Yes!!! I finally did it! I've had this idea in the back of my mind ever since I started this blog. Here's my first attempt at designing a pro-life bumper sticker.
http://www.zazzle.com/pro_life_bumper_sticker-128225514749136756
If you don't want to pay for one, just let me know and I'll send you one for free.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Aborted Baby Used to Make Tastier Food
An offhand comment by a friend brought this issue to my awareness. The comment was something along the lines of "We're living in an age when it's acceptable to use kidney cells from aborted fetuses to sweeten our soda." My jaw did, literally, drop. This person is not in the habit of lying, but I wanted to know the details... so I looked it up. Thanks, Google.
Turns out, it's true.
http://www.naturalnews.com/034777_Pepsi_aborted_fetus_cells_soda_flavoring.html
Make sure you look at all the citations.
Now, as any participant in, and most observers of, the culture wars know, it's all about language, defining your terms. We're "pro-life," they're "pro-choice." We are "against women's health," they are "pro-death." So it is with this argument. You will find articles (as I did) on the opposite extremes of the culture wars here. According to this NPR blog post, it's merely a case of using stem cells in food research. This NaturalNews.com post calls it a little more bluntly by indicating that aborted fetus cells are being used to make sweeter food. And the waters are further muddied by the Oklahoma State Senator who is attempting to ban food containing fetuses in his home state, which, of course, making the fur fly on both sides. (By the way - thanks Senator Shortey)
I will mention briefly, but gloss over the fact that I could stop right here. It disgusts me to think that our consumer-driven economy needs to perform biomedical-level research to make food sweeter so that more people will buy it and stuff their faces with it. Dear God! How many millions were spent on that research? How many man-hours? Whose pockets are being lined by it? What greater good is served by it?
As if that isn't disturbing enough (and trust me, it gets worse), check this out.
If NPR is to be trusted, the cells in question are part of a cell line called HEK 293 that was indeed cultured from an "electively aborted fetus" (read, a little baby killed in the womb) in the early 70's. Mothers, fathers and all prospective parents - I HOPE YOU'RE LISTENING. The life you helped create could be ended and its kidneys could be used to increase the market share of whatever giant food conglomerate is willing to pay for it. I don't think it's disingenuous to frame it this way. This is exactly what is happening. Yes, "Stem Cell Research" is another name for it. A much cleaner, cooler sounding name. A name you usually associate with things like much-promised miracle drugs and other life-saving discoveries. But there's a hideous, disgusting truth behind it, and this soda thing is just one tiny corner of it. It doesn't sound so cool when it's being used to fatten up your second-graders and get them addicted to stuff that will eventually complete the vicious circle by bolstering the coffers of the pharma companies when early-onset diabetes and weight-related heart issues kick in. Then they can fund more "medical" research that will ultimately be used for... who knows? Use your imagination. Just be sure to put your cynical horror cap on first, because that's the only way you'll ever be able to make what you think of match reality.
Turns out, it's true.
http://www.naturalnews.com/034777_Pepsi_aborted_fetus_cells_soda_flavoring.html
Make sure you look at all the citations.
Now, as any participant in, and most observers of, the culture wars know, it's all about language, defining your terms. We're "pro-life," they're "pro-choice." We are "against women's health," they are "pro-death." So it is with this argument. You will find articles (as I did) on the opposite extremes of the culture wars here. According to this NPR blog post, it's merely a case of using stem cells in food research. This NaturalNews.com post calls it a little more bluntly by indicating that aborted fetus cells are being used to make sweeter food. And the waters are further muddied by the Oklahoma State Senator who is attempting to ban food containing fetuses in his home state, which, of course, making the fur fly on both sides. (By the way - thanks Senator Shortey)
I will mention briefly, but gloss over the fact that I could stop right here. It disgusts me to think that our consumer-driven economy needs to perform biomedical-level research to make food sweeter so that more people will buy it and stuff their faces with it. Dear God! How many millions were spent on that research? How many man-hours? Whose pockets are being lined by it? What greater good is served by it?
As if that isn't disturbing enough (and trust me, it gets worse), check this out.
