Thursday, June 28, 2007

So Now What?

It was a hard fought battle, but I think everyone survived. I think it's pretty clear that I've covered all the bases regarding the beginning of human life and personhood. New fighters may engage, but please read through the many comments to avoid rehashing that which has been settled. Any real evidence in support of a counter argument will be greatly appreciated (but probably exposed as more subjective opinion).

So the question is, what now? I've done nothing but articulated the pro-life position and in a manner that suggests I know what I'm talking about. Not hard, really. It's so obvious to anyone who looks objectively. I suppose it would begin with a repackaging of the facts as presented and a better marketing approach than what has been used thus far. That's the first step in changing hearts and minds; presenting the facts in an easy to understand and indisputable manner. And present them without question to people in power. Eventually, enough people will begin to understand that which they didn't even try to understand. Some will experience an epiphany or a paradigm shift and they will no longer be able to see the issue as the so-called "pro-choicers" insist it be seen.

For the pro-choicers, their claims must be vigorously refuted. The issue has never been about controlling women, as too many want you to believe, but about saving lives. And it's about personal responsibility and dealing with the consequences of one's actions. Not killing them.

And it's about prevention. How do we prevent a pregnancy. It's awful. It's agregious. It's unthinkable. But the best way is something sure to cost the lives of millions due to it's stress and impossibility. It's the most dreaded and hated method of all. Yes, my friends. It's

ABSTINENCE!!!

Oh yes, it's that bad. It will be so terrible. People will be walking along and just drop dead because they haven't done the nasty in two months. Sex is like air, water, sustinence.

But truly, people have satisfied themselves with half measures and the psycho need for sex has driven them to create pathetic and misleading arguments to assuage their guilt and abdicate their responsibilities. But just imagine what the world would be like if folks stopped lying and controlled their urges! Wow! Delaying self-gratification for the good of the self and one's community! What a concept!
For the young, education. Not the how to, but the what if you do. They especially have to understand what happens and what the product of their actions really is. They must know the "A" word is the only sure way to prevent, not only pregnancies, but all the STDs that are now rampant amongst their older brothers' and sisters' peers. And teach them character and virtue and honor and maturity. And that'll be even harder without religion.
But for the politicians, hammer 'em. Let them know that their position on abortion affects your vote. Let them know that if they claim to believe as you do that they'd damn well better prove it if they're elected.
For parents, encourage them to be parents. This "kids are gonna do it anyway" crap has to stop. It doesn't work that way for 90% of 'em. Kids need and want parents, so parents have to lay down the law and enforce it with extreme prejudice. Lives are at stake here.
For the spineles, the weak-willed, and the totally selfish and uncaring, for all those who insist that sex is what makes the world go 'round, get out there and develop the 100% effective contraceptive. And not a "birth control" pill that only prevents a normal birth but doesn't prevent a conception, which is what a "contraceptive" is supposed to do. If you can create that foolproof method that's as effective as abstinence, you'll be rich and you can pretend you're really responsible.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Uh, We Forgot Something!

Over at Casting Pearls Before Swine, Mark discusses the goofiness of a man being charged for two murders because the woman he killed was pregnant. It's not that he shouldn't be charged with two murders, but that in a world where a pregnant woman is allowed to decide whether she's carrying a child or a lump of tissue, don't they need to know how she felt about her pregnancy before charging the guy?

Of course each state has it's own rules regarding such things and in the state where this crime occurred, they may have more sense. But it seems the whole issue, indeed specifically the Roe v Wade decision, was premature. Should there not have been some federal interpretation of what constitutes a human being, a person, someone worthy of the rights afforded all United States citizens under the Constitution? I'm not aware that this has ever taken place.

Personally, I think it's pretty obvious. I've stated it consistently in every such discussion of which I've been a part. The act of sexual intercourse is designed by God (or nature, for you heathens) as a means of producing an offspring, thereby insuring the existence of the species for another generation. Basic biology. It's more often done for the pleasure it provides (at least during the act), but that pleasure is built in to the whole procedure to guarantee that it even gets done (imagine if it didn't feel good---who'd do it without being forced?). The product of that action is another human being, as soon as fertilization takes place. How could it possibly be anything else given the purpose of the act that brought it about, or, more specifically, invited it into existence? From that first moment, there is life there. Of this there is no dispute. It is a living "thing". But it is an entirely human thing, a human being.

There have been all sorts of arbitrary points after fertilization that have been used to suggest that until that point, there's no human being, no person, no child. None of these points have been anything more than subjectively chosen in order to keep alive the hope that one won't be convicted in any way of murdering a child, and they can continue engaging in reckless, self-gratifying sex.

