Monday, October 29, 2012

Is Life Conceived by Rape Intended by God?

Pro-life Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, has become the latest target for pro-abortion activists, due to his recent statement that life is a gift from God, even if it results from rape - and that such life was "intended by God". Pro-abortion activists along with the major media, have pounced on candidate Mourdock's remarks, painting him as an extremist. Candidate Richard Mourdock is not the first and he won't be the last pro-life candidate to have their comments totally distorted. So let's look at some real facts here.

To begin with - here is candidate Mourdock's full statement: "The only exception I have to having an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

Pro-abortion activists immediately went on the attack, demonizing Mourdock's statement and his pro-life position, as they have done with other pro-life candidates, such as Missouri Senate candidate, Rep Todd Akins' and his remarks on rape. It is for sure, that they have honed in on this issue of "rape" as a tool to confuse voters on the issue of abortion.

Of course, what is at the heart of the issue here is the difference between a spiritual perspective and a non-spiritual perspective.

Our reproductive faculties - along with our free will - are two of the most mysterious of God's gifts with which we have been endowed. Add to this, God's other gift to mankind, which is our capacity to think and reason - which mere brute beasts are not endowed - and we get to the very heart of the matter - that being, the age old struggle to understand and make sense out of suffering, violence, life and death.

So for anyone to say that a child conceived in rape was "intended by God" seems to be saying that God is being complicit in violence and wrong-doing - and that He actually condones such behavior, which even we human beings do not condone. And of course pro-abortion activists are running with this.

So what was pro-life candidate Richard Mourdock really trying to say? Was he saying God intends or condones the act of rape, as pro-abortion activists are accusing?

What did God intend with the mysteries of our reproductive faculties and our free will? God's original design and intent, was for life to come about through the action of a sperm and egg connecting as the result of the sexual expression of love between a man and a woman. This was God's original "intent".

Now whether or not we humans use proper or improper means to cause the meeting of said sperm and egg - God does not change the rules of nature which He set in motion; nor does He interfere with man's free will - even if it means preventing a tragedy. This is for sure a deep mystery to wrap our reasoning minds around, and we will often hear people say, "Why does God permit all the evil in the world?"  

The mystery of our free will results many times, in some people using their free will to overcome and take away the free will of others.  Even still - God does not interfere. This is at the heart of Mourdock's remarks. God never "intended" violence - but merely that we have the capacity to create life with our sexual faculties; and He does not take away those faculties, even if we use them inappropriately - or even brutally.

There is no denying the fact, that a woman who is raped, has had her free will negated by the free will of the rapist. This is totally reprehensible; and neither Mourdock or God intend or condone such behavior as a vehicle to engender new life.  

Nevertheless - life comes about through the natural processes which God set in motion from the very beginning of time.   As the rapist has imposed his free will over the will of the woman - so also is abortion an imposition over the free will of the pre-born child, who now has absolutely no choice in the matter - even though he/she is not responsible for the crime against his/her mother. 

So - is life which comes about as the result of nature's natural response to natural forces - even though those forces may be set in motion by an act of violence, of less value? And is it still not ultimately created (intended) by the Creator Himself?

Children are conceived many times, by means which can be unwise, improper or even brutal. Many a mature married couple may struggle to conceive, while two teenagers engaging in pre-marital sex can easily and thoughtlessly create a new life. Other times new life will even result from an act of violence, such as rape. This certainly highlights the seeming unfairness and senselessness of life, with which our reasoning faculties grapple.  

But, if a flower is lovingly planted and cultivated by a gardener - while another flower results from a violent storm blowing one of the gardener's seeds over the fence - do not each of the flowers possess the same beauty and qualities - and are not those same forces of life imbued in each bud, granted (intended) by the same loving God?

This is what Candidate Mourdock was trying to express - the simple fact that - one way or the other - life itself is a wondrous and miraculous gift from God - whose original "intent" was that we humans should share with Him this sacred privilege - a privilege He did not share with the angels.

The simple fact remains - even though we participate in the life-giving process - either rightly or wrongly - we are NOT the AUTHORS OF LIFE! . This is what Richard Mourdock was simply trying to get across.  We are in God's laboratory.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Gardasil - Deadly Prophylaxis For Behavior Not Even Being Engaged In!