If NPR is to be trusted, the cells in question are part of a cell line called HEK 293 that was indeed cultured from an "electively aborted fetus" (read, a little baby killed in the womb) in the early 70's. Mothers, fathers and all prospective parents - I HOPE YOU'RE LISTENING. The life you helped create could be ended and its kidneys could be used to increase the market share of whatever giant food conglomerate is willing to pay for it. I don't think it's disingenuous to frame it this way. This is exactly what is happening. Yes, "Stem Cell Research" is another name for it. A much cleaner, cooler sounding name. A name you usually associate with things like much-promised miracle drugs and other life-saving discoveries. But there's a hideous, disgusting truth behind it, and this soda thing is just one tiny corner of it. It doesn't sound so cool when it's being used to fatten up your second-graders and get them addicted to stuff that will eventually complete the vicious circle by bolstering the coffers of the pharma companies when early-onset diabetes and weight-related heart issues kick in. Then they can fund more "medical" research that will ultimately be used for... who knows? Use your imagination. Just be sure to put your cynical horror cap on first, because that's the only way you'll ever be able to make what you think of match reality.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
For Example...
Our fifth child was born on Friday. And it's interesting how people react. Seems like most folks were ok with me having four kids. Apparently, five is pushing the limit. I've gotten that extra raised eyebrow more often than before. A few more questions paraphrased as "you gonna stop after this one?" I always say the same thing. "We'll see."
I'd prefer to keep the discussion here to abortion, not family planning. So I'd like to throw this out there - a well-known truth. A picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, I wish it was worth a thousand lives. Consider this a type of positive propaganda.
You would not want to be responsible for "terminating" this little guy, would you?
We are immersed in a culture of choice. You can choose to have or do anything you want - as long as it isn't illegal. And the protection of those choices is used as justification for a lot of silliness. But what I'm talking about here isn't even remotely silly.
It would have been entirely legal for my wife to exercise her rights to choose not to bring this pregnancy to full term. Notice the euphemisms.
I'd prefer to keep the discussion here to abortion, not family planning. So I'd like to throw this out there - a well-known truth. A picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, I wish it was worth a thousand lives. Consider this a type of positive propaganda.
You would not want to be responsible for "terminating" this little guy, would you?
 |
| Edmund - 20 hours old |
We are immersed in a culture of choice. You can choose to have or do anything you want - as long as it isn't illegal. And the protection of those choices is used as justification for a lot of silliness. But what I'm talking about here isn't even remotely silly.
It would have been entirely legal for my wife to exercise her rights to choose not to bring this pregnancy to full term. Notice the euphemisms.
euphemism [yoo-fuh-miz-uhm] - the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt.
- This Pregnancy - This term is used to distract you from the fact that you are dealing with a real person in the womb. This isn't how real people even talk. When the father asks the mother how things are going, he doesn't say "how is your pregnancy today?" He says "how is the baby today?"
- Bring to Full Term - This implies that we are simply dealing with a medical phenomenon that can either run its course, or not, depending on a minor medical procedure. Again, it is designed to mask the fact that we are talking about the life or death of a little baby.
Obviously, the thought of an abortion never crossed my wife's mind. It never could - she knows what she's dealing with. But so many people don't. At least, I assume they don't. If they did, how could they choose to have an abortion?
Don't be fooled. Don't be sucked in. If you are considering an abortion, chances are good that something serious is behind it. I get that. But whatever it is, it can't be serious enough to justify taking an innocent life. Every life is beautiful - especially that tiny life inside you right now. Protect it. Don't throw it away.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Sacrifice
I wrote this essay likening abortion to human sacrifice when I was doing my undergrad degree at Northern Michigan University - I think it was probably 2002 or 2003.
===================================================
I’m taking a class about the history of Mexico and every time I turn around, I think of our neighbors to the south. Of course, being the college-age male that I am, there are certain parts of Mexican history that I’m probably going to remember better than others. Take, oh, human sacrifice for example. I guess it’s hard to forget that kind of thing once you manage to wrap your mind around the fact that real people were getting really killed in really gruesome ways. In central Mexico, human sacrifice was carried out to such an extent that it even managed to make a not-so-nice band of Spanish mercenaries sick to their stomachs when they saw it.
The Aztecs literally considered human sacrifice to be a part of their mission as a messianic people. Although the majority of those murdered were prisoners of war, many Aztecs considered it to be an honor to have their blood shed on the temple steps. Why, you ask? Why would any mother give up her son to have his heart taken out or his head taken off or to be buried alive? Because she was told that it was for the good of society. And since it was for the good of society, it was also good for her and every other family member that was left behind.
Please understand; I’m not trying to pick on any one nation or culture. Practically every society on earth has practiced human sacrifice at one time or another. It’s embarrassing, but at least it’s ancient history… right? Think again. It turns out that even in our country of supposedly endless freedom human sacrifice is practiced on a level that makes the Aztecs look like innocent children.
