoning that appears to be taking place in the question posted above. Is that what America stands for? The right of children to access birth control and/or abortifacients? America stands for the great and lofty value of...abortion on demand and sex without consequence?

Here's another fact: Only 2% (yes, that's TWO percent) of all abortions that take place in this country are performed for reasons of rape or incest. It should be stated that Plan B is not the same as RU-486, the so-called "abortion pill." Plan B is more of a "megadose" of hormones which can prevent the implantation of a life within a uterus, essentially forcing a miscarriage.

One last thing: Children born of rape or incest are no less precious, intelligent, loving, or worthy of love. Two million couples wait each year to adopt a child...and we throw away their precious babies (1.5 million per year) as human refuse.

If Sarah Palin is for preserving those innocent lives, then I (and millions of other American women) stand behind her.

So Much for Support

2008-08-28T14:34:00.002-05:00

I've heard pro-choicers say it many times: "If you are so against abortion, how about helping the moms who decide to carry to term?" Well, we (pro-lifers) actually do. There are many resources out there in local communities to help moms. Some of them are government-run but many others are charitably funded (such as pregnancy resource centers, who continue to help mothers long after their pregnancies).

But more can be done. So many nursing mothers have no choice but to return to work after their maternity leave has ended, and then they are forced into a possibly uncomfortable financial situation: buying formula and paying for childcare. In an ideal world, moms who choose to stay home would be financially able to afford it. Moms who choose to return to work would receive affordable childcare (and caregivers would truly have the best interest of the child in mind at all times). They would also receive encouragement from their employers to continue to breastfeed.

In another blog, I addressed the benefits of breastfeeding. In my opinion, employers and insurance companies might want to look into some research and perhaps offer extra incentives to breastfeeding parents. I don't know how realistic this is, but I suppose if companies can fine employees for smoking and other life choices, surely they could offer discounts to parents of children who have fewer doctor visits and medical problems than formula-fed children.

I believe a very simple way to help, however, would require far less research and money: offer a "nursing room" where nursing mothers could pump during their workday without fear of humiliation or recrimination. (Do read the linked article, as it was one of the catalysts for this particular blog entry.) And note: A BATHROOM or open lounge is NOT a nursing room. A room with greater privacy would be required. Dimmed lights, privacy curtains, some relaxing music from a nearby cd player, a few comfortable chairs and some electrical outlets would be ideal. Even an unused office could be fixed up with little cost to many of the larger corporations. It really isn't too much to ask, and I believe that some of the trauma of returning to work after baby might be alleviated by this.

So, employers, if you're going to pay for your employees' abortions, how about helping out the moms who choose life and choose to nurse, since those women are certainly no less dedicated to their places of work?

I'll Answer It For Free

2008-08-17T00:40:00.012-05:00

It's not a surprise to me that Barack Obama sidestepped a question from Pastor Rick Warren at Saddleback Church, but what boggles my mind is that some people will probably think it was clever.

It wasn't.

In response to a question about when babies get "human rights," Obama said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

(First of all, I am really hoping that he's not jokingly referring to God as the one who is "above his pay grade." Because theologically and scientifically, God couldn't be clearer about this if He thundered it from the clouds.)

For a Harvard Law grad, you'd think Obama could come up with a better answer. How about, "I don't believe they have ANY rights, even if they're born alive during an abortion." No, he can't go around saying things like that, even when his voting record is clear. For heaven's sake, the American public might actually learn, from his own lips, what he really stands for, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

I'm wondering something. Did Pastor Warren actually say "babies?" Because if he did, then Obama's reply is startling. Did he understand Warren to be referring strictly to the unborn, or to born persons as well? Yikes.

