Is Marriage A Right? Let's Examine This Question.

With all the hutzpah about marriage these days surrounding the debate between traditional marriage defenders vs. those who would like to allow same-sex marriages, I am finally going to stick my own neck out here with a few observations.  And to be sure about things here, I have people quite close and quite dear to me, who are of the homosexual persuasion. So, let me make this clear up front; that this is in no way a judgement upon them. Instead, I would hope and pray that they, as well as heterosexuals, better understand a few things here. This is a study of what marriage is, and is not, for both sides.

First and foremost, I would like to ask a question: "Is Marriage A Right?" For this seems to be the crux of the argument for same-sex partners, who believe that they are being denied a certain "right" to marry ... sounds plausible enough.  We do not want to believe that our society denies anyone any of their rights. But what is this right to marry really all about?  And is it a right? 

To begin answering these questions, let's first take a real good look at what "marriage" actually is ... what is the nature of marriage ... who originally came up with the idea ... and what is it's purpose?  For I personally believe, that all of our modern society has lost the true meaning and definition of marriage ... and I don't think it just happened overnight. For a long time now, our society has seemed to hold a rather sophomoric view of marriage; one which is not all that different from two kids going steady in school.  Then, of course, with the onset of the 60's and the "free love" philosophies, marriage and its' purpose became a complete blur.  But, I would say, that the true meaning of marriage had already been being slowly eroded long before the 60's.

The threat to marriage began a while back, with the commonplace acceptance of divorce.  To cite a bit of history here, for Christians, divorce became acceptable with Martin Luther's reformation. Luther believed that marriage was not something between a man and woman and God, ie. a sacrament as the Church had long held, but a mere contract between a man and woman, who could make or break that contract at will.  Henry the XVIII soon took advantage of this new approach, to rid himself of one wife, and replace her with another.

But we know that divorce was not something new with Martin Luther or Henry XVIII, nevertheless, the Christian world had long accepted Christ's words that "whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery" -  Luke 16:18.  Martin Luther and all who followed his lead, no longer heeded this particular scripture.

But, even among Protestant reformers and their followers, divorce was still an ugly word which continued to carry a stigma. The monarchs of England, though they were heads of the Church of England, were nevertheless forbidden to divorce and remarry.

So, back to the original question: "Is Marriage a Right"?  To answer that question, let's start at the beginning, and bear with me to take a quick look at a bit of scripture here.  In Genesis Chapter 1:27, we read: "God created man in his image. In the Image of God He created them. Male and Female He created them."  Verse 28 goes on to report, "Then God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it."   Finally, in Gen. Ch. 2 verse 24 we read: "For this reason a man leaves his father and mother, and clings to his wife, and the two become one flesh." 

Ok, that's pretty clear to me.  Marriage is not a Right!  In fact ... it sounds more to me like a "Directive"!  And what was the "directive" all about?  Seems to me it had something to do with the engendering of life.  Sounds like God was giving male and female human beings a job to do; one which He had not even given the angels and Archangels! Wow! God was directing we mere mortals to "assist" Him in His great Act of Creation!  Wow ... Really!  We mere mortals, less than the angels and Archangels, were given the job of helping God create life?  Whoa!  I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty heavy to me.  It also sounds like our ability to create life, had nothing to do with a "choice" on our parts.

So, how does this affect the question of those who believe that same-sex partners should have the "right" to marry?  Someone very close to me, recently expressed their great sorrow over a homosexual sibling, not being given the same right to marry, as heterosexuals.  Watching her brother struggle with his own homosexuality, she naturally desired for him to have all the same fulfillment of love as anyone.  She could not understand how heterosexuals could deny her brother the "right" to happiness in love as they themselves enjoyed.  Her heartache was genuine, understandable and deeply touching.  And this, I believe, is at the heart of the entire question.  For none of us wants to see anyone suffer; especially someone dear to us.  As a result, many of us are stumped as to how to help our same-sex attracted friends and loved ones, without sounding judgmental and self-righteous, or worse yet, cause them more pain.

We are barraged everyday with tragic stories of bias against homosexuals and how this has even led to suicides on the part of some homosexual young people.  Hollywood and the entertainment industry, has championed the cause of homosexuals, Lady Ga Ga, being the latest heroine in defense of their cause.

Needless to say, this is not an easy subject to blog on, one which I have evaded for quite some time now.  That is, until this young girl, who I have known since childhood, spoke to me of her brother, who I have also known since childhood.  I would rather have my teeth scraped, than cause them any pain. And in fact, I have written this blog especially in their honor, and to try and touch their lives with some little bit of love and appreciation, while still holding true to God's design for marriage.

I tried to tell my young friend, that it is the view of marriage that is at heart here ... to try and understand that it is not about denying anyone a "right" to happiness and fulfillment, as she felt her brother was being denied.  If one understands the nature of something ... they will then understand if it is truly meant for them or not.  Anything in life needs to be approached from this attitude.  We do not all have the "right" to become rocket scientists ... only those whom God gave this aptitude.  There are many vocations and avocations in life, that we may or may not be called to, or cut out for, and this does not mean that we are being deliberately denied a "right" to such.

Each of us has our own unique personality and character and gifts.  My dear little friend herself, expressed to me that her brother was much more than his sexual orientation .... and I agree wholeheartedly!  As to the question of finding fulfillment in love ... there are many souls in this world ... who for whatever reason, will never find this fulfillment. Homosexuals are not unique from the rest of us, in their human desire to love and be loved.  But, there are many kinds of love ... and each love has its' own nature, meaning and purpose.

This being said, is homosexuality the kind of love that God had in mind, when He 1st instituted the marital union?  We must each find the shoe that fits our foot, that's all.  When one truly seeks to understand the true nature of something, they can then honestly answer themselves, as to whether or not it is what they are really called to.

We all know, that this is the age of "entitlement", where no one believes that he or she should suffer any kind of loss or lack of something. Today's age believes that we can have whatever we want, and do whatever we want to have it.  When we hurt because we can't have something, or are denied something that others seem to have, today's age tells us that everything and anything we want, is our "right".  But common sense should tell us, that just because we want something, that does not mean we have an automatic "right" to it.  