Worse yet, we kill babies. We starve them and we dismember them and other things too horrible to mention. But hey, it’s for the betterment of society right? At least, that’s what the scientific and medical professions tell us - it's about health and a better, freer society. Isn’t that ironic? As if the parallel was't frightening enough, members of those professions often enjoy a status in our society that’s comparable with the priests of the ancient world, and they certainly have the attentive ear of the government. What’s the difference between the slaughter in our time and that perpetrated by our ancestors? It's hard to see.
===================================================
I’m taking a class about the history of Mexico and every time I turn around, I think of our neighbors to the south. Of course, being the college-age male that I am, there are certain parts of Mexican history that I’m probably going to remember better than others. Take, oh, human sacrifice for example. I guess it’s hard to forget that kind of thing once you manage to wrap your mind around the fact that real people were getting really killed in really gruesome ways. In central Mexico, human sacrifice was carried out to such an extent that it even managed to make a not-so-nice band of Spanish mercenaries sick to their stomachs when they saw it.
The Aztecs literally considered human sacrifice to be a part of their mission as a messianic people. Although the majority of those murdered were prisoners of war, many Aztecs considered it to be an honor to have their blood shed on the temple steps. Why, you ask? Why would any mother give up her son to have his heart taken out or his head taken off or to be buried alive? Because she was told that it was for the good of society. And since it was for the good of society, it was also good for her and every other family member that was left behind.
Please understand; I’m not trying to pick on any one nation or culture. Practically every society on earth has practiced human sacrifice at one time or another. It’s embarrassing, but at least it’s ancient history… right? Think again. It turns out that even in our country of supposedly endless freedom human sacrifice is practiced on a level that makes the Aztecs look like innocent children.
Worse yet, we kill babies. We starve them and we dismember them and other things too horrible to mention. But hey, it’s for the betterment of society right? At least, that’s what the scientific and medical professions tell us - it's about health and a better, freer society. Isn’t that ironic? As if the parallel was't frightening enough, members of those professions often enjoy a status in our society that’s comparable with the priests of the ancient world, and they certainly have the attentive ear of the government. What’s the difference between the slaughter in our time and that perpetrated by our ancestors? It's hard to see.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
39 Years
39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Ugh.
Why is this such a victory for "women's health?" What's healthy about getting an abortion? I would be tempted to say that it's got about the same health benefits as a Fench breast implant. Last time I checked, it wasn't generally healthy to jab instruments, etc... into your body. Given the choice, you wouldn't do it, right? But you know what? At least most surgeries are something you have done to yourself, not another person.
Something like 50 million abortions since 1973 - and that's in the U.S. alone. I hate math, but I'm pretty sure that statistically guarantees that I know someone who's had an abortion. Of course, they don't talk about it, so I have no idea who they are. I bet they would be surprised, maybe hurt, if they saw this blog. If it's you, I'm sorry.
50 million doesn't really work as a meaningful statistic - it's just too big. That knowledge alone should put some perspective on it. Everything's got a number attached to it, so it doesn't do any good to implore people to avoid becoming a statistic. But still, can anyone honestly say that they want to be a part of that number?
Please, don't get an abortion. Don't let loved ones get abortions. There's an innocent life in there, just waiting to be born - waiting to learn how to talk and ask those sweet little questions like "why is the sky blue", waiting to make friends on their first day of school, waiting to see a beautiful sunset or listen to Beethoven's 9th symphony for the first time. Everything we are as people, everything we have or want and have learned or forgotten, everything that brings us sadness or joy, every last speck of what it is to be a living, breathing and feeling human being is in that little child. Don't take it away.
Why is this such a victory for "women's health?" What's healthy about getting an abortion? I would be tempted to say that it's got about the same health benefits as a Fench breast implant. Last time I checked, it wasn't generally healthy to jab instruments, etc... into your body. Given the choice, you wouldn't do it, right? But you know what? At least most surgeries are something you have done to yourself, not another person.
Something like 50 million abortions since 1973 - and that's in the U.S. alone. I hate math, but I'm pretty sure that statistically guarantees that I know someone who's had an abortion. Of course, they don't talk about it, so I have no idea who they are. I bet they would be surprised, maybe hurt, if they saw this blog. If it's you, I'm sorry.
50 million doesn't really work as a meaningful statistic - it's just too big. That knowledge alone should put some perspective on it. Everything's got a number attached to it, so it doesn't do any good to implore people to avoid becoming a statistic. But still, can anyone honestly say that they want to be a part of that number?