Since we're getting "theological," let's look into the Bible, of which Senator Obama claims to be so fond (when it suits him to twist the Word of God for his own interests). How about Jeremiah 1:5 where God says to Jeremiah: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (NASB)

Or how about Luke 1:15-17, where the Lord speaks to Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, before John was even conceived: "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb. "And he will turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God. "It is he who will go {as a forerunner} before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS BACK TO THE CHILDREN, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (NASB)

Perhaps we could read Psalm 139 as well. And of course, we know about Jesus Christ and the prophecies surrounding His conception and birth. (Gosh, the Virgin Mary wasn't exactly in the most ideal situation, was she, Senator? Since she was so young and hadn't even had intercourse, might you have considered her to have been 'punished with a baby,' too?)

The Word of God is clear on these matters, that God has purposed lives before they're even conceived, and that these are human beings to Him. How is this a difficult theological question?
If you're a human being, you have "human rights."

And the unborn ARE human beings, according to science. Genetically, they're human--or at least they were the last time I checked. I'm pretty sure that 4-D ultrasound technology supports this. Well, by golly, they even look human. Go figure! DNA doesn't lie. A beating heart, brain waves, etc...that's life. When I was in junior high science class, I learned that new life is created when sperm and egg join. (And Senator, I'm pretty sure your pay grade is above that of the average junior high school science teacher.)

Pro-choicers like Obama have trouble finding that magical "human rights" line, even amongst themselves. They refuse to acknowledge that humanity begins at conception because they can't bring themselves to face something that could cost them too much "freedom." Some will say that human rights begin at 22 weeks, or some other arbitrary number, or at birth. Some will even say that human rights begin after the first 30 days (and parents decide whether or not they wish to kill their born children). Well, which is it? How are we to decide this? By popular vote? By judicial fiat (since that's the usual way that liberal agendas come to fruition)? Surely we wouldn't want to consult the Creator of life on any of these matters, right?

What I think Senator Obama has trouble with is the fact that the "personhood" of the unborn is not clearly defined in the current law of the land (though it should be). Bringing theology and science into the discussion was incredibly dishonest on his part. He knows that God creates life, and he knows that science proves the humanity of the unborn. He just doesn't care. (In his terminology, he doesn't want to "force his beliefs" on anyone else...even to the extent of allowing innocents to die every day. Wow, can you imagine this guy trying to stand up against a terrorist regime?)

Speaking of our land, I'd like to point out that our Declaration of Independence does not say, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are born equal...." It says they are "created" equal. We know that even in many societies today, a person can be born into a high or low societal position. But this has nothing to do with the fact that they were created equal.

Nor does it say that "they are endowed by their government with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." No, we're given those rights by our Creator, as our founding fathers recognized. So who is the government to decide that an unborn child with a beating heart, brain waves, circulatory system, etc., has no human rights? How absurd can we possibly be?

Oh, and by the way...I wrote all of this for free. Pay grade has nothing to do with it.

Head for the Hills

2008-08-05T22:18:00.004-05:00

I really don't know what other advice to give to German homeschooling families other than : Pack up and leave. As quickly as you can.

With parents being arrested and very young children being forcibly removed from homes without thought to the trauma it might cause, what else is there to do? The courts are deaf to the pleas of the parents, and the law is horribly outdated (from Hitler's time). Though no parental abuse has been proven, German law is so undefined that home education is now viewed as "endangerment." These families have done nothing but educate their children at home (and quite well, I might add) against the will of the German government.

What kind of a government surrounds a house full of children while their mother is hospitalized with complications from childbirth and their father is visiting her? (There were adult children at home at the time babysitting the younger ones.) What kind of a government snatches a 3 year old (who is likely not receiving "schooling" of any sort at that age) from his home, traumatizing him to the point that he clings to his adult sister, refusing to let go until the sister is forced to ride along to social services with the child? Mr. and Mrs. Gorber have since regained custody of this young son, but the government has refused to relinquish custody of the remaining five children that were seized.

The Führer would be proud.

