Dogs are people too

A strange claim keeps coming from anti-human life advocates. Many today promote a culture of death – sterility, abortion, euthanasia. It is simply baffling when it is these same people who clearly love wildlife, shrubs and cocker spaniels, more than human life. I’m not talking about your average “I enjoy greenery and animal planet” (such as myself). I am talking about those who have placed a radical perverted value in non-humans above that of humans. It is one thing if you want to hug a tree, as long as you hug a baby harder. But demanding human lives be ended (ie abortion) while simultaneously insisting that a dog’s right to life is being violated gives perversion a whole new level of idiocy.

Here is the view: Human life is not beautiful and intrinsically valuable. Humans are threats to the environment, not because if we destroy the environment, we will eventually destroy ourselves, but simply because the environment has more dignity than humans do. Why doesn’t Al Gore and his anti-human groupie just come out and say how they really feel? He has my permission to use this for his next movie,

“Folks, we need to end the human threat by ending human lives. Yes quite simply, we do not care for humanity. It no longer serves a purpose on our planet. How about we prevent life before it begins by preventing pregnancy – Oh we already have that? Contraception? Okay good. But we should also make people believe that pregnancy and fertility are diseases that need to be treated by some sort of pill – Oh we have done that? Great. And let’s have a back up plan in case some human life manages to squeeze through – We have that too? Plan B, a morning after pill? Brilliant. But we need to take some further measures in case the human parasite passes by these checkpoints and threatens all our rainforests – Abortion? Perfect. But if the human disease does persist through these, we will make sure to discourage any life that is not a perfect specimen: anyone who has any disfigurement, weakness, or lack of some capacity will be treated as less than human."

"Now to really get the point across, we should fine people for spreading humanity. Yes, if you have a baby, you should have to pay lots of money. And that money can go to…to ummm…well of course! All the harm your baby will be doing to our precious environment by existing. – What?? We have that too? Amazing! Thanks Australia for your bold distaste and hatred for humanity!”

Yes it is true. Thanks to a combination of abhorrence for humanity, infatuation for caribou and daffodils, and blind acceptance of Thomas Malthus’ theory of over population of 1798 (that has been disproved by some 3rd graders) we can now force married couples to pay taxes for having babies. Unbelievable.

Anyone who claims they are preserving the environment for the future generations of humans, while simultaneously destroying human lives is a liar, or at best a moron. Who exactly are these future generations and where are they coming from? The pro-lifers, they are the only ones who will have a future generation to speak of. Some people are “taking care” of their future generations by not having them –that’s some real preventive action there. Problem solved. But some of us need some more motivation, we need a good reason to convince us to keep the earth green. So perhaps the tagline should be rephrased, “Help us (liberals) preserve the environment for your (conservative) generations to come. Don’t worry about us, we won’t have any.”

Don’t believe me? http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html

The proposal is that if you have a baby – Boom! $5,000 and then pay another $800 annually, for get this, a “carbon tax.” Yes, that’s right. Come on, that baby is going to be leaving his nasty carbon foot print all over this planet that we worship. Least we can do is punish the parents who are responsible.

The greatest irony of all this is that while America and Europe are whipping their existence off the face of the earth via the culture of death, governments are also trying to come up with ways for people to have more babies to replace those dying, through stipends. Maybe the Australian baby tax could be sent to the U.S. and be given as a bonus to encourage couples to have babies here.

Graphic Images of Abortion

A graphic image of an aborted fetus, an unwanted child, a murdered baby. I look down to see something that disturbs me terribly, a horrible image: a baby killed before it got a chance to take his first breath. His head ripped off and black from saline burns. I wished I hadn’t seen this image. My first thought was that no one should have to see this. This picture shouldn’t exist. Who would want to see this? Is a vivid portrayal of the reality of abortion necessary? Are there other ways? As I thought about how I was disgusted by the picture, it occurred to me, it was not the image itself that bothered me so much. Rather, it was the reality of what happened that the image displayed that was so horrible. If a picture of murdered child bothers you, it’s only because the murder of the child bothers you. If its just a medical procedure, then what’s the big deal. Aren’t we just studying science? But it’s not. It’s not a patient. It’s not a specimen. It’s not research. It’s not a lump of tissue. It’s a human – or at least it was a human until the mother decided that this little tiny human was not worth the “inconvenience” of birth. She’d rather have him burnt by saline or have his brain sucked out with a tube – all pretty standard “medical procedures.” Abortion mills crank out murders and wear them like badges. The ending of the life of the unborn is celebrated like the removal of a tumor. It’s thought to be a clean, neat, medical procedure. This “neatness” comforts so many. Pro-abortion advocates will actually use this as a reason why child-killing should be allowed. “Hey, people would be doing these ‘procedures’ with a coat-hanger in the back ally. We’re just standardizing abortion with up-to-date medicine and technology to ensure a safe and unthreatening abortion.” Somehow that doesn’t put me at ease. The least it can do is distract the attention from what’s really happening by avoiding “procedure” itself. The core issue is not how it is done, but what is done. This logic is the same as saying, “People are going to use heroin any way, we just offer them clean needles,” or “People are going to commit suicide anyway, we just offer them the ability to do it in a clean and professional environment.” Is that the issue? Messiness? I’m concerned with the ending of a life. Is it somehow more humane to kill in this way rather than that way?
Period.