Please, don't get an abortion. Don't let loved ones get abortions. There's an innocent life in there, just waiting to be born - waiting to learn how to talk and ask those sweet little questions like "why is the sky blue", waiting to make friends on their first day of school, waiting to see a beautiful sunset or listen to Beethoven's 9th symphony for the first time. Everything we are as people, everything we have or want and have learned or forgotten, everything that brings us sadness or joy, every last speck of what it is to be a living, breathing and feeling human being is in that little child. Don't take it away.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Your Baby is a Person
That's a baby in there. A real, live human person. I guess (I hope really) that's where the confusion starts. Because if there's no argument on that point, how can you justify an abortion?
Well, the truth is that some people will justify it anyway. But for now, I'm willing to assume most people really, truly believe that "fetus" does not equal "baby."
Is a fetus the same thing as a baby or not? I mean, we've got to have some definitions here. What is a fetus? What is a baby? What's a person? It can be confusing. But it doesn't have to be.
Here's the problem. If you believe that abortion is OK because it's not really a person in there, then tell me - when does a person begin? You're a person. I'm a person. When did we start being people? When did we start having the same rights as everyone else?
Was it when the cord was cut?
Was it when your head entered the birth canal?
Was it the instant that the C-section incision was complete?
If it was none of these instants, then when? Where do you draw the line? We're not talking about a machine here. We're talking about an organism that is changing and growing at every instant. You can't say "exactly between steps j and k, the fetus is now a person with all the rights and protections of a U.S. citizen." Just saying it out loud sounds ridiculous, which is, of course, why certain people are careful to dance around it and never say it out loud at all.
If you have comments on this one, I beg you to share them. I honestly want to hear what people think. When does a person become a person? I mean, a real human person who's life cannot be ended with any more justice than yours or mine. Where does that start?
Think about it. Your baby is a person. You can try to draw a line, but if you really think hard and are honest with yourself, you will recognize the warning signs. Because we all know what it's like trying to justify something that's wrong. We've all done that and we know what it feels like. But here, it's not just about an extra piece of cake or all that time on Facebook at work or even something you "borrowed" from that guy down the street two years ago. If one side of the argument is right, then this is something deadly. People are dying.
Your baby is a person. And if your baby could hear you and understand the question "do you want to live?"... your baby would say yes.
Well, the truth is that some people will justify it anyway. But for now, I'm willing to assume most people really, truly believe that "fetus" does not equal "baby."
Is a fetus the same thing as a baby or not? I mean, we've got to have some definitions here. What is a fetus? What is a baby? What's a person? It can be confusing. But it doesn't have to be.
Here's the problem. If you believe that abortion is OK because it's not really a person in there, then tell me - when does a person begin? You're a person. I'm a person. When did we start being people? When did we start having the same rights as everyone else?
Was it when the cord was cut?
Was it when your head entered the birth canal?
Was it the instant that the C-section incision was complete?
If it was none of these instants, then when? Where do you draw the line? We're not talking about a machine here. We're talking about an organism that is changing and growing at every instant. You can't say "exactly between steps j and k, the fetus is now a person with all the rights and protections of a U.S. citizen." Just saying it out loud sounds ridiculous, which is, of course, why certain people are careful to dance around it and never say it out loud at all.
If you have comments on this one, I beg you to share them. I honestly want to hear what people think. When does a person become a person? I mean, a real human person who's life cannot be ended with any more justice than yours or mine. Where does that start?
Think about it. Your baby is a person. You can try to draw a line, but if you really think hard and are honest with yourself, you will recognize the warning signs. Because we all know what it's like trying to justify something that's wrong. We've all done that and we know what it feels like. But here, it's not just about an extra piece of cake or all that time on Facebook at work or even something you "borrowed" from that guy down the street two years ago. If one side of the argument is right, then this is something deadly. People are dying.
Your baby is a person. And if your baby could hear you and understand the question "do you want to live?"... your baby would say yes.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Where to Start...
We might as well deconstruct this thing. What's one of the fundamental sticking points? Rights? Life? Money? (gasp!).
Well... I like to try and start where people can agree.