I am stunned, appalled, and frankly, tearful about this whole ordeal. As a mother, I can imagine the desperation that these parents must feel. I am adding the Gorber and Dudek families to my prayers, along with all of the German homeschoolers, and I hope that my readers will, as well.

The Right to Brainwash

2008-07-31T00:29:00.004-05:00

"The youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled...[we]will give [our] youth to no one, but will [ourselves] take youth and give to youth [our] own education and [our] own upbringing."

Does this inspire you? If I didn't know better, I'd think it were written by someone who had the best interests of children in mind. Perhaps I'd even guess that it might have been written by a Christian or parental rights advocacy group.

But no, those words were spoken by Adolf Hitler in 1937. He was referring to the Third Reich and his plan to indoctrinate the youth of Germany with his grand Aryan ideas.

As I said in a previous post, Hitler may be dead and gone, but his policies on education never left Germany. Educating one's children at home, for religious reasons or otherwise, is illegal and punishable by fine...or even, in this most recent case, imprisonment.

That's right, I'm speaking of the imprisonment of the parents of home educated, intelligent children, whose knowledge of ABCs and 123s has no bearing whatsoever on the government's decision to lock their parents up for months.

In this article, it states that the parents paid previous fines to the government for refusing to enroll their children in German public schools. But that wasn't enough. Now, the prosecutor in their case has decided that jail time is what these parents deserve. They could even lose their children, as did another German homeschooling family in recent years. Why? What have they done that is so horrible, so detrimental to society?

According to Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, the government "has a legitimate interest in countering the rise of parallel societies that are based on religion."

Well, now the truth comes out. This isn't really about education at all. It's about brainwashing. Religion (Christianity) is the enemy of the state in Germany. They don't care how well the children perform on standardized tests. They want the hearts and minds of German children. This is beyond disturbing.

And if we're not careful, this could happen right here in America, in our own back yards. As the article states, if the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is ever ratified, those of us who educate our own children can expect to be subjected to the same treatment as the families of Germany. One of the provisions in the UN Convention states that a child has "rights to adequate food, shelter, clean water, formal education, primary health care..." and so forth. This means that it will be up to our government to decide what is and is not acceptable, under the headship of the United Nations. And we all know that "formal education" does not likely include home education, but will be operated by the state.

Though I'm sure that some of the provisions in the UN Convention could be beneficial to children around the world, who is to enforce these laws against abuse? Who is to make sure they all get clean water and food? (Don't they already have programs in place that are supposed to accomplish these things through the UN?) Oh, that's right, the ones in charge would be the corrupt governments of the nations already hoarding food from the masses. And as for preventing abuse, well, don't run to the UN peacekeepers for help--they've been the abusers of refugees in the past.

No, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is really just another way for the government to decide what's "best" for our children, and if we don't comply, they'll take them away from us.

Think I'm exaggerating? Tell that to the families in Germany whose children have been put in foster care.

Here in America, every voice counts. Every election counts. We will either elect people who view our American rights as subordinate to "global rights" or we will elect people who hold our values of American freedom. If we vote for big government, we'll get what we voted for...and don't think that just means "more free stuff" for poor people. With every "gift" there's a string attached. The more dependent we are on our government, the more control they can exert over our lives.

It's just that simple.

Can YOU Spot the Contradiction?

2008-07-24T23:54:00.002-05:00

Some time ago, I read an article regarding the polygamist compound in Texas that was raided by the government. Some of the men have been interviewed. Find it here. What leapt at me from my computer screen were statements like these, from the reporter (Maggie Rodriguez) in charge of interviewing three of these men:

"After all this, can you see why society looks upon you and says, ‘A girl who's younger than 18 shouldn't be married and having sex?’ Has this forced you to reconsider?”

and

"But gentlemen," Rodriguez asked, "do you think that a teenage girl has the maturity to make that kind of decision, especially if she sees other girls doing it and maybe might believe that it's OK? Isn't it your responsibility to tell them no it's not OK?"