If a friend or family member was murdered and did not get justice and people thought it was no big deal, I would want images of their death portrayed to wake people up to the reality of the horrible thing that had happened, no matter how terrible the photos were. The purpose of showing the photos would be to make others realize the grave injustice that had take place.

I would especially challenge Christians who claim that Christ should not be displayed on the crucifix because it’s unnecessarily offensive. Is not a crucifix what actually happened?

After the holocaust, many critized those who wished to show images of the death camps. “These are too obscene and offensive,” many insisted. Even when the holocaust museum opened in DC, many sharply disagreed with the persistence of showing the horrible images. Why show them? We must show them because it is the only way to accurately convey the horridness of what happened in the Nazi death camps. For the sake of those who suffered and died and for the sake of preventing ignorance, these must be shown.

If you are for abortion, the only reason you can be upset about such images, is because you don’t want people to know the truth of what goes on inside abortion mills. If you are against abortion, the only reason these images make you upset is because it shows the naked reality of child killing.

A Dialogue over coffee: Abortion and Euthanasia

Sophia popped in the coffee shop to find Jim sitting quietly in corner, watching his latte slowly cool down. She approached him and cheerfully asked, “What’s up?”
“Not much,” Jim offered as he lazily lifted his eyes.
“Got something on your mind?” Sophia wondered.
“Actually, yea. You got a few minutes?” Jim questioned.
“Sure. What are friends for?” Sophia plopped down into the booth.

“Well, it’s not like I’m upset or anything, I’ve just been trying to figure out this whole “pro-life” thing,” Jim said sarcastically, “My sister is always making a big deal about abortion is wrong, I think it’s because she once had a miscarriage, and she’s emotional about babies and blows it all way out of proportion. Now this past week, my grandma has been in the hospital and she’s slowly dying because of her alcoholism. I don’t think its right to make her go on and suffer when she’s going to die anyway. Why should we make her last moments so painful, why not just put her out of her misery?”
“What does your sister think?”
“She keeps saying that euthanasia is wrong for the same reason abortion is wrong. So we ended up having this whole argument about abortion. But the two are obviously totally different. Come on, how can you even compare the two? One deals with a decision that will affect the rest of your life and the other deals with sparing someone pain.”
“I imagine she means because they are both ending a human life.”
“Oh great, you’re anti-choice too?” Jim demanded with frustration.
“Well, no, I’m not anti-choice. I’m just not sure the heart of the issue in these situations is choice.”
“What do you mean?”
“Well, I just want to make sure I understand your position--”
“So you don’t know yours?”
“No, I know mine. I just wanted to see where you were coming from on this. You think abortion is okay because…?”

“I’m not saying all abortion is okay. But there are definitely times when it is the best option. If the child is going to be raised in horrible situation, a bad or really poor house, and the mom doesn’t want it, she would be sparing the child a life of misery. There are probably a million different situations that would warrant an abortion, a dad who won’t support the kid, a family that disowns their teenage pregnant daughter, having to drop out of school, I could go on. Not to mention if the girl was raped or if she got pregnant from incest, or if her health is at risk if she gives birth. Does that answer your question?”
“Yea I gotcha. And you think euthanasia is okay because it puts the person out of their misery, right?”
“Again, I’m not saying you can apply it to any case, but with those who you know or going to die for sure, and if they want to go earlier, you’re just speeding up the inevitable.”
Sophia seemed to be gathering her thoughts as she looked over Jim’s head at the wall, and then offered in response, “I find it interesting that all the reasons you suggested to justify the ending of a human life deal with external consequences.”
“Well yea, that’s how you determine whether or not you should go on with it,” Jim replied.

