Adult stem cells helped more than 20 patients regain their sight.
Edward Bailey, a patient at the Centre for Sight at the Queen Victoria hospital, East Grinstead, Sussex, can remember bathing his once sightless left eye after returning home from his operation in February 2003. "I covered up my good eye and there was me in the mirror. It was very emotional. I'll never forget it."
HT: Blogicus
Newsweek has the story of the 13-year-old girl in Florida who is a ward of the state and wants an abortion.
Scott Klusendorf has some good posts on cloning and on how prolifers in California may have blown their opportunity to defeat the horrendous Prop. 71. In California, using state money to fund human cloning is all the rage while selling cloned pets might soon be illegal.
Joe Carter, Michael Barone, Stanley Kurtz and Alan Grey discuss the "theocracy" claim craze.
Don't I have to judge you in order to be tolerant of you? Francis Beckwith explains.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Friday, April 29, 2005
Curtailing the Evading of Parental Consent Laws
The Washington Post is featuring an article on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act that will make it a crime "for doctors or other adults to help patients under 18 evade parental-notification requirements by crossing state lines for an abortion" if passed by the U.S. Senate.
Here's a nay-sayer:
Warren M. Siegel, director of adolescent medicine and chair of pediatrics at Coney Island Hospital in Brooklyn, N.Y., said in an interview that the law could lead minors to have later-term abortions because they might be more hesitant to consult an adult. "It's an unreasonable burden to have physicians know all the legal loopholes and laws in the 49 states that they don't practice in," he said.
I wonder if Siegel actually believes that children from Michigan will be transported to California for abortions or that children from Florida might be transported to Illinois. This intent of this act is obviously to curb the transportation of minors to nearby states where there isn't a parental consent law.
Also, is it really that hard for an abortionist to have a sheet of paper that says which states have parental consent or parental notification laws? All an abortionist would have to do is print off this sheet from National Right to Life that describes the particular features of state parental consent laws and consult it every time a minor from another state seeks an abortion from them. So much for "unreasonable burden."
By the way who are the "extremists" on this issue?
Here's a nay-sayer:
Warren M. Siegel, director of adolescent medicine and chair of pediatrics at Coney Island Hospital in Brooklyn, N.Y., said in an interview that the law could lead minors to have later-term abortions because they might be more hesitant to consult an adult. "It's an unreasonable burden to have physicians know all the legal loopholes and laws in the 49 states that they don't practice in," he said.
I wonder if Siegel actually believes that children from Michigan will be transported to California for abortions or that children from Florida might be transported to Illinois. This intent of this act is obviously to curb the transportation of minors to nearby states where there isn't a parental consent law.
Also, is it really that hard for an abortionist to have a sheet of paper that says which states have parental consent or parental notification laws? All an abortionist would have to do is print off this sheet from National Right to Life that describes the particular features of state parental consent laws and consult it every time a minor from another state seeks an abortion from them. So much for "unreasonable burden."
By the way who are the "extremists" on this issue?
Pro-choice Rally in Lansing
On Wednesday, Michigan's pro-choice organizations got together and threw a rally at the Capitol. I was somehow completely unaware of this event. They even step up a web site and a blog for the event.
One post in their blog asks commenters to share why they are pro-choice.
Here are some interesting quotes.
I'm pro-choice because I believe that it is a woman's choice to determine whether or not it is the right time to have a child.... Also, abortion is not a form of birth control, society needs to prevent unintended pregnancies so that the need for abortions will decrease.
I don't believe abortion should be a form of birth control, and I do feel that people need to take action for their sexual decisions and make those decisions responsibly instead of relying on abortion to avoid unwanted children....Abortion will always be a necessity in some cases...
I felt as if an abortion was the only option to save my sanity.
I'm pro-choice because there are certain circumstances in which bringing a new child into the world is a mistake (i.e. rape, complications in relation to the health of the mother.
I wonder if they ever thought of the poor women who cannot fed another baby, the women who are addicted to substances that will harm the developing fetus. (emphasis mine)
One post in their blog asks commenters to share why they are pro-choice.
Here are some interesting quotes.
I'm pro-choice because I believe that it is a woman's choice to determine whether or not it is the right time to have a child.... Also, abortion is not a form of birth control, society needs to prevent unintended pregnancies so that the need for abortions will decrease.
I don't believe abortion should be a form of birth control, and I do feel that people need to take action for their sexual decisions and make those decisions responsibly instead of relying on abortion to avoid unwanted children....Abortion will always be a necessity in some cases...
I felt as if an abortion was the only option to save my sanity.
I'm pro-choice because there are certain circumstances in which bringing a new child into the world is a mistake (i.e. rape, complications in relation to the health of the mother.
I wonder if they ever thought of the poor women who cannot fed another baby, the women who are addicted to substances that will harm the developing fetus. (emphasis mine)
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
The Pope, Nazis, and Babies Going Diaper Free
I just came across Mark Roberts' two part evaluation (here and here) of an op-ed in the LA Times by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen which backhandedly assures us that Pope Benedict XVI beliefs aren't identical to the beliefs of the Nazis. These posts by Pastor Roberts do an extremely good job of discussing relativism, Goldhagen's illogical leaps, and the intolerance of supposed religious tolerance.
I also think this is an incredibly amusing post about the diaper-free society movement.
I also think this is an incredibly amusing post about the diaper-free society movement.
The Sudan
Christianity Today has an editorial on the genocide in Sudan and is calling on Christians to help stop the violence.
Starting in 2003, Janjaweed Arabs, a Sudan-backed militia, have driven 2 million villagers from their homes in ethnic-cleansing attacks designed to suppress local rebels. Satellite imaging has documented hundreds of burned-out villages. In remote border camps, displaced families live under plastic sheeting with grossly inadequate food and water. They have just enough food to starve—slowly. Already 20 children a day may die in these camps, where 70 people sometimes share one pit latrine.