Unless they're just trying to be difficult, most people will agree that you can't kill another human for no good reason. It's only fair to state that the threshold for "good" and the definition of "reason" can change according to time and place. But if you look at the human experience as a whole, starting, whenever, let's say ten thousand years ago, life has been taken pretty seriously. Without getting into some of our more horrible historical idiocies (many of which continue in our day) murder is, and always has been judged a crime. You don't just kill someone because you feel like it. So, the premise is that murder is seen as wrong by every culture that I'm aware of. That's where I'd like to start. Personally, I'm not a fan of "morality by consensus," but I think it's the best we can do at this point in time.
Now, we don't get the same pan-human morality when it comes to killing animals, or plants. There is, undoubtably disagreement on that. And that's the point. Taken as an expiriment in statistics or whatever you want to call it, the inborn ban on killing other humans seems to be in a whole different realm of moral certitude than making hamburgers.
So it gets interesting when you observe that, throughout history, entire nations have adopted policies that seems to countermand that overarching directive against killing humans. Even more so, when it's not just a political power structure mainainting those policies, but that, in time, they come to be embraced by huge swathes of the citizens, regardless of what the government were to teach or preach after that point. You can basically fill in the blank for what policies I'm talking about here - there are endless examples. And every time something like this happens, we swear, as a country, or sometimes even as a world, that such and such a thing will never happen again.
With respect to the current stance on abortion, the conclusion that I've come to - and I think this is correct - is that we've been educated to draw the line of where a human life begins (and ends), wherever it happens to be convenient for the argument at hand. So, for example, if a pregnant woman and her unborn child are killed in a hit-and-run accident, the perpetrator is charged with two counts of manslaughter, or negligent homicide, or whatever the case may be. But, if that woman had been on her way to an abortion clinic at that very moment, she left home not only free from legal guilt of murder, but maybe even celebrated as a hero and congratulated for her bravery in the face of so many people who would trample her rights if they had half a chance.
So let's start the argument there. Obviously, I maintain that to request, procure or assist in an abortion is a terrible crime, because you are killing a person. Not only that, but a person who is totally free from guilt, who has never committed a crime, and who is utterly defenseless - a posture that, in most cases, elicits only the best of human sympathy. So where is the disconnect? What's the justification that makes it acceptable? Let's talk about that next time.
And, as I hope to always remind you, your baby would want to live.
Well... I like to try and start where people can agree.
Unless they're just trying to be difficult, most people will agree that you can't kill another human for no good reason. It's only fair to state that the threshold for "good" and the definition of "reason" can change according to time and place. But if you look at the human experience as a whole, starting, whenever, let's say ten thousand years ago, life has been taken pretty seriously. Without getting into some of our more horrible historical idiocies (many of which continue in our day) murder is, and always has been judged a crime. You don't just kill someone because you feel like it. So, the premise is that murder is seen as wrong by every culture that I'm aware of. That's where I'd like to start. Personally, I'm not a fan of "morality by consensus," but I think it's the best we can do at this point in time.
Now, we don't get the same pan-human morality when it comes to killing animals, or plants. There is, undoubtably disagreement on that. And that's the point. Taken as an expiriment in statistics or whatever you want to call it, the inborn ban on killing other humans seems to be in a whole different realm of moral certitude than making hamburgers.
So it gets interesting when you observe that, throughout history, entire nations have adopted policies that seems to countermand that overarching directive against killing humans. Even more so, when it's not just a political power structure mainainting those policies, but that, in time, they come to be embraced by huge swathes of the citizens, regardless of what the government were to teach or preach after that point. You can basically fill in the blank for what policies I'm talking about here - there are endless examples. And every time something like this happens, we swear, as a country, or sometimes even as a world, that such and such a thing will never happen again.
With respect to the current stance on abortion, the conclusion that I've come to - and I think this is correct - is that we've been educated to draw the line of where a human life begins (and ends), wherever it happens to be convenient for the argument at hand. So, for example, if a pregnant woman and her unborn child are killed in a hit-and-run accident, the perpetrator is charged with two counts of manslaughter, or negligent homicide, or whatever the case may be. But, if that woman had been on her way to an abortion clinic at that very moment, she left home not only free from legal guilt of murder, but maybe even celebrated as a hero and congratulated for her bravery in the face of so many people who would trample her rights if they had half a chance.
So let's start the argument there. Obviously, I maintain that to request, procure or assist in an abortion is a terrible crime, because you are killing a person. Not only that, but a person who is totally free from guilt, who has never committed a crime, and who is utterly defenseless - a posture that, in most cases, elicits only the best of human sympathy. So where is the disconnect? What's the justification that makes it acceptable? Let's talk about that next time.
And, as I hope to always remind you, your baby would want to live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)