A recent article in a local Daily Herald, reported that a new study on the Gardasil vaccine, given to women and young girls to protect against cervical cancer, does not cause young girls to become promiscuous.  Hmmmm.

The article went on to explain, "Researchers examined up to three years of records on whether girls had sought birth control advice; tests for sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy; or had become pregnant.  The results showed that, few of the girls who got the shots at age 11 or 12 had done any of those things over the next three years, or even by the time they were 14." The study is using these results to counter parental concerns that, the shots "are a license to  have sex."  Dr. Alderman, an adolescent medicine specialist at the Children's Hospital at Montefiore in New York City, stated: "The study bolsters evidence against that concern."

OK  - While this may be good news that giving Gardasil to young girls does not promote promiscuity - at the same time - it begs the question - why then are we administering a very dangerous prophylaxis to young girls, for behavior, which is now proven they are not even engaging in?  

To date, Gardasil, which was developed to protect against the sexually transmitted Human Papilloma Virus or HPV, (which can lead to cervical cancer)  and which has already been given to millions of women and young girls around the world, has had a total of 9,749 'reported' adverse reactions and 21 'reported' deaths from the controversial vaccine.  How many others have not been reported - since most people don't even know where to go to report Adverse Vaccination Reactions.  You're doctor doesn't do the reporting.

The unknown dangers of a life-threatening adverse reaction to the Gardasil vaccine, far outweigh the known risks of contracting HPV itself.  In fact, a medical study conducted by the University of British Columbia's Neural Dynamics Research Group, confirms the alarming side-effects of the vaccine that was fast-tracked (meaning it was not tested before it was released to the public) and then pushed by government at every level.

That study listed the following side effects of Gardasil: "Death, convulsions, paraesthesia, paralysis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, transverse myelitis, facial palsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, anaphylaxis, autoimmune disorders, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolisms and cervical cancers."

The same study also pointed out, "In the Western World, cervical cancer is a rare disease with mortality rates several times lower than the rate of reported serious adverse reactions (including deaths) from the HPV vaccine. In fact, the overwhelming majority (88%) of cervical cancer deaths occur in Third World countries."

Now comes another report from the British Medical Journal, that Gardasil has the possibility of causing "ovarian failure" in some cases. Their report came on the heels of a specific case from Australia, where a 16 yr. old girl suffered "premature ovarian failure" after receiving the vaccine.

Australian physician Dr. Deirdre Little, who treated the girl, has published a complete account in the British Medical Journal. Dr. Little's report explains, the girl's menstrual cycle, which had been regular up until receiving the Gardasil vaccination in the Fall of 2008, suddenly became irregular by January 2009. Over the next two years, the girl's menses continued to become more and more scant and irregular, until by 2011, she had ceased menstruating altogether. 

Early menopause is highly unusual, and particularly in the case of this 16 yr. old girl - who had been in excellent health with no prior personal or family medical history that could explain the premature menopause.

In my humble opinion, regarding the local Daily Herald article on the study proving HPV shots don't make young girl's promiscuous - this only lends further credence to the arguments against administering an extremely dangerous prophylaxis to adolescent girls for behavior they are not even engaging in! If a study proves adolescent girl's are not sexually active - why are we risking their health and lives, with an untested, virulent vaccine?

Be further advised - the threat looms that this dangerous vaccine will soon be government mandated - especially if ObamaCare is implemented. Among states that have already enacted Gardasil-related measures are:  California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Virginia, Main and Utah. In all 50 states, tax dollars already help pay for the costly shots ($360) because the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) makes them available through the federal Vaccines for Children program.  

Gardasil is an insidiously virulent vaccine, that has been untested and government pushed - soon to be government mandated - which endangers the lives and health of young girls and women.  Now, this same toxic prophylaxis is being pushed for adolescent boys as well.  Why?   Why use any kind of prophylaxis (much less an insidiously dangerous one) for behavior that is not even being engaged in?  This makes no sense.  What is the agenda here?   

Friday, October 12, 2012

Life At Risk--ObamaCare

Center for Medical Ethics at the Louisiana Right to Life Federation has produced a 60-second video entitled “Life at Risk” that very effectively highlights the denial of medical treatment authorized by ObamaCare.