She Will Keep the Baby!

I have to admit, I have no idea who Kourtney Kardashian is. I don't know that I have even heard the name before (does this mean I have been living under a rock?) However, in doing my normalish blog reading I came across this story from People Magazine. There was something very striking about this woman's comments and about the graphic detail in which she describes her situation.

First, it is clear from the statements of both Ms. Kardashian and her boyfriend Scott, that neither is pro-life; clearly they are pro-choice. Yet Ms. Kardashian's comment on her choice is very clear -

For me, all the reasons why I wouldn't keep the baby were so selfish: It wasn't like I was raped, it's not like I'm 16. I'm 30 years old, I make my own money, I support myself, I can afford to have a baby. And I am with someone who I love, and have been with for a long time... My doctor told me there is nothing you will ever regret about having the baby, but he was like, 'You may regret not having the baby.' And I was like: That is so true. And it just hit me. I got so excited"

It seems that for Ms. Kardashian that being unwed caused the question, and that the answer was at least partly that she couldn't justify murdering a young human being, which is to be praised in this culture where women are told that they have the right to play God. Let me just say, Congratulations, you have made a wise choice Ms. Kardashian, your child thanks you.

Now there has never been a truer statement then what that doctor said; regret only comes from murdering your child.

I would like to just put forth, an argument from Scott Klusendorf:

Put simply, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant such that we can say that you had no rights as an embryo but you do have rights today. Think of the acronym SLED as a helpful reminder of these non-essential differences:⁴

Size: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean that they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.

Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.

Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable.

Degree of Dependency: If viability makes us human, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.

In short, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.

I really need to have a Chat with Donald Miller

Like the Title says, I really need to have a Chat with Donald "Blue Like Heresy(Jazz)" Miller.

The Following Article is from The Guardian

"Obama to lift restrictions on funding stem cell research"

Ian Sample, science correspondent
The Guardian, Monday 9 March 2009

Stem cell research in the US will receive a major boost today when Barack Obama lifts restrictions on federal funding that were imposed eight years ago by the Bush administration, scientists say.

The long-awaited announcement will overturn a ban that prohibits scientists from using taxpayers' money to study embryonic stem cells created after 2001.

The ban has meant scientists working in the US can use government grants only when working on some of the oldest embryonic stem cells available. Many centres have been forced to divide their labs in half, to keep projects paid for by private money separate.

The seemingly unique ability of embryonic stem cells to grow into any type of tissue in the body has led scientists to believe they could transform medicine through treatments that replace and regenerate damaged or diseased organs.

Lifting the ban will unleash a flurry of collaborations between scientists who had been barred from working together.

John Gearhart, director of regenerative medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, has made more than 100 trips to Washington to protest against the ban and has been invited to the White House for today's announcement.

"Better use of space and resources will have a great and immediate effect. That to me is the biggest benefit of this," he said.

Douglas Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, said he planned to begin collaborations with publicly funded scientists immediately. The research will investigate treatments for diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease using freshly made embryonic stem cells.

"The removal of a barrier that has stood in our way for eight years will open important new areas of research, and move the field forward more rapidly," he said.

Scientists are still unclear how quickly the change will take effect. Some expect Obama to look for legislative backing from Congress, and to ask the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to draft documents outlining how embryonic stem cells could be used. Both processes would take time and could be held up by religious groups who strongly oppose lifting the ban.

"The conservatives will rally support to slow this down, so on one hand we're celebrating, but there's a way to go yet. This is not a slam-dunk," said Gearhart.

The timing is particularly critical for researchers hoping to benefit from the $10bn (£7bn) awarded to the NIH through the president's stimulus package.

The Bush administration's unfavourable stance on stem cells drove some US scientists to leave for Britain, where laws on stem cell research are more liberal. By overturning the ban, Obama may trigger a brain drain back to the US.

Stephen Minger, a US stem cell scientist at King's College London said: "It's unlikely we'll see a mass exodus to the US, but funding for embryonic stem cell research in the UK is low and extremely competitive."


