Category Archives: Life

Thoughts on a Horror

I invite you to think about these things.

We live in a world where a person can walk into a school full of defenseless children and shoot, and shoot, and shoot. Without empathy, feeling only hate and power. Without regard for any code or consequence, God or man.

Rather than register shock and horror, then eagerly place that item on a back shelf marked: ABERRATION; let us acknowledge that we really do live in such a world.

But let us also notice that against that one evil act, we can counter with several acts which were its polar opposite. In fact, that evil act was countered with several (at least) selfless and noble acts.

A football coach shielded students from bullets with his body, and died. A geography teacher ushered students into his classroom for protection but never made it inside. A quick-thinking ROTC student protected 60 to 70 people from gunshots behind Kevlar. Another teacher hid 19 students in a closet. A janitor warned about 40 students that they were running toward the shooter, and ushered them into a safe classroom. A 15 year old held the door for fellow fleeing students but was shot dead.

In the face of that evil act, these people responded by trying to save the lives of other people at the expense of their own. That requires incredible empathy, other-centered-ness, and self-sacrifice.

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends

It suggest belief that there is right and wrong, good and evil; that life is objectively valuable and better than death. And a belief that such horror and hate ought to be met with its opposite.

We live in that world too.

But we tend to live in the world of our mind’s making, the one in which we feel comfortable, the world as we imagine it. We might even secretly congratulate ourselves for choosing the world we do. I’m the kind of person who sees the world positively, so I’m a loving person. Or I see the world as tough and harsh, because I’m strong and a realist.

But those imaginary worlds don’t prepare us for the real one. It might be better to recognize the world we live in so that we can encounter it usefully. We can recognize that pure nihilism can cross our path, and we can choose to respond with selfless love.

That there will be more evil there is no doubt. Let us be prepared.

There are many other thoughts you may have on this matter. This was one.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Most Democrat Congresspersons Vote Against Medical Care for Infants Who Survive Abortion

On January 19, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act — legislation protecting babies who survive abortions.

H.R. 4712 contains an explicit requirement that a baby born alive during an abortion must be afforded “the same degree” of care that would apply “to any other child born alive at the same gestational age,” including transportation to a hospital. This language does not dictate bona fide medical judgments nor require futile measures, but rather, requires that babies born alive during abortions are treated in the same manner as those who are spontaneously born prematurely.

House Passes Pro-Life Bill Protecting Babies Born Alive After Botched Abortions

One hundred and eighty-three congresspersons, all Democrat, voted against the bill.  Zero Republicans voted against it.

235 Republicans voted for the bill. Six Democrats also voted in favor.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 36

One hundred and eighty three people who have attained the honorable station of legislator in the great nation of the U.S. voted to allow the denial of  medical care to tiny infants who are living after their abortion attempt. In the past these babies have been left to die or sometimes actively killed. Rep. Blackburn: “We have heard horror stories of babies being strangled, suffocated, or neglected to die.”

Someone ought to tell the honorable Democratic Congresspersons that this is not the moral high ground.

The Wrong Side of History and Cultural Change

On this day of the March for Life 2018, I repost this.

Let’s not be on the wrong side of history. I like to hope that some future people who descend from us will have rediscovered a better moral compass, learned to honor objective justice, and found the Truth. If so, they will look back at us and be appalled at our indolence and our indifference in the face of genocidal baby slaughter.

There can be no escape for us as a people. Multiplied millions of murdered children cannot go unanswered by the conscience of any belief system. Only an utter nihilist could deny that the scales will ultimately be balanced and we will be found wanting. A universe which assigns no meaning to, and passes no judgment upon endless human carnage is an absurd nightmare.

The activities of Planned Parenthood are indefensible. If we do not have the will to purge this corporate atrocity from our society, we do not deserve to call ourselves civilized, moral, or even decent human beings.

That said, I do realize that all abortions are not chosen in as careless a manner as PP advocates that they should be. It may be, for many women, that all available medical advice was to terminate and try again. The professionals they looked to assured them that termination was best for all. They grieved terribly over losing a child they wanted. Some women may have aborted for elective reasons but felt unaccountably uncomfortable about it after. I realize that there are many women who were urged to abort for what seemed like unarguable reasons.