“Well let me ask you this,” Sophia’s pitch slightly went up as she leaned forward, “If a 16 year-old girl is pregnant, does she have the right to have an abortion?”
“Well it depends on the circumstances. But in general, yea, definitely.”
“And this right is it given to her by her parents?”
“No. They should support her in her decision, but obviously a lot parents don’t care what their kids want.”
“So the right is given to her by the government?”
“No. The government is supposed to uphold and protect her right. But I don’t think the give it to her strictly speaking. I mean, if the government outlawed abortion, women would still have the right to an abortion, even if it was illegal.”
“So her right is not given to her by her parents or the government, do you somehow get this right at a certain age?”
“No.”
“Then where does it come from?”

Jim hesitated, “I guess you’re just born with it.”
“That’s interesting,” Sophia responded, “So what you’re saying is that there is some kind of universal principle that all people have and no one can take away from you.”
“Yes because each person should be able to make a decision for their own life and not be forced to do something they don’t want to do just because their parents or the government says they have to.”
“So each person has some set of rights from birth and it would be wrong if another person denied them one of these rights?”
“Yea.”
“So what happens at birth that makes a person receive this right?”
“You’re born! What do you mean what happens? That’s when you’re life begins. You know, you start breathing. You get vaccinations. You get your fingerprints taken. That’s when you become a citizen, a person, that’s where it all begins,” Jim seemed very surprised at Sophia’s question.

“I just want to make sure I understand what you’re saying, each person gets all these things when they are born that are signs of some sort of inward, irremovable right?”
“Well I’m not sure about the way you said it, but when you’re born, you become a person. That seems pretty obvious. Are you saying you disagree with that?”
“I just think it is interesting that you think a person has some kind of right from the moment their life begins, because life doesn’t begin at birth, but at conception. Because when the sperm from the man joins to the egg in the woman, a new organism that is not part of the woman’s body begins to exist.”
“What do you mean, ‘not part of her body?’” Jim seemed puzzled.

“Well, there is a different between every other cell in the woman’s body and the cell’s belonging to the baby that has been conceived.”
“But that doesn’t matter because the baby’s life depends on the mother. That’s why it is hers to do what she wants with. She created it, it depends on her, and she can get rid of it if she wants.”
“Dependency doesn’t mean she has the right to kill it. A five year-old depends on his mother for food and a mentally retarded adult depends on his caretaker, can these be killed too?”
“That’s a ridiculous question. They are totally different.”
“No they're not at all. You’re not dealing with the baby himself, you’re only looking at the exterior factors. But you said yourself that each person is born with rights that are intrinsic to them, that no one can take away. You can deny them, but you can’t make these basic rights not exist because they are automatically included with the person. They are inherent to human nature. And what I am saying is that there is no substantial change at birth, only exterior change, namely, location. The unborn baby has a beating heart, a brain, and fully formed lungs. When he’s born it is the next step, but there is no fundamental change to his existence. He doesn’t receive anything that he doesn’t already have internally. And you said yourself, that no external factor can change his rights. So how can an external change of geography effect an internal change of rights?”

“Well I’ll have to think about that,” Jim quickly responded, “But either way, it definitely does not take away a woman’s right to have an abortion, even if a human life does begin at conception. She still has the right to have an abortion because it belongs to her. She is the one who created it.”
“First of all, it takes both the man and the woman to conceive a baby, why does the father get no say? Secondly, you said yourself that each person, who your admitting began to exist at conception, has a set of rights, and it would be wrong to deny that person their rights. And if being able to have an abortion is one of those rights, the baby who is killed by her mother’s abortion is being denied her right to one day have her own abortion. That baby is being denied her basic right by being killed. In order for the mother to enact her so called “right,” she has to deny her baby all of its rights. That seems to completely take away the point of a right.”
“Interesting. But that baby doesn’t need that right as a baby, because it can’t yet get pregnant,” Jim chuckled.