I would First like to point out that when thinking about President Obama, and Abortion/Rights for Unborn Children he has done the following: Reversed a Ban on Funding for Oversea's Abortions , He has named Kathleen Sebelius the Health Secretary, He has taken the next step to remove protections for pro-life medical centers and staff who do not want to do abortions; He has Failed to invite Pro-life medical Groups to a summit on Health Care Reform and now he is increasing funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research... In Light of all this I have to say that it is fitting that Obama has a 100% pro-choice rating from NARAL.

What does all this have to do with Donald Miller you ask...

First of all, Mr. Miller was very very active in his support for Now President Obama. He spoke often on how Mr. Obama was "the only candidate who has a plan to reduce the number of abortions.(1)" He continues on, "McCain's only plan is the same old trick: say that you are pro life and offer no plan at all other than to criminalize abortion.(1)" This begs the question Mr. Miller -- Do you believe that Unborn people are Children worthy of the same protection of born children? If so, isn't Murdering them Criminal? Shouldn't they then be punished and treated as the Murders that they are? The alternative, Mr. Miller, leaves us asking either, what is this Unborn Child, if not human, if it doesn't have the same rights because it hasn't been seen outside of the womb. If you don't believe that Murdering Children is Criminal, what is it? "I simply think that plan hasn't worked, and we have to face that fact and look for other ways to make progress.(1)" The problem is this Mr. Miller - Roe V. Wade was decided January 22, 1973. This is 2 years after you were born, and 12 years before I was born. Neither of us have seen in our lifetime the results of Abortion being Criminal. History tells us however, that in 1966 there were only 1028 Legal abortions. After Roe V. Wade in 1973 there were 615,831 Legal abortions. That is about 599 times the number of abortions in 1966(2). So it seems to me, that we haven't really tried actually making abortion Criminal. That we haven't really outlawed it, but that you and others like you, Mr. Miller, simply say that it won't or doesn't work. The fact it, it is a Good Plan to reduce abortion, make it illegal.

Donald Miller says this,"I believe in the sanctity of life, I simply think we need to begin making progress, and Barack is offering progress.(3)" I have to say, that I do genuinely believe that Mr. Miller is Pro-life and that He believes that life should be protected, in fact he says, "I do wish we could end abortion completely, but the Republicans have not spelled out a realistic plan to do so, and until they do, I won't vote for a candidate who simply throws us a pro-life line and no plan. (3)" The problem here is at least two-fold: 1. Obama has not reduced anything having to do with abortions, He has expanded. 2. If you really want to end abortion Mr. Miller, if you really believe it is the Cancer, the abomination, that I do, then why arn't you fighting for that, why instead to you back a person who is openly and by your own admission, Pro-Choice(4). That would be like me saying that I was anti-Rape, but then Voting and supporting and Campaigning with a Rapist.

Mr. Miller, I want to call you to repentance. I believe that if you look at the facts at this point, you must come to the same conclusion I have, mainly, you were mistaken; that you sinfully helped a man get into the highest office of the land, who is openly willing to enable the murder of Children in the Womb. It is my prayer that you would openly make a statement that you do not support what Mr. Obama is doing, and if you are truly Pro-Life, that would be the case.


Footnotes
1. http://burnsidewriterscollective.blogspot.com/2008/09/interview-with-donald-miller.html; Paragraph 6
2. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html
3.http://burnsidewriterscollective.blogspot.com/2008/09/interview-with-donald-miller.html; Paragraph 7
4. http://burnsidewriterscollective.blogspot.com/2008/09/interview-with-donald-miller.html; Paragraph 8
5.

Election '08 - Clergy for Obama

Lets begin with the website --- http://clergy4obama.wordpress.com/ ---



Frankly, Just the name makes me tremble. It sounds like saying, Pastors for Damnation. It seems like the two are just oil and water... That said, I will start with there motto and move on from there.

We are Clergy for Obama.

