Miriam is dressed up today in a pretty little dress with a green sweater and eggshell tights. She has her hair in piggy-tails with red ribbons tied into bows around each one. When I hugged her and told her that she's my pretty little princess, Judah shouted:
"She is NOT a princess! She's BEAUTIFULER than a princess! She's a QUEEN!"
********
This morning, Miriam was sitting on the counter eating an apple while Judah was standing on the step-stool. He jumped down, and in his most exciting way, said, "MIRIAM! Do you want to PLAY? Do you want to play pirates?!?" She shook her head, "No."
He said, "What do YOU want to play?"
She said, "Girls."
He said, "Pirates?"
She said, "Girls."
He said something silly that made no sense and made her laugh.
Then he tried again, "Miriam! Let's play pirates!"
She shook her head, "No" and said, "Dress."
"OH! You want to play dress!? I know how to play that!" Judah exclaimed. Then, he said, "There's a PIRATE! And a dragon! And the dragon has on a dress! And he EATS the whole crew! Ha ha ha!!!!" (that's his sinister laugh)
Miriam says, "Baby doll dress."
********
A few weeks ago, Miriam was in a dress with tights for the first time in months, and Judah said, "Daddy, I can't stop looking at her. She's so beautiful."
********
I love living in a house with a little boy and a little girl, and I just have to laugh any time someone suggests that gender differences are not inherent. Right. Tell that to Miriam the next time Judah begs for a story about a pirate, and Indian, and a cowboy, and Miriam shouts, "NO! GIRL!"
Judah might have put some of his stuffed animals to bed every now and then, but Miriam puts them to bed, feeds them, puts clothes on them, changes their diapers, gives them baths, sings them songs, and cuddles them while singing in the sweetest voice, "Rock a baby tree top, cradle rock." What a precious, precious little girl.
My mighty warrior is saying right now, "You know that you are going to get killed, right? Yes!" There's a war going on downstairs with blocks and Noah's ark animals and tiny weapons molded from clay. A four-year-old boy was "exercising his strength" earlier with a make-shift barbell: a summer pool noodle (long cylindrical piece of styrofoam) with his two heavy snow boots on each end.
My children are so different yet so amazing. I'm trying my best to soak it all in with thankfulness. As a friend said recently, "When your children are young, the days are long, but the years are short."
**********
Danny Silk of Loving On Purpose wrote a short newsletter that got me all teary-eyed. You can find it here:
http://news.lovingonpurpose.com/2008/12/dec-newsletter.html
Merry Christmas
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Addendum to "Legitimize this statement" re: Genocide
Have you ever thought that I'm a complete lunatic to make the connection from abortion to infanticide to genocide?
Did you know that the 2003 congressional ban against partial birth abortion is intended to "draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide"? Did you know that it says that partial birth abortion "poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives"? It also states that "by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life"?
Did you know that the "Freedom of Choice Act" seeks to overturn this ban? Did you know that President-Elect Obama has promised to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act"? Do you know what this means for our nation? Do you understand the implications?
Whose freedoms, may I ask, does this act seek to protect?
Thanks to the Internet, you can find nearly any congressional legal document you wish to read--not just a commentary, but the real thing.
After reading through the ban Congress passed in January 2003 on partial birth abortion, which President-Elect Obama promises to overturn with the "Freedom of Choice Act," I just had to post some of it here--especially since I have friends who think I'm nuts for suggesting that Obama supports infanticide and that a vote for Obama was a vote for genocide (Patrick, I promise you're not the only one!)
This is the actual text from the congressional ban, not someone's interpretation of it:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/partial_birth_abortion_Ban_act_final_language.htm
The Congress finds and declares the following:
(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.
(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.
. . .
(14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses, Congress finds and declares that:
(A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: An increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, `there are very few, if any, indications for * * * other than for delivery of a second twin'; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.
(B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum.
(C) A prominent medical association has concluded that partial-birth abortion is `not an accepted medical practice', that it has `never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development,' that `the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown,' and that `there is no consensus among obstetricians about its use'. The association has further noted that partial-birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is `ethically wrong,' and `is never the only appropriate procedure'.
(D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman.
(E) The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.
(F) A ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.
(G) In light of this overwhelming evidence, Congress and the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, such a prohibition will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life.