Starting in 2003, Janjaweed Arabs, a Sudan-backed militia, have driven 2 million villagers from their homes in ethnic-cleansing attacks designed to suppress local rebels. Satellite imaging has documented hundreds of burned-out villages. In remote border camps, displaced families live under plastic sheeting with grossly inadequate food and water. They have just enough food to starve—slowly. Already 20 children a day may die in these camps, where 70 people sometimes share one pit latrine.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Links
Dawn Eden goes to town on this horrid piece by Planned Parenthood's SaveRoe.com blogger.
Naaman has a post on the claims of theocracy and hijacking religion.
Patricia Beninato of I'm Not Sorry laments on how pro-choice groups and people describe abortion as a painful or difficult choice.
Planned Parenthood is still on a Karen Hughes rampage a year later. Here's an old piece by Ramesh Ponnuru that has the much maligned Hughes' quote.
Naaman has a post on the claims of theocracy and hijacking religion.
Patricia Beninato of I'm Not Sorry laments on how pro-choice groups and people describe abortion as a painful or difficult choice.
Planned Parenthood is still on a Karen Hughes rampage a year later. Here's an old piece by Ramesh Ponnuru that has the much maligned Hughes' quote.
The Lions on Draft Day
With the tenth pick in the NFL Draft, the Detroit Lions selected USC wide receiver Mike Williams. I sat in the Fort Lauderdale airport stunned and somewhat excited as my professional football team of choice selected a tall receiver for the third straight year with a top ten pick. This pick after the Lions signed a fairly good receiver in Kevin Johnson less than a week ago.
Mike Williams is an awesome talent. His forty time wasn't as good as it could be (4.7) but ESPN's draft guru Mel Kiper rated him the #1 overall prospect regardless of position. He scored 30 touchdowns in his first 2 years at USC. He's spent the last year working out with receiving great Cris Carter. He probably would have gone very early in the first round in last year's draft if he was eligible. Even with all of this I cannot escape the fact that the Lions have already spent two early first round draft picks on wide receivers in the last two years and spending another top 10 pick on a wide receiver regardless of his talent level doesn't make sense especially when there are numerous other needs on this team (safety and offensive line for example).
One sports writer of my hometown paper, the Grand Rapids Press disagrees.
One quote that especially stuck in my head for its lack of logic was this:
Passing on him would have been like passing on Michael Jordan because you don't need a shooting guard.
This assertion has hindsight bias written all over it. The fact is that no one on draft day knew Michael Jordan would become the greatest basketball player of his generation. Just like no one knows for sure if Mike Williams will have a productive 10 year career with the Lions or be playing Arena Football in 3 years.
Plus, it's absurd to compare a guy who's never played a professional football game with a man who was the face of professional basketball for a decade. It also misses the reality that Michael Jordan would have been an all-star regardless of the team he was on while in football Mike Williams needs someone to get him the ball. Michael Jordan could get his own shot. Mike Williams can't throw the ball to himself even though his arm isn't bad as Michigan fans will remember from the 2004 Rose Bowl.
For every Barry Sanders there is a Blair Thomas. For every Peyton Manning there is an Akili Smith. For every Orlando Pace there is a Tony Mandarich. There are no sure things especially when it comes to the NFL Draft. Picking three receivers early in the first round three years in a row when your team has other needs is a mistake.
Mike Williams is an awesome talent. His forty time wasn't as good as it could be (4.7) but ESPN's draft guru Mel Kiper rated him the #1 overall prospect regardless of position. He scored 30 touchdowns in his first 2 years at USC. He's spent the last year working out with receiving great Cris Carter. He probably would have gone very early in the first round in last year's draft if he was eligible. Even with all of this I cannot escape the fact that the Lions have already spent two early first round draft picks on wide receivers in the last two years and spending another top 10 pick on a wide receiver regardless of his talent level doesn't make sense especially when there are numerous other needs on this team (safety and offensive line for example).
One sports writer of my hometown paper, the Grand Rapids Press disagrees.
One quote that especially stuck in my head for its lack of logic was this:
Passing on him would have been like passing on Michael Jordan because you don't need a shooting guard.
This assertion has hindsight bias written all over it. The fact is that no one on draft day knew Michael Jordan would become the greatest basketball player of his generation. Just like no one knows for sure if Mike Williams will have a productive 10 year career with the Lions or be playing Arena Football in 3 years.
Plus, it's absurd to compare a guy who's never played a professional football game with a man who was the face of professional basketball for a decade. It also misses the reality that Michael Jordan would have been an all-star regardless of the team he was on while in football Mike Williams needs someone to get him the ball. Michael Jordan could get his own shot. Mike Williams can't throw the ball to himself even though his arm isn't bad as Michigan fans will remember from the 2004 Rose Bowl.
For every Barry Sanders there is a Blair Thomas. For every Peyton Manning there is an Akili Smith. For every Orlando Pace there is a Tony Mandarich. There are no sure things especially when it comes to the NFL Draft. Picking three receivers early in the first round three years in a row when your team has other needs is a mistake.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Blogging Hiatus
Tomorrow my wife and I head out on a weeklong vacation to Florida so the blogging will be extremely light if any until next Monday. That is unless there is an internet cafe in the near vicinity of our hotel or our hotel offers free internet access.
How to Replace a Garbage Disposal
I’m writing this in the vague that some day, someone out there will save themselves money and/or hassle if their garbage disposal breaks down and they think that it would be too hard or complicated for them to replace the disposal themselves. Replacing a garbage disposal is one of the simplest things in the world to do. Anybody with a screwdriver and some type of wrench can do it.
I’m far from the handiest guy in the world. I’ve improved a little bit since I bought an older home and have been forced to try to fix a few things instead of hiring a repairman. About a year ago my garbage disposal quit working because one of my old roommates stuffed an absurdly large amount of spaghetti down the sink instead of throwing it away. Though I’m not sure who because neither one of the suspects would fess up. Anyways, I didn’t know how to replace the disposal and figured it might be difficult and take the professional skills of a plumber. Being fairly cheap and somewhat of a procrastinator I didn’t really do anything with the disposal for about a year. The spaghetti was removed so the sink could be used but no disposal.
