Stand Firm

Sanger the devil (part 2)

2008-03-12T10:57:00.000-07:00

If you want to be deeply disturbed, read this.

“Woman must have her freedom—the fundamental freedom of choosing whether or not she shall be a mother and how many children she will have.” -Margaret Sanger

The fundamental problem here is the unlearnability that sex is the source of babies. Margaret Sanger’s insists that a woman’s fundamental freedom or right lies in her choosing of whether or not she should be a mom. Okay, great, then don’t have sex if you don’t want to be a mom, or at least don’t have sex when you are ovulating, but no one even knows one that means today because our culture’s championing of birth control has cost us our biological awareness on top of losing our morality. Insisting, “A woman should be able to have sex whenever she wants,” and in the same breathe saying, “…And she should be able to choose whether or not she should be a mom.” Is like saying, “A woman should be able to eat as many hot dogs and she wants…and she should be able to choose whether or not she ends up on the Jenny Craig diet.” Don’t want to be morbidly obese? Don’t overeat. Don’t want to get pregnant? Don’t have sex when you are ovulating. Why is that so difficult to figure out? Sanger’s error is her separation of pregnancy from intercourse. It would be like a football player who tried out for the team, made it, got all dressed up for the game, and then walked on the field and insisted, “Every player should have the right to not be tackled.” Then he would proceed on the field and be shocked to be tackled when he picked up the ball. If he was afraid of being tackled, he shouldn’t be playing. Pregnancy is part of sex, it’s the point of “the game.” Something has to go right for you to get pregnant. If you don’t want this natural result, get out of the game.

So as I began to say last post, I stepped into Satan’s playground (PP) to see what was going on in there. I found their defense of the founder, the Leviathan’s bag runner (Margaret Sanger) who they proudly insisted was an upstanding citizen and was loving, compassionate, and out for the good of everyone. Here is a fun excerpt from their site where they defend the integrity of Sanger from false quotes or quotes taken out of context. In their own words (excerpt begins with “Through the years…”and ends with the chart):

Through the years, a number of alleged Sanger quotations, or allegations about her, have surfaced with regularity in anti-family planning publications:

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."This statement is taken out of context from Margaret Sanger's Woman and the New Race (Sanger, 1920). Sanger was making an ironic comment — not a prescriptive one — about the horrifying rate of infant mortality among large families of early 20th-century urban America. The statement, as grim as the conditions that prompted Sanger to make it, accompanied this chart, illustrating the infant death rate in 1920:

Deaths During First Year

1st born children 23% 7th born children 31%
2nd born children 20% 8th born children 33%
3rd born children 21% 9th born children 35%
4th born children 23% 10th born children 41%
5th born children 26% 11th born children 51%
6th born children 31% 12th born children 60%

Somehow I don’t foresee any context that could possibly justify this statement. Truly, there cannot be one. But I did want to know the context anyway. In fact, I was quite interested, so I looked around until I actually found the book that this quote came from. Here is some context for you, the title of the chapter is, “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.” How’s that for putting it in perspective? We will look at the whole chapter a bit more, but first let’s look at this blurb.

I just want to make sure I have this straight, in order to avoid a possible death, you should go ahead a kill that child? That makes sense.
First of all, possible is a key word. The child may die, so hey, why not speed up the process?
Second, even if it was certain death, there is still something wrong with killing an innocent child. Why is it wrong? Because every child has internal value. The mother not wanting the child to live does not take away her baby’s value. Even if all of those stats read 99% or 100% chance of death, it would still be fundamentally wrong and unjust to kill the child. It doesn’t matter what sort of life that baby is entering into –be it poverty or the life of a gangster. (You can see how abortion has lead to racism and elitism, and why Sanger is right behind that smoking gun too). The bottom line is that any life is better than no life at all. Why? Because human life has intrinsic value. Life is better than no life at all because that which has value is better than that which has no value. Therefore, any human life, no matter how short or feeble, is incredibly valuable by merit of it’s very existence. To deny this is to take on the same mindset as Satan’s monkey boy Sanger.

Margaret Sanger: The Devil's Monkey Boy. "Dance Monkey! Dance!"