(H) Based upon Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child during the delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that during a partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the birth process has begun. This distinction was recognized in Roe when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a child `in a state of being born and before actual birth,' was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a `person' under the United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a `person'. Thus, the government has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the partially-born child.
(I) This, too, has not gone unnoticed in the medical community, where a prominent medical association has recognized that partial-birth abortions are `ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques because the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is killed outside of the womb'. According to this medical association, the `partial birth' gives the fetus an autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to choose treatments for her own body'.
(J) Partial-birth abortion also confuses the medical, legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and promote life, as the physician acts directly against the physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered, all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life. Partial-birth abortion thus appropriates the terminology and techniques used by obstetricians in the delivery of living children--obstetricians who preserve and protect the life of the mother and the child--and instead uses those techniques to end the life of the partially-born child.
(K) Thus, by aborting a child in the manner that purposefully seeks to kill the child after he or she has begun the process of birth, partial-birth abortion undermines the public's perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world, in order to destroy a partially-born child.
(L) The gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth abortion procedure and its disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant promotes a complete disregard for infant human life that can only be countered by a prohibition of the procedure.
(M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain.
(N) Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a compelling interest in acting--indeed it must act--to prohibit this inhumane procedure.
(O) For these reasons, Congress finds that partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned. [bold and italics mine]
I didn't write this. I copied it directly from a legal congressional document that comprises a part of our nation's history. It was written five years ago after much deliberation, multiple court hearings, congressional meetings, countless testimonies, extensive research . . .
Why would President-Elect Obama--or anyone, for that matter--seek to overturn this ruling? Again, whose freedoms does the "Freedom of Choice Act" seek to protect?
The only answer I have is that the prince of this world, who is a thief, comes to steal, kill, and destroy; and "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12).
We MUST know what is in these documents. We MUST know what we're voting for. We MUST know the implications of our decisions on future generations.
Now is not the time to agree in silence. Let us awake. Let us unite. Let us fight.
Our nation's future depends on us.
Did you know that the 2003 congressional ban against partial birth abortion is intended to "draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide"? Did you know that it says that partial birth abortion "poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives"? It also states that "by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life"?
Did you know that the "Freedom of Choice Act" seeks to overturn this ban? Did you know that President-Elect Obama has promised to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act"? Do you know what this means for our nation? Do you understand the implications?
Whose freedoms, may I ask, does this act seek to protect?
Thanks to the Internet, you can find nearly any congressional legal document you wish to read--not just a commentary, but the real thing.
After reading through the ban Congress passed in January 2003 on partial birth abortion, which President-Elect Obama promises to overturn with the "Freedom of Choice Act," I just had to post some of it here--especially since I have friends who think I'm nuts for suggesting that Obama supports infanticide and that a vote for Obama was a vote for genocide (Patrick, I promise you're not the only one!)
This is the actual text from the congressional ban, not someone's interpretation of it:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/partial_birth_abortion_Ban_act_final_language.htm
The Congress finds and declares the following:
(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.
(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.
. . .
(14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses, Congress finds and declares that:
(A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: An increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, `there are very few, if any, indications for * * * other than for delivery of a second twin'; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.
(B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum.
(C) A prominent medical association has concluded that partial-birth abortion is `not an accepted medical practice', that it has `never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development,' that `the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown,' and that `there is no consensus among obstetricians about its use'. The association has further noted that partial-birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is `ethically wrong,' and `is never the only appropriate procedure'.
(D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman.
(E) The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.
(F) A ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.
(G) In light of this overwhelming evidence, Congress and the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, such a prohibition will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life.
(H) Based upon Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child during the delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that during a partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the birth process has begun. This distinction was recognized in Roe when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a child `in a state of being born and before actual birth,' was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a `person' under the United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a `person'. Thus, the government has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the partially-born child.
(I) This, too, has not gone unnoticed in the medical community, where a prominent medical association has recognized that partial-birth abortions are `ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques because the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is killed outside of the womb'. According to this medical association, the `partial birth' gives the fetus an autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to choose treatments for her own body'.
(J) Partial-birth abortion also confuses the medical, legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and promote life, as the physician acts directly against the physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered, all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life. Partial-birth abortion thus appropriates the terminology and techniques used by obstetricians in the delivery of living children--obstetricians who preserve and protect the life of the mother and the child--and instead uses those techniques to end the life of the partially-born child.
