Life without a Womb

While reading an article in the NY Post about embryonic stem cell therapy, I’m in a quandary of emotions. This story is about a blind child that doctors think will benefit from an injection of embryonic stem cells in his eyes. While that is blatantly WRONG because of the obvious implications of destroying life to maintain another, but has anyone thought of how this child will react when he is old enough to understand that a child or children DIED for his recovery? Will his parents keep him under a cloud lies of what life is – something to use if you need it and destroy if you don’t?

While people are reading this article and MFing President Bush for putting a stop to the carnage of embryonic stem cell research and therapy, their awareness of LIFE is only on the ones living outside the womb and is sadly misinformed.

Understand, these ‘trials’ are just that, trials – not proven. Unborn children are dying because of a huge ‘maybe’ and a hope that it MIGHT work; but even if it were true that embryonic stem cells cure, it’s still an atrocity, evil and most importantly, MURDER.

Again, just because the federal government approves it or passes laws for it, it does not mean it is correct or right. And like abortion, this is a brutal attack on LIFE of the unborn. Think of it way they do: the embryos they are abusing are ‘donated’ (really??) and without a womb so that must mean that it’s a fair ball. But like abortion, it is an attempt to rid the world of babies that aren’t important; this is clearly eugenic in nature.

LIFE isn’t without a price – to God and the biotechs that push embryonic stem cell research and therapy.

Life at the Big Ten

Or, Hail to the Victors??

The University of Michigan is the newest death mill – they are using private funds for embryonic stem cell research. Prolifers tend to forget that just because the government is not funding this heinous research does not mean that Bob the Billionaire is not. Also keep in mind that U of M is a public school.

U of M tries to skirt it by saying that the embryos were unwanted, surplus embryos that were going to be destroyed anyway….they’re no bigger than a period (.). In commenting on their thread, I find that Life is worth nothing to their supporters. It is perceived that it’s okay to take a life to make another life better and easier. “For there is no respect of persons with God” (Romans 2:11); that five day old embryo is just as important to God as YOU ARE.

How can anyone make the choice to take a life for research? If that is the case, and life is perceived, AND viability is still opinion, then that would mean that any pregnant woman is at risk of having their unborn child extracted for their alleged research at any gestation at any time.

Sounds rather Nazi-like, eh?

Certainly the University of Michigan is not alone in private funded embryonic stem cell research.

Be aware of who we root for and who we buy from…I do now.

The fight for the unnamed.

Who does abortion affect? Everyone.

A man in Texas found out he was going to be an uncle; he was overjoyed. The thought never crossed his mind that his sister would choose not to have the baby as planned, and would instead choose to have an abortion. He joined the fight against abortion and is working to inform the community about his family’s experience of losing a child.

A man in Ohio found out he was going to be a father…after his girlfriend had an abortion without his knowledge. He won’t have the opportunity to know that child until he goes on to Glory.

Did you know it is mathematically impossible to overpopulate the Earth?

No child should be born that is not wanted. The earth is groaning now from overpopulation. Birth control often fails. Abortion should be free, and yes, paid for by the government. Taxpayers would save money in the long run. As someone has said, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

As I read articles about prolife campaigns and the great work that they do, there is always negative and outright vulgar comments (quoting):

Fight like hell to keep ’em all alive (no problem with that) but once they are born, you better not raise my damn taxes one cent to pay for these deadbeats.

How did the human race learn to hate so vehemently?

A recent letter to the editor in the Dayton Daily News tried to compare abortion with capital punishment. The two are not apples and oranges, but more like elephants and goldfish. When does an innocent baby get a trial of its peers, or an appeal? Capital punishment may be cruel and unusual, but it is a punishment for a crime. Abortion is murder.

We were not made by God to be sexually active before marriage. So, keep your pants on.

Personhood USA says it’s organization’s goal is to amend state constitutions with the declaration that personhood begins at conception. Critics say giving a fertilized egg the status of personhood threatens everything from birth control to in vitro fertilization and stem cell research, but particularly to abolish abortion.

It took over 100 years (counting from 1857) for the civil rights movement to prove the personhood of the black population.

In 1857, the Supreme Court decides that slaves are property and Congress cannot deprive citizens of their property. Slaves are “not citizens of any state” and “have no rights a court must respect.”

Then how much longer will it take for the Supreme Court to validate the personhood of a human embryo at conception?

Life. Personhood. Respect.

Define ‘Personhood’

From Fox News:   North Dakota’s Senate has rejected legislation to bestow human rights on fertilized human eggs, whether they be in the womb or in a laboratory.