2008-03-11T10:14:00.000-07:00

So I decided to do it, against my own desire, I entered the belly of the beast. As disturbing as it is, I knew in the name of research I had to go onto planned parenthood’s website to hear it from their own lips. Actually, my journey began with researching Margaret Sanger. I was surprised to see no sign of her on any of the major abortion advocates’ (aka “pro-choice”) websites. But then, of course, I found her where she could not be denied, in the records of her legacy. Yes, she is the founder of the organization that fights for certain “rights” and “choices.” Which rights? Which choices? Well the choice and the right of a mother to murder the life of the baby inside her, the life that she (and another person I might point out-traditionally a man- but someone, pro-abortionists are in denial about this disturbing fact) had created. Planned Parenthood, aka Satan’s happy chair, continues in this wonderful tradition of protecting the “right” of in-utero baby killing. Yet, in the name of safety, health, science, and technology, Satan’s massage chair masks the deaths of these little babies under the cover of a “right.” Hordes of problems are flowing from this perspective, but would you expect any less from the devil’s own legacy? In order to deal with Margaret Sanger’s horrific views, we must first examine some preliminary questions.

The first question is “what is a right?” A right pertains to justice, so justice is where we begin. Justice is what is due to a person, what is owed or deserved. It is just, it is right, fitting, and good for a person to receive a certain type of treatment, award, punishment, if that person has done something that merits such a thing. To give one what is owed to him would be just. Thus, when one speaks of “my right,” he must have done this thing that affords him the right. If being a citizen of a country affords you the right to have a say in the political affairs of that country, that is, voting, then if you are legitimately a citizen, the right to vote belongs to you. Fundamentally, it is just for you to be able to vote and unjust for you to be prevented from voting. It is also important to realize that you can only speak of rights as long as it is objective. If there is no objective, unchangeable good, then there is no point in us having a conversation about so called “rights.” The best we could do is talk about opinions which would probably lead us to utilitarianism, that is, the greatest good (that is, what we decide is good) for the greatest number of people. (That sounds pretty good actually, if your name is Adolf Hitler or Margaret Sanger).

So justice is that which is due to every person. By merit of being conceived, that is, by becoming a human being, each person has the right to life. This is because each person has internal, intrinsic, inherent value. It is this value that is denied, ignored, and obliterated when that innocent person’s life is taken from them. This is injustice because their right to life is violated. My desire or lack of desire for any given baby to continue having life or not having life is irrelevant to that baby’s worth and value. Just as the fact that I want to be rich and famous doesn’t actually turn me into Brad Pitt.

Many claim that by not having access to abortion, they are being denied a certain “right.” What exactly is this right? What is this based on? How is killing the baby in your womb a right? No one ever has the right to take another innocent person’s life. This fundamentally flawed logic has a ripple effect that creates a wave of erring beliefs that "justify" the murdering of millions. People will make various claims such as:

1) Because they are the one that gave life to the child, the child therefore has no rights and the mother somehow absorbs up the child’s rights because she conceived it. This is why we have slogans like, “keep your laws off my body.” The irony is that the “laws” being protested are not threatening the woman’s body, but are concerned with saving the baby’s body. A mother does not have the right to end her child’s life in her womb any more than she has the right to end her child’s life outside the womb. What’s the difference?

2) The extreme response that has become normative today is this view that the baby is not a person! Yes, we have separated human beings from human persons in order to be consistent in defending the precious “right” to abortion. Metaphysically, scientifically, and medically, it is quite obvious, that at conception a new being, that is not “part” of the mother but is a distinct being, begins to exist. The standard is that rights belong to each human being (who is also a person). Against this standard, we now have the view that only persons (because not all human beings are “persons”) have rights. What is a person you ask? Well that is easy. Imagine the pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia folks sitting around a table pondering this question: “How can we define a person so that makes it acceptable for us to kill the babies and elderly when we want to? Hmm…Yes that’s it! If you are conscious, if you can object to the ending of your life, then you are a person. But if you cannot reply, you’re not a person!” I would hate to fall asleep around one of these guys. Why not slice me up for organs? It takes this view of a personhood, one that can be lost and gained throughout one’s life, in order to justify abortion.

Among those who hold to this view, very few follow this logic to its necessary end. One man insane enough to do so is Peter Singer. He finally admitted what pro-lifers had been screaming, “If killing a baby in the womb is wrong, why is killing a baby just outside that womb wrong?” There is no internal change of value all of a sudden. What makes that baby have no right to life minutes before it is born and then suddenly have every right to life after exiting the womb?

All this just to get to Margaret Sanger. I think I will have to take a nap and hope I don't get my head lopped off by any of Sanger's followers between my episodes of "personhood" and "mass of tissue" -so I can finish the rest of this blog...

America, the greatest nation?

2008-02-05T09:36:00.000-08:00

It seems like every day you can hear any given politician say, “We live in the greatest nation in the world.” I always wonder what makes us great. Are we proud that 4,000 lives are willfully ended each day via abortion? Are we so impressed by the oratory skills of our world leaders and their ability to drop puzzling metaphysical questions such as, “That depends on what your definition of is is?” Or maybe we just think greatness is measured by the size of our debt. Whatever it is, I can tell you what it is certainly not, and I’m talking about our concern for the family.