(K) Thus, by aborting a child in the manner that purposefully seeks to kill the child after he or she has begun the process of birth, partial-birth abortion undermines the public's perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world, in order to destroy a partially-born child.
(L) The gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth abortion procedure and its disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant promotes a complete disregard for infant human life that can only be countered by a prohibition of the procedure.
(M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain.
(N) Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a compelling interest in acting--indeed it must act--to prohibit this inhumane procedure.
(O) For these reasons, Congress finds that partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned. [bold and italics mine]
I didn't write this. I copied it directly from a legal congressional document that comprises a part of our nation's history. It was written five years ago after much deliberation, multiple court hearings, congressional meetings, countless testimonies, extensive research . . .
Why would President-Elect Obama--or anyone, for that matter--seek to overturn this ruling? Again, whose freedoms does the "Freedom of Choice Act" seek to protect?
The only answer I have is that the prince of this world, who is a thief, comes to steal, kill, and destroy; and "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12).
We MUST know what is in these documents. We MUST know what we're voting for. We MUST know the implications of our decisions on future generations.
Now is not the time to agree in silence. Let us awake. Let us unite. Let us fight.
Our nation's future depends on us.
"Legitimize this statement" re: Genocide
An open letter to my long-time friend and compatriot Patrick Layne:
Dear Patrick,
I had a dream about you a couple nights ago which reminded me that I have yet to respond to the comment you left on my blog. This might sound weird, but thank you for disagreeing with me—and not just in your head, but out loud. You are one of the friends I’ve had the longest, and I’m so honored that we’ve continued to remain friends even through major disagreements. My response to you has turned into another long blog post. I’m sure you’re not surprised.
This is the comment that you left on my post "A matter of life or death and a decision impacting generations":
While I have every option not to voice my opinion here as it is unlike all the rest posted here, I can't help but one million percent disagree with the notion that a "vote for Obama is a vote for genocide." Um, legitimize this statement. Roe v. Wade was legalized in 1973. Like it or not, it is the law of the U.S. I struggle to see how Obama will make abortion more legal than it already is. Abortion would almost certainly continued to have been legal had John McCain won the election. Would that have made a vote for McCain a vote for genocide?
In a nutshell, I believe I did legitimize my statement in my post, but I'll happily expound. In a nutshell, abortion was legal in the U.S. pre-Roe v. Wade. It would continue to be legal in some states if Roe v. Wade were overturned; however, other cases have opened wide the door to not only abortion, but also to infanticide, and that's where I believe genocide begins (as in the case of Nazi Germany which gradually moved from killing infants to three-year-olds to 17-year-olds to adults in fewer than ten years). I'll repost that section in this response.
President-Elect Obama supports not only abortion, but every form of abortion including partial birth abortion, which congress found to be "a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited." Most partial birth abortions have been performed on babies during the second trimester, or after 20 weeks (five months), which is when the gender of the baby can be determined. Dr. Martin Haskell, the author of a paper outlining partial birth aboriton,"performed over 700 of these procedures" and in 1992 wrote that he "performs these procedures up to 32 weeks or more." A full-term baby is one who reaches 40 weeks on average, give or take two weeks; therefore, 20 weeks is half-way through the pregnancy.
Obama also opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act four times, which would proposed medical care for babies born alive during abortion attempts (that is outlined in my previous post, but I'll expound on it here, too).
Finally, he promises to sign the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act,” which would legalize partial-birth abortion and eliminate current restrictions on abortion, including requiring doctors who choose not to perform abortions to begin offering abortion services.
In January 2003, congress passed an act "to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion":
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds and declares the following:
(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited [boldface mine].
Before I go on, let me say that I sincerely hope and pray that I’m wrong. I really do. But I wholeheartedly believe what I wrote in my previous posts. I really do believe that our country is on a path toward socialism and, yes, even genocide. Maybe I’m crazy. I can live with that. But when I look at the cycles that other countries have experienced and when I consider that history repeats itself and when I think about the gradual changes that have been made with regard to the “pro-choice” movement, I can’t help but visualize our country, as early as 10 years from now, progressively legalizing horrific and barbaric “procedures” beginning with abortion and killing infants who are born alive during abortion attempts to eventually killing unwanted toddlers, teens, and adults. Remember the Nazi Germany example? I'll re-post it in a minute.