In March, I finally made a deal with my wife that if she took care of a household chore I would get a new disposal. So at first I call a plumber to try to figure out how easy replacing (not installing) a disposal would be. I asked how much it would be to replace a disposal. The guy on the phone asks what kind of disposal. I tell him that I’m not certain probably something lower to middle of line. He then claims that someone would have to do an inspection first (cost tag $60) to see what “size” of disposal I needed and give me an estimate. I said “no thanks” and did a little internet research. From what I read it seemed easy enough but I still wasn’t sure of myself and my lackluster handyman abilities.
I decide to first see if I can take the disposal off and figure out from there if I could put a new one on. All I had to do was unplug the disposal, use a wrench to disconnect the disposal from the pipe under the sink and then turn the whole disposal until it came off. The pipe to my other sink won’t stay straight unless the pipe to the disposal is connected to the disposal so I realize that I have to go to Home Depot for a new disposal. I check which kind I had (Badger 1) and head off. At Home Depot they had 5 or so kinds of disposal but as I’m looking at them I realize that they would all fit the same sink. The “size issue” that the guy from the plumbing company had given me was complete bunk. It didn’t matter. They would all fit. He could have easily told me that a bottom to middle of the line disposal would cost me between $50 and $100 and that replacing a disposal is a job any 6th grader could do.
So I pick out a Badger 5 (a step up from the bottom of the line Badger 1) disposal for about $65 and look at the vague instructions on the outside of the box to make sure I’m good. From the instructions it seems like I need something called Plumber’s putty (I didn’t) so I pick that up to on my way out.
When I get home I take the disposal and all the accessories out of the box. After looking at the more in depth instructions inside the box I realize that my task will be quite simple. I take the electric cord out of the old disposal by removing a screw and untwisting the wires (make sure the cord isn’t plugged in). I then attach the cord to the new disposal by twisting the electric wires - black to black, white to white, and putting the green wires around the green screw (ground). Next I install the unplugged disposal by twisting the whole disposal onto the frame. I reattached the pipes to the disposal and plug the disposal cord in and wah-la! A working garbage disposal and a happy wife.
I’m far from the handiest guy in the world. I’ve improved a little bit since I bought an older home and have been forced to try to fix a few things instead of hiring a repairman. About a year ago my garbage disposal quit working because one of my old roommates stuffed an absurdly large amount of spaghetti down the sink instead of throwing it away. Though I’m not sure who because neither one of the suspects would fess up. Anyways, I didn’t know how to replace the disposal and figured it might be difficult and take the professional skills of a plumber. Being fairly cheap and somewhat of a procrastinator I didn’t really do anything with the disposal for about a year. The spaghetti was removed so the sink could be used but no disposal.
In March, I finally made a deal with my wife that if she took care of a household chore I would get a new disposal. So at first I call a plumber to try to figure out how easy replacing (not installing) a disposal would be. I asked how much it would be to replace a disposal. The guy on the phone asks what kind of disposal. I tell him that I’m not certain probably something lower to middle of line. He then claims that someone would have to do an inspection first (cost tag $60) to see what “size” of disposal I needed and give me an estimate. I said “no thanks” and did a little internet research. From what I read it seemed easy enough but I still wasn’t sure of myself and my lackluster handyman abilities.
I decide to first see if I can take the disposal off and figure out from there if I could put a new one on. All I had to do was unplug the disposal, use a wrench to disconnect the disposal from the pipe under the sink and then turn the whole disposal until it came off. The pipe to my other sink won’t stay straight unless the pipe to the disposal is connected to the disposal so I realize that I have to go to Home Depot for a new disposal. I check which kind I had (Badger 1) and head off. At Home Depot they had 5 or so kinds of disposal but as I’m looking at them I realize that they would all fit the same sink. The “size issue” that the guy from the plumbing company had given me was complete bunk. It didn’t matter. They would all fit. He could have easily told me that a bottom to middle of the line disposal would cost me between $50 and $100 and that replacing a disposal is a job any 6th grader could do.
So I pick out a Badger 5 (a step up from the bottom of the line Badger 1) disposal for about $65 and look at the vague instructions on the outside of the box to make sure I’m good. From the instructions it seems like I need something called Plumber’s putty (I didn’t) so I pick that up to on my way out.
When I get home I take the disposal and all the accessories out of the box. After looking at the more in depth instructions inside the box I realize that my task will be quite simple. I take the electric cord out of the old disposal by removing a screw and untwisting the wires (make sure the cord isn’t plugged in). I then attach the cord to the new disposal by twisting the electric wires - black to black, white to white, and putting the green wires around the green screw (ground). Next I install the unplugged disposal by twisting the whole disposal onto the frame. I reattached the pipes to the disposal and plug the disposal cord in and wah-la! A working garbage disposal and a happy wife.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Eric Rudolph - Not a Prolifer
The Macon Telegraph has the full text of bomber Eric Rudolph's written statement. In his statements, he offers his skewed reasoning behind his deadly attacks.
He claims that he was given a plea bargain because prosecutors would have a hard time convicting him in Northern Alabama if someone who was strongly against abortion was on the jury and that the agents of government (basically any law enforcement) are agents of mass murder because the government made abortion legal and therefore anyone who works for the government is working to protect abortion.
He calls prolifers who don't use force "cowards standing idly by in the face of the worst massacre in human history."
Rudolph claims that his bombing during the 1996 Olympic games, which killed an innocent woman named Alice Hawthorne and injured 100 others, was to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand.
Does that make any sense? Endanger the lives of innocent people in the hopes that U.S. government would be embarassed?
Rudolph later admits that he knew his bomb could possible kill bystanders.
"However, I knew that the weapons used (highly uncontrollable timed explosives) and the choice of tactics (placing them in areas frequented by large numbers of civilians) could potentially lead to a disaster wherein many civilians could be killed or wounded. There is no excuse for this, and I accept full responsibility for the consequences of using this dangerous tactic."