That’s the problem. If the default of our society  is to err on the side of death in order to solve our problems, and women are confronted with life-and-death decisions when they are at their most vulnerable…death becomes the predetermined result.

Then those women, and their children, become victims of opportunistic corporate interests, and of the aggrandizement of political interests. The best and most well-meaning solution that such a society can offer is death as panacea.

Such a value system is inadequate to meet the needs of real life. In real life, unexpected stuff happens, lives are in peril, less than perfect decisions have to be made. If the overarching goal in the face of the unexpected is to get back to our comfort and our plans, no matter what the damage, those decisions will be brutal.

We need cultural change. We must not blink in the assessment of our own culture. We need to value Truth. We need to be willing to call evil, evil; and good, good.  We need to be a culture which values all human life and devalues none.

When difficult situations come, as they will, our impulse ought to be an honest search for a solution which protects and honors all involved. Our default should not be death for the defenseless ones.

“…but some everyones are more equal than others”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages

Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes that:

“Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.”

It is this kind of intentionally vague statement that totalitarians throughout our history have used to establish control and shape societies according to their will.

I see the problem right away, don’t you? Who exactly is everyone? It should be obvious that any despotic body can exclude any group it would prefer from the “everyone” umbrella with ease. Human society has a long history of selective inclusion to the most favored status. Slaves, European Jews, Armenians, Hutus.

Although over 100 organizations and states argued for the right of the unborn to be recognized among that “everyone,” a UN body has excluded the unborn from any rights or protections which international law can recognize.

From https://c-fam.org/right-life-international/

The latest effort comes from the Human Rights Committee, one of the oldest and better known of the UN treaty bodies. The committee is drafting a legal commentary on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the Right to Life, one of the foundational human rights instruments, that categorically excludes children in the womb and denies their membership in the human family.

The Human Rights Committee has created a contradictory premise within a universal statement. According to the HRC, the right to obtain an abortion is far more significant than “the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.”

The progressive penchant (born of Marxist theory) is to present two rights as though they are in conflict, make the best use of that conflict, and then to pick a winner.

As though two universal human rights can be mutually exclusive.

In reality, the right of every human being to be regarded as a person should not stand in conflict with the right to reproductive healthcare. It seems logical that if a universal right and a non-universal right are in conflict, the non-universal right is void, or at least questionable. A particular right can be forfeit by its owner; a criminal forfeits rights as the penalty for his crime. But the unborn do not forfeit their rights–the HRC and many others declare that they never posses such rights at all.

Both rights–the rights to life and to reproductive healthcare–are life affirming, health affirming, good things.  But that argument as presented by our progressive death culture reveals much: the right to life does stand in conflict with the right to obtain an abortion.

The pro-abortion mind has been tenacious in its preference to present this moral dilemma as a struggle between two interests: the interest of the woman vs. the interest of the unborn fetus inside the woman. Note the entrenched exploitation in the attempt to divide the most intimate co-existence known to humankind.

After which, that mind declares that it does not acknowledge one party–the unborn fetus–as an interest which it must respect. Erase that person from the equation (which you have created)–et viola!–the only interested party is the woman.

And anyone who would deny her rights is perpetrating injustice.

The UN HRC body is a nonsensical entity until it is able to recognize, at the very least, that the plight of the pregnant woman is a plight which involves two persons. From that position, we could then move forward in an effort to ensure the rights of both persons in a realistic manner. As long as we must play pretend while making international declarations, we are making ourselves selfish children engaging in nonsense.

Our cause is to keep the reality of the personhood of the unborn child always before the world. We must not allow the world to erase, forget and ignore the rights of the unborn human child.

animal-farm-some-animals-are-more-equal

 

 

Return to Respect for the Marriage Bed

I am appalled when I hear of a young married man and woman being asked to spend nights apart because of ministry duties.

