Also check out Project Ultrasound.
From the monthly archives:
August 2009
He’s probably best known for his portrayal of Christ in Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.” Actor Jim Caviezel, I’m so very glad to blog, is pro-life. From Catholic Digest:
“Part of what had spurred the adoption was a pro-life challenge. Could you share a little about that?
“This guy I know said, ‘You’re pro-life. Tell you what, if you really believe in what you speak, adopt a child — not any child, he’s got to have a serious deficiency,’ (and I will become pro-life). He never changed his (position), but it convicted me. I don’t think he thought I would step up to the plate.
“I was listening to Johnny Mathis the other day and I said, ‘What an amazing voice.’ I have yet to hear another person sound like Johnny Mathis. How are we so arrogant to think the 51.5 million babies who have died in this country… Look, I am for helping women. I just don’t see abortion as helping women. And I don’t love my career that much to say, ‘I’m going to remain silent on this.’ I’m defending every single baby who has never been born. And every voice that would have been unique like Johnny Mathis’. How do we know that we didn’t kill the very child who could have created a particular type of medicine that saves other lives?”
Pro-life and easy on the eyes.
People really ought to watch where they’re stepping. The dung can get pretty high, and irony often broadsides those who don’t see it coming.
Take this statement from Planned Parenthood. The world is mourning the death of Ted Kennedy, whose son I almost hit at a stop sign years ago. Blogger and former labor and delivery nurse Jill Stanek linked to and highlighted this portion of Planned Parenthood’s statement:
If the point of the post and highlighted statement eludes you, I’ll enlighten you. Ted Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, believed women had the right to kill their unborn babies.
When Planned Parenthood wrote that Kennedy provided “a voice to those Americans who otherwise would not have been heard,” the abortion mill obviously didn’t mean the literally voiceless. I suppose the figuratively voiceless are those perpetually oppressed minorities and “poor” folks.
Disclaimer: This post isn’t a celebration of Kennedy’s death. Just wanted to “raise awareness” of the abortion mill’s statement and advise its author to avoid unintentionally ironic sentiments in the future.
I wouldn’t blog it if it weren’t true. It’s so blatant, my six-year-old nephew could name it and explain it.
Don’t hate the messenger; hate the media bias that sees one group as dumb special children and the other as the embodiment of evil itself. No matter what color you are, you’re willfully deaf and blind if you claim to neither hear it nor see it:
Also check out Project Ultrasound.
Update: If you don’t want the baby, PLEASE carry him/her to term and consider adoption. Choose life!
***
In her own words (emphases added):
“I was still unsure when I entered Carhart’s clinic, so I began my day by interviewing patients. I learned their names, why they’d come to Carhart’s clinic and how they felt about it. I went with them through the pre-op routine. There was an ultrasound to confirm the pregnancy, blood work and pre-op medications, a patient advocacy session. We sat together in the waiting room, killing time [no pun intended, I'm sure] until a nurse called them in to surgery. When their names were called, and I’d spent all morning with these women, it felt unnatural to stop short of the operating room (one woman, who’d come alone, even asked me to accompany her). So I entered a small room that joins Carhart’s two operating rooms, where I could see patients on both sides.
“A first-trimester abortion, from my vantage point behind the glass window, looked like an extended, more invasive version of a standard ob-gyn exam. A woman with her heels in stirrups, clothes traded in for a hospital gown, a speculum holding the cervix open. Carhart used a suction tube to empty the contents of the uterus [content which consists of ripped-apart fetal parts]; it took no longer than three minutes. The suction machine made a slight rumbling sound, a pinkish fluid [never heard it called that before] flowed through the tube, and, faster than I’d expected, it was over. Women spent less than a half hour in the operating room. I’d anticipated some kind of difficulty watching an abortion; it wasn’t there.
“At least not physically. But there was a discomfort I hadn’t expected, my emotional reaction to watching abortions.”
I think any reasonable person with an ounce of a conscience would feel discomfort watching an abortion. The author concluded:
“Abortion involves weighty choices that, depending on how you view it, involve a life, or the potential for life. And my reaction, complicated and conflicted as it was, may have been a reflection of our national ambivalence about a private medical procedure at the center of a very public debate.”