The human heart was made for love ... this is true of everyone, no matter your sexual orientation.  But what is the first love that the human heart was intended for?  "And you shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and your whole soul, this is the 1st commandment." Mark 12:30.  I would suggest, that if we followed this directive first and foremost, we would know the answers to all our other questions regarding our wants, needs and or "rights".   

Lady Ga Ga sings: "Born that Way", a rallying cry for homosexuals to justify their orientation, suggesting this is how God made them. I have known people who were same-sex attracted from little on .. yes ... they must have been born with this proclivity, as Lady Ga Ga sings.  But, does that truly mean that God made them that way, or that when God first created the world and people, that this was part of His intended design?

Once again, in Genesis we read, "And God saw all that He had made, and He pronounced it good".  Here is my question ... Did God create homosexuality?  Was homosexuality truly part of God's design?   And if one believes that it was not God's design, does that mean they are homophobic?  More importantly, if homosexuality was not God's design, does that mean that homosexuals are evil?  We know that this is not true.  They are not evil.  And my little friend's description regarding her brother, was, "that his sexual orientation did not define who he was."  I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment.  And I am not condemning anyone who has this proclivity.  I am simply trying to help them understand that no one is deliberately trying to deny them a "right".  Marriage is not a "right".  It is a directive from Almighty God Himself, with a specific purpose that He Himself had in mind.  And I simply suggest, that those of same-sex attraction honestly ask themselves, if their situation truly fits that design?

And I suggest to them, and to all of us, that first and foremost we should love God, and seek His will in all things.  He will fill any and all voids in our hearts, and make our burdens light.  God loves us all ...  and we need to love Him in return ... then and only then, will we have the answers to all our questions, needs and wants.   

"What's Sauce for the Goose, is Sauce for the Gander" Gardasil Vaccine for Boys.

An old saying from my grandparent's generation: What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose" has now taken on a slightly new slant: "What's sauce for the goose, is now sauce for the gander."  What does this mean?  It means the CDC has now backed HPV Vaccines for boys.

The committee recommends that boys and young men ages 13 through 21, should be immunized with the HPV vaccine against the virus if they missed an earlier vaccination, according to Anne Schuchat MD, director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. If this recommendation is formally accepted by the agency, it would, in a single stroke double the number of children who should get the 3 dose vaccine. It is already part of the recommended list of immunizations for girls 11 through 12 and up.  In fact, in California, the Gardasil vaccine has now become a mandated vaccine for school children.

The intent on the part of the CDC committee, recommending the vaccine for boys as well as girls, was, according to Dr. Schuchat, a hope for easing the burden of disease on females. Their excuse for the young age of the children being vaccinated was according to Dr. Schuchat, "The age of 11 or 12 is a very good time to be vaccinated - antibody or immune responses are the strongest - and that's well before girls or boys would become sexually active," she said.

How clever! So, for any parents who are offended at the suggestion that their 11 or 12 yr. old child, needs a vaccine for sexual activity, they believe this is a  plausible sounding excuse, to settle that concern.

What they don't tell you, is that the HPV vaccine, offered in this country to  protect young girls against cervical cancer and genital warts, does not protect against all forms of the Human Papilloma Virus, but only a few strains, which are mostly found in Asian countries. 

Dr. Diane Harper was recently given an opportunity to answer some questions about the HPV vaccine, which she herself helped to create. She stated, the HPV vaccine prevented abormal pap tests, NOT cervical cancer.  Really!  Yet, Dr. Jay Siwek, a professor of family medicine at Georgetown University Medical Center, said that he tells parents the vaccine protects against cancers that occur in boys - mostly mouth and throat  (why do you suppose that particular body part?) and it helps protect girls from cancer as well.   I wonder who really was the original focal point for this vaccine?

Dr. Diane Harper, who actually helped create the vaccine would disagree with you Dr. Siwek. She goes on to say that she feels the FDA has given a "blanket approval to use Gardasil in males and females 9 - 26 yrs. old without making it clear to parents or males/females that the only data for male cancer preventions is in the MSM (gay men) community, NOT in heterosexual men."  Well, then my question is, why are we foisting this dangerous vaccine on our young boys - let alone our daughters?  Could there be an agenda here?  What specific sexual activities are they really trying to protect your child from ... and why?

The Risk of Postponing Fertility

Robert Stacy McCain takes a break from his insightful political reporting and commentary to make an important cultural observation:

[Regarding a woman of 33 who describes herself as "slightly old for prime procreating"...]“Slightly old for prime procreating”? As a matter of scientific fact, she’s far more than “slightly old,” as prime childbearing age is 18-24.

It is strange that secular moderns, who constantly lecture us religious traditionalists about our alleged aversion to science, are themselves often ignorant of (or hostile toward) the actual science they claim to revere. Fertility begins to decline after a woman passes her mid-20s and, by the time she is 33, she has a much higher risk of infertility than she would have faced 10 or 15 years earlier.

This is simply a fact and, while all statistics about health risks are based on averages that include exceptions — i.e., Rachel Birnbaum might experience no difficulty whatsoever becoming pregnant at a later age — she probably wouldn’t choose to defy the odds if she really thought carefully about it. But her reference to her “much younger state of mind” and her expressed dread of “the conveyer belt traveling toward adulthood” suggest that her ideas on the subject are not entirely rational.

God help her husband if he ever said something like that, huh? A man who accuses a woman of being irrational is inviting the counter-accusation that he is a sexist swine with a head full of ignorant stereotypes. And in a situation such as that involving Rachel Birnbaum, her husband’s desire to become a father is also at odds with the feminist dictum that reproductive choice is entirely a female prerogative. Men’s parental preferences are as nothing, when weighed against four decades of Women’s Movement rhetoric about female sovereignty in these matters.

McCain's insights are certainly worth reading in full.

Is 3 a Crowd or a Blessing? Selective Abortion for Triplets?