Excuse me while I retrieve my jaw from my keyboard.

Is this reporter actually saying that teenage girls under the age of 18 are INCAPABLE of making decisions about sex and marriage? I think this woman in the mainstream media needs to take a second look at what she appears to be asserting here.

Let me say that I am very much against polygamy, and that I feel horrified at that entire situation, brought on by brainwashing and misinterpretation of religious texts. There were children harmed, and that is no laughing matter. What I find unbelievable is that this reporter seems so appalled by the very idea of these teenage mothers in committed marital (albeit illegal) relationships, raising children.

I think if she were asking the RIGHT questions, she would have asked why these men felt it was acceptable to prey upon underage girls in the first place, and to take more than one wife, against state law. Instead, this reporter trips over her own politically correct tongue.

Do we not, in this country, dispense birth control to children under the age of 16? Do we not allow (and encourage) them to have abortions without parental consent at ANY age? Do we not, by providing the instruction on "proper use" of birth control methods at younger and younger ages, normalize early sexual behavior in our own society?

Are you getting my point here? This reporter has unknowingly exposed the fallacy that it's okay for young girls to begin having sex at a young age. Notice, she does not say "having babies" she says "having sex." OOPS, Ms. Rodriguez. You should be careful, or someone more important than a lowly blogger might actually catch the contradiction here.

Ms. Rodriguez (and others in the mainstream media), whose responsibility is it in OUR non-cult society to tell young girls that it's NOT OKAY to have sex at a young age? Whose responsibility is it to encourage them to NOT go the way the other girls in society are going? I certainly don't see mainstream media OR our educational system in this country discouraging pre-marital sex in any way.

Frankly, these men have done nothing that Planned Parenthood wouldn't approve. PP has shown plenty of evidence that they don't report likely statutory rape cases. So what right does ANYONE in the MSM have in bombarding these men with questions when they've given PP a pass for so long? These young women in the LDS compound were not dressed like prostitutes, nor did they sell themselves or give sexual favors for attention. Perhaps if they were, the MSM wouldn't have been so appalled. Heaven knows they could care less about that sort of behavior.

And that's more than a little frightening.

What is the True Cost?

2008-07-24T23:44:00.003-05:00

I stumbled upon this article from the Associated Press: "Financial Strain a Factor in Abortions."

Let me say that first of all, the title to this article was not exactly a shock to me, nor should it be to any person of the pro-life persuasion. Financial strain is a factor in so many decisions we make today--whether or not we purchase a new home or car, whether or not to buy that pool for the family during the summer--you get my drift.

The statistics in this article show that HALF of the women who abort inside the U.S. are not teenagers, as one might assume, but are age 25 or older. Now, I've heard many arguments being made about "teaching teens and children about contraception" and how this is lacking and *gasp* the evils (and foolishness) of "preaching" abstinence. I've been told that the reason so many young women get pregnant is because they haven't been properly taught about birth control.

Hold on a second. Am I to actually assume that all of these women (about 3/4 of a million) did not receive "adequate sex education" in the school systems of America, which put them in this situation?

The effect on minorities (at last!) is mentioned in this article, as well. They state that a "disproportionate" number of abortions are obtained by black and Hispanic women--13% of women in this country are black, and they obtain 35% of all abortions. (How convenient that so many of our abortion facilities are strategically located in areas with large minority populations.) And at one point, the article refers to a gentleman researcher for the Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood-the nation's largest abortion provider) who has stated that:

"...abortion rates remain relatively high for black and Hispanic women. He believes the most effective countermeasure would be wider availability of contraceptives such as intrauterine device, or IUDs, that don't require attention as frequently as condoms or birth-control pills."

In my opinion, this man has stated that minority women apparently don't pay enough attention to their condoms or birth control, therefore they need more "effective" birth control (an abortifacient IUD), so they won't have to "think" about it. Now, that is just plain insulting. The fact that this man would group THIS comment regarding the lack of "attention" to birth control in with the comment about minorities should raise the ire of minority women everywhere. This is what Planned Parenthood thinks of you if you are a woman in a minority group.