Back to Obama and his position on infanticide. His supporters like to point out that he said, with regard to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, “if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked after." However, that statement is taken out of context. He uses clever semantics to distinguish between a "live birth" and an "abortion" before he references "children who are being born alive." You can read the full context of his statement on pages 31-34 of the State of Illinois 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript here: http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf.
If you will, just hang with me for a minute while I lead up to my point . . . on page 29 you'll find that the "Induced Birth Infant Liability Act," which became known as the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" would "create a cause of action where medical care, as provided for in Senate Bill 1663, is not provided" http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf.
Some of the quotes that really stood out to me as I read through the transcript are as follows: Obama states, " . . . one of the things that we were concerned about, was what impact this would have with the respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation" (p. 31) . . . adding a--an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments [confirm that the baby was, in fact, born alive and is also considered "viable"], is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion . . . this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births . . . because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked after" (italics and boldface mine).
Here you have a great example of clever legal semantics. When Obama refers to “children who are being born alive,” he is not referring to babies who are the product of a “botched abortion.” Look at the previous sentence. He says, “This issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.” He makes a distinction between the two before he offers his “confidence” that babies who are "born alive" in hospitals will be looked after by doctors. Of course those babies will be looked after. They are not under contract to be killed. The babies that will not be looked after—the ones who will be left to die even if they are delivered alive--even if they are considered viable—are those who are under contract to be delivered dead. A woman seeking an abortion signs a contract essentially asking the doctor to produce a dead baby. If a live one is produced, as Obama pointed out, “what liabilities [might] the doctor have in this situation”?
My question is, "What liabilities might we as a nation have in these situations?" If we do not make laws to protect the most vulnerable in our nation, what then? Laws are designed to protect the innocent, not the wealthy.
Can abortion become more or less legal? No. However, the next link in the chain is infanticide. And then what? Remember Nazi Germany? Have you read or taken time to consider the following section of my previous blog post?
The Unimaginable Becomes Imaginable;
Then It Becomes Common
. . . Acceptable thought changes throughout time. History continually repeats itself as in the examples set before us by Christian Overman, the author of Assumptions that Affect Our Lives, "Infanticide was commonly accepted and widely practiced in ancient Greece. The Spartans tossed unwanted children from the side of Mt. Taygetus, and the Athenians exposed them to the elements in earthen jars placed next to the temples of their gods." Now fast-forward to the early to mid-1940s in Nazi Germany where "there was a special agency set up for the purpose of child termination. It was made up of psychiatric and pediatric experts, whose function it was to decide--entirely on their own--which children were to be eliminated" (1996, p. 67) [boldface mine].
In his book The Sign for Cain, Dr. Fredric Wertham writes of the agency that Overman described:
The children slated for death were sent to special "children's divisions." ... They were killed mostly by increasing doses of Luminal or other drugs either spoon-fed as medicine or mixed with their food. The dying lasted for days, sometimes weeks. In actual practice, the indications for killing eventually became wider and wider. Included were children who had "badly molded ears," who were bed-wetters, or who were perfectly healthy but designated as "difficult to educate." The children coming under the authority of the Reich Commission were originally mostly infants. The age was then increased from three years to seventeen years. Later, in 1944 and 1945, the work of the commission also included adults (quoted from Assumptions that Affect Our Lives by Christian Overman, 1996, p. 69) [boldface and italics mine].
Couldn't happen in America? Consider this: while abortion was unthinkable in the 1950s, today it's embraced by many as a "right" or a "choice." Infanticide is currently unthinkable to many Americans. We have a hard time believing that babies who are aborted couldn't possibly be born alive. They're just a blob of tissue, right? My dear friend and former employer Gianna Jessen, who was born during a saline abortion, is proof that a baby is not a blob of tissue and that babies who survive abortion attempts can go on to live full and prosperous lives given proper medical treatment at birth.
What if the abortionist had been present during Gianna's birth in 1977? She would have received proper medical treatment, right? Not so. The truth is, she would have been strangulated, suffocated, or left to die. Sadly, infanticide has been a reality in our country for years. In states like Illinois, infanticide is still legal.
