In this society of tolerance the only thing that cannot be tolerated is intolerance. How often the christians are silenced from speaking about the evils in this world by the invocation of those magical words, "Do not judge". This invocation most often comes from those who would not think twice about judging you. After all, isn't it a judgement call to say that you are guilty of judging someone else? I see this tactic very often when talking to pro-choicers about abortion. They tell me not to judge the actions of the woman who has an abortion. But are they really invoking Jesus' words? What does the entire passage say?
Matthew 7:1-5 says "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
Jesus tells us to make sure we are clean first before we take on the role of judging other's actions. But that does not mean that we are never to judge. So long as I am not guilty of hypocracy I am free to lovingly judge the actions of those around me. The bible speaks often of judment beginning at home.
1 Peter 4:17 "For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?"
We are told that judgement begins with God's people first, then to the rest of the world. As it pertains to abortion, I am not guilty of aborting my child nor am I guilty of coercing my partner to abort my child. Being that this "beam" is not in my own eye, I can see clearly that the speck still exists in my brother's eye. My duty is to try to remove the speck from my brother's eye.
The bible not only has no commission to avoid judgement, it rather commands that we do judge.
Matthew 18:15-17 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."
Matthew 7:15-16a "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits."
We are told to judge with discernment in order to protect the church from false prophets. We are told to check ourselves to make sure we are free of guilt, but once having made our own eye clean we are to use that clean eye to help our brother remove the speck from his eye. We are called to judge as christians.
Don't let these futile attempts by the half-hearted deter you from your commision. We should protect the innocent. We should judge those who will not listen to the call of God in order to bring them to repentance and right standing before God. In the usual case where the pro-choicer likes to evoke this cry against judgement, we are to cast judgement on the woman who make a foolish decision to kill her unborn. Casting judgement does not mean we cast sentance on her, that is for God to do. We are to cast judgement in order to help this poor woman find her way again, whether she is contemplating abortion, has already committed abortion, or is suffering from an abortion long ago. Judgement is compassion at it's highest.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Abortion results in the killing of a unique, living, human being
Such an emotionally laden statement that is. It is a profound truth for many and fodder for ridicule and angry backlash from others. We need to understand what is so offensive about this statement though. The pro-choicer would likely take offense to the "human being" claim. Some others might object to the "living" aspect of this statement. I agree this is an emotionally charged statement but is it disingenuous? Let's examine this more closely to see if there is truly anything misspoken here.
Abortion
Abortion is the ceasing of an act in progress, such as aborting a mission, aborting an idea, aborting a pregnancy. Abortion is also known as a medical procedure that terminates a pregnancy and expels the fetus. Though abortion is intended to terminate the pregnancy of a non-viable fetus, it is currently legal in all states to terminate a viable fetus due to the "mental health" of the mother clause.
Killing
As I stated, abortion will result in the termination of a pregnancy which is intended to also terminate the life of the unborn, thus killing the unborn. Killing is not to be confused with murder which is an illegal act. Killing a fetus can only become murder if elective abortion is banned.
Unique
The unborn from the point of conception is an entity distinct from the mother. The conceptus has it's own DNA containing both sets of chromosomes which is required to be considered a human being. While the gamete cells (egg and sperm) contain 1 set of chromosomes each, they are not a human being themselves because they lack the other necessary set. The fetus has it's own blood type distinct from it's mother. The fetus even grows it's own placenta. The fetus is NOT a part of the mother as a kidney is. The fetus has a symbiotic relationship with the mother.
Living
There is a consensus on the basic standards for biological life. This is not to be confused with the metaphysical and philosophical discussion of qualitative life, or "personhood". The biological standard for life is as follows:
Homeostasis, Growth, Reproduction, Absorption, Metabolism, Secretion, Irritability.
The conceptus maintains it's own shape in homeostasis, the cells will become larger in growth until the need to reproduce by splitting. The conceptus takes in nourishment and metabolises that nourishment to prepare itself for growth. The conceptus gives off heat, and as all single celled animals will do, the conceptus will instinctively move away from a source of irritation. The later stages of the unborn will follow this same pattern but the biological standard for life is met right from the very beginning.
