The Freedom of Choice Act - "It's time to turn the page. We want a new day here in America!"

To begin, I beg a question: How often have you, the reader, sat and mused over what you would do if you were fortunate enough to be entrusted with the title, 'President?' What great changes would you effect on your nation and the world? What good deeds contemplated would spring to fruition and become reality? What is the very first thing that you would seek to accomplish as President of the United States? There are as many possible answers to the above question as there are stars in the heavens or individual minds in the world entire. However, there is a vast chasm which lies gaping, creating a void between imagination and reality. The unexceptional man is left to his musings with the knowledge that they will most likely remain buried in a dream world.

The United States is currently experiencing the imaginings of President Obama. Some of his thoughts and ideologies will soon be turned into reality. Many of the President's musings have been centered around reproductive choice. Obama prepared the American public long in advance that, should he come into office, he would be seeking to promote the Freedom of Choice Act. Not only this, but he defined his support of the bill by the following terms: "The FIRST THING I WILL DO is sign the Freedom Of Choice Act." When I contemplate all of the glorious deeds that might first issue from the mind of a new President, infanticide is not usually among the number. 

When looking back over the last few moths to the trail blazed by the Obama campaign, his address to Planned Parenthood, which was made while in the infancy of his candidacy, did well to express his views on reproductive choice. Indeed, it distinguishes itself from the rest of his speeches, addresses on the economy, environment and world relationships, as a proverbial "sore thumb" of the lot. Obama might make every eloquent endeavor to bandage his beliefs of infanticide in the linens of "choice" and "freedom," but in the end, the results of his particular pro-abortion, or "pro-choice" doctrine will speak for themselves. 

But what will the Freedom of Choice Act accomplish, you may wonder? FOCA is a repeal on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, a law enacted November 5th of 2003, which staunchly prohibits the the late-term abortion of babies. Under the guidance of President George W. Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in good conscience that, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." Not only would FOCA repeal the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, but it would also supersede all local and state laws regarding abortion. In essence, there will be no laws regarding the where, when, why and how's of the abortion procedure. In response to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and his attempt to, " ... create a new day, here in America," the new President is quoted to have stated, "On this fundamental issue (FOCA) I will not yield, and Planned Parenthood will not yield." Sounds like new day, indeed. 

When you get down to the nitty-gritty of the ideology so eloquently spouted by Mr. Obama, it is essentially all about choice and human rights. The word "choice" is obviously loosely defined. Whose choice? This certainly does not refer to the baby in question. In his address to Planned Parenthood, the President defined choice as, " ... how we lead our lives." Interesting. Mr. President seems to conclude that pro-life advocates picket to disregard "choice." This simply isn't true. When it comes down to brass tacks, the abortion abolitionist makes a very weighty choice - they choose life. On the flip-side, the pro-abortion feminist also makes a choice. It is a decision that selfishly, and sometimes ignorantly, covets the remembrance of everything that defined her life before pregnancy. In the name of (what has been defined as) freedom she chooses death. Two choices - two outcomes. 

Not only does FOCA seek to supersede every local and state law regarding abortion but if passed, this bill will set the stage for the large-scale continuation of abortion and infanticide for generations to come. Currently, there are more then 550 laws that were put in place by the government to regulate abortion in America. If passed, FOCA will wipe the slate clean, and every possible means of government interference in regards to abortion will be null and void. By making abortion in every form a fundamental constitutional right, the government is essentially allowing the American public to run fast and loose with the practice. Some of the long-term effects of this bill include:

- The right of "Conscience" will be taken away from the doctors and hospitals who feel that it is ethically and morally wrong to perform abortions. Thus, every able doctor will be forced to perform abortions regardless of personal preference or belief.

- Parents will no longer be notified if their daughter is seeking an abortion. Any underaged woman, regardless of how young, will no longer need her parent's consent to procure an abortion. 

-  All restrictions on government funding will be removed. Tax payers will be forced to foot the bill for the procedure. 

- The ban on partial birth abortion and live birth abortions will be lifted and they will no longer be considered criminal offenses. 