The United States is one of four countries in the world that does not provide any sort of paid maternity leave! We rank right behind Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland. These countries have been ravished by war, famine, and other terrible atrocities. What is our excuse?

Yes folks, this is true, we could not possibly care less about mothers and children, about the family thriving, about solid values or virtues. Our excuse? We have work to get done! Get that kid into day care so you can come back and make some money!

Don’t get me wrong, I love our country. And I’m not anti-government or some sort of conspiracy theorist. But the morality of our country has certainly plummeted in the last 200 years. We may have progressed with our technology, but our moral values have nearly vanished, and the family is vanishing along with it as abortion, contraception, gay marriage, euthanasia, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research hack away at our country’s moral foundation.

As first time mother Linda Strauss McIlroy said as she prepared to place her two-month old baby into day-care so she could return to work, “It's hard for me to imagine leaving him. Just not being with him all day, leaving him with a virtual stranger. And then that's it till, you know, I retire. It's kind of crazy to think about it.”

I’m not settling for crazy, it’s horrible.

Read more about it:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-07-26-maternity-leave_x.htm
http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200702/family.html

“Pro-life” is not enough

2008-01-30T11:58:00.000-08:00

There are three reasons not to use the pill.

1) It causes Abortion, which is murder, which is immoral.
2) It makes God’s creative act impossible by separating his natural way of creating life from
the venue in which he designed it, the marital union. Hence, it is immoral.
3) It is bad for your physical health (which is also immoral, if the person knowingly harms
herself).

Why do we still use the pill?

The answer is metaphysics. What is metaphysics? It is the fundamental realm of being. It is the natural way of life, organizing principles, and laws. Our immorality stems out of a denial of these principles. What the heck am I talking about?

A human is a human. That seems pretty obvious right? As crazy as it sounds, many actually do not believe this. Why don’t they believe this? So they can support abortion. Instead we have the view that a human is only a human when the mother (or, sadly, often the father, or grandparents) says it is a human. What’s that sound like?

Friend of pregnant woman: “Are you pregnant.”
Woman: “Yes. But I’m having an abortion.”
Friend: “You’re going to kill your baby?”
Woman: “It’s not a baby.”
Friend: “Then what are you pregnant with?”

This is a violation of a fundamental law of metaphysics: The Principle of Identity. This states that every being is itself or that every being is identical with itself. Or, in our current situation, an unborn baby human is an unborn baby human.

The third reason alone (physical effects) should be enough to deter anyone (cancer, blood-clots, etc.). The first two (moral) reasons are the most difficult to convince our secular society of, as we truly live in an amoral age of this world. Yet why are these reasons not deterring pill usage?

Let’s take a quick look at the recent history of the pill usage in our country. Let’s go to the 1930’s, yes, we had the pill in the 1930’s, don’t think it to be some invention of last few decades. There has also been abortion and infanticide (as well as contraception) for thousands of years.

My beef here is with pro-lifers. Christians have always defended life against these forms of child-killing. But in the 1930’s the Anglican Church okayed the use of the pill (for married couples only of course). This was received harshly by virtually every Protestant Church at the time (as well as the Catholic Church).

It didn’t take long for folks to figure out, if you can be married and not have children through pill usage, you can use the same pill out of wedlock, and a perfect platform for immorality was given a new glossy finish.

Contraception has always been immoral for reason #2 (preventing God’s creative act). Is it a coincidence that the most intimate act is also the only creative act? Who dares to remove God’s work of creation from its proper setting?

But that is not the only problem here. It also ends the life of a newly conceived soul! Yes, one of the ways the pill works is it ends the life of the already existing human by making an environment hostile to the little life. The very argument (of pro-lifers) against abortion is that it ends the life that was created after conception. So how can one who uses this argument also use the pill that ends a life after conception? We’re stuck in crappy metaphysics again. If you are against abortion you have to be against contraception or you contradict yourself. The pill causes abortions. To truly be pro-life, one must also have an anti-contraceptive mentality.

Abortion: Bad for your brain

2008-01-22T06:57:00.000-08:00

Well at least it is according to all those wacky anti-choice advocates who just make stuff up like that because they hate freedom, right? Have you ever wondered what kind of evidence it would take for a pro-choice researcher to admit the connection between abortion and any of its negative effects? (You know, depression, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, anxiety, sleep disorders, and other psychiatric problems, just to name a few). The answer is a lot.