“If an intrinsic right is based on the ability to exercise that right, then every time you fall asleep, you lose all your rights.”
“Well, I don’t think anyone believes that,” Jim snickered.
“Actually, that’s the logically conclusion of what you just said. And as a matter of fact, one of the main arguments for the existence of personhood today is whether or not you are conscious. But that just means if I take a nap, I’m no longer a person, and I have no rights.”
“I’m not suggesting that.”
“I’m not saying that’s your starting point, but that’s your ending point.”
“Well I definitely am not proposing that, but this is all very interesting. I have never heard any of these points.”
“Well, I think the rights we have been talking about are missing the target.”
“Go on.” Jim seemed to be more curious.

“The rights you often hear about on the news are the right to privacy, the right to own property, the right to bear arms. But these are all based on one fundamental right, the right to life. That’s why our founding fathers said that all men have a ‘right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ Think about it, if you don’t have a right to life, how can you have any other right? The rest are based on the first one. You have to be able to be born in order to own property. That’s why abortion and euthanasia are both wrong for the same reason, because they both deny the person their fundamental, intrinsic right to life. Integrity is not an award granted by the mother, the government, or anyone. But it comes as a package deal with life at the moment of conception. So what makes it wrong to kill an innocent adult is the same thing that makes abortion wrong. The two actions are the same in their essence, namely, the unjust killing of human beings.”
Jim finished the rest of his latte and seemed a bit unsatisfied at this point, or at least no longer interested in the conversation. “Well thanks for you input. You gave me a few points to chew on, but I gotta roll. I’ll catch you later on.”

Free Sickness!

Looking for an increased risk of breast cancer, cervical cancer; blood clots; high blood pressure; liver tumors, migraine headaches; gallbladder disease; cervicitis; heart attacks, heart disease; depression, weight gain, acne, loss of libido and more? Search no further, to achieve these desirable effects, just take this pill! You only have to take it once a month and it comes in a cool round container! (Also, as a side effect, it prevents pregnancy).

Believe it or not, these are the very real side effects of “the pill.”
These cannot possibly be the effects of “the pill” you are probably saying. If this was true, people would know about it. Our society is very health conscious and studies meticulously the findings of science and medicine right? A few facts to think about:

1) The alternative to contraception, natural family planning (which helps couples monitor their fertility so they know when they are and are not fertile), is free and requires no medicines. Do you think the multi-billion dollar companies are anxious to tell you about the unsafe side effects of their product and would rather you use an alternative, safe, and free method that doesn’t involve cramming your body full of estrogen and progestin?

2) “The pill” allows people to freely engage in sex with anyone at anytime without the result of pregnancy. For those who prefer treating their bodies (or having them treated) like objects and machines, “the pill” affords this luxury. To those enslaved to their passions 8 days a week, do you think they are anxious to practice periods of abstinence? Of course we all know that a week without sex would be an impossible feat. In fact, we should make a movie out of someone who tries to make it that long, except, we’ll stretch out the time period to 40 days, to drive home the ridiculousness of such a thought.

3) Any findings that would show any negative effects (physical effects are the topic here, the emotional and psychological effects are much more detrimental), would be brushed under the rug or assumed to be some sort of miscalculation, exception, or error. Again, any one who supports sex with no “consequences,” that is, pregnancy, will turn their head away from any sign, no matter how large, that points to the dangers of “the pill.”

Yet there are those who see these horrific effects and are screaming from the roof tops for a closer look from all those who monthly swallow the secular world’s lies along with pernicious dosages of synthetic estrogen and progestin. This you might consider to be one of those efforts in the hopes of raising a red flag.

Being fertile is a state of being healthy. To get pregnant something has to go right. “The pill” treats fertility and pregnancy as a disease. This is the only “medicine” that treats a healthy state as sickness.


Please, for the sake of your own health, do not take “the pill.”



A few other fun facts on Breast Cancer and contraception:
1. Since 1980, 21 research studies have been done on Breast Cancer and “the pill.” 18 of these
have yielded that pill users are at higher risk for Breast Cancer.
2. In 1990, it was found that women who used the pill for 4 or more years before their first full
term pregnancy had a 72% increased risk of developing breast cancer!
3. Besides “the pill,” other contraception such as Depo-Provera (the shot that keeps
you infertile for apprx. 2 years) triples the risk of Breast Cancer!

The History of equating human life with raw seaweed

What is a human person? It may seem like a pretty obvious question at first glance, but a quick look through history and at our contemporary culture shows there to be no agreement across the board. Why is the question pertinent? What’s the big deal? The big deal that we are concerned with here is rights. If you are a human person you have, to use the language of our founding fathers, “inalienable rights.” But over and over again, and sadly today as well, we see one group of people denying another group of people certain rights. Should we be surprised that their rationale is that the other group of “sub-people” does not have rights because they are not really human persons? No. Should we be upset about it? Yes.