To further quote President Obama in his address to Planned Parenthood, he ended his speech with the comment that, "We must never be willing to consign a teenage girl to a lifetime of struggle because of a lack of access to birth control." Talk about completely absolving a woman from taking responsibility for her own actions. Statistically speaking, the most dangerous place in America, not to mention the whole world, is to be situated inside the womb of a woman. With the liberals now controlling the house, senate and presidency, FOCA may soon be a reality. If this happens abortion will be used in conjunction with the pill as a means of daily birth control. With no limits and no responsible accountability, the young men and women of America won't have to worry about the consequences of casual or premarital sex. As Mr. President stated in reference to his own children, "I want my daughters ... to be absolutely free to seek their own happiness." This reeks of hedonism. We must, stated the President, find, "common ground based on common sense." To quote my father, "If common sense was common, everyone would have it." 

Not one time in his entire speech did Obama reference the unborn. His scope was limited entirely to the woman. The President seems to be carelessly omitting important facts, namely that the body of the baby is not the body of the mother. It is true that the baby lies within the mother's womb, but location does not determine person-hood. The old jackass (pardon the pun) populist belief of, "Let the people rule," seems to resurface every now and again in the Democratic ideological system. It seems as if Dr. Suess' Horton hit the nail on the head (he must have been a Republican); once again the Elephants have it right. "A persons a person, no matter how small." 

Stem Cell Research - Obama's Ethics

Stem cell research, a scientific practice which originated in the 1960's through the efforts and research of Canadian scientists Ernest A. McCulloch and James E. Till, has recently been infused back into the headlines with President Obama's decision to lift the Dickey-Wicker amendment. This amendment was put place in 1996 as a cap on the use of federal dollars to support and further embryonic stem cell research. Thus, American scientists wishing to dabble in the research of these cells have had to seek funding through private means. However, this doesn't mean that stem cell research has not continued in the United States. While still in office, President Bush happily supported the science in the use of adult and animal stem cells, but kindly refrained from the use of human embryos and fetuses. This was due to a profound belief in the truth that human embryos and the more mature fetus ought to be protected by the government as uniquely human individuals. But with the ushering in of the new Democratic government comes the expected torrent of conservative policy reversals, and the Dicky-Wicker amendment is one of the first to be thrown to the dogs. President Obama, a self-proclaimed man of faith, stated that moving forward in this area of research required a most careful and, "delicate balance."  Ahem! This leaves the more conservative members of the USA, not to mention the entire world, wondering how one could possibly offer an ethical and "delicate balance" to the borrowing of embryonic and fetal cells - cells that are inexplicably and uniquely human. 

To be fair, I must confess that when I contemplate the idea of stem cell research as a whole, my mind automatically and entirely focuses on the use of aborted babies as research cadavers. To use the tiny bodies of these medically murdered persons surely sends a "positive" message of, "Don't worry. Choosing to have an abortion can further scientific research. Your "donation" will enable us to, one day, re-create the spinal column of a crippled man, or reverse the effects of cancer in children." To employ the bodies of the unborn in such a manner is to use them in a most ill fashion, and it degrades them to an even further degree. Not only does this world view paint these tiny individuals as inhuman, but it gives science license to arrogantly borrow their cells and reproduce them as if their lives were worth nothing more then an experiment. But to focus merely upon that one aspect is a gross understatement of all that the research implies. Indeed, the aspect of research can be widened to include the use of adult, animal, embryonic (as mentioned above) and parthnogeneic cells. In order to increase my own understanding and further the comprehension of the reader, this author will attempt to present concise medical definitions of the above procedures. My aim is to widen understanding, expel ignorant notions and provide information which can be formulated a most careful and unbiased opinion. That being said, I humbly submit the following {definitions taken from www.wikipedia.org}:

The Use of Adult Cells - "The term adult cell refers to any cell which is found in a developed organism that has two properties: the ability to create another cell like itself and also divide and create more differentiated then itself. Also known as somatic {referring to the cells of the body, rather then the gametes [egg and sperm]}, stem sells and germline {giving rise to gametes} stem cells, they can be found in children, as well as adults. [NOTE - oftentimes, the use of fetal stem cells are grouped into the "adult" category]

Plurpotent stem cells {cells which can differentiate into nearly all types of cells [ie: cells derived from the three germ layers ( - a germ layer is a group of cells, formed during animal embryogenesis. They include the ectoderm, endoderm and mesoderm)] are rare and generally small in number but can be found in a number of tissues including umbilical cord blood. A great deal of adult stem cell research has focused on clarifying their capacity to divide or self-renew indefinitely and their differentiating potential. Most adult stem cells are lineage restricted (aka. multipotent - stem cells which can differentiate into a number of cells, but only those in a closely related family of cells) and are generally referred to by their tissue of origin.