So when David M. Ferugsson, pro-choice professor, noted in a paper on abortion and mental health,

"it is difficult to disregard the real possibility that abortion is associated with increased risks of mental health problems,"

it makes you wonder what he stumbled upon. You can sense his grasp of the definite problematic nature of abortion and simultaneously see his hesitancy to admit the damages of abortion. He comes off strong, "it is difficult to disregard the real possibility..." then he kicks it over into a defensive mode of, "but that is ridiculous and could never happen." His language shows his compensation for hiding the shocking truth. "...that abortion is associated with increased risk..."

Associated? Perhaps they are acquaintances? What he's doing is acknowledging a fact with weak language. The double-effect here is that while he can say he is reporting his findings, he is also saying "there is no conclusive evidence."

Allow me to rephrase his statement, "Only an idiot could ignore the obvious connection between abortion and poor mental health, but it would be a presumptuous long-shot to assume there is a link between abortion and mental health problems. And of course, that depends on what your definition of is is."

read it: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01538.x

Quote on marraige and pregnancy

2008-01-07T13:16:00.001-08:00

I intended to relate this quote in my last rant, but it slipped away amidst the angry typing. This is in opposition to they typical attitude of "Marriage and family is for those with an IQ below 61." I saw a husband on some TV show say something to this extent about his wife being pregnant: "There are two times in a woman's life when she is more beautiful then ever, on her wedding day, and when she's pregnant." Amen brother.

Why is she so beautiful then? Because her love for another is physically evident. On her wedding day, by the white dress and through her pregnancy, by her belly. Compare this with one who is frustrated and confused when their friend is having a wedding or gets pregnant. Some just see the beauty of life-giving love, others are blinded and stupified by it.

Marriage is for quitters. Children are for losers.

2008-01-04T10:00:00.000-08:00

"Why are you getting married?"

This is a fun question to field from a 30-something year-old disenchanted married man. I got a few of these snide remarks and a few of my buddies shared similar experiences during their engagements. Nothing like an regretfully married man trying to talk some sense into you. Maybe they are right. Why should a youngster get married? I mean, hey, why not wait till you're in your mid-30's, climb the corporate ladder, get established, see the world, figure out who you are (for the record i really hate that phrase), and then settle down. "Settling" seems precisely to be what most the world thinks marriage is.

Yes folks, I have given up. That's it. I just tried my hardest, but I figured marriage is the easy way out. Is that why people really think I would get married before 25? Hey I'm just getting started here! Marriage isn't the end of the road but the beginning.

Our problem today is that we are so incredibly self-absorbed that we have forgotten how to love. We only love ourselves in the sense that we only want what will make us feel good. We live in the United States of Narcissism. This is why Oprah is not my role model. Her credo is "It's time to feel good." Go ahead, eat that whole gallon of ice cream, do your yoga, read "What Color is your parachute." We are so self-centered that we cannot go from self-help to helping others. How can we love others if we cannot take our eyes off of ourselves?

Marriage is not about seeking to make yourself happy. It's about seeking to make your spouse happy. Yes, when you first meet someone, your motives are selfish. She's hot. She's funny. You like the way she makes you feel when you are around her. But as you grow closer together, you get to the point where if you love her, you will act as to please her. This is why marriage is difficult, because it's hard to put another before yourself. And this is why marriage is unthinkable to many today, because they cannot image putting another first. Further, they cannot see how self-sacrifice could actually be more fulfilling then watching Oprah elbow-deep in Sour Cream and Cheddar Lays. If the initial attraction and love never matures to a self-sacrificing true love, then there cannot be happiness, but only a bitter attitude that makes you see a young guy at his bachelor party and gripe at him, "Why you getting married?"

Marital love is meant to be self giving. And this is where children come from. A total gift of self gives new life. It is out of love that a life can come and this is a new opportunity to love. A child is not the answer to loneliness, that's what cat's are for. A child is meant to be nourished by a mother and father. Parents should be excited at the possibility of creating new life. What a great opportunity! What a blessing! Instead, kids today are those little things that prevent you from going out to bars late, from midnight screenings of Star Wars episode 98, from playing video games till 4 am. "He has no life," because he can't stay out late. Why can't his life be raising a new life? Instead of being thrilled to have the chance to raise kids we are disgruntled that we are being taken away from Grey's Anatomy and Halo. What a shame. Get over yourself .

Dogs are people too

2007-12-12T08:06:00.000-08:00

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

2007-12-04T09:31:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-28T10:34:00.000-08:00

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!

2007-11-21T10:12:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-13T18:58:00.000-08:00

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...

2007-10-20T10:57:00.000-07:00

“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…