The article also bemoans the fact that "Though abortion is commonplace across the country, urban areas have far higher rates than rural areas where access to abortion providers can be difficult." And why is it difficult? Well, because most minorities live in urban areas, don't they? And that is where the clinics have been built, under the guise of "serving" women. If you want to gripe that rural areas don't have clinics, take your grief to the abortion providers. They have enough money and I'm sure they could plop a clinic down out in the "boonies" if they wanted to.

Minority women, do some research on Margaret Sanger, if you will. She is the woman who started Planned Parenthood. She believed in eugenics--in other words, she believed in weeding out the "undesirables" from society. Sound familiar? A little bit like Hitler? *nods head* Lets just say she was never too keen on minorities. Well, it seems that indeed, her love of eugenics is being carried on by her organization long after her death. With statistics that show over a third of abortions being obtained by 13% of the population, I'd say her plan has worked, wouldn't you?

In a letter in 1939 Sanger wrote:

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

Thank you to this site for the quote. You'll find other Sanger quotes there as well. Like this one:

"[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children..."
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

So, if you ever wondered if Planned Parenthood really cares about parenthood at all, this should give you your answer. A big fat NO.

Susan Hill from the NWHO states: "In Mississippi, it's the poor women who don't have access to that who have to run through the maze of protesters screaming and yelling abuse," Hill said. "Wealthier women can be more creative about their alternatives." (emphasis mine)

Abuse? Since when is "Choose life, think of your baby, or she's a child not a choice" abuse? Since when is a Catholic praying the rosary abuse? Since when is quoting Bible scriptures abuse? The only people I've ever seen screaming and yelling outside abortion clinics are the "rescue workers" who work there, shouting obscenities at the protesters (who, by the way, are not allowed close enough to the clinics to create any sort of "maze."). Everything this woman has said is a complete fabrication from her own mind.

Another thing that bothered me: How are we to account for the fact that 20% of all women aborting are doing so for the second time or more? If, as the pro-choicers say, abortion is not nearly accessible enough, and if it really isn't being used as "birth control" then how is it that these women are repeatedly using the procedure as such? I'm sure Planned Parenthood is laughing all the way to the bank--pushing more birth control will result in more pregnancies, and they know it. In fact, Dr. Martin Luther King's niece says the very same thing in the article.

An ultrasound technician mentioned in the article found herself pregnant again at age 44, after she "mistakenly thought she was too old to get pregnant." Well, color me shocked! I am a lot younger than that, and I'm certain I was taught that you can get pregnant until you've completed menopause. This is a supposed "medical professional." Astounding. She aborted her fourth child because she could "feel" that her pregnancy would "end up badly." She goes on to say that "I was very sad and depressed the first week...but because it's hard on you emotionally and some women regret it, that doesn't mean it's wrong, that someone else should decide for you."

That's right, some women do regret it. It is hard on you emotionally. You will have to live with your decision for the rest of your life. You may remember the child you never had, on every due date anniversary. You may find yourself grieving at times when you least expect it. You may find that some seemingly innocent events, people, or places can trigger strong emotional reactions in you. You may even find that you have serious physical after-effects.

At the end of the day, each woman will decide. She will decide whether or not to begin having sex, she will decide whether or not to use birth control, she will decide if she will give herself to a man who is not fully committed to her and who is using her for sex, she will decide if she wants to please a man or instead have self-respect, and she will decide whether or not to give birth or abort her child. And according to this article, she should decide this without help or aid from anyone else. Without any wise counsel. Without God. What a very sad, sad state of affairs this is.

It has arrived--the day when saving our pennies (or our way of life) overrides our personal responsibility to those who are most vulnerable among us. I, for one, wonder if we have considered the true cost of our actions.