Adult stem cell treatments have been successfully used for many years to treat leukemia and related bone/blood cancers through bone marrow transplants. Adult stem cells are also used in veterinary medicine to treat tendon and ligament injuries in horses. The use of adult stem cell in research and therapy is not as controversial as embryonic stem cells because the production of adult stem cells does not require the destruction of an embryo. Additionally, because in some instances adult stem cells can be obtained from the intended recipient, the risk of rejection is essentially non-existent in these situations. Consequently, more US government funding is being provided for adult stem cell research" (information obtained from www.wikipedia.org).

The Use of Embryonic Cells - "Embryonic stem cell lines are cultures of cells derived from the epiblast tissue of the inner cell mass {the mass of cells inside the primordial embryo that will eventually give rise to the definitive structures of the fetus. This structure forms in the earliest stages of development, before implantation into the endometrium of the uterus has occurred} or a blastocyst or earlier morula {an embryo at an early stage of embryonic development consisting of cells called blastomeres arranged in a solid ball} stage embryos. A blastocyst is an early stage embryo - approximately four to five days old in humans and consisting of 50-150 cells. ES cells are pluripotent {the ability to have more then one potential outcome} and give rise during development to all derivatives of the three primary germ layers: ectoderm, endoderm, and mesoderm. In other words, they can develop into each of the more then 200 cell types of the adult body when given sufficient and necessary stimulation for a specific cell type. They do not contribute to the extra-embryonic membranes or the placenta.  

After nearly ten years of research, there are no approved treatments or human trials using embryonic stem cells. ES cells, being pluripotent cells (see above for definition), require specific signals for correct differentiation - if injected directly into another body, ES cells will differentiate into many different types of cells, causing teratoma {an encapsulated tumor}. Differentiating ES cells into usable cells while avoiding transplant rejection are just a few of the hurdles that embryonic stem cell researchers still face. Many nations currently have moratoria {a ban} on either ES cell research or the production of new ES cell lines. Because of  their combined abilities of unlimited expansion and pluripotency, embryonic stem cells remain a theoretically potential source for regenerative medicine and tissue replacement after injury or disease" (information obtained from www.wikipedia.org). 

And last but not least:

The Use of Parthenogetic Cells - Parthenogenesis is the term that is used when an egg spontaneously activates on its own. "It is an asexual form of reproduction found in females where growth and development of embryos or seeds occurs without fertilization by a male. The offspring produced by parthenogenesis are always female in species that use the XY sex-determination system" {Definition taken from www.wikipedia.org}. This condition is often common in the human female. Sometimes a woman's eggs activate and form cysts or benign tumors inside of the ovary. When those activated eggs begin to divide, they resemble the human embryo in its earliest stages, and form blastocysts containing stem cells. The use of these cyst-like, unfertilized eggs could be viewed as a possible and "ethical" alternative to embryonic stem cell usage. Unlike in animals who reproduce through parthenogenesis, the effect in female humans is the exclusive formation of a cyst in the ovaries. If the aforementioned egg were to be implanted inside the womb of a woman, the result would not yield the formation of a fetus. 

Forgive the dry nature of the above information, but I find it necessary in order to form an educated opinion on the subject of stem cell research as a whole. As you have observed, there are many different ways to obtain stem cells. The cells in question can be harvested from a wide rage of benefactors - adult humans, animals, embryos, fetus' and cyst-like cells in the ovaries of a human woman. Up until recently, all of the above save adults and animals have been checked off the research list by the Dickey-Wicker amendment and protected by the government as containing life or the potential for it . Even if the scientific community is using the term loosely, after reading the above information, one might be left wondering whether any of the methods of stem cell research are worthy to be deemed "ethical." Despite this, President Obama has decided to trek the slippery slope of ethics by promoting the use of tiny humans and their cells in the name of scientific advancement. One wonders why science need dabble in the use of embryos at all, especially when there are many other means of obtaining these coveted cells - methods less fraught with ethical and spiritual conundrums. This author will once again remind the reader that Obama is a self-proclaimed man of faith. This leaves me wondering, "Exactly what religion is he practicing?" 

{NOTE - If you want to view the President making his speech on Stem Cell Research, go to www.youtube.com and check it out. Educate yourself!}

Ethics - But What About the Rape Victim?

A popular avenue taken by pro-choicers is