In North Carolina, Erin and Jennifer Conley, discovered they were expecting triplets with their 2nd pregnancy; their 1st child being a 3 yr. old son.  At 12 weeks, Jennifer's obstetrician referred her to a specialist. The triplets, by then, known simply as A, B and C, were all doing well. But the specialist had other ideas about the well being of little A, B and C. She, the specialist, began frightening the young couple with s t a s t i c s @ # % * ^ , in which she recited all the dangers of a triplet pregnancy.

The young couple stated that the specialist gave only negative prognosis, "The glass was always half-empty, never half full", Erin recalled. The young parents would ask, "Is there anything wrong with the children?"  To which the specialist would respond, "Not at this point." "But triplets are dangerous, and if they all survive to term, it takes parents more than 24 hours a day to care properly for three infants."

After listing all the things that could go wrong, the doctor gave her "specialist" suggestion: "Selective reduction." She told the young parents, that by aborting one of the infants, there would be more room in the womb for the other two, improving the chances for a healthy pregnancy and delivery. I guess that goes along with the old adage, "three's a crowd."

The young couple, who were not only Catholic, but deeply trusting in God, were devastated by such medical advise. They ultimately demanded that their doctor refer them to a different specialist; one who would be more respective of their feelings regarding their triplet pregnancy.  The young couple hadn't done in vitro, so this had simply been an act of nature, or more aptly, an act of God; and as such, the young couple believed that all three of their babies were gifts from Him.

Once again, I would like to inject a personal experience here. As a young woman, one of my childhood friends in the neighborhood I had grown up in, discovered she was expecting triplets with her very 1st pregnancy. The news made the local papers: "Local woman gives birth to Triplets!" My girlfriend, a tiny little thing, nevertheless delivered all 3 babies, with no complications to herself or the babies. It turned out that it was something which ran in her family, as twins usually do. Her grandmother and several others before her, had also given birth to triplets. I recall, that other than it being a news item in the local papers, no one thought of it as some sort of risk, which would require aborting one of the infants prior to birth.

A while back, I blogged on the "reduction of twins", becoming a norm for young women. The method of death for the chosen infant, was a lethal injection to the heart, then leaving the deceased infant inside the womb, to be born dead along side its' living sibling. Can you imagine? One child comes out to be laid in your arms ... the other to be discarded in a medical waste bin.  This young couple would have celebrated the birth of two of their triplets, while one little triplet's corpse would have been removed and discarded.

The Conley triplets are now 9 months old, as I write this blog. They, and their parents and 3 yr. old brother are all doing quite well. All three babies were girls, and each one has slowly developed to reveal unique personalities of their own, quite distinct from one another.  This means, that had one of them been destroyed, that little person and her distinct personality, would not have been repeated with her siblings. Her own distinct and unique personality and character would be gone. Every human being is a one of a kind ... whether they are one of twins, or triplets, or a single birth.  There are no repeats in nature. God has called each of us by name, long before He formed us in our mother's wombs. We are not pieces on an assembly line, to be picked over by quality control.

As far as the 24 hour care, which the doctor warned the triplets would require; is there any child that does not require round the clock care?  Four of my own children were born in rapid succession, so that I had 3 in diapers at one time.  I do not recall being overwhelmed by this, but rather able to find just how resourceful I was, and how adept I was at time management.  If we begin measuring the worth of human beings, based on the amount of care they require, where will that lead?  One day, when we get old, we ourselves may very well end up requiring round the clock care. Will this mean a decision to selectively reduce us from the family?

Are You Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Watch This and Let us Know.

What do Sperm-Donors and Starbucks Have in Common?

A recent movie starring America's sweetheart Jennifer Aniston, (who else) tells the story of a young woman who is thirty-something and single, who, fearing her biological clock will stop ticking, chooses sperm-donation as her ticket to motherhood. Treating the whole affair as if it were a wedding or baby shower, she even sends out cutsie little invitations to her insemination party.

Now, the plot thickens, as her long time commitment challenged love interest,  switches the sperm on her at the party. Because he is jealous and in a drunken state, he accidentally spills the sperm donor's jar, necessitating him having to replace the sperm with his own; which of course leads to a whole tangle in the plot. The old adage in old movies, was always, "boy gets girl, boy loses girl boy gets girl."  Now, it is more like,  "boy gets girl, boy switches sperm, boy loses his child and his girl".  But, of course, in typical Hollywood style, it is all sorted out in a little over an hour.

Of course, this is all meant to be a cutsie romantic comedy; and with Jennifer Aniston in the starring role, how could we think anything is wrong with any of it. How could America's darling ever be involved an anything distasteful ... or ... dare I say it, "immoral"?

A Swedish study in BJOG, an international journal of obstetrics and gynecology, says that donors are actually a cut-above the average Swedish male: "suffering less from uncertainty, shyness and fatigability", they have "a capacity to take responsibility, to behave in a goal-directed manner, to be resourceful and self-acceptant, and to behave in a manner guided by meaningful values and goals". In short, donors are "stable, mature and well-integrated".  What a crock!

Since the fall of mankind, men have wanted to deposit their sperm, without any responsibility attached. Now sperm donation offers men the perfect outlet to spread their "amazing genes", without having to commit to a mother. Jennifer Aniston's commitment-reluctant, but interested partner, leaves her no other option than to go about choosing a sperm-donor so that she can have a child. Obviously, the idea is that, men are not needed to really stick around, but merely sperminators, who spread their seeds like Johnny Appleseed, and then go their way, leaving their fruit behind them.

So I'm trying to figure out how this Swedish study comes up with such glowing attributes regarding these "sperminators". And what about the children of these Johnny Appleseeds? They are left behind like the apples on the ground, by these so called, "stable, mature and well-integrated", donors. What a perfect world for the male ego!  How has the feminist movement, with Jennifer Aniston as one of their most popular role models, helped women?  We are still at the bottom of the apple barrel.

Of course, in the end of the movie version about all this iniquity, Jennifer gets her man, due to his jealousy over her carrying another man's seed. The hapless would be sperm-donor discovers the child he thought he engendered, is not really his, because the spermatozoa was switched by a jealous lover.  In typical Hollywood fashion, all is well that ends well ...  Hollywood once again giving normalcy to an abomination!