We believe in Barack Obama’s ability to change this country we love so dearly; more importantly, we believe in our ability to be the change.

We believe in our ability to create a country where:
all children have nourishing food
the sick can find affordable healthcare
our young adults have real opportunities and a future they can trust
the elderly live securely and in community
women and men have choices about their private lives
armed conflict is a last resort, not a substitute for diplomacy

Together we believe in our ability to move this country
to a politics of hope
to a deep regard for the life of the planet and care for all creation
to an investment in programs that work to end poverty
to equal pay for equal work

We are children of God.
We are citizens of the United States of America.
We believe now is the time for change.

We are Clergy for Obama

I would like to begin here --
We believe in our ability to create a country where: all children have nourishing food --

Problem 1: "NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC endorses Sen. Barack Obama for president in 2008. Sen. Obama has a fully pro-choice record, and we are confident that as president he will be a champion for women's reproductive rights." So really the issue here is that Sen. Obama, is without a doubt a liar and a hypocrite. Many would quickly ask, "What?!" Let me explain -- Mr. Obama, claims to be a Christian, I'll be it a unitarian universalist, but a Christian none the less. Christianity at its core believes that Murder is sinful, and an immoral act. It would then follow that if Sen. Obama, truly was a Christian He would believe that Murder is immoral. When looking at what is within a mothers womb, and what a fetus is, it is clear that it is both human and a person. I will grant that it is in an odd location ( though all humans seem to have been there at one point in time save the first two) and it is rather under developed. It is very small and it's environment is different, much attached to it's location. All this said, it is still human, still a person. So then how can Sen. Obama be consistent with his so stated beliefs, and yet be a Christian? How can Clergy who are Christian support him? I think the answer is clear. I think it is fair to call him a hypocrite and a liar.

---women and men have choices about their private lives---
First and foremost, I would like to say that I both agree and disagree with this statement. The problem here is that the implication is that they are talking about the choice to kill their unborn child. Should people be free to make all kinds of choices with their private lives? Yes, Should those choices be allowed to cause harm to other human beings? No. Choices like rape, murder, abortion, torture, infanticide, abuse, neglect, ect. should all be regulated by the state, because they directly harm other persons. They are not choices that people should be allowed to make. Choices to Hurt others are unacceptable. Moreover, there are many "private" choices that the government moderates... Drugs (Yes, they are still Illegal), Sex (passing STD's), Rock n Roll (sound Curfew), Adultery ( if you are in the military). Abortion is unacceptable because it ends a human Life.

--- armed conflict is a last resort, not a substitute for diplomacy ---
No one likes war. I personally don't like war, mostly because unbelievers die and go to hell. That said, I think that the idea that diplomacy can work with radical Islam, is a joke. These are people who's scripture tells them to Kill Christians and Jews. How do you suggest that we deal with Radical Islam? How can you be diplomatic with people who simply want you dead?


---Together we believe in our ability to move this country---
--to a politics of hope--
How can a biblical centered preacher think that somehow our hope is in politics and not the Gospel? Our Hope is in the Cross... We don't want to put our hope in anything else? How would this statement work for someone who is in China, it wouldn't work for Christians there, why should it work here?



--to a deep regard for the life of the planet and care for all creation--
A deep regard for life... well except for the unborn, being as a tree seems to have more rights then a fetus... Do you really expect Mr. Pro-Death Obama to Change this?

---We are children of God.---

I seriously question if the majority of you are more likely Children of the devil.


I would like to make the public statement that I will not be voting for Obama, I do not believe that A christian Can vote for Obama, without sinning.

I personally Endorse McCain/Palin in '08.

Tony Campolo in Town

As you may or may not be aware, Tony Campolo is a major player in the Red Letter Christianity movement. Which basically wants to focus less on Abortion and Homosexuality and more on things like AIDS.

I wanted to share a quote from the local paper here in town that spoke about his visit.

Finally, on abortion Campolo argued than rather than outlawing it - which, he says, never prevented abortions before - he would rather work to reduce the number of women who choose abortion. He said that 70 percent of abortions are financially motivated; providing contraception and the means for young mothers to care for their babies would drastically cut the number of abortions.