The whole statement shows Rudolph's strong dislike for government, especially law enforcement, and just about anyone who disagrees with his views or violent tactics. He planned to kill FBI agents in 2000 but didn't do it because "perhaps after watching them for so many months their individual humanity shown through the hated unifonn. It was not that I had lost my resolve to fight in the defense of the unborn, but rather an individual decision about these individual agents. I had worn the uniform of their legions, served in their ranks, I had no hatred for them as individuals. Even though they served a morally bankrupt government, underneath their FBI rags, they were essentially fellow countrymen."
Rudolph's thinking is so whacked that he thought killing some random FBI agents would somehow help the unborn.
He claims that he was given a plea bargain because prosecutors would have a hard time convicting him in Northern Alabama if someone who was strongly against abortion was on the jury and that the agents of government (basically any law enforcement) are agents of mass murder because the government made abortion legal and therefore anyone who works for the government is working to protect abortion.
He calls prolifers who don't use force "cowards standing idly by in the face of the worst massacre in human history."
Rudolph claims that his bombing during the 1996 Olympic games, which killed an innocent woman named Alice Hawthorne and injured 100 others, was to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand.
Does that make any sense? Endanger the lives of innocent people in the hopes that U.S. government would be embarassed?
Rudolph later admits that he knew his bomb could possible kill bystanders.
"However, I knew that the weapons used (highly uncontrollable timed explosives) and the choice of tactics (placing them in areas frequented by large numbers of civilians) could potentially lead to a disaster wherein many civilians could be killed or wounded. There is no excuse for this, and I accept full responsibility for the consequences of using this dangerous tactic."
The whole statement shows Rudolph's strong dislike for government, especially law enforcement, and just about anyone who disagrees with his views or violent tactics. He planned to kill FBI agents in 2000 but didn't do it because "perhaps after watching them for so many months their individual humanity shown through the hated unifonn. It was not that I had lost my resolve to fight in the defense of the unborn, but rather an individual decision about these individual agents. I had worn the uniform of their legions, served in their ranks, I had no hatred for them as individuals. Even though they served a morally bankrupt government, underneath their FBI rags, they were essentially fellow countrymen."
Rudolph's thinking is so whacked that he thought killing some random FBI agents would somehow help the unborn.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Did Kimberly Think it was a Choice?
I know I shouldn't get almost all of my posts via After Abortion but Emily is linking to some sites and stories that I can't help but throw my 2 cents at.
The American Prospect has a story called "The Woman's View" by Jodi Enda.
Enda shares the story of a woman named Kimberly, a mother of 2, who was raped by her estranged husband, wanted an abortion but struggled to come up with the money and eventually had an abortion at around 20 weeks.
Here's how Kimberly's "choice" is described:
She wanted an abortion, but she couldn’t afford one. “I didn’t know what to do,” she said. “There was no way I could have had that baby. My ex would have killed me. That was never an option.” Adoption wasn’t, either.
Later on, Enda says this:
While the right has appealed to our sentiments, the left has relied on dry legal arguments, abandoning the 1960s-style speak-outs that so successfully demonstrated why women like Kimberly need choices.
Does it sound like Kimberly thought she had a choice? Much less choices? From what Kimberly says it sounds like she felt she had absolutely no choice. There was only one option. She felt she had to have an abortion.
More from Kimberly:
“I felt guilty,” Kimberly said, more so as the fetus grew and she felt familiar tummy flutters. “I felt I was going to be killing a baby. And there was a baby. ... I had two kids. I knew what I was feeling. ... It was a matter of choosing my children or this person. My children’s lives would have been turned upside down. We might not be safe; we would have been worse off financially. They were already there. I had to take care of them … . I just had to choose.”
Doesn't sound like freedom of choice, does it? Or a great civil or political right? Notice how Kimberly calls her unborn child a "baby" and "this person." She knows what abortion is and does yet her concerns for her born children override any concerns for her unborn child's life. She feels that she couldn't have the child. The last sentence sounds like she really should have said, "I just had to have an abortion."
More from Enda:
Babies crying. Unborn children. The opposition has done a lot to humanize fetuses.
Done a lot to humanize organisms that are human? The better statement would be that pro-choice organizations and pro-choice stories did and do a lot to dehumanize unborn human beings.
The choice itself -- the opportunity to decide -- is essential to women’s lives.
But did Kimberly "decide?" Or did she think that the decision was already made for her?
Frances Kissling from Catholics for a Free Choice describes women who have abortions:
"They come in fully aware that the life that is developing within them has value. To me that doesn’t give it rights, that doesn’t make it a person. Its developing humanity still comes into conflict with women’s lives and aspirations.”
What if an infant's developing humanity comes into conflict with a woman's life or aspirations? It seems that pieces like Enda's which can't admit the unborn are human will be continually harder to write as more people on the pro-choice side admit the reality of the unborn's life and humanity.
The American Prospect has a story called "The Woman's View" by Jodi Enda.
Enda shares the story of a woman named Kimberly, a mother of 2, who was raped by her estranged husband, wanted an abortion but struggled to come up with the money and eventually had an abortion at around 20 weeks.
Here's how Kimberly's "choice" is described:
She wanted an abortion, but she couldn’t afford one. “I didn’t know what to do,” she said. “There was no way I could have had that baby. My ex would have killed me. That was never an option.” Adoption wasn’t, either.
Later on, Enda says this:
While the right has appealed to our sentiments, the left has relied on dry legal arguments, abandoning the 1960s-style speak-outs that so successfully demonstrated why women like Kimberly need choices.
Does it sound like Kimberly thought she had a choice? Much less choices? From what Kimberly says it sounds like she felt she had absolutely no choice. There was only one option. She felt she had to have an abortion.