Human
This should certainly be the easiest to comprehend and yet the obvious will often evade the closed heart. Any DNA test done on the unborn, even at the point of conception, will reveal that this is human DNA.
A legal, medical, and general dictionary will all show that the definition for human is: any living or extinct member of the family homonidae. The conceptus, and older gestations, all fit this description.
Being
This also should be too obvious to require explanation but I find myself compelled to discuss even this trivial matter. One only has to exist in time and space to fit the description of "being". To exist is to be in a state of being. To deny the unborn are beings is to deny their very existence in any variety.
Abortion results in the killing of a unique, living, human being.
Certainly this is an emotionally charged statement as well it should be. There is nothing dishonest about it except for those who would define words on their own terms. Whether you take this statement as a matter of unemotional fact or as a slap in the face of the benign message you would prefer to hear, The statement is true. There can never be progress as a people until we accept reality for what it is.
Abortion
Abortion is the ceasing of an act in progress, such as aborting a mission, aborting an idea, aborting a pregnancy. Abortion is also known as a medical procedure that terminates a pregnancy and expels the fetus. Though abortion is intended to terminate the pregnancy of a non-viable fetus, it is currently legal in all states to terminate a viable fetus due to the "mental health" of the mother clause.
Killing
As I stated, abortion will result in the termination of a pregnancy which is intended to also terminate the life of the unborn, thus killing the unborn. Killing is not to be confused with murder which is an illegal act. Killing a fetus can only become murder if elective abortion is banned.
Unique
The unborn from the point of conception is an entity distinct from the mother. The conceptus has it's own DNA containing both sets of chromosomes which is required to be considered a human being. While the gamete cells (egg and sperm) contain 1 set of chromosomes each, they are not a human being themselves because they lack the other necessary set. The fetus has it's own blood type distinct from it's mother. The fetus even grows it's own placenta. The fetus is NOT a part of the mother as a kidney is. The fetus has a symbiotic relationship with the mother.
Living
There is a consensus on the basic standards for biological life. This is not to be confused with the metaphysical and philosophical discussion of qualitative life, or "personhood". The biological standard for life is as follows:
Homeostasis, Growth, Reproduction, Absorption, Metabolism, Secretion, Irritability.
The conceptus maintains it's own shape in homeostasis, the cells will become larger in growth until the need to reproduce by splitting. The conceptus takes in nourishment and metabolises that nourishment to prepare itself for growth. The conceptus gives off heat, and as all single celled animals will do, the conceptus will instinctively move away from a source of irritation. The later stages of the unborn will follow this same pattern but the biological standard for life is met right from the very beginning.
Human
This should certainly be the easiest to comprehend and yet the obvious will often evade the closed heart. Any DNA test done on the unborn, even at the point of conception, will reveal that this is human DNA.
A legal, medical, and general dictionary will all show that the definition for human is: any living or extinct member of the family homonidae. The conceptus, and older gestations, all fit this description.
Being
This also should be too obvious to require explanation but I find myself compelled to discuss even this trivial matter. One only has to exist in time and space to fit the description of "being". To exist is to be in a state of being. To deny the unborn are beings is to deny their very existence in any variety.
Abortion results in the killing of a unique, living, human being.
Certainly this is an emotionally charged statement as well it should be. There is nothing dishonest about it except for those who would define words on their own terms. Whether you take this statement as a matter of unemotional fact or as a slap in the face of the benign message you would prefer to hear, The statement is true. There can never be progress as a people until we accept reality for what it is.
Of Earth and Eagles
I have been told by pro-choicers that there is no life worth protecting in the womb until it is born. I have been told that "potential life" is not "life". I have been told that abortion does not take a human life.
Of course I can offer plenty of facts and statistics and logical reasonings that readily disprove all of these assertions but I find it more fun to point out an inconsistancy in the law and watch how rabid pro-choicers will become in their defense.