In Nazi Germany, the Liebensborn program attempted this same type of horticulture of children, choosing the finest Arian male specimens to inseminate young German females. Nazi's hoped to create a new humanity... one free of imperfections ... one in where children could be harvested like pumpkins in a pumpkin patch. Well, today's new world of sperminators has certainly brought the Nazi's vision to fulfillment. Artificial insemination, sperm donors, surrogacy, egg donation, frozen embryos, the Nazi's would have been so proud of this brave new world.

With Jennifer Aniston's movie heroine, becoming a mother by artificially inseminating herself using sperm from a cup, we can pride ourselves that we have taken the Nazi vision to its' zenith.  SS Officers, had to actually have physical contact with the female recipient of their apple seeds. But today's sperminator can have his own website on an "online underground", offering his seeds without ever even meeting the would-be mother.  These websites and chat rooms have sprung up in order to connect women - mostly lesbians - with men ... aka ... sperminators.

A recent Newsweek article on the growth of sperm-donations, reported that one such transaction actually took place in none other than "Starbucks", using separate bathrooms. Imagine, you can now have your coffee and your sperms to go, in the same convenient paper cups. Dr. Mengeles you've been outdone.



 

The Tide Is Turning

This is a very powerful and moving video of Students for Life




ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjq2LK7Wqzw

The Right to Die or the Duty to Die - Coming Soon to a Hospital Near You

The latest news from the Land of Oz (not the wizard), is that Dr. Oz, aka Dr. Mehmet Cengiz Oz, will host an upcoming episode on assisted suicide, on his Dr. OZ Show.  The main focus will be on whether or not you have the "right to die?"

According to Wikipedia, Dr. Oz got his media start as a health expert on, none other than, the Oprah Show. Wikipedia gives a portrait of Dr. Oz as a bright and accomplished individual, though with some very interesting contradictions. On the one hand, he's the director of the Cardiovascular Institute and Complimentary Medicine Program at New York's Presbyterian Hospital. On the other hand, he was awarded the 2011 James Randi Educational Foundation Media Pigasus Award; which the foundation itself states, "is for promoting nonsense". The foundation complained about Dr. Oz's support of energy medicine, faith healing and psychic mediums.  Dr. Oz holds the dubious distinction of being the only person to have received this prestigious "nonsense award" for 2 years in a row.

Now, to prepare everyone who has not yet been down the yellow-brick road of euthanasia, this scarecrow, Dr. Oz, has provided you with a helpful survey on the show's website, titled: "Should You Have The Right to Die?" Here are the 4 questions:

The 1st question on the survey is: "Should you have the "right" to die?"  The 2nd question is: "Should your family have a say in your right to die?" The 3rd question goes on to ask: "Do you believe that doctors should assist patients end their lives?" And the 4th question is: "Have you discussed your "right to die" with your family?"



Ok, now here's my question: "What is the real reason for a doctor's assistance here?"  Is the doctor there to simply give advice about methods of killing yourself?  I think most people who wish to end their lives can figure that out for themselves, as is evident with most suicides. Does the doctor give permission?  No.  It's still your "choice" - the word elect of those who promote murder these days, just as in abortion.  So what real purpose does the doctor serve? What is "assisted suicide" as opposed to other suicides?

It is simply a sly way to white-wash something that is inherently and intrinsically wrong.  If I kill myself in the privacy of my own home, I'm committing an act, which most of society would find tragic and pitiable. But, having a doctor present while I off myself, is an attempt to normalize it and remove the stigma of suicide. Suicide is then re-packaged as a mere compassionate medical decision between one and one's doctor, just as in the case of abortion.  It appears to grant social acceptance, even taking on a seemingly romantic way to end one's life.

Shakespeare said, "A rose by any other name is still a rose"; did he not?    Ending one's life is still suicide, even if assisted. You can't change the nature of something with words, or how you package it.  

Now of course, Dr. Oz will use the data from the answers to this survey, to compile more justification for his agenda of normalizing suicide. 

But, how much farther down the yellow-brick road will it be, before the "right to die" becomes the "duty to die"?  Trust me, not that much farther. If and when you become a significant burden, requiring extensive care-giving, interruption to the life plans of others or financial hardships on your family and loved ones, and even an emotional drain, how long will it be before those around you believe, that it is your "duty to die"?

Some notable voices in bioethics believe, that as a matter of what they term, "distributive justice", when people reach a certain advanced age, severe disability, or very poor health, they owe it to society, their families, and yes, even themselves, to make an end of their lives. 

Futile Care Theory, aka "medical futility," has been on the bioethics movement's agenda for more than 10 years. If a patient or their family desire life-sustaining treatment, yet doctors feel that treatment is "inappropriate" based on quality of life and/or costs; they may unilaterally withhold treatment - the recent Baby Joseph case being a prime example. Joseph's doctors, supported by hospital bioethicists and administrators, told his parents that they were going to refuse all further life support.   The doctors totally and completely ignored and sought to usurp the wishes of the parents for their child's medical treatment. After a much publicized court case, Priests for Life, stepped in and was able to find a hospital that would take Baby Joseph, and give him the medical treatment his parent's wished.  But, how long will it be before there are no more hospitals left who will do this?

So, what is the point of Dr. Oz's question: "Should you have the right to die", when the ultimate agenda is not going to be about your rights at all!  It is simply the slow turning up of the temperature on the frog, leading to the complete and unalterable denial of your so called rights. 

Make no mistake, the word "futile" does not refer to the treatment - it refers to the patient!  Our lives and the lives of our loved ones, are going to be relegated to futile and burdensome, if we become seriously ill or lose our mental capacities.  The recent words of the televangelist Pat Robertson, where he gives advice for people to divorce a spouse afflicted with Alzheimer's, so that they can move on with their own lives, shocked and appalled many. But the medical profession's diagnosis will not be divorce, but medical murder. 

We should all be well advised, the "duty to die" movement is spreading, and it will not stop with the terminally ill.