"Even as far back as 1982, legal infanticide hit the headlines when the Indiana Supreme Court officially sanctioned the deliberate withholding of medical treatment and the subsequent starvation of a newborn child known to millions as 'Infant Doe.' Born with Down's Syndrome, the baby suffered from a blocked esophagus that could have been easily corrected through routine surgery. But the court granted the parents authority to withhold food. After six days, Infant Doe starved to death, not in an earthen jar, but in a modern, sterile American hospital" Assumptions that Affect Our Lives by Christian Overman (1996), p. 69.
Sobering, isn't it? The law protected the parents from being tried for murder. They let their baby starve to death, and the law protected them--not their baby. As a believer in the Most High God, I am commissioned to stand up for and plead the case of the orphan and the widow—to give a voice to those who cannot plead their own case. This is my plea.
Why did I say that a vote for Obama was a vote for genocide? One of the main reasons is this:
In his July 17, 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund Obama said,
"We know that a woman's right to make a decision about how many children she wants to have and when— without government interference—is one of the most fundamental freedoms we have in this country. . . . I have worked on this issue for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught constitutional law. . . So, you know where I stand. . . The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."
Do you know what the Freedom of Choice Act states? Have you taken the time to read it?
According to Wikipedia,
“The bill is described by NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan as a bill to ‘codify Roe v. Wade’ which would ‘repeal the Bush-backed Federal Abortion Ban,’ referring to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, ‘and other federal restrictions.’
Similarly, opponents of the bill assert that[2] it would, if passed, invalidate every restriction on an abortion before the stage of viability, in every state, even those previously found consistent with Roe v. Wade by the United States Supreme Court, such as parental notification laws, waiting periods, requirements of full disclosure of the physical and emotional risks inherent in abortion, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Opponents further assert that it would challenge the right of religiously-based hospitals or clinics to refuse to perform abortions, and that it would force the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which restricts the use of Federal funding for abortions. Conservative legal scholar Douglas Kmiec disagrees with the latter assertion, noting that the Hyde Amendment is renewed annually by Congress and argues that this legislation would not supersede it [3].
In other words, minors seeking abortions would not need parental consent. Waiting periods would be eliminated. Physical and emotional risks would not be disclosed. Doctors who currently refuse to perform abortions would be required to perform them by law. The partial-birth abortion ban act would be reversed. Taxpayer dollars would fund these "gruesome and inhumane" procedures. This is not a bill about abortion. It is a bill about infanticide: government-protected, and perhaps eventually government-legislated infanticide.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has been vehemently opposed to the Freedom of Choice Act. According to the USCCB's Secretariat for Pro-Life Activites, FOCA would not only "codify the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade" but "in allowing and promoting abortion, FOCA goes far beyond even Roe."[9] On November 12, 2008, Francis Cardinal George, president of the USCCB, warned that FOCA would limit the right of Catholic hospitals and doctors to not offer abortions adding that, "those who support FOCA must realize that if Catholic hospitals are ever required to perform abortions, the bishops will close every one of them; no one would be hurt more than the poor."[10] Drawing on Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae, the Catholic apologist Frank M. Rega, S.F.O., writes[11]:
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation co-sponsored by Barack Obama which would nullify all state laws that in any way attempt to limit or regulate abortion, including partial-birth abortion. Ironically, it specifies that government will not interfere with a woman’s choice to keep or to kill her unborn child. Nevertheless, FOCA would be a major move towards the dangerous precipice of government-mandated abortion, since it would consolidate all power over birth control into the hands of federal law and authorities. From there it would only be a small step to amend it in the light of overriding national health interests, environmental or population concerns, or any other reason deemed appropriate. Thus the FOCA clause in section 4.b.1.a, stating that a woman has the “right to choose to bear a child” could conveniently and easily be changed to, for example, that a woman has the right to choose to bear up to two children. More ominously, it could be amended to state that a woman has the right to bear a child, except in cases of rape, incest, Down syndrome, etc. [boldface mine].
The pro-life organization Americans United for Life (AUL) began a petition called Fight FOCA to collect signatures to oppose FOCA. AUL also wrote an open letter to Senator Barack Obama on FOCA.[12] As of Friday, December 5, 2008, at 22:39:00 UT, the Fight FOCA petition has 311,013 signatures.[13]"
My signature is included among the many.