So I welcome any effort to explain how there can be any point in the process through which we all did journey where one isn't yet a human being worthy of all the respect that should be shown to any other human being.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Please Help!

I want to start a blog roll and link list. I don't know how and can't seem to find helpful hints that apply to my situation. Perhaps I have a blog that requires Html knowledge. If so, I really need help. Mark gave me some input but it doesn't seem to apply. Of course I can't seem to find a way to talk to a person representing Blogger. Any tips will be greatly appreciated, particularly if they are in the most basic Run Spot. Run. language possible. Thank you in advance.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Happy Father's Day

...to all who are fathers, whether you know it or not.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Random Thought...

One thing I'd like to see addressed by candidates or even someone in Congress is to reverse the IRS code regarding political speech by non-profits. Lyndon Johnson apparently couldn't hack the smack dished out by ministers and such regarding his policies and ideas. So in his arrogance, he decided to silence at least this segment of society by having the IRS lift their not-for-profit status and tax the hell out of them if they should engage in political suggestion. How freakin' unAmerican!

Now some may say this conforms with the separation of church and state. But seeing as how that's mythical and also unAmerican, better support for such a heinous policy is required. No matter what the tax status of a group or organization in this country, the members are still citizens and as such have a right to voice their opinions, concerns and philosophies as regards the political process and it's participants. To think that their religious faith, or whatever ideology of the group in question, should prohibit them their Constitutional rights to free speech, and the very speech the First Amendment was designed to protect, is simply preposterous, and, as I said, unAmerican.

I'm surprised this hasn't been dealt with since Johnson had his hissy fit in the first place. I would imagine that most politicians fear the idea of defending their positions against Biblical teachings that might contradict them, but hey, get some stones! Churches were given their status due to the notion, one with which I wholeheartedly agree, that they serve a vital purpose within our society. To have a church nearby was considered a good thing. Now? May God have mercy on us all!

Recently, I believe it was Senate Bill 2, further attempts to stifle the work of grass roots organizations to rally the people or merely inform them, was narrowly defeated (at least I think it was). Reversing the Johnson policy would also protect speech in the same way.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Getting my feet wet

It will take a while to decide just how I want to do this blog thing. I'm not sure of how I want it to look. I don't really know exactly.

I don't know how I'm going to handle the comments, whether they'll be moderated, use that goofy word verification or what. I'm told spam can be a problem if I don't use some of the tools that, when posting at other blogs, have pissed me off. I'm also not sure of how I'll handle wackjobs who might visit and overstay their welcome. I'm inclined to let them spew their childish remarks, letting them prove to all who might read them what fools they really are. Then again, some may not return if such pathetic types are not reigned in. For now, I'm just going to see how it goes and adjust from there. Overall of course, I prefer mutual respect, but that doesn't preclude a little snarkiness now and again. Some of it is quite fun. I reserve the right to refuse admittance for any reason that strikes my fancy. Just remember, feet off the coffee tables.

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Welcome One And All!!

Hello. Welcome to my humble blog. I've been vascillating on whether or not to actually post anything here. I've been involved with some discussions on a couple of other blogs to which I'll eventually link. I was advised as to what my first topic should be based on the response the advisor got when he posted on it. The discussion to which I referred ran along the same issue. I will begin by answering a few points and then we'll see what happens. So sit back, as this could take awhile, and please use the coasters and ashtrays. Yeah, you can smoke here. The ventilation is excellent.

To begin, a little background. There was a variety of points raised and debated surrounding the discussion on the topic of liberal views on homosexuality within the Christian church. Some retain the traditional views and others offer a "welcoming and affirming" atmosphere. The latter brings with it, in most cases, no condemnation of the practice whatsoever, but does condemn the traditionalist or "fundamentalist" for bigotry, intolerance and general nastiness for holding fast to what the traditionalist believes are still relevant Laws of God. The traditionalist is accused of being unhip to the New Testament teaching regarding faith in Christ above works, when in fact, the traditionalist uses the Mosaic Law as a guide to living the type of life a Christian should, as a manifestation of his faith.

Naturally, the challenge is put forth to explain which of the various Levitcal mandates are still in play, that is, if you buy into the Levitacal admonition against a "man lying with a man " as he would with a woman, then by all means, one must abstain from shellfish and by golly, stone that kid when he gets out of line.

So, in order to address these and other points relevant to the overall discussion, I offer this exerpt from a paper authored by two gentlemen by the names of Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges. The paper in it's entirety can be found at http://www.reformed.org/. Scroll down the menu on the left and click on "Social Issues".

I've found that this piece is aligned quite well with my take on Mosaic Law and why I feel it is still relevant as a guide to Christian living. What I haven't found is how to cut and paste it to the body of this post, thus, I'll try to see if I can put it in the comments section. Wish me luck.