So the question at hand is, “What is a human person?” and the follow up question is, “What sort of rights follow from being a person?” It is important that we do not look at the issue the other way around. If we start by saying, “Well, I think that you should be able to do such and such…” then we will simply define a person to be one that fits into our desired system of rights. But before we answer this question, let’s look at some of the ways people have been denied their identity as human persons in history, and the grounds for the degradation from humanity.
Slavery. Slaves in the United States, as well as other countries, were thought of as less than human. Why? Skin color. It was viewed that a certain pigment made you human; a lack of the right hue and you cannot ask to be respected, listened to, loved, understood, or judged fairly. In fact, you were just another persons property. Does that make you upset? I hope so.

Nazism. Jews, as well as other ethnic and religious groups were denied to be fully human. They did not embody what it took to have rights, freedom, or control over their own life. Their lives were not seen as human and thus had no value. Do you see something wrong here?
Margaret Sanger. She didn’t just hate babies, but the lower class, the uneducated, and non-Caucasian races. In the 1920’s, the poor were encouraged to sterilize themselves because it was believed that people were genetically determined. If you were poor, then your children are unavoidably going to face that same sub-human life. And who wants a bunch of less-than-human bodies walking around.

Do you see a connection between each of these views? What’s the problem here that obviously has not gone away? The human person is always reduced to something. Today it is how much money they have, that invisible number that floats next to your head. You know, that stuff that makes you feel important and helps you decide how much respect to give to another person. Oooh, he’s got a tie on, “Well hello sir!” Ew, he’s a bum, “Don’t make eye contact!”

In the 1990’s the Human Genome Project was underway. About ten years later it was completed. The goal? To completely understand what makes your body do the things you do. For many, it was the hope to take your DNA, put all the info on a floppy disk and carry in your pocket. Then you could take out your little map of yourself and say, “Here I am. This is my entire existence!” This view of reducing a human to his DNA fell short although it did persist for a while. Why? Because something doesn’t line up when you hear, “You’re a bunch of chromosomes. That’s all you are, just a genetic make-up.”

We have seen examples of people being reduced to a certain part of their humanity, whether their skin color, race, wealth, or genes. All of these discriminations still are rampant in our society today. But if it were only these, we would be much better off than the current state. We also think age, size, and worst of all consciousness, yes consciousness determine whether or not you are a human person.

Look at Hollywood. The glamorized, artificial, narcissistic lifestyle floods the media. You cannot see an ad that does not push sex in some way. What is the message? You have to be attractive to be important, to have worth, value, or deserve attention. You are too old, you are not worth while. Beauty before age?

What about size? Well, you are too small, too physically unformed to be a person. I mean, hey, you are dependent on another for your own existence. You’re life is expendable. Who am I talking about? The little human inside the womb. Where is the magic ferry dust that suddenly gives a baby rights when his geographic location changes from in the womb to outside of it? Forget about the fact that this particular human life began at conception. No doctor or scientist will deny that at conception a new organism, not a part of the mother’s body, has begun to exist. Yet, we are not sure if the fetus (which is latin for baby) is a life. Let’s not mention the fact that it is because we are approaching the problem backwards. That is, we don’t want it to be a life, we don’t want the unborn child to have rights. So we come up with a definition of life that excludes…whatever it is exactly that this fetus-ball-of-tissue-thing is. We know it’s not a human person! Never mind that he has a beating heart. Never mind that he can feel pain. Never mind that he squirms to get away from the sulfur used by abortionists to take his life!
What about consciousness? Again we have approached the problem upside down. We start with the fact that we no longer want these ICU patients burdening us with their lives that drag on. So we make a definition of human life that excludes them. I can picture this whole thing unfolding: “Umm…let’s see...you are human if can no longer play horseshoes…no, if can no longer read Margaret Sanger pamphlets…no, if you’re conscious. Yea! That’s it! You have to be conscious to really be a human with rights!” What about sleeping? If you can unplug Terri Shaivo’s feeding tube so she starves to death, then you can shoot me in the head during my power nap. There is no difference.