God created human society. At humanity’s core is the intimate relationship between man and wife.  It is the nucleus of the relationship between man and woman; it is the Big Bang which creates the family; it is the center of all human relationship. Church, village, nation, world–all human society springs concentrically from the source of this physical/spiritual union between man and wife.

God designed the marriage relationship as a human mirror of His most intimate, unconditional and expressive love. His love for His Bride.

The marriage bed is respected and set apart — or made sacred — by God the Creator. Have we bought into the world’s evaluation of married sexual relationships? The newly married couple–wink wink–now can have some legal fun. No big deal if they have to put other priorities before this bit of self-indulgence.

No, no, no. This is what God has to say in His Word about married sex:

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. Hebrews 13:4

Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well. Proverbs 5:15

Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth. Malachi 2:15

God designed the first years of marriage as a special time when a couple nurtures and builds their love. He knows that physical expression binds the two together in a connection so close that we can hardly comprehend. It is a mystical union meant to reflect the faith, constancy and intense affection that He has for us. It is how we seal the ownership of one another, heart, body and soul. It is a time to develop a new wordless language unique to each relationship. It takes time, intentional effort, and self-sacrifice.

But I’m in a struggling ministry and I’m needed, you say. If you are married, you will never have another ministry which supersedes your marriage. It is your Number One Ministry Priority. The cultivation of your marriage as an expression of God’s gift, and its maintenance as a representative of God’s unbounded love, far surpasses any other ministry goals over time.

We are here to represent God to a world which needs Him. We are here to love God through loving (verb) His other human creations. How better to do that than to live out a marriage as He designed, since your marriage is an example of how God loves each of us?

The marriage bed is not to de slighted. It is the far more important than the world knows. Let’s be the ones who respect the marriage bed. The freedom of the married man and woman, particularly the newly married couple, to cultivate this most vital foundation—unhurried, unhampered, undistracted—should not be infringed by anyone. No one should tempt a newly married man or woman away from the marriage bed, from the right to spend private time together overnight in their own home. The marriage bed takes precedence over other relationships. The marriage bed comes far before any other ministry responsibilities.

And no man, and no woman, having recently married, should submit to a request to spend an overnight apart from his or her spouse. To do so is to slight the other, and the marriage, and the Lord who sealed your union.

How do I know? This is what God has to say on the subject of young marriage:

“When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home one year and shall give happiness to his wife whom he has taken.” Deuteronomy 24:5

God is not winking and nudging at honeymoons. He does not think the man and wife self-indulgent who enjoy their new intimacy. Even our Creator respects the marriage bed and tells us that it is of first priority over virtually all others.

Can We Stop an International Roe v. Wade?

According to Obianuju Ekeocha:

Someone at the @UNHumanRights committee is trying to redefine Right to Life to exclude unborn.

Can We Stop an International Roe v. Wade?

“This nightmare is now unfolding before our very eyes as the UN Human Rights Committee wraps up a draft legal commentary on the right to life that excludes unborn children from membership in the human family and the protections of international treaties.”

Let that last phrase sit in your consciousness for a minute.

“…excludes unborn children from membership in the human family and the protections of international treaties.”

Wherever abortion is legal, literally the only defense a pre-born baby has is the personal inclination of his or her mother. No state will protect him, no law will recognize her right to exist.  Whether an unborn child gets to grow up and become a member of human society, exactly like you and I did, or whether she is terminated and dismembered, or forced through premature delivery before viability, depends entirely  and solely upon the attitude of her host.

If the UN Human Rights Committee has its way, whenever a host-mother is inclined to terminate, no one in the world will recognize the right of that unborn child to protection. Unborn children will be legally excluded from the human family, and officially unrecognized as humans deserving any rights or protections whatsoever. If the pro-abortion activists in support of Article 6 have their way, there will be no place on Earth where an unborn child has protection under the law.

Unwilling to allow sovereign states to decide their own policies toward life, the U.N. wants to overrule any possibility for the defense of the most vulnerable of our world. What is this obsession with ensuring potential death for children everywhere?