In her conclusion to "The Freedom of Choice Act: A Radical Attempt to Prematurely End Debate Over Abortion," Denise M. Burke, the AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs writes:
“Clearly FOCA will not make abortion safe or rare – on the contrary, it will actively promote abortion and do nothing to ensure its safety – so, abortion advocates’ unrelenting campaign to enact FOCA is a “wake-up call” to all Americans. If implemented, FOCA would invalidate common-sense, protective laws that the majority of Americans support. It will not protect or empower women. Instead, it would protect and promote the abortion industry, sacrifice women and their health to a radical political ideology, and silence the voices of everyday Americans who want to engage in a meaningful public discussion over the availability, safety, and even desirability of abortion.”
Can abortion become more or less legal? No. However, our President-to-be has made some promises to a very large, wealthy, influential organization that, if fulfilled, will open many doors to frightening places. I believe with my whole heart that we are a nation waltzing toward genocide. PRAY. SPEAK. ACT. Now is not the time to be silent. Remember, acquiescence means to agree in silence. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. warned us all against acquiescing. Stand up. Make your voice heard. Pray. We are a nation hinging on a great comeback or a great fall.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
My Mira-Yummy
Miriam is s
omething of a parrot. She repeats nearly everything I say, only she puts a question mark at the end. If I say, "I need to get some work done." She says, "Wuhk done?"
She will be TWO on Tuesday. In her honor, here are a few of my favorite Mira-isms:
Mommy, hode me. (Mommy, hold me. Probably said most often.)
Mommy, REEEED. Read book. (Mommy, read to me please.)
Read Tigah book. (Read Tiger Can't Sleep)
Read Baby Craw Way (Read The Day the Babies Crawled Away.)
Go, Mommy. (Here you go, Mommy or Judah or Daddy . . .)
Tickle ME! (She lies down and waits for us to tickle her.)
Mommy, weesh you. (Mommy, I want to go with you.)
Mommy, seep. (Mommy, sleep next to me.)
Baby seepin. (She put her babies to bed and now they're sleeping.)
Mommy, doin? (What are you doing, Mommy?)
AAAAAH you? EAH AAAH YOU, Mommy? (Where are you?)
Come on, Mommy. Come on. (She watches her hand motions.)
Mommy, take a show-ah? (Mommy's going to take a shower?)
Aw done showah? (All done taking a shower?)
Uh brush teef! (I want to brush my teeth.)
Shef! Do it meshef! (I can do it myself!)
Mommy do it. (she pulls this one out for messes)
Bonk head. Mommy kish it! (when Judah offers to kiss it)
I top kye-ing. (I stopped crying.)
Check-ah-Judah. (I need to go check on Judah--he's upset.)
Hug kish? (Want a hug and a kiss?)
I taw! (I'm tall!)
Mine, Judah. (this one's ALL inflection)
Top, Judah. (Stop, Judah--said with force.)
Judah take way! (Judah took that away from me!)
No, Judah. (a pretty common one)
Righ-day-ah (her answer to "Where is it?" Right there!)
Mah Chay-ah! (That's my [giraffe] chair!)
Puh-pul sh-uht! (Purple shirt!)
Duhty sh-uht. New shuht. (I need a new shirt. This one's dirty.)
Take off. (Help me take it off.)
Nake-d bay-bee! (usually spoken while running)
Honk. (spoken while squeezing your nose)
Lemen-tine! (I want a clementine!)
Tinky too-ees. (Stinky tooties--time for a new diaper!)
Piggy moussh (Mickey Mouse)
Gi-yap hoshee (straddling one of us on the floor--Giddyap Horsie!)
Jumpy Jumpy Jumpy! (said while jumping on the bed)
Rock a baby, tree top, cradle rock (full song over and over again)
Happy Buhsh day to YOU! (second favorite song)
Je-zush wuv me so (another favorite song)
What time is it?
New diap-ah time!
As we're reading Go Dog Go, I say, "Where are those dogs going?"
Miriam says, "Go-shee shoppin!" (grocery shopping!)
Mommy, food.
What kind of food?
EAT food.
Nod yes: chin moves up and down
Head shakes no: little shiver shake
Judah dresses up like a pirate and asks who he looks like.
Mira says, "Arrgh-a matey"
Judah says, "YES! Miriam! That's right!" in a very high-pitched voice.