If we take an eagle egg and compare it to our own gestation in the womb, we should be able to take from the pro-choicers arguments and apply them to the eagle egg. In other words, there is no life worth protecting in the egg. "potential life" is not "life". Making an omellette out of eagle eggs does not take an eagle's life. So why does the law place so much protection over an eagle's unhatched and so little protection over our unborn?
This turning of the tables will bring about a lot of fun interaction. They will bring up extinction, but again, if there is no actual eagle in that egg then there is no danger of extinction by enjoying the egg before it hatches. They will then bring up the fact that we are in no danger ourselves of extinction, in fact this is the point where they wil begin the self-loathing cry of overpopulation. See my earlier blog on this subject.
The truth is that we do protect eagle eggs because there would be no hatched eagles otherwise, and we need to protect the fetus for the same reason.
Of course I can offer plenty of facts and statistics and logical reasonings that readily disprove all of these assertions but I find it more fun to point out an inconsistancy in the law and watch how rabid pro-choicers will become in their defense.
If we take an eagle egg and compare it to our own gestation in the womb, we should be able to take from the pro-choicers arguments and apply them to the eagle egg. In other words, there is no life worth protecting in the egg. "potential life" is not "life". Making an omellette out of eagle eggs does not take an eagle's life. So why does the law place so much protection over an eagle's unhatched and so little protection over our unborn?
This turning of the tables will bring about a lot of fun interaction. They will bring up extinction, but again, if there is no actual eagle in that egg then there is no danger of extinction by enjoying the egg before it hatches. They will then bring up the fact that we are in no danger ourselves of extinction, in fact this is the point where they wil begin the self-loathing cry of overpopulation. See my earlier blog on this subject.
The truth is that we do protect eagle eggs because there would be no hatched eagles otherwise, and we need to protect the fetus for the same reason.
Young Earth?
There is much debate, or maybe none in your worldview, concerning the age of the Earth. Evolutionists claim the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old. Creationists claim it to be no more than 10,000 years old and probably closer to 6500. Why do creationists and evolutionists disagree so drastically on this? We can assume that one of us isn't using science to back up our claim, instead using a dogma of ideology to support our position. But which one of us if being the religious zealot?
When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. In other words, as time goes by the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Perhaps that's because all of our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood, about 4600 years ago? Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left.
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it does seem a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests.
The Dead Sea is in Israel. It receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan River. The Dead Sea has a very high salt content. Even so, it continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists have measured the amount of salt added each year by the Jordan River; and they have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea. From these it is possible to estimate how long this process has been going on for. Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level at the beginning, then the age of the Dead Sea is only 13,000 year old.
Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population.
One evolutionist Nobel prize winner admitted at a symposium that when the sample matched their assumption they would include it in their writings. When there was some marginal error, they would add a footnote. When the sample was way off, they would exclude it completely. Does this sound like someone who relies on scientific data for their findings, or does it sound more like a zealot who will extrapolate from the evidence to support their ideology?
When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. In other words, as time goes by the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Perhaps that's because all of our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood, about 4600 years ago? Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left.
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it does seem a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests.
The Dead Sea is in Israel. It receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan River. The Dead Sea has a very high salt content. Even so, it continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists have measured the amount of salt added each year by the Jordan River; and they have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea. From these it is possible to estimate how long this process has been going on for. Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level at the beginning, then the age of the Dead Sea is only 13,000 year old.
Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population.
One evolutionist Nobel prize winner admitted at a symposium that when the sample matched their assumption they would include it in their writings. When there was some marginal error, they would add a footnote. When the sample was way off, they would exclude it completely. Does this sound like someone who relies on scientific data for their findings, or does it sound more like a zealot who will extrapolate from the evidence to support their ideology?
Friday, February 6, 2009
What overpopulation problem?
One tactic used by pro-choicers in their defense of abortion is the argument that if abortion were banned there would be so many people on the Earth that we could not feed, much less, house everybody. The planet would be overpopulated. Although this reasoning fails to defend abortion on it's own merit, allow me the liberty of further denigrating the argument to oblivion.
There are currnetly 6,706,993,152 (July 2008 est.) people in the entire world.
Rhode Island has the Surface area of 1,214 square miles.