Senators voted 29-16 Friday to reject legislation that sought to define as a human being “any organism with the genome of homo sapiens.” The “personhood” status would include a developing embryo from the moment of conception, whether inside or outside the womb.

A handful of states are considering similar proposals, and the measure generated an intense lobbying campaign from abortion opponents and people who favor abortion rights.

Per-son-hood  [pur-suhn-hood] –noun 1.the state or fact of being a person.  2.the state or fact of being an individual or having human characteristics and feelings.

The CBHD says…Some bioethicists have attempted to deal with the issue of human personhood by either sidestepping it or making a distinction between human beings and human persons, putting the fetus in the former category but not the latter.

If one defines personhood on the basis of those who consciously performing personal acts, those who are asleep would be classified as non-persons and could be killed during a nap. If one defines personhood on the basis of those who have a present capacity to perform personal acts, those who are in a coma could be killed at any point during their coma.

Interesting, eh?

How did this happen – how did a child lose it’s personhood? We have to scrap for all of our ‘liberties’ that this current administration is trying to take away. Viability is the word of the day and it’s one big gaping loophole. Then I found this nugget:

The Personhood Theory:

Peter Singer of Princeton argues that unless an organism is self-aware over time, the entity in question is a non-person.  The British academic John Harris, the Sir David Alliance professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester, England, has defined a person as “a creature capable of valuing its own existence.” Other bioethicists argue that the basic threshold of personhood should include the capacity to experience desire. James Hughes, who is more explicitly radical than many bioethicists (or perhaps, just more candid), has gone so far as to assert that people like Terri Schiavo are “sentient property.”

So who are the so-called human non-persons? All embryos and fetuses, to be sure. But many bioethicists also categorize newborn infants as human non-persons (although some bioethicists refer to healthy newborns as “potential persons”). So too are those with profound cognitive impairments such as Terri Schiavo and President Ronald Reagan during the latter stages of his Alzheimer’s disease.

Personhood theory would reduce some of us into killable and harvestable people. Harris wrote explicitly that killing human non-persons would be fine because “Non-persons or potential persons cannot be wronged” by being killed “because death does not deprive them of something they can value. If they cannot wish to live, they cannot have that wish frustrated by being killed.”

These distinctions are not based based on on any moral sense of the inherent dignity and worth of every individual  but on convenience.  What was inconceivable thirty years ago is reality today.  Once it’s determined that you can kill newborn infants and those who lack self-awareness, what’s to stop the killing of the profoundly retarded, then the minimally retarded, than the stupid.  Where do you draw the line?

We should be concerned, even scared. This is the precursor to the Freedom of Choice Act.


Evangelical political wannabees drop the ball; RNC Steele says abortion okay


In an article from the Associated Press:  Conservative evangelical and Catholic leaders who went out on a political limb by aligning themselves with the Obama administration are expressing feelings ranging from disappointment to optimism in their reaction to the president’s decisions so far on culture war issues. Conservative evangelical and Catholic leaders who went out on a political limb by aligning themselves with the Obama administration are expressing feelings ranging from disappointment to optimism in their reaction to the president’s decisions so far on culture war issues.

This I find quite interesting since there is video all over the web with Obama speaking at Planned Parenthood claiming that the very first thing he will do in office is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, an act that has loop holes  bigger than the Rocky Mountains that disregard life at all costs. Did these evangelicals really think that they could change Obama’s mind? No, he has bigger things to do – he has to be the golden child for the Democratic party like they tried to do with JFK.

These evangelical leaders that ‘aligned’ themselves with Obama, said with their actions that politics were more important than standing in the place of an American citizen that will not be born as the result of abortion or research. Obama quickly signed away the lives of of children overseas with the UNFPA and then signed away the rights of embryos for research purposes. These evangelical leaders SOLD OUT.  The very elect among you…

And then there’s Michael Steele, the new chairman of the National Republican Party who said that women should have the right to decide whether to have an abortion. “I think that’s an individual choice,” he said.  He quickly recanted saying that abortion policy should be decided by the states. He then issued a statement to make clear that he is an opponent of abortion rights.

Social conservatives like Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, were particularly critical of Steele, “For Chairman Steele to even infer that taking a life is totally left up to the individual is not only a reversal of Republican policy and principle, but it’s a violation of the most basic of human rights — the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” Mr. Huckabee said.

Mr. Steele needs to get back to Republican Basics 101 – I personally wanted Ken Blackwell to get the position, anyway. Mr. Blackwell understands the basics of the Constitution and protecting life.