Our view on the matter doesn’t matter. The life growing inside a woman is life, not mere potential life. The so-called ambivalence over abortion stems not from private procedure v. public debate. I believe most sane people know it’s wrong to slaughter unborn babies, especially through partial birth abortion. They just don’t like the idea of telling women what they can or can’t do with their bodies.
Doesn’t bother me. You can choose to use your body to hurt someone else. Unless it’s consensual (if you’re into that sort of thing), you’ll face criminal charges. But it’s okay to choose to hurt an unborn child? You’ll notice protection of the child turns on whether the mother wants him. If she doesn’t, it’s her “choice” to kill him, not anyone else’s. Anyone who harms a wanted baby faces charges. Harming an unwanted baby is legal. Why does the mother’s level of desire for the child dictate the legality or illegality of killing him?
Oh, right. The Supreme Court makes it so.
Women who become pregnant exercised a very important choice. They had sex, and sex leads to pregnancy. No birth control method is 100 percent effective. Choosing to engage in an activity that may produce a fertilized egg is a HUGE responsibility that too many people take MUCH too lightly. Choices involve trade-offs, and the trade-off should never be the death of the baby.
For the record, even in cases of rape and incest, I’m still pro-life. Killing a baby because of how he was conceived? Just as heinous.
That the killing of unborn children is legal in the United States is a curse on this country.
You have to see it to believe it.
Watch the video below and guess the race of the man carry a semiautomatic rifle and a pistol at a demonstration against Obama’s socialized medicine bill:
Some of you are pretty smart, so you probably guessed the man was black, considering the camera didn’t show his face. If that was your guess, you’re right. If you guessed white, you’re wrong.
You already know what I think about MSNBC’s selective cropping. Showing a black man carrying all that firepower wouldn’t have played into the “white hate groups carrying guns at protests because the president is black” narrative.
They obscure the facts to make a disingenuous point. Shameful. Not in the sense of baby killing or animal torture, but a shame nonetheless. Human nature at its most predictable.
Such blatant bias leads me to make all kind of assumptions. Here’s one: there is something about being white that certain white people don’t like.
Food for thought.
When I read stuff like this, doing something to generate endorphins helps control the blood-boiling anger. Praying helps, too. I find the story of Jonah most helpful. Are you familiar with him?
God told Jonah to go to Nineveh and warn the people of his judgment if they didn’t repent, but Jonah didn’t want the Ninevites to receive God’s wonderful redemption. He refused to deliver God’s message (though he did eventually). Did he hate them that much? Had to.
I feel pretty much the same way about people who hurt and kill children and babies, including the unborn. I want the perpetrators, who know very well what they’re doing, to feel just a fraction of what God has in store for them or even to feel the pain an unborn child has to feel when he’s torn apart in the womb.
But if they repent and accept, they’d avoid the wrath. And there’s the rub.
FYI…I am a sinner. Surprise! And I will be a sinner as long as I’m living in this fallen world in this fallen body. The difference between Christians and non-Christians is that Christians are forgiven sinners. We believe Christ sacrificed himself to save us. He paid for our sins with his own blood. Sinless, he took on my sins so I wouldn’t face the terrible and righteous wrath of a God whose laws I break.
My duty as a Christian is to spread this message wherever I go, so that others can also benefit from this gracious gift. Sometimes, I don’t feel like sharing. I pull a Jonah and flee in the opposite direction, stiff-necked and refusing to warn the people. This isn’t God’s fault. It’s mine. I’m overly prideful and, as my mother has told me my whole life, stubborn.
But it is not my place to judge who does or does not deserve salvation. I don’t deserve it, and neither do people who murder infants.
But God can and does save people who murder infants.
I must remember that.
Makes for calm blood.
Message for people who shamelessly invoke the old “legacy of slavery” excuse and view the government as some sort of savior (emphases added):
“In 1940, when blacks were politically impotent, their poverty rate was 87 percent. By 1960, before blacks achieved much political power, it fell to 47 percent. During that interval, in various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled. Before 1960, there were no anti-poverty programs or affirmative action programs that can explain an economic advance that exceeded any other 20-year interval, though there were Truman and Eisenhower administration attacks on some of the gross forms of racial discrimination. A significant chunk of black progress occurred simply through migration from rural areas in the South to big Northern cities. Between 1960 and 1980, black poverty fell roughly 17 percent and continued falling to today’s 24 percent. The decline in black poverty between 1960 and 1980 might have simply been a continuation of a trend starting much earlier and cannot be attributed solely to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, President Johnson’s War on Poverty, or Richard Nixon’s affirmative action.