Now, several things were Striking to me. First, the basic line of argumentation is flawed, it looks something like this; people will get abortions even if it is banned so why bother banning it - seems to be the basic idea. With all due respect to a man who was once a good preacher, sir - We ban Drugs, murder, theft, ect... and people still do it, so should we legalize those things too? Of Course not. You have balked at the moral issue at hand, which is Murder. You have in effect said, people will murder others, so lets make sure that there are less people to be killed! This is crazy talk. Well we can't stop Murderer's so lets not make it Illegal! You have to be kidding me, sir.

Second, Most abortions occur in women who are not married. So why not teach the bible, and Jesus' words that teach that Lust and fornication are Sin. That we shouldn't do them. You want to cut back abortion without law, use the bible. It is the Truth that sets people free from the wickedness of Sin. So why not preach the Word, instead of saying, "sin all you want, with no consequences?" You see, the basic order of things is as follows - Sex leads to Babies. More sex, equals greater chance of having a baby. Sex with Lots of different people may lead to having a baby with someone you did not want to have a baby with and/or not knowing who you are having a baby with. This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of diseases that Mr. Campolo is so concerned about. If you are worried about abortion and Aids, teach people to get married, and only have sex with there spouse.

Just Plain Sick

New Haven, CT (LifeNews.com) -- A Yale University art student is causing a national controversy with her senior art project that revolves around self-induced abortions. Aliza Shvarts says she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible" in order to become pregnant and reportedly used herbs to cause abortions.

Shvarts, a senior art major, intentionally caused the death of the babies with the herbs.

Afterwards, she allegedly saved her blood and the blood from each of the babies she killed to create an art display.

The display consists of a cube with video footage she took of the miscarriages on either side and a canvas in the middle with paintings created from the blood.

Shvarts mixed Vaseline with the blood to prevent it from drying and placed the blood between sheets of plastic wrapped around the cube that hung from the ceiling.

In a statement, Shvarts wouldn't reveal how many abortions she had over the nine month period in order to create the art project but it appears at least two abortions were necessary to complete the art display.

Shvarts said she did not intend the project to have "shock value" or to generate controversy.

"I hope it inspires some sort of disclosure. Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it’s not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone,” she said.

"It was a private and personal endeavor, but also a transparent one for the most part," Shvarts said. "This isn't something I've been hiding."

Laura Echevarria, an editorial columnist for LifeNews.com, says Yale University officials should have put a stop to the project or at least not display it.

"Yale should be ashamed that it is allowing an 'art' project that will offend millions of Americans," she said.

"Abortion is the deliberate destruction of human life. Putting that destruction on display as so-called art crosses a line and Yale should respond by pulling this project," Echevarria added.

Though Shvarts contends otherwise, Echevarria insists Shvarts likely created the project to receive attention.

"It is a gruesome and macabre display that, contrary to the 'artist's' assertion, was likely contrived because of its shock value," Echevarria said.

"This is just unbelievably macabre. I mean, how does someone do this not only to their own body but to the lives she kept creating and then aborting. How do you lose your sense of humanity to do such a thing?" Echevarria added.

She said Shvarts's project is also offensive to women who have had miscarriages and suffered the loss of a child they desperately wanted.

According to a Yale Daily News report, Shvarts won't reveal the names of the sperm donors and said they were checked for sexually transmitted diseases.

She said she wasn't concerned about the medical effect of the abortions -- even though the legal abortion drug RU 486 has killed 13 women worldwide and injured more than 1,200 in the United States alone.

Jonathan Serrato, a member of the campus pro-life group, told the Yale student newspaper he finds the concept disgusting.

"I feel that she's manipulating life for the benefit of her art, and I definitely don't support it," Serrato said. "I think it's morally wrong."

Yale University will have the project on public display from April 22 to May 1 and Shvarts' display will appear next to other senior art projects.