More from Kimberly:
“I felt guilty,” Kimberly said, more so as the fetus grew and she felt familiar tummy flutters. “I felt I was going to be killing a baby. And there was a baby. ... I had two kids. I knew what I was feeling. ... It was a matter of choosing my children or this person. My children’s lives would have been turned upside down. We might not be safe; we would have been worse off financially. They were already there. I had to take care of them … . I just had to choose.”
Doesn't sound like freedom of choice, does it? Or a great civil or political right? Notice how Kimberly calls her unborn child a "baby" and "this person." She knows what abortion is and does yet her concerns for her born children override any concerns for her unborn child's life. She feels that she couldn't have the child. The last sentence sounds like she really should have said, "I just had to have an abortion."
More from Enda:
Babies crying. Unborn children. The opposition has done a lot to humanize fetuses.
Done a lot to humanize organisms that are human? The better statement would be that pro-choice organizations and pro-choice stories did and do a lot to dehumanize unborn human beings.
The choice itself -- the opportunity to decide -- is essential to women’s lives.
But did Kimberly "decide?" Or did she think that the decision was already made for her?
Frances Kissling from Catholics for a Free Choice describes women who have abortions:
"They come in fully aware that the life that is developing within them has value. To me that doesn’t give it rights, that doesn’t make it a person. Its developing humanity still comes into conflict with women’s lives and aspirations.”
What if an infant's developing humanity comes into conflict with a woman's life or aspirations? It seems that pieces like Enda's which can't admit the unborn are human will be continually harder to write as more people on the pro-choice side admit the reality of the unborn's life and humanity.
Links
George Will has a column on eugenics and abortion which includes information on his own son Jon and legislation that co-sponsored by Sam Brownback and Ted Kennedy to "increase the provision of scientifically sound information and support services to patients receiving a positive test diagnosis for Down syndrome or other prenatally diagnosed conditions."
My good buddy Glen Stassen was interviewed regarding Terri Schiavo and her death by starvation and dehydration.
Stassen said he trusts that the court's diagnosis of Schiavo is correct. Thus, there is no ethical obligation to do extraordinary medical treatment that carries a financial cost or will not benefit the patient, he said.
"In this case, after 15 years of persistent vegetative state it looks like it's not going to benefit the patient,' Stassen said.
Hmmm... Since when is providing food and water extraordinary medical treatment? How will providing food and water not benefit Terri?
Here's an interesting idea on how to make money off animal rights activists.
My good buddy Glen Stassen was interviewed regarding Terri Schiavo and her death by starvation and dehydration.
Stassen said he trusts that the court's diagnosis of Schiavo is correct. Thus, there is no ethical obligation to do extraordinary medical treatment that carries a financial cost or will not benefit the patient, he said.
"In this case, after 15 years of persistent vegetative state it looks like it's not going to benefit the patient,' Stassen said.
Hmmm... Since when is providing food and water extraordinary medical treatment? How will providing food and water not benefit Terri?
Here's an interesting idea on how to make money off animal rights activists.
Patricia Beninato - Definitely Not Silent
Patricia Beninato, founder of I'm Not Sorry.net has just started her own blog.
She explains her personality and how she comes off with the following statement:
I had someone fairly high up on the food chain in NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia tell me once that I'd go far in the movement if I just "tempered" myself. In other words, be nice and polite and don't ruffle feathers. It looks to me that in the current climate, nice and polite and non-feather-ruffling DOESN'T. FREAKING. WORK.
Her second post then goes after Georgette Forney and Silent No More, Georgette's organization that wants to make the public aware that abortion can be emotionally harmful. Beninato thinks Silent No More is a "hugely exploitative group, trotting out damaged women who weep seemingly on cue and then crowing ‘See, see? Look what abortion did!'" and
Abortion is such an intensely personal decision that it makes me furious when people like Denise Mountenay and Georgette Forney say that we should outlaw abortion because it's obvious that it's a bad experience
Talk about an obvious strawman. Prolife organizations don't want to outlaw abortion because it's a bad experience. Prolife organizations want to outlaw abortion because it intentionally takes the life of an innocent human being.
She then compares abortion to her root canal. If they're so comparable, I'm wondering why Beninato doesn't start a site where people can say, "I'm not sorry about my root canal."
"But weeping women bring the ratings and the money because everyone enjoys watching other people's misery, and that's what it's all about."
Is this how Beninato really sees prolife people? We enjoy watching the misery of others and that's why women who are post-abortive sometimes speak at prolife events? That's what it's all about? Can you see us now just hoping and praying that the post-abortive woman on stage will shed a tear? That will get our adrenaline pumping - that will bring us joy - that will open up our pocketbooks.
In the comments section Beninato adds, "As for fear? Please. Sure, I would have done things differently, but I would have much rather had my abortions than have been forced to birth children that I didn't want and wasn't remotely able to care for. And spare me the adoption crap--that reduces a woman to the level of an organic incubator. It is not any woman's job to provide anyone with a child. I hope someday that you find peace, because you won't get it through SNM. I found mine many years ago, and I live a joyful life every day because I accept the choices that I've made and don't beat myself up over the past--a concept which is alien to SNM."
Adoption crap? I'll have to remember that women who let their child be adopted by loving families are "organic incubators." Beninato claims to have found peace but she spends an inordinate amount of time talking about abortion and being mean-spirited for someone who is at "peace" and lives a "joyful life."
HT: After Abortion
She explains her personality and how she comes off with the following statement:
I had someone fairly high up on the food chain in NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia tell me once that I'd go far in the movement if I just "tempered" myself. In other words, be nice and polite and don't ruffle feathers. It looks to me that in the current climate, nice and polite and non-feather-ruffling DOESN'T. FREAKING. WORK.
Her second post then goes after Georgette Forney and Silent No More, Georgette's organization that wants to make the public aware that abortion can be emotionally harmful. Beninato thinks Silent No More is a "hugely exploitative group, trotting out damaged women who weep seemingly on cue and then crowing ‘See, see? Look what abortion did!'" and
Abortion is such an intensely personal decision that it makes me furious when people like Denise Mountenay and Georgette Forney say that we should outlaw abortion because it's obvious that it's a bad experience
Talk about an obvious strawman. Prolife organizations don't want to outlaw abortion because it's a bad experience. Prolife organizations want to outlaw abortion because it intentionally takes the life of an innocent human being.