Why You Should Breastfeed Your Baby

2008-07-24T23:34:00.003-05:00

This is a "hot button" issue for me. I nursed both of my children until they were a year old. I never really thought of myself as an advocate for this issue, but, well, here I am!

When I've spoken to expectant moms over the years, I have noticed that some are completely turned off to the idea of breastfeeding. The reasoning behind their hesitation usually has nothing to do with their children at all, but rather with their own "being uncomfortable" with the idea, or of not being "interested" in it.

Picture me with a look of puzzlement. First of all, there are a couple of things very wrong with this from my point of view (with all due respect to moms everywhere), and I need to point this out.

1. Breastfeeding isn't all about YOU. Therefore, the fact that you aren't "interested" in it really leaves me wondering who you're thinking about here--you or your child.

2. Being disinterested in a topic that directly relates to you as a mother and to the health/well-being of your child is mind boggling to me. It's like saying, "Immunizations? Eh, never really thought about 'em. Bundling my kid up when it's freezing outside? Oh, yeah...I guess that might be worth doing, but I just wasn't too interested in it."

Okay, so you get my point, though I am exaggerating it a bit. The fact is, I believe in making an informed decision. It's one thing to say "I've looked into this extensively and don't think it's for me," but it's another to (for whatever reason) ignore the issue altogether.

So, in the interest of informing anyone out there who might stumble upon this blog, I would like to point out some reasons (widely available on practically every website for expectant parents) why breastfeeding your child is a very good thing to do, provided you have no medical reasons NOT to:

1) If God gave it to you, use it. (This is my number one reason, probably not available on those websites I mentioned!) God is the ultimate genius. He knows why things work and how they work. He created you and your baby and he gave you breasts and mammary glands for a purpose. Perhaps you should consider that His ways are higher than those of the baby formula companies. For this reason ALONE, I get extremely frustrated when moms who are physically able to breastfeed choose not to. Why are bottles equipped with plastic nipples instead of, say, pouring spouts? Because babies have instincts, and babies are designed to suckle from a breast. See the advertisements on the fancy new "more like Mom's breast" bottles? If we KNOW the breast is best, why do we substitute if there is no medical reason to do so? (By the way, working moms can breastfeed, too, at least while they're on maternity leave, and then it is possible to pump for while they're working and nurse when they get home.)

2) It fights infection. You know those things called antibodies? Breast milk is swimming with them. Formula has exactly ZERO antibodies. Breastfed babies are hospitalized less and have fewer infections than those who are formula fed. Translation: Healthier child, fewer doctor bills, happier YOU!

3) Easier digestion and better nutrition. Less constipation, less diarrhea, diapers that don't stink nearly as much (yes, I'm serious)--all good things. My second child was a whopper of nearly 10 pounds when he was born. I nursed him, and he ate well and often. I kept wondering why he was only wetting his diapers but not soiling them, until my RN told me that babies who are breastfed have no bowel movements if they are using up all the nutrients in the breast milk. Amazing! He needed all that I was giving him, so he went nearly two weeks with no bowel movement--and no constipation. Another interesting fact: formula companies have come closer in recent years to duplicating breast milk, but they still can't even identify all the ingredients in breast milk, and they can't artificially manufacture others.

4) It's FREE and you can't accidentally leave it at home. Why would I fork over more than $10 a can for something that is substandard to what I have built in? It just doesn't make logical sense to me. (The average cost for the first year of formula alone is $1500!! EEK.) Plus, I'm going to save on average about $400 a year on doctor bills compared to a mom who feeds with formula. And I'm taking mine with me whether I want to or not, so I have zero bottles to pack and won't need a microwave nearby. Just a place to sit and a bit of privacy, please.