Children in Danger - Help Only A Phone Call Away

HB 3027 Will Promote Abortion, Force out Abstinence in Sex Education

Lake County Right to Life joins the Illinois Family Institute and numerous other pro-life, pro-family organizations in opposing Illinois HB 3027, the new sex education bill.  The bill is supported by Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, NOW, and numerous other Illinois pro-abortion organizations.  The bill will be taken up in the fall veto session, which begins on October 25.  HB 3027 has already been passed by the Illinois Senate.

HB 3027 mandates that every public school teaching sex education in grades 6 – 12 must teach comprehensive sex education.  Lake County Right to Life has numerous major problems with this bill, including:

• It mandates curriculum promoting abortion, stating that it is legal, safe, and parents don’t have to know about it. 

• It calls for “medically accurate” sex education, but the curriculum misinforms students by telling them that “morning after pills” don’t cause abortion.

• It will force abstinence programs out of the public schools by taking away local control and mandating the teaching of contraception and condoms.  Public schools in Illinois already have the ability to teach comprehensive sex education if they wish.

• It does not follow the Centers for Disease Control recommendations that a) abstinence be prioritized and b) school health education policies and programs be locally determined and consistent with community values.  Many communities in Illinois have strong Judeo-Christian value systems and would have their teachings violated by the requirement that contraception be taught to children.

• It promotes policies proven to be ineffective in California school programs.  Since 1992, California has taught only comprehensive sex education, while Illinois has allowed abstinence education.  This has resulted in California having a much higher teen pregnancy rate than Illinois (96 teens per thousand versus 60 teens per thousand).

Illinois will not be stepping forward, but backward in the requirement to teach comprehensive sex education in Illinois public schools. Why should Illinois legislators adopt the failed policies of California and call it progress?

Lake County Right to Life urges concerned citizens to contact their state representatives and ask them to vote No on HB 3027.

Are You A Soccer Mom or A Dragon Mom? What Is the Real Purpose of Parenthood?

We are all familiar with the ubiquitous term; "Soccer Mom", evoking images of stage mothers intent on their child's successful development. Both mothers and fathers can fall neatly into this category of the stage-parent.  In fact, today's parents seem to have more pressure placed on them, than in preceding generations, to raise super-successful offspring.

Recalling my own childhood, there were no soccer moms or dads. We kids played in the back yard, making mud pies, and building tree forts; riding our bikes or playing a loosely organized game of baseball on the empty corner lot. Basically, we sort of grew up like Tom Sawyer, or Huckleberry Finn. Once our chores and homework were finished, we were left unbridled and unfettered, to explore and utilize our own child's imagination for occupying our time and talents. One kid here or there, had the extra obligation of piano lessons; but even these children were left with many hours of unsupervised playtime, with no overseeing parenting. What loads of fun we all had, and I could fill a novella with the memories.

So what has changed so with today's parents, that more than ever before, those Tom Sawyer's and Huck Finn's of yesteryear, are being reigned in with much more after-school activities, sports, music, dance, gymnastics, all in the hopes of creating a super-developed and successful human being? And who does all this super-child activity really benefit? And what really does define "good parenting"?

So, enter the "Dragon Mom" - what is a Dragon Mom"?  She is the counter to today's "Tiger Mother's", so dubbed by Amy Chua, author of the "Battle of the Tiger Mother", the latest handbook for parents hoping to guide their children along the path of success, with advice for parental investments which will pay off in the form of "happy endings and rich futures".  This must be the world which exists over the rainbow in the Wizard of Oz.  

Dragon Moms parent from a slightly different perspective. The biggest perspective is that there will be no worldly return on their investment. Emily Rapp, author of "Poster Child": A Memoir, and a professor of creative writing at the Santa Fe University of Art and Design, writes an article in the NY Times, about her own Dragon Motherhood of her son Ronan. Ronan has Tay-Sachs disease, a rare genetic disorder. Ronan who is presently 18 months old will likely die before his third birthday; after slowly regressing into a vegetative state, becoming paralyzed, experiencing seizures and losing all of his senses.

Emily's article is a deeply moving account of what parents of disabled and dying children learn to focus on. Children who will not be giving their parents any palpable return on their parenting investment, but instead teach the parents the value of unconditional love. Dragon Parents, in Emily's words are: "fierce and loyal and loving as hell." She goes on to tell how these parents learn the value of parenting for the "here and now"; for the sake of parenting, for the humanity implicit in the act itself, though this runs counter to the traditional wisdom and advice, particularly of today.

Parents of children like Ronan, will not have a future to focus on with their child. There will be no moments of their child's success for the parent to bask in. She tells ALL of parents an "inconvenient truth"; Parents who, particularly in this country, are expected to be superhuman, to raise children who outpace all their peers, don't want to see what these Dragon Parents see .... "that none of it is forever."

There are no expectations of children like Ronan. All hopes and dreams of a future must be abandoned, reducing everything to the simplest priority - Love. Dragon Parents love their children for today ... not for what they will become tomorrow.

My take on all this, is that this priority is one which should be the priority of ALL parents - not just those who have handicapped and dying children, like Ronan, but all of our children. We should ALL be Dragon Parents!  Parents who love our children, first and foremost, for the sake of the child itself.  This is the way that God loves us. Whether or not we can sing and dance, achieve monumental successes, is of no consequence to how much God loves us.  Loving someone is it's own payoff.

This is just one more reason why abortion on demand is so prevalent in today's culture of perfection and super-success. The number of Downs Syndrome children, and other handicapped children like Ronan, being aborted has grown to monumental proportions. Today we read of mother's suing their doctors because the doctor failed to diagnose a child's handicap before it was born, so that the mother could have aborted the imperfect child.