This means that the entire world population could fit in the U.S. state of Rhode Island leaving 4.5 sq, ft. per person. Now look at a globe and see if you can pick out Rhode Island. As you scan the rest of the globe in search for this tiny speck, you will certainly notice how much land that leaves available for livestock, agriculture, fresh water, and especially elbow room. Africa has the potential to supply enough agriculture to feed the whole world by itself.
Now this isn't meant to be a real world scenario, by all means go find a ranch and a few acres to retire on and stretch your legs. It does show how little use we are making of the land available to us though.
You may ask why is there famine, especially in Africa? The problem is with the government, not the resources. The Dictatorial governments squander the food supplies as well as the relief supplies for themselves and allow their own people to starve.
So maybe there isn't a problem right now, but what about future generations?
That is a fair question. It is estimated that by 2050 we will have a population of nearly 9 billion. In response I offer the nearby state of Maryland. Feel free to expand. There is still much land available. But what about 50 years after that? Or 100, or 1000 years down the road? The movie "Logan's Run" comes to mind. Their solution to population control was to demand the suicide of everyone at the age of 30. Turns out there was a huge world available right outside their little bubble.
There are currnetly 6,706,993,152 (July 2008 est.) people in the entire world.
Rhode Island has the Surface area of 1,214 square miles.
This means that the entire world population could fit in the U.S. state of Rhode Island leaving 4.5 sq, ft. per person. Now look at a globe and see if you can pick out Rhode Island. As you scan the rest of the globe in search for this tiny speck, you will certainly notice how much land that leaves available for livestock, agriculture, fresh water, and especially elbow room. Africa has the potential to supply enough agriculture to feed the whole world by itself.
Now this isn't meant to be a real world scenario, by all means go find a ranch and a few acres to retire on and stretch your legs. It does show how little use we are making of the land available to us though.
You may ask why is there famine, especially in Africa? The problem is with the government, not the resources. The Dictatorial governments squander the food supplies as well as the relief supplies for themselves and allow their own people to starve.
So maybe there isn't a problem right now, but what about future generations?
That is a fair question. It is estimated that by 2050 we will have a population of nearly 9 billion. In response I offer the nearby state of Maryland. Feel free to expand. There is still much land available. But what about 50 years after that? Or 100, or 1000 years down the road? The movie "Logan's Run" comes to mind. Their solution to population control was to demand the suicide of everyone at the age of 30. Turns out there was a huge world available right outside their little bubble.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The writing on the wall
I believe I have now seen the writing on the wall. I have seen a glimpse of the true intention of the pro-choice movement.
I frequent the comment sections on youtube videos, especially those pertaining to abortion. I had a conversation recently with one young female about the topic of abortion in relation to the perceived supposed overpopulation problem. When I revealed that I have 4 boys and would love to have even more children, her reply was one of shock and disdain.
Large families are no longer celebrated but rather scorned. My mother came from a family of 14 children. My father came from a family of 6 children. I came from a family of 9 children, and I now have a family of 4 children. I couldn't imagine having only 1 or 2 children. It would seem somewhat incomplete to me. That is not to say that I am suggesting that small families are inferior in any way, but that is to say that large families are still something worth celebrating.
This is my own personal choice in family planning. Others make a different choice. I thought that we were still celebrating choice when it came to family planning. I thought our country had shifted to a stance of reproductive freedom. We have paved the way for all women and couples to choose to have or not to have a family, at least that is the mantra I keep hearing from the pro-choice crowd.
I see through their mantra now though. I see that choice is only meaningful if you choose what they want you to choose. Interesting that pro-choicers seem to point to pro-lifers as the ones persistant in taking away choice but let's look at what they mean by choice.
What is choice? choice is the ability to choose your own path. It is impossible to deny choice. This has been proven over our history when many men and women made a choice for their own life that was against common thinking, common decency, maybe even against the law. Sometimes it was for the betterment of mankind, sometimes it was to that individual's detriment. But they all had the ability to make that choice. Banning abortion will not take away any choice, anymore than banning murder has taken away the choice to commit murder.