5) Smarter and normal-weight kids. I don't know why, but a breastfed child's IQ is up to 10 points higher than a formula-fed child. (So, yes, read to your child, but breastfeed her too.) Also, obesity is less prevalent in breastfed children and adults. Maybe it's because moms who feed formula tend to pay attention to those last few ounces in the bottle instead of to the fact that their babies are refusing those few ounces due to fullness. But that's just my personal thought on the matter.

6) More emotional connection through skin-to-skin contact. When my son was born, he heard my voice and turned toward it. Wanna know what else he did? It's a built-in reflex--he immediately began rooting around for my breast. He knew his food source. How? He was designed that way. Haven't enough scientific studies proven that skin-to-skin contact is good for all mammals on the planet?

7) It's good for you, too, Mom! Fewer incidences of breast, uterine, and ovarian cancer occur in moms who breastfeed their children. It helps you burn more post-delivery calories and also pulls your uterus back into shape.

Okay--the downside. Can it be painful? Yep. It can hurt at first, but if you keep at it and practice doing it right, it won't hurt. Please speak to nurses at the hospital, or to a midwife. My nurses helped me tremendously--those "Baby Helpline" phone numbers are there for a reason! There are "lactation consultants" who work at the hospitals. Ask for one.

Will you have to feed your baby more often? Probably. But only for the first few months. Honestly, it gave me an excuse to sit down, relax, put my feet up, and just spend time with my baby. Those nursing times became restful for me, as well, to sit and ponder the miracle of motherhood (as cheesy as it sounds). Middle of the night feedings are a cinch, too--no bottle to get up and fix. Just pick up your child and either relax sitting up or lying down.

Will you have to watch what you eat and drink? Yes. No alcohol and limited caffeine, and be careful of medications. But it's really quite simple--tell your doctor or pharmacist that you are nursing and they know what medicines are okay to use. I know you sacrificed these things while you were pregnant, but you're a parent now. Sacrifice will be a part of everyday life for you. You can nix the energy drinks for a while longer, trust me. ;)

As most everyone will tell you, whether or not to breastfeed is a very personal decision, and sometimes there are extenuating circumstances or health issues which make it impossible to do. But for the majority of women, it is possible. We just lack the education and encouragement to do so. So let me encourage you today like one of my best friends encouraged me: Keep it up for the first two weeks and you will be SOLD on it. Once you're past the two week marker, things seem to get a lot easier. You CAN do it, with help.

Inform and educate yourself and don't let anyone make you feel uncomfortable about doing what our bodies were designed to do in the first place. I'm not trying to make formula-using moms feel guilty (my own mom was one of them). Moms are moms, and our job is difficult, regardless. I am simply trying to educate future moms, who often receive little information on this subject.

When you realize that not only did you give birth to your child (no easy task), but you can nourish and give life to that child for at least the first full year with little supplement, it's an empowering feeling. I wish all moms out there healthy babies and joy for years to come. :)

The State vs. The Family

2008-07-24T23:11:00.001-05:00

It's a war. If you don't believe me, just check out this article regarding the rights of families in Germany to educate their own children. Apparently, it's not allowed. Hasn't been allowed since...GET THIS...Hitler's reign.

I found this section to be quite interesting:

Drautz said homeschool students' test results may be as good as for those in school, but "school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens."

Ah. I see. So, parents can't possibly know how to teach their children knowledge, or social conduct, or any of the above. It's only the State who can do that. The State is the entity which knows best for its citizens. It is the only entity that can create "the perfect citizen." My goodness...if this doesn't sound like Nazi Germany, I don't know what does. Looks like Hitler never really left.

Here in America, we hear similar things coming from various politicians--"it takes a village," and so forth. "The government knows what's best for you, and It will take care of you" is the message being transmitted to the populace. I believe that the institution of the family was created for a noble purpose. But somewhere along the way, families dropped the ball and the State picked it up, holding it hostage. That's not a fair game, if you ask me. We should be raising our own kids.

So, who will educate your children?

Responsibility

2008-07-24T01:07:00.000-05:00

Plan A: Don't do it.