So what is the main reason of parenthood?  The answer to this question will differ depending upon whether you are a person of Faith, or a secular person. For those of us, who are people of Faith, we realize that Life and the engendering of life is a Gift. It does not belong to us ... we did not set the mechanisms of Life into motion. Life, all life belongs to the Creator.  Yet, for some reason of His own, He chose to make us workers in His "Factory of Life".  He created the angels, each from His own hand. Yet, when it came to human beings, He decided to take a different approach. He made the 1st humans, whether you believe it was one man and one woman, or a few more, and then put the rest in our hands. We are not to engage mindlessly or by mere brute instincts in the creative act, but to understand and deeply respect the great mystery which we have been privileged to share in; one which The Cherubim and Seraphim were not invited to share.

Now if you have only a secular view of life and the begetting of life, you will only see it from a botanical approach or one of mere animal husbandry. This will, unfortunately, create an "outcome based" life engendering. Children will not be perceived as gifts from God, but as mere products; for which there will be product control and measured outcomes.  Children like Ronan and all other little angels like him, force parents to take a different look at the whole purpose of their reproductive faculties.  For them, it will no longer be about a perfect product, or a return on an investment .... it will simply be about LOVE ... which is the whole reason God set all of Creation into motion in the first place.

As a small Catholic child, I recall the 1st 2 questions of my Baltimore Catechism: 1.) Who made me?  a. God made me.  2.) Why did God make me? a. God made me because He loves me.    

A Life Vote Passes in the US House

Thanks to all the Illinois Congressmen who voted yes on the Protect Life Act.

Special Thanks to Congressman Dold who voted yes on the Protect Life Act. 

This Could Save Lives and It Is Easy

  Get your friends to make phone calls to the office of Congressman Robert J. Dold in order to strongly encourage him to vote "yes" on the "Protect Life Act" HR 358.  It looks like there will be a vote sometime tomorrow, Thursday, so calls are needed today.  Congressman Dold is in the 10th Congressional District in Illinois. He has not committed to supporting this important legislation, and  has a mixed record when it comes to pro-life issues. 

“During floor consideration, please vote for the Protect Life Act, H.R. 358, and oppose any hostile weakening amendments. This bill will amend the health care reform law to preserve longstanding federal policies on abortion and conscience rights.”
Here's some more information on the "Protect Life Act."

• Ensure that all Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) funds are covered by the policy of the longstanding Hyde Amendment (no funds for abortion except in cases of life endangerment or rape/incest).
• Prevent federal funds from subsidizing health plans that cover abortions beyond the Hyde exceptions, so that PPACA will follow the policy of other federal health insurance programs.
• Uphold rights of conscience related to abortion, ensuring that governmental entities receiving federal funds under PPACA will not discriminate against health care providers who decline involvement in abortion.
• Close a loophole in PPACA’s non-preemption clause, so that state laws restricting abortion or protecting conscience rights will not be preempted, and states will not be able to override PPACA’s provisions ensuring that health plans without elective abortion are available in each state.

Congressman Robert J. Dold, 10th District of Illinois

Phone: (202) 225-4835

Ban Abortion Funding - Something Everyone Can Do To Help

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to take up the National Right to Life-backed Protect Life Act (H.R. 358) on or about Thursday, October 13, 2011. This bill would correct the numerous abortion-expanding provisions of the federal health care law ("Obama Care") enacted in early 2010. The bill, sponsored by Congressman Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), is similar to the "Stupak-Pitts Amendment" which initially passed the House in 2009, but which was kept out of the final health care law due to opposition from pro-abortion Democratic senators and President Obama.

Please click the "Take Action!" button above to send a message to your representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, urging him or her to support the Protect Life Act and to oppose all attempts to weaken the bill. You can modify the suggested message as you see fit.

To read the October 6 letter sent by National Right to Life to House members in support of the bill, click here. To read detailed testimony by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, presented to a House subcommittee in February 2011, about why H.R. 358 is needed, click here.

"When Your Old Wedding Ring Was New" - Alzheimer's Spouses Part II

Last week I blogged on the televangelist Pat Robertson's comments regarding those who are married to spouses, who suffer from Alzheimer's disease. He advised that husband's and or wives, divorce these afflicted spouses, after seeing to it that they at least have "custodial" care, so they can go off to live their own lives unencumbered by their demented other.  His words were, "the spouse you were married to all those years, the person you knew, is just gone, they're gone, gone", relegating sufferers of Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia to mere zombies, living bodies with no soul.

Today, I would like to add to this report, with once again, some of my own personal perceptions and reflections. Christian marriage was always understood to be a life-long commitment, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, etc. Of course today, that understanding has been sadly lost with the onset of divorce, and even Catholic annulments. But I believe the whole crux of the problem lie in the understanding of the word commitment, and what that entails.

When I was a kid, as with many kids, I wanted a pet; in my case a cat. Most kids who want a pet, have very little understanding of what is entailed in the possession of their furry or feathered friend; and more often than not, a parent becomes the custodial person for an animal, whose novelty has worn off with its' child owner.  The biggest job of the parent, in allowing their child to have a pet, is holding the child to an accountability of "commitment". Unfortunately, as this many times turns into too much work for most of us parents, it becomes easier to simply take over the care and feeding of junior's pet. This, unfortunately, leaves the child unable to learn a valuable lesson.

Now, carry this lesson on into the realm of human relationships, and the stakes become higher, as the understanding of "commitment" is even more crucial in making decisions regarding a spouse or any other relative. Pat Robertson's remarks not only shock and appall, but horrify, sensitive and responsible people everywhere. So, here is my response to Mr. Robertson's view on Alzheimer's spouses. It is a beautiful example that was shown to me of marital love, and commitment, which I will never forget.

One evening, at a school function for my youngest daughter, I was manning the hallways as the school secretary, helping people find their child's classrooms, etc.  It was a family function, so many grandparents were also present. As I stood by some children's lockers, a very elderly couple approached me, with the husband making a request of me. He had his arm around his wife, who seemed completely disoriented though quite content, as he guided her along the hallway. His request was, "Would I mind standing outside the women's lavatory, and keep people from going in, while he assisted his mentally confused wife with her bathroom needs". I of course, was more than happy to oblige him, and stood sentry outside the door, while the old couple went in.