I wish I could put her on pause for a while. She's my snuggly little princessy girl of sweetness. My Mira-yummy.
omething of a parrot. She repeats nearly everything I say, only she puts a question mark at the end. If I say, "I need to get some work done." She says, "Wuhk done?"She will be TWO on Tuesday. In her honor, here are a few of my favorite Mira-isms:
Mommy, hode me. (Mommy, hold me. Probably said most often.)
Mommy, REEEED. Read book. (Mommy, read to me please.)
Read Tigah book. (Read Tiger Can't Sleep)
Read Baby Craw Way (Read The Day the Babies Crawled Away.)
Go, Mommy. (Here you go, Mommy or Judah or Daddy . . .)
Tickle ME! (She lies down and waits for us to tickle her.)
Mommy, weesh you. (Mommy, I want to go with you.)
Mommy, seep. (Mommy, sleep next to me.)
Baby seepin. (She put her babies to bed and now they're sleeping.)
Mommy, doin? (What are you doing, Mommy?)
AAAAAH you? EAH AAAH YOU, Mommy? (Where are you?)
Come on, Mommy. Come on. (She watches her hand motions.)
Mommy, take a show-ah? (Mommy's going to take a shower?)
Aw done showah? (All done taking a shower?)
Uh brush teef! (I want to brush my teeth.)
Shef! Do it meshef! (I can do it myself!)
Mommy do it. (she pulls this one out for messes)
Bonk head. Mommy kish it! (when Judah offers to kiss it)
I top kye-ing. (I stopped crying.)
Check-ah-Judah. (I need to go check on Judah--he's upset.)
Hug kish? (Want a hug and a kiss?)
I taw! (I'm tall!)
Mine, Judah. (this one's ALL inflection)
Top, Judah. (Stop, Judah--said with force.)
Judah take way! (Judah took that away from me!)
No, Judah. (a pretty common one)
Righ-day-ah (her answer to "Where is it?" Right there!)
Mah Chay-ah! (That's my [giraffe] chair!)
Puh-pul sh-uht! (Purple shirt!)
Duhty sh-uht. New shuht. (I need a new shirt. This one's dirty.)
Take off. (Help me take it off.)
Nake-d bay-bee! (usually spoken while running)
Honk. (spoken while squeezing your nose)
Lemen-tine! (I want a clementine!)
Tinky too-ees. (Stinky tooties--time for a new diaper!)
Piggy moussh (Mickey Mouse)
Gi-yap hoshee (straddling one of us on the floor--Giddyap Horsie!)
Jumpy Jumpy Jumpy! (said while jumping on the bed)
Rock a baby, tree top, cradle rock (full song over and over again)
Happy Buhsh day to YOU! (second favorite song)
Je-zush wuv me so (another favorite song)
What time is it?
New diap-ah time!
As we're reading Go Dog Go, I say, "Where are those dogs going?"
Miriam says, "Go-shee shoppin!" (grocery shopping!)
Mommy, food.
What kind of food?
EAT food.
Nod yes: chin moves up and down
Head shakes no: little shiver shake
Judah dresses up like a pirate and asks who he looks like.
Mira says, "Arrgh-a matey"
Judah says, "YES! Miriam! That's right!" in a very high-pitched voice.
I wish I could put her on pause for a while. She's my snuggly little princessy girl of sweetness. My Mira-yummy.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Judah, Miriam, and a little blue Dinosaur
Judah and Miriam were fighting over a little toy dinosaur this morning, so I asked Judah if he would like to let his sister play with it for a little while or have me take it away from both of them. My reasoning was that his relationship with his sister is more important than the dinosaur, so if he chose to fight about it, I would simply take it away. He chose to let her play with it.
A few minutes later I noticed that Miriam didn't have the dinosaur anymore. She brought me a book to read. I said, "I'll be happy to read that book to you as soon as you give the dinosaur back to Judah since you're not playing with it anymore. She shook her head "no." (Well, she kind of shivers a "no.") When I asked her where the dinosaur was, she said, "Grocery shopping."
And so begins "Conversations with Miriam." She'll be two on Tuesday.
A few minutes later I noticed that Miriam didn't have the dinosaur anymore. She brought me a book to read. I said, "I'll be happy to read that book to you as soon as you give the dinosaur back to Judah since you're not playing with it anymore. She shook her head "no." (Well, she kind of shivers a "no.") When I asked her where the dinosaur was, she said, "Grocery shopping."