Plan B: Oops, I did it. Now I need to cover it up.

Yes, that's the basic premise. So the name of the product is accurate, at least.

What I want to know is, whatever happened to a little thing called "personal responsibility?" The message of Plan B "birth control" (emergency contraception) is that if you screw up, no problem. We've got a pill for that. But what you're not told is that popping a pill after a night of illicit sex to "erase" any possible problems afterward is irresponsible and just plain ridiculous. No pill can ever erase the mistakes you've made. No pill can change the condition of the heart. No pill can remove the future effects of any STDs you might have contracted. And no pill can get rid of the man who's been using you for sex all along.

What about the next time it happens? And the time after that? What we practice, we will continue to do. And the makers of this drug know that. They're not stupid. It's all about money. They pretend it's for "women's reproductive rights" (which, if you're well-read at ALL, you'll know actually means "the right to snuff out the parasite living within you" in pro-choice terms), but it's not for anyone's "rights" except for the company's. Why is it that the media will decry the "sinister nature" of the drug companies in this country EXCEPT when it comes to abortion drugs? Here where I live, we call that "a double standard."

Step up to the plate, ladies, and grow up. Take responsibility for your actions. Because right now, the makers of Plan B are basically telling you that you are too helpless to control yourselves--and you know you're stronger than that.

Plan A: Follow your dreams and don't let anyone or anything get in your way. Every moment counts. "Has anything you've done made your life better?" *

Plan B: There IS no Plan B. And don't you forget it.

*quote from American History X

Where There's a Will, There's a Way

2008-07-24T00:33:00.000-05:00

You really should see this article. It's crucial to understanding today's blog. This is my "soapbox," and this particular issue is near and dear to my heart.

Where to begin...let's see...in the linked article, we're told that doctors at several hospitals are now desperately trying to avoid prosecution for performing the illegal "partial-birth abortion" (technically known as a D & X- dilatation and extraction). So, they want to cover their legal rears by making sure the "products of conception" are not still wiggling or breathing when they emerge from the warmth of the womb. No, goodness, we wouldn't want that, would we?

Gosh, someone could get put in jail. For infanticide. Imagine.

Instead, they use digoxin (a heart drug) to send the "POC" into cardiac arrest in utero, or they inject the captive victim with potassium chloride, which is a very strong salt solution. Anyone want to guess what a powerful injection of salt does to a fetus in its amniotic sac? (Hint: It burns. And it essentially gets inhaled. Humane, isn't it?) Or what if it's injected into living tissue? Well, let's just say that they don't want to accidentally inject the POC's mother with this solution or she will be at serious risk for injury.

One of the OBGYNs mentioned in this article notes that he's concerned about "the risk for faculty and staff." He doesn't want them to be arrested for performing an illegal abortion on anyone, so any woman who is 20 weeks pregnant or more (that's halfway through the pregnancy, mind you...five months), MUST have one of these injections.

I found the final line of the article quite telling: "The National Abortion Federation has been impressed with the effectiveness of the lethal drugs and has developed a protocol for using digoxin for its members and is providing them with training." (emphasis mine)

Alright, I have a statement to make. The NAF is notorious for denying the humanity of babies in utero. They refuse to even call them "babies." (This is why they use the terms "product of conception -POC" and "fetus" which means "offspring.")

And now, my question: if the NAF continually denies that what is in the womb is in fact a human child, then how, pray tell, can it be lethally injected with a drug and sent into cardiac arrest?

You know what really impresses me about these abortionists is that they are just not quitters. They're so very, very resourceful at what they do. For them, their motto would have to be "where there's a will, there's a way."

Unfortunately, there are 4,000 unborn children that die every day due to someone else's "freedom of choice." (Just to give you an idea of that number, that's like someone wiping out a population the size of San Francisco every six months.) September 11th doesn't even hold a candle to the number of unborn whose lives we snuff out every day in the name of "freedom."