“Most of the major problems that many black people face are not amendable to political solutions and government anti-poverty programs. Let’s look at some. In 1940, 86 percent of black children were born inside marriage, and the illegitimacy rate among blacks was about 15 percent. Today, only 35 percent of black children are born inside marriage, and the illegitimacy rate hovers around 70 percent. Today’s breakdown of the black family is unprecedented. It began in the 1960s with the War on Poverty and the harebrained ideas of the welfare state. In the mid-1960s, Daniel Moynihan sounded the alarm about the breakdown in the black family in his book ‘The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.’ At that time black illegitimacy was 26 percent. Moynihan said, ‘(A)t the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of the Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro family.’ He added, ‘The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States.’ Moynihan’s observations were greeted with charges of racism and blaming the victim. By the way, the welfare state is an equal opportunity family destroyer. Today’s illegitimacy rate among whites, at nearly 30 percent, is higher than it was among blacks in the 1960s when Moynihan sounded the alarm. In Sweden, the mother of the welfare state, illegitimacy is 54 percent.”
– Walter Williams, Politics and Blacks
I never thought I’d see the day I twittered and facebooked more than I blogged. But here we are. So much easier to post one-liners with links throughout the day than come up with several essay-length posts every week. Or even twice a week. (Juggling several balls at present.) I probably won’t ever stop blogging. Subject matter may change, but I’m wedded to the platform itself.
As this blog currently stands, it’s got Google juice. But if you want to know what I’m reading and linking in real-time, follow me on Twitter.
If you want to discuss the commentary with others, friend me on Facebook. Today’s topics include high-scoring homeschoolers and Joker-face posters. The number of comments I get on status updates reminds me of the old “rollicking” days on the blog, where discussions sometimes got heated. To be young again…
In Newsweek? Probably.
Laugh at the “slippery slope” observations of those who oppose homosexual “marriage,” if you must, but I predict that within the next 10 years, a group of shameless tools will file suit claiming equal protection violations because they can’t legally “marry” as a threesome.
Ménage à Twits v. United States.
I’ll go a step farther and predict some shameless pervert will file suit because he can’t “marry” the underage object of his molestation.
Scoffing never hurt anybody. Failing to protect children from harm or provide a stable, mother-father home hurts too many.
Mock on…
Related post:
Observation…
You can ask a “doctor” to suck your unborn baby down a sink or to stick a probe in his brain and crush his skull. But woe to the one who kills an animal.
What a world. If you want to get on leftist hit lists, torture an animal. Wanna be a hero? Kill your baby.
It should go without saying that I don’t condone the torture of animals. Burning a kitten in an oven for kicks? It’s bad. Gross. Totally. But where’s the outrage for unborn children, tortured in the womb in the name of convenience? A little perspective goes a long way.
If you believe women have a right to slaughter the unborn, your venom toward people like Michael Vick looks hypocritically absurd in comparison. And PETA folks criticizing Obama for swatting a fly? Even if it’s tongue-in-cheek, it’s sickeningly incongruous.
Update: A reader comments: “17 year old Cherry [kitty killer] would be hailed a hero if she killed her unborn baby.”
A pro-life doctor demonstrates infanticide, euphemistically known as partial birth abortion.
Partially delivering a baby, then sticking a pair of scissors in his brain to kill him, is legal in the U.S. If that doesn’t kill him, the “doctor” sucks his brains out. The baby’s head is kept inside the womb during this heinous act to avoid murder charges. As long as the living child’s head remains inside the mother when he’s murdered, the law says it’s not murder.
Hat tip: Melanie Hall
Think about it. Do you want the government telling you what procedures you can or can’t have, with no option to pay for the procedures yourself? Don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise, because it will happen under socialized medicine.
Rally ’round the reform bill at your own risk.