She then compares abortion to her root canal. If they're so comparable, I'm wondering why Beninato doesn't start a site where people can say, "I'm not sorry about my root canal."
"But weeping women bring the ratings and the money because everyone enjoys watching other people's misery, and that's what it's all about."
Is this how Beninato really sees prolife people? We enjoy watching the misery of others and that's why women who are post-abortive sometimes speak at prolife events? That's what it's all about? Can you see us now just hoping and praying that the post-abortive woman on stage will shed a tear? That will get our adrenaline pumping - that will bring us joy - that will open up our pocketbooks.
In the comments section Beninato adds, "As for fear? Please. Sure, I would have done things differently, but I would have much rather had my abortions than have been forced to birth children that I didn't want and wasn't remotely able to care for. And spare me the adoption crap--that reduces a woman to the level of an organic incubator. It is not any woman's job to provide anyone with a child. I hope someday that you find peace, because you won't get it through SNM. I found mine many years ago, and I live a joyful life every day because I accept the choices that I've made and don't beat myself up over the past--a concept which is alien to SNM."
Adoption crap? I'll have to remember that women who let their child be adopted by loving families are "organic incubators." Beninato claims to have found peace but she spends an inordinate amount of time talking about abortion and being mean-spirited for someone who is at "peace" and lives a "joyful life."
HT: After Abortion
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Who do you want talking to your kids about sex?
Because Planned Parenthood doesn't want you talking to them especially if you have values that differ from the "values" that Planned Parenthood holds.
The main page of Planned Parenthood's website is featuring this article by the editor of Planned Parenthood's teen sex site, Teenwire.com. Susan Yudt is up in arms over a new government website, 4parents.gov, which hopes to guide parents, grandparents, mentors, and guardians "discuss important, yet difficult, issues about healthy choices, sex and relationships" with teens.
The article starts off by taking a cheap shot at abstinence education and even cites the fact-checking work of Henry Waxman's staff which needed its own fact-checking.
Yudt then pulls an Andrew Golota on the National Physicians Center for Family Resources by saying they have "ties" to Dr. Laura and that Dr. Laura has said some mean things about homosexuals. I guess we can't trust anything from them anymore. What a way to try to discredit an organization - vaguely mention one person they have to and then supply a couple things that person said without providing any context.
Yudt also discusses abortion and infertility. "4parents.gov has additional anti-choice overtones, stating that "abortion complications" is one of the major causes of infertility — when, in fact, less than one percent of women who have an abortion experience a major complication, and there is no evidence of infertility among the vast majority of women who've had abortions."
Yudt pulls a switch-a-roo. Instead of proving that abortion isn't a major cause of infertility, she asserts that most women who have abortions don't become infertile but that in no way proves that abortion isn't a major cause of infertility. For example, if only .5% of women become infertile after an abortion that's still 6,500 women a year who become infertile because of abortion.
I think the real reason Ms. Yudt is upset is because her site may have some competition. A web site that encourages parents to talk to their children about sex and doesn't espouse Planned Parenthood's ideology about sex is a definite downer for Ms. Yudt. Planned Parenthood's guide for talking to your child about sex tells me in the three to five year old section that, "Most kids touch their sex organs for pleasure. Masturbation is very common during this time. We must reassure kids that it is normal to masturbate — but only in private."
Under the 5 to 7 category - "Sexual fantasies about family members of both genders are common, too. Kids may find these thoughts upsetting. We must reassure them that just dreaming or thinking about things doesn't make them happen."
Under the 8 to 12 section - "Kids are fascinated with the way their bodies change. It's common for them to look at and touch each other's sex organs. This is one of the ways they learn that they are normal. They do this with friends of both genders. This kind of sex play does not make a child gay or straight."
Needless to say, I don't want Planned Parenthood and their advice anywhere near any of my future children. Honestly, is Michael Jackson writing this stuff?
The main page of Planned Parenthood's website is featuring this article by the editor of Planned Parenthood's teen sex site, Teenwire.com. Susan Yudt is up in arms over a new government website, 4parents.gov, which hopes to guide parents, grandparents, mentors, and guardians "discuss important, yet difficult, issues about healthy choices, sex and relationships" with teens.
The article starts off by taking a cheap shot at abstinence education and even cites the fact-checking work of Henry Waxman's staff which needed its own fact-checking.
Yudt then pulls an Andrew Golota on the National Physicians Center for Family Resources by saying they have "ties" to Dr. Laura and that Dr. Laura has said some mean things about homosexuals. I guess we can't trust anything from them anymore. What a way to try to discredit an organization - vaguely mention one person they have to and then supply a couple things that person said without providing any context.
Yudt also discusses abortion and infertility. "4parents.gov has additional anti-choice overtones, stating that "abortion complications" is one of the major causes of infertility — when, in fact, less than one percent of women who have an abortion experience a major complication, and there is no evidence of infertility among the vast majority of women who've had abortions."
Yudt pulls a switch-a-roo. Instead of proving that abortion isn't a major cause of infertility, she asserts that most women who have abortions don't become infertile but that in no way proves that abortion isn't a major cause of infertility. For example, if only .5% of women become infertile after an abortion that's still 6,500 women a year who become infertile because of abortion.
I think the real reason Ms. Yudt is upset is because her site may have some competition. A web site that encourages parents to talk to their children about sex and doesn't espouse Planned Parenthood's ideology about sex is a definite downer for Ms. Yudt. Planned Parenthood's guide for talking to your child about sex tells me in the three to five year old section that, "Most kids touch their sex organs for pleasure. Masturbation is very common during this time. We must reassure kids that it is normal to masturbate — but only in private."
Under the 5 to 7 category - "Sexual fantasies about family members of both genders are common, too. Kids may find these thoughts upsetting. We must reassure them that just dreaming or thinking about things doesn't make them happen."