I will never forget this old couple; what an example of love they were to me. This old gentleman who so gently and lovingly held his arm around his wife, sweetly coaching her along into the lavatory, was a truer love to his beloved, than ever I had seen. She was grey-haired, as was he, and she was bent over, and not really comprehending much of what was going on around her.  Who knows how well she knew, who this kindly gentleman was, who was assisting her along her way. Yet, he, like some chivalrous knight of old, held her tightly, as if she were the most precious of pearls. He seemed to have no concern for himself, even that she was vaguely aware of him, but only seemed so privileged to be there for the girl he had wed long ago, who had now grown old and was faltering in her steps, and in her mental faculties.

And I was reminded of a song from my parent's generation. I don't know how many of you will be old enough to know it.  But here are the simple title and lyrics.  It's called, "When You're old Wedding Ring was New".  "When your old wedding ring was new -  and each dream that I dreamed came true - I remember with pride - as you stood by my side - what a beautiful picture you made as my bride. Even though silver crowns your hair - I can still see the gold ringlets there. Love's old flame is the same, as the day I changed your name - when your old wedding ring was new."     

I think that says it all Mr. Pat Robertson.     

American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Care Shifts Itss Stand on Physician -Assisted Suicide The Dangers of Neutrality

If physician-assisted suicide (PAS) becomes totally accepted in medicine and society it will quickly rival and surpass the number of deaths by abortion; and where one stands on this issue, as with any issue, is crucial.  If one fools themselves that they can remain neutral on a subject, they may not be able to remain neutral for long; but unfortunately find that it is too late to take a side.  

The American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM) has shifted its' stand on PAS from oppositional to neutral.  What? That's a dangerous shift, and here's why. When Oregon voted 51% for assisted-suicide in 1994, the Oregon Medical Association had decided to remain to neutral, and many analysts believe the Oregon Association's neutral stance on the issue, at that time, contributed to voter support. For at the last hour, when Oregon doctors dropped their neutrality and attempted to oppose the law on assisted-suicide ... it was too late.  And when the assisted-suicide law was voted on again in 1997, it passed by an even wider margin.  Whoah!  So much for trying to stay on the fence about something.

For decades, there has been a stealth campaign, by euthanasia groups, to persuade medical, nursing, social work and other health related organizations, to adopt a position of neutrality on PAS. Why?  Euthanasia groups know, it would be virtually impossible to get these organizations to approve assisted-suicide/euthanasia; resulting in the euthanasia movement remaining dead in the water.   But ... if these groups remained neutral, it would play in the euthanasia proponent's favor.  This is why, the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine's shift to neutrality becomes deadly.

People might very well remind themselves of Shakespeare's famous quote: "A Rose by any other name is still a rose", where he was telling people that a name does not change the essence of a thing. The euthanasia movement's clever ploy to change people's minds on physician-assisted suicide, by changing their name, from "The Hemlock Society" to "Compassion and Choices",  should not fool people.   Socrates drank hemlock to kill himself. The word hemlock in the old title, simply conjures up images of someone poisoning themselves off .. not a very pleasant title. So by changing that title, using words like "compassion, and choice", the issue is framed in a much softer color. Once again, linguistic gymnastics at play - and Shakespeare would tell us not to be fooled. 


The subtle daily sell on physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is ominous. The idea that a quality of life  should allow for its' termination, is being sold everyday by the mainstream media and now the medical professions. Dr. Kevorkian's legacy lives on after his own death, which by the way, was natural. He did not die by his own product.  But, unfortunately, many others will.

Remember, "quality of life" was the argument used by the eugenicist movement in Nazi, Germany, to justify killing off those they deemed unfit. The term they used was, "life unworthy of life". 

Once again, as with abortion, murder is being sold using a play on words.  "Choice"  is the champion word of abortion proponents. Now, "compassion and choice" is being used to cloak another harbinger of death. And if you are on the fence of any issue, as the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine is now thinking it can do, it may be too late for you or your loved ones one day.

Gone Baby Gone - Fate of Alzheimer Spouses ?

"They're already gone" says Televangelist Pat Robertson, referring to people, particularly spouses who suffer from Alzheimer's.  Pat Robertson, founder of the 700 Club, a Christian television station, told a caller to the show, that a husband who is tempted to cheat on his Alzheimer's-stricken wife ought to leave her for someone new. "I know it sounds cruel," Robertson said, "but if he's going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but, you know, to make sure she has custodial care, somebody looking after her."  Whoah! This coming from a renowned Christian television preacher.  A man who thinks marriage is a sacred covenant?  That is until they become sick.

In response to his co-hosts question, of how he reconciled this unorthodox advice with Christian marriage vows - which traditionally promise fidelity "for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, til death do us part" - Robertson simply dismissed those marital promises as inapplicable to the demented.   Quote: "Alzheimer's disease", said Robertson, "is a kind of death" since the spouse one loved for decades no longer exists. "That person," he stated, "is gone; they're gone; they are gone."  Wow!  What does this leave Christian believers, especially those who tune in to the 700 Club, to surmise? 

Well, it certainly seem to me, that Mr. Robertson needs to go back to Bible School.  I think he is the one who is gone!  He has gone far away from his Christian roots, and instead, seems to  have adopted a more secular viewpoint.

Quite understandably, and not surprisingly, Robertson's statement sparked a firestorm of criticism and condemnation from Christian pastors, who denounced his words as a repudiation of Jesus" teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and the dignity of every human person.  Alzheimer's specialists and patient advocate groups sternly criticized Robertson for perpetuating ignorant stereotypes about the demented. 

Where is Robertson's Christian belief in the dignity of every human person, in his callous words concerning those unfortunate souls who suffer the heartbreaking fate of Alzheimer's, and other forms of dementia? Apparently he draws a line in the sand, when it comes to these humans.  They are "gone" anyway, in his erudite opinion. He has conveniently written them off, especially when it concerns any vows of marital fidelity.  As long as a husband provides some form of care for his demented wife, he can go off and marry again.  Gee, how kind to at least provide care for the corpse that is left behind, since the person is "gone". 

My question here is this: Christians believe, that a person is only "gone" when their immortal soul leaves their body.  Is Mr. Robertson inferring that these are soulless bodies, such as the zombies we see in horror films?  Is he inferring that your husband or wife, is simply a zombie? 