No, what the pro-choice crowd means is choice without consequences. This would fall right in line with the idea that pregnancy is a consequence of their CHOICE to have sex. The vast majority of abortions began with a choice (except when rape was involved, but let's talk about the other 99% of abortions for the time being.), If you are not aware of how babies are made then there is really no good reason for you to be engaging in something so life changing as sex. Contraceptives fail. They all have a posted failure rate printed right on the packaging. It is a gamble if you are going to depend on a contraceptive to avoid pregnancy. If I choose to gamble my paycheck and I lose, I cannot abort my mortgage payment.
I like large families. I have many friends with large families. Why have Pro-choicers looked down on my reproductive choice to have a large family? Isn't the exercise of my choice the thing that should be celebrated, Or is only the choice to abort that is worthy of celebration among pro-choicers? My recent experience has revealed to me that it is only the choice to abort that will cause pro-choicers to rally with you. Congratulating a couple who has only one or two kids gives the pro-choicers the ability to save face in defending their stance of "choice" but when they meet one with a large family, they claim us irresponsible.
Beware people, the pro-choice goal isn't just choice. There is something much bigger and much more subtle going on here. I haven't quite figured out what it is and truthfully I am not sure that they entirely know either. It may just be that they are all becoming like the wild hogs that follow the first ones off the cliff.
I frequent the comment sections on youtube videos, especially those pertaining to abortion. I had a conversation recently with one young female about the topic of abortion in relation to the perceived supposed overpopulation problem. When I revealed that I have 4 boys and would love to have even more children, her reply was one of shock and disdain.
Large families are no longer celebrated but rather scorned. My mother came from a family of 14 children. My father came from a family of 6 children. I came from a family of 9 children, and I now have a family of 4 children. I couldn't imagine having only 1 or 2 children. It would seem somewhat incomplete to me. That is not to say that I am suggesting that small families are inferior in any way, but that is to say that large families are still something worth celebrating.
This is my own personal choice in family planning. Others make a different choice. I thought that we were still celebrating choice when it came to family planning. I thought our country had shifted to a stance of reproductive freedom. We have paved the way for all women and couples to choose to have or not to have a family, at least that is the mantra I keep hearing from the pro-choice crowd.
I see through their mantra now though. I see that choice is only meaningful if you choose what they want you to choose. Interesting that pro-choicers seem to point to pro-lifers as the ones persistant in taking away choice but let's look at what they mean by choice.
What is choice? choice is the ability to choose your own path. It is impossible to deny choice. This has been proven over our history when many men and women made a choice for their own life that was against common thinking, common decency, maybe even against the law. Sometimes it was for the betterment of mankind, sometimes it was to that individual's detriment. But they all had the ability to make that choice. Banning abortion will not take away any choice, anymore than banning murder has taken away the choice to commit murder.
No, what the pro-choice crowd means is choice without consequences. This would fall right in line with the idea that pregnancy is a consequence of their CHOICE to have sex. The vast majority of abortions began with a choice (except when rape was involved, but let's talk about the other 99% of abortions for the time being.), If you are not aware of how babies are made then there is really no good reason for you to be engaging in something so life changing as sex. Contraceptives fail. They all have a posted failure rate printed right on the packaging. It is a gamble if you are going to depend on a contraceptive to avoid pregnancy. If I choose to gamble my paycheck and I lose, I cannot abort my mortgage payment.
I like large families. I have many friends with large families. Why have Pro-choicers looked down on my reproductive choice to have a large family? Isn't the exercise of my choice the thing that should be celebrated, Or is only the choice to abort that is worthy of celebration among pro-choicers? My recent experience has revealed to me that it is only the choice to abort that will cause pro-choicers to rally with you. Congratulating a couple who has only one or two kids gives the pro-choicers the ability to save face in defending their stance of "choice" but when they meet one with a large family, they claim us irresponsible.
Beware people, the pro-choice goal isn't just choice. There is something much bigger and much more subtle going on here. I haven't quite figured out what it is and truthfully I am not sure that they entirely know either. It may just be that they are all becoming like the wild hogs that follow the first ones off the cliff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)