Under the 8 to 12 section - "Kids are fascinated with the way their bodies change. It's common for them to look at and touch each other's sex organs. This is one of the ways they learn that they are normal. They do this with friends of both genders. This kind of sex play does not make a child gay or straight."
Needless to say, I don't want Planned Parenthood and their advice anywhere near any of my future children. Honestly, is Michael Jackson writing this stuff?
Is a Dead Fetus a Human Body?
There was an interesting story in the Washington Post on Saturday about an abortion protestor who was charged with a misdemeanor for holding a jar that contained the body of dead fetus at a protest outside a Planned Parenthood clinic almost a year.
Jeff White was acquitted from the century-old crime of displaying dead body or a part of a dead body.
But even if he interpreted the law as covering an act such as White's, Doyle said, he could not find that White's brief grasp of the jar would qualify as "keeping" the body for the purpose of displaying it. And that, he noted, would assume that the fetus was in fact a human body.
It was a question that hung over the case until it was raised yesterday, first by the defense attorney and then by the judge. In the end, however, Doyle decided he did not need to address the broader legal issue.
I wonder if Planned Parenthood wanted White to be convicted. Would they want the court to rule that a fetus is dead human body?
Jeff White was acquitted from the century-old crime of displaying dead body or a part of a dead body.
But even if he interpreted the law as covering an act such as White's, Doyle said, he could not find that White's brief grasp of the jar would qualify as "keeping" the body for the purpose of displaying it. And that, he noted, would assume that the fetus was in fact a human body.
It was a question that hung over the case until it was raised yesterday, first by the defense attorney and then by the judge. In the end, however, Doyle decided he did not need to address the broader legal issue.
I wonder if Planned Parenthood wanted White to be convicted. Would they want the court to rule that a fetus is dead human body?
Monday, April 11, 2005
Send Mommy to her Room
Joe Carter has posted a round up of some thoughts regarding Naturalism and the Center for Naturalism's web site.
Under guiding philosophy CFN's web site says, "Practically speaking, naturalism holds that an individual's development and behavior are entirely the result of prior and surrounding conditions, both genetic and environmental. Naturalism, therefore, denies that persons have traditional, contra-causal free will - that something within them is capable of acting as a first cause. But this isn't a problem, it's just how things are."
After reading this I wonder how or if naturalists discipline their children. If our actions are entirely the result of our surrounding conditions that we can't control then how can children be held accountable for having a messy room, hitting their kid brother on the head, or torturing the family pet? Wouldn't their "wrong" or "inappropriate" actions be the fault of their surroundings - genetic and environmental? If this is the case then aren't the parents solely to blame since they're controlling the small child's environment and supplied the genetic information?
If I was a child who was capable of understanding the position of naturalism, why would any punishment handed down by my naturalist parents be accepted? I could merely assert that my environment/genetics supplied by my parents forced me to disobey curfew or go to that kegger. They would be the ones to blame not me. "No Mom! You go to your room." But then again they couldn't be blamed because the environment created by their parents forced them to raise me the way they did. It's merely a never ending cycle of not accepting blame.
Could a naturalist wife be logically upset at her naturalist husband for having an affair?
When watching a sports event do naturalists yell at a wide receiver's inability to make an easy catch that would have won the game or do they calmly sit back knowing that the wide receiver doesn't have "butterfingers" but his surrounding conditions made it impossible for him to catch the ball.
Or if a kicker misses a 25 yard field goal? It's not that he "choked" but his genetics and environment forced him to mess up.
Under guiding philosophy CFN's web site says, "Practically speaking, naturalism holds that an individual's development and behavior are entirely the result of prior and surrounding conditions, both genetic and environmental. Naturalism, therefore, denies that persons have traditional, contra-causal free will - that something within them is capable of acting as a first cause. But this isn't a problem, it's just how things are."
After reading this I wonder how or if naturalists discipline their children. If our actions are entirely the result of our surrounding conditions that we can't control then how can children be held accountable for having a messy room, hitting their kid brother on the head, or torturing the family pet? Wouldn't their "wrong" or "inappropriate" actions be the fault of their surroundings - genetic and environmental? If this is the case then aren't the parents solely to blame since they're controlling the small child's environment and supplied the genetic information?
If I was a child who was capable of understanding the position of naturalism, why would any punishment handed down by my naturalist parents be accepted? I could merely assert that my environment/genetics supplied by my parents forced me to disobey curfew or go to that kegger. They would be the ones to blame not me. "No Mom! You go to your room." But then again they couldn't be blamed because the environment created by their parents forced them to raise me the way they did. It's merely a never ending cycle of not accepting blame.
Could a naturalist wife be logically upset at her naturalist husband for having an affair?
When watching a sports event do naturalists yell at a wide receiver's inability to make an easy catch that would have won the game or do they calmly sit back knowing that the wide receiver doesn't have "butterfingers" but his surrounding conditions made it impossible for him to catch the ball.
Or if a kicker misses a 25 yard field goal? It's not that he "choked" but his genetics and environment forced him to mess up.
Stupid Spam
At my work e-mail I've been getting a fair amount of spam lately. What is always entertaining is the "names" of the senders. These "names" which usually just end up being two random words (often times misspelled) put together with a middle initial. I thought I'd share some of the funnier ones.
Ascetic P. Oceanographic
Bucksaw H. Pole
Conveyer Q. Unlearn
Daydreaming E. Legrooms
Inconstant J. Nuke
Interpersonal Q. Pimpernel
Windowskills H. Skylab
Skills G. Accepting
Who's going to open an e-mail from Skills or Mr. Unlearn? Why can't spammers design computer programs to send out e-mails with actual names and not just random words?
Ascetic P. Oceanographic
Bucksaw H. Pole
Conveyer Q. Unlearn
Daydreaming E. Legrooms
Inconstant J. Nuke
Interpersonal Q. Pimpernel
Windowskills H. Skylab
Skills G. Accepting
Who's going to open an e-mail from Skills or Mr. Unlearn? Why can't spammers design computer programs to send out e-mails with actual names and not just random words?