Colleen Carroll Campbell, a St. Louis-based, former presidential speech-writer and television and radio host of "Fatih & Culture" on EWTN, states it perfectly when she says,  "Alzheimer's is an awful disease, one I would not wish on any individual or family.  Like the loved ones of the 5.4 million Americans afflicted with this condition, I look forward to the day when a cure will be found. In the meantime, though, I hope for a more modest miracle: a gradual recognition in our culture that the demented deserve the same love, loyalty and respect we accord to the most powerful among us - the same we would want for ourselves, if the frailty we lament in them someday became our own." 

I think I prefer Colleen's perception and judgment of the demented, over Mr. Pat Robertson's cold and callous one, which relegates these suffering souls to the fate of zombies, who need no more consideration than the care of a living corpse. Colleen's words should be far more comforting to the spouses and families of these special souls. 

Contraceptive Use Double Risk of H.I.V. - Should Women Be Warned?

Hormone shots, the most popularly used contraceptive in eastern and southern Africa, appear to double a women's risk for H.I.V. infection, according to a recent study. Now in a New York Times article, we read that these findings potentially present an alarming quandary for women in Africa. Why? The answer might give you a quandary.

Isobel Coleman, director of the women and foreign policy program at the Council on foreign Relations states, "If it is now proven that these contraceptions are helping spread the AIDS epidemic, we have a major health crisis on our hands."  But, Mary Lyn Gaffield, an epidemiologist in the World Health Organization's (WHO's) department of reproductive health and research said, "We want to make sure that we warn when there is a "real need" to warn, but at the same time we don't want to come up with a "hasty judgment" that would have far-reaching severe consequences for the sexual and reproductive health of women."  What?  A real need to warn?  A hasty judgment?  Severe consequences?  HIV AIDS is not severe enough for her.  

First of all, let's take a look at these "severe consequences" of which Ms. Gaffield speaks. Do you consider HIV AIDS a severe consequence to the sexual and reproductive health of women?  I do. But, if you think that's what Ms. Gaffield is talking about, you're slightly off base. The severe consequences to the sexual health of these women which Ms. Gaffield refers to, is of course, pregnancy. Did you guess that one?

A study, led by researchers at the University of Washington, found that women using injectable hormonal contraception became infected at a rate of 6.61, compared with 3.78 for those not using that method. Also, the transmission of H.I.V to men occurred at a rate of 2.61 compared with 1.51 for those who did not use the contraceptive. That's pretty severe in my humble opinion.

Pfizer, which manufacturers the Depo-Provera injectable contraception, declined to comment on the study ..... and you'll love this one .... because they said, "officials had not read it yet."   Where have we heard that one before?  Huh, the Obama health care bill ... right?   Does anyone read anything anymore? 

In the minds of all these experts, who don't read things, the main risk to women still remains pregnancy. A New York Times article reports on another "troubling finding", as they put it, which supposedly showed results from the same study, yet published separately, showing that pregnancy itself also doubled the risk of women contracting H.I.V.  I wonder who read that part of the study?  So, their feeling is, that any warnings against such a popular contraceptive method would only increase complications from pregnancy itself, which they claim includes a greater risk to H.I.V infection.  How does that happen?  I've had 5 children, and I don't have H.I.V.

Injectable hormones are quite popular. Approximately 12 million women between the ages of 15 and 49 in sub-Saharan Africa, use them. In the United States, that number is 1.2 million using that form of contraception. Ms. Gaffield's comments about making sure there is a "real need" to warn women, gives me "real concern".  How many lung cancer cases, heart attacks & strokes  were documented before we put warning labels on cigarettes?  A kid riding a bike is required to wear a helmet or else his parents will get in deep trouble. So how many women need to be infected by H.I.V or infect their partners, before those like Ms. Gaffield consider it a "serious enough" reason, to warn women about the dangers of injectable contraceptives? 

Does anyone consider the real causes of these sexually transmitted diseases? How does the WHO think that they can control people's moral behavior, with injections?  I don't get it.  Either I missed that memo, or I forgot to read it.  But  if not reading things these days, is the way to get them passed or passed over, oh well, what can I say? 

Of Mice and Men - Latest Version

Not exactly John Steinbeck's Novela, yet another story about "mice & men" is what we will report on today. You may have come from the apes, but you will be going to, not the dogs, but to the rodents.

The German Ethics Council (Deutscher Ethikrat) has recommended that researchers be allowed to insert human genes into mice, in a major report on human-animal mixtures. Yet they believe in requiring special permission be needed to insert human genes into apes.

The Council issued a report, concerning the ethics of human-animal mixtures, recommending that certain practices be forbidden, while obviously others be permitted. The Council reported on the ethics of introducing animal material into the human germline, which would then lead to human sperm or eggs in an animal, and then implanting those animal embryos into humans.  Mice embryos into humans?

German Basic Law, which acts as the country's constitution, states that "human dignity is inviolable." The German Ethics Council report, delved into the philosophical issues that arise when mixing animal and human cells or genes, and how to define what is human, what is animal, and whether mixing the two violates the dignity of either one. Are you kidding?

Yet, the Deutscher Ethikrat has nevertheless recommended that researchers be allowed to insert human genes into mice! ! ! !  Though they believe it unethical to insert human genes into apes, mice are ok?  I don't recall Darwinian theory purporting that we descended from rodents?  Shouldn't they at least get a closer primate?


First of all, the idea of cybrids or chimeras, (growing embryos by inserting the nucleus of a human cell into an animal egg), is insidious in the extreme, and remains a highly controversial topic. The whole idea flies in the face of any kind of ethics, German or otherwise!  But, add the supercilious idea, that mixing us with mice is ok, while mixing us with apes is verboten, is off the charts for insanity! Whose in charge of the asylum here? It certainly seems to me that some of the inmates are loose.

For all those women who believe they've married a rat, perhaps they won't be too far off in the near future. Then, instead of getting a divorce, she can simply call an exterminator.