Well then, if you are not your skin color, age, wealth, health, size, characteristics, consciousness, or even a composite of all these features, what exactly are you? What makes a person and if there are any rights that go with being human, when do they begin and when do they end?
Human life begins at conception, the moment when the sperm fertilizes the egg, and it ends when the cardio-pulmonary system permanently ceases to function. And what is the basis of rights? Life is intrinsically valuable. There is worth tied into each human being that no one can give or take away. This value can be acknowledged or denied, but it’s presence begins at conception and ends at death because the very presence of the human person is itself valuable.
It is sad that we have to argue for this view that was obvious those who wrote our Constitution. Our founding fathers did not argue for the existence of human dignity based on the enacting of some power of the body. The words, “We find these truths to be self-evident…” might come as a shock to many today, “…that all men were created equal…” Equal, what does that mean? What does this equal starting ground afford you as a person? “…and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…” To have life is to have worth, not because your parents, your government, or even you decide there is something valuable here. But life in itself is undeniably valuable. We should dwell on the word inalienable rights. Abortion and Euthanasia advocates must hate that word. The whole point of these life-ending tasks is to alienate the human, who is being killed, from their natural rights. Abortion and euthanasia in effect say, “We have decided that your life is not valuable. You no longer have any rights and your life is in the hands of others to decide what will be done with it. Just as slaves, Jews, and the poor have experienced in the past, so too, the unborn are denied status as human person because they do not meet the latest qualifications.

Human babies have no right to life, but dogs and trees do? More on this perversion next.

Breaking News: Sex Causes Babies...

“Yes it’s hard to believe, but scientists have discovered a link between intercourse and the generation of human life.”

I would not be surprised to read this headline in the newspaper one morning. We have completely divorced nature from our bodies, which we now operate like machines. Everybody’s machine-um-body, is their own to do whatever they want with right? I mean, no one can agree on any absolutes. To each his own, ya know, whatever floats your boat. Except for, of course, one common fact that all people believe in: the right to have sex with anyone at anytime with out any “consequences.” And by “consequences” we mean disease or babies. But don’t try mentioning the first thing that comes to your mind, that seems so obvious: What about just not having sex? Unless you want to be accused of hating freedom, don’t throw around that abstinence talk in mixed company. That’s as offensive as it gets today.

You’re 11 and having sex? No biggie. Start taking a regular dosage of estrogen once a month for the rest of your life-well until your 30 and you’ve climbed the corporate ladder-then you can have one kid, maybe two, if for some odd reason a pet cat or dog isn’t satisfying you. We won’t mention the fact that the "pill" gives you increased risks of some small health concerns, you know, blood clots, strokes, the usual. Not to mention the fact you’re at least twice as likely to have miscarriages and you need at least a year of being off the “pill” before your body can adjust to not being heavily drugged. But all these health issues and more are apparently worth it for the sake of preserving immorality.

Why does our society, who worships science and medicine, refuse to acknowledge how horrible the “pill” is for you? It’s not because they don’t know, that’s for sure. It’s because sex is happiness and freedom-that is-sex with out consequences. And birth control allows for this great “freedom.” Abstinence programs? No, they are just manipulation used by some crazy religious groups seeking to impose their concern for life on the rest of the world. Society needs the pill no matter what the cost because they worship the great sexual “freedom” that it affords. (Cost also being very important monetarily, the pill is multi-million dollar industry, abstinence raises approximately $0 dollars a year).

So basically; Sex, good. Babies, bad. Solution? The pill. The pill didn’t work? Plan B: here try this pill, the morning after pill. Still pregnant? What madness. Here, have an abortion. Adoption? What a ridiculous suggestion. You shouldn't have to go through that. It's not like anything you did merits a birth.

Condoms, the pill, abortion, getting your “tubes tied.” Barren wombs are what America desires. Perhaps I have read the past 3,000 years or so of history a bit differently than some, but I seem to recall a child always being a wonderful thing, a blessing if I dare to use such an offensive deity-implying word. A new life came from your own loins, to pass on your family line! Getting pregnant means something went right. Now fertility is a problem, a disease, a sickness that needs a pill. For some reason the words of one man who spoke on the subject keep coming to mind. As they lead him to his execution, some of his followers cried out for his life. He responded, “do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed!’”

Today we are shocked and angry at the natural causation of pregnancy from sex. And we want to do everything possible to divorce the two and prevent this problematic correlation. We rejoice in creating lifeless wombs. What a horrible and backwards celebration.

Breaking News: McDonald’s makes you fat…