Links
Blogs for Terri has a bunch of information on MaeMagouirk, the woman in Georgia who was being denied food and water at a Georgia hospice but is now safe in a hospital. Keep scrolling down. Here's a story in the Birmingham News.
JT at Between Two Worlds has informed InterVarsity Press that a chapter of one of their books was written by a pastor named Judith Brown who is currently serving time for trying to kill the husband of her love interest. InterVarsity has pulled the book until a new edition without Brown's chapter is made. This is one of the strangest stories I've ever read. A fuller version is here.
Emily at After Abortion links to two posts by a Michigan resident named Kari who feels depressed from her abortion 5 years ago.
JT at Between Two Worlds has informed InterVarsity Press that a chapter of one of their books was written by a pastor named Judith Brown who is currently serving time for trying to kill the husband of her love interest. InterVarsity has pulled the book until a new edition without Brown's chapter is made. This is one of the strangest stories I've ever read. A fuller version is here.
Emily at After Abortion links to two posts by a Michigan resident named Kari who feels depressed from her abortion 5 years ago.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Terror in Egypt
One of women in my Bible study group sent this e-mail out to everyone in our group.
I have an emergency prayer request. One of my former staff's son was
traveling overseas with friends and was the target of a suicide bomb in
Egypt. One of his friends was killed and Michiel, and his two friends
have sustained serious injuries. One will probably lose both eyes,
Michiel has sustained a great deal of damage to his arms and legs (the
bomb was filled with nails and shrapnel) and the third (who is also the
brother of the one that was killed) has severe internal injuries and is
in very critical condition. Please pray for their recovery, for their
families (who are on their way to Egypt as I type this), for their
families' safety overseas and for finances. Each ticket for the five
family members that went were $1300 plus hotel stays and other costs.
Here's a story about the attack in USA Today.
WebIndia has more on this tragic event.
I have an emergency prayer request. One of my former staff's son was
traveling overseas with friends and was the target of a suicide bomb in
Egypt. One of his friends was killed and Michiel, and his two friends
have sustained serious injuries. One will probably lose both eyes,
Michiel has sustained a great deal of damage to his arms and legs (the
bomb was filled with nails and shrapnel) and the third (who is also the
brother of the one that was killed) has severe internal injuries and is
in very critical condition. Please pray for their recovery, for their
families (who are on their way to Egypt as I type this), for their
families' safety overseas and for finances. Each ticket for the five
family members that went were $1300 plus hotel stays and other costs.
Here's a story about the attack in USA Today.
WebIndia has more on this tragic event.
Zogby poll on Terri Schiavo
Zogby has finally posted information about the poll they did for the Christian Defense Coalition regarding Terri Schiavo and similar situations.
A poll completed after the controversial death of Terri Schiavo finds that eight-in-ten (80%) likely voters say that a disabled person who is not terminally ill or in a coma, and not being kept alive by life support should not, in the absence of a written directive to the contrary, be denied food and water.
The answers to poll also point to a few things that aren't the greatest. 1.) It appears many people in our country have put judges and their rulings on a type of pedestal and 2.) Denying basic rights to the disabled is more accepted than denying basic rights to minorities (neither should be accepted).
Almost all the questions show a fairly deep reservation in this country for the reversal or intervening of legislatures after judicial orders and rulings. A fifth of the respondents thought that the federal government shouldn't intervene "when basic civil rights are denied." A third of the respondents thought that judges who appear to deny basic rights to minorities didn't warrant the intervention of representative government and close to half when it the disabled appear to be denied basic rights.
The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to minorities? 57% Agree 33% Disagree 10% Undecided
Later in the poll the exact same question is asked but "minorities" is replaced with "disabled" and you get a 15 point swing. Only 42% agree, 48% disagree and 10% are still undecided.
I find both responses to be frightening in how many people think it is okay for judges to apparently deny basic rights to individuals (almost "The Judge knows best" kind of thinking) but I also find it telling that such a large gap exists between how people view minorities and the disabled.
It seems that certain people (15%) think that it ok to deny basic rights to the disabled solely because they are disabled. The thought that people who are disabled are somehow less worthy of basic rights because of they happen to have a disability seems outlandish to me. Should I lose my right to life if I become paralyzed? Should I no longer be allowed to pursue happiness if am stricken with MS?
A poll completed after the controversial death of Terri Schiavo finds that eight-in-ten (80%) likely voters say that a disabled person who is not terminally ill or in a coma, and not being kept alive by life support should not, in the absence of a written directive to the contrary, be denied food and water.
The answers to poll also point to a few things that aren't the greatest. 1.) It appears many people in our country have put judges and their rulings on a type of pedestal and 2.) Denying basic rights to the disabled is more accepted than denying basic rights to minorities (neither should be accepted).
Almost all the questions show a fairly deep reservation in this country for the reversal or intervening of legislatures after judicial orders and rulings. A fifth of the respondents thought that the federal government shouldn't intervene "when basic civil rights are denied." A third of the respondents thought that judges who appear to deny basic rights to minorities didn't warrant the intervention of representative government and close to half when it the disabled appear to be denied basic rights.
The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to minorities? 57% Agree 33% Disagree 10% Undecided
Later in the poll the exact same question is asked but "minorities" is replaced with "disabled" and you get a 15 point swing. Only 42% agree, 48% disagree and 10% are still undecided.
I find both responses to be frightening in how many people think it is okay for judges to apparently deny basic rights to individuals (almost "The Judge knows best" kind of thinking) but I also find it telling that such a large gap exists between how people view minorities and the disabled.
It seems that certain people (15%) think that it ok to deny basic rights to the disabled solely because they are disabled. The thought that people who are disabled are somehow less worthy of basic rights because of they happen to have a disability seems outlandish to me. Should I lose my right to life if I become paralyzed? Should I no longer be allowed to pursue happiness if am stricken with MS?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