And so begins "Conversations with Miriam." She'll be two on Tuesday.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Guaranteed Lowest Rates on Hotels--here's proof!
"Lowest rates on hotels--guaranteed."
That's what my travel center claims. Now I have proof!
Compare the "discounted rates" for Dani Johnson's next First Steps to Success with what we just paid through my travel center . . .
For Reservations call toll free
$115 per night if you reference DaniJohnson.com or First Steps to Success and register by January 9, 2009.
OUR RECEIPT FROM BOOKING THROUGH MY TRAVEL CENTER:
Hilton St. Louis at the Ballpark
1 S Broadway
SAINT LOUIS MO US 63102
Phone:
Phone (Alt):
Check in: January 23, 2009
Check out: January 26, 2009
3 Night(s)
1 Room(s); 1 King Bed City View
2 Adults
Rate per Room per Night:
January 23, 2009 - $79.00
January 24, 2009 - $79.00
January 25, 2009 - $79.00
Tax Recovery Charges And Service Fees: $45.30
Total: $282.30 (Total is for entire stay with tax recovery charges and service fees)
We saved $35 per night for a total of $115. No promotional code necessary.
If you're planning to attend the next First Steps to Success and want to save $35 per night too, then I suggest booking through my travel center! And . . . the next time you need to stay in a hotel, check it out! http://increasingfreedomnow.
Happy Traveling!
Thursday, December 4, 2008
To whom much is given . . .
"To whom much is given, much is required."
This is what I thought as I was pulling another load of clothes out of the washing machine. Clothes that are WAY too small for me. Clothes that I don't wear. Clothes that belong to my children. Clothes that I wash and dry and fold and hang and put on small children and pick up and start all over again. To whom much is given, much is required. My children are gifts. My husband is a gift. I have been given much. Much is required.
James and I are on our way out the door. We're attending a Creating a Dynasty Conference this weekend in Atlanta, which is all about raising up leaders. James attended the prerequisite seminar, First Steps to Success, and LOVED it as much as I did. Now, we're going together to listen to Dani Johnson and mingle with successful entrepreneurs. I'm SO excited! Atlanta, here we come!
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Judah the Superhero
After asking Judah three times to clean his room and seeing no results, I decided to apply one of Danny Silk's strategies. Here's how the conversation went:
"Hey Judah, feel free to take as long as you need to pick up your room. I just need you to get it cleaned up before you leave it."
"Mommy, when you say that, it makes me want to leave my room."
"It does?"
"Yeah."
Moments later, as I'm cleaning up the kitchen, I hear Judah upstairs saying,
"Cleaning like a superhero! It will be done in no time!"
Once he's finished (which is a matter of minutes), he says, "Maaaaaaah-meeeee, come and check out what IIIIIIIIII did!"
I drop everything and say, as I'm climbing the stairs, "Are you telling me your room is picked up? No way. That was too fast. I guess I'll see . . . OH MY GOSH, JUDAH!?! You picked up your room THAT FAST?!? Wow! You must be a superhero!"
"Yep. I am," he boasts.
Danny Silk rocks. Check out his new website: http://lovingonpurpose.com and get the MP3 download "Loving our kids on purpose." It will revolutionize your world. It's all about preserving the connection (the love relationship) and raising responsible kids.
The thing I'm employing right now with Miss Miriam when she's crying and begging me to hold her is to say, "Miriam, do you want me to hold you? Then you need to stop crying. Mommy will hold you as soon you stop crying." She immediately pulls it together before I pick her up. Amazing. I learned how to help my almost two-year-old establish self-control from my friend Shyla at http://motheringingrace.blogspot.com. Shyla's the proud mother of six--with one on the way.
Ever since Judah prayed for me, I've had a lot more self-control, too. I had started getting frustrated easily and shouting about everything. I finally sat down with Judah and prayed for him to be a better big brother (after he hurt his sister--again) and asked him to pray that I would be a better mommy. He said, "God, please help mommy to stop shouting at me so much." God answered his prayer right away. Even when I want to yell, I'm able to say, "Judah, go in the other room please" until I cool down. Amazing.
Ask, and it will be given to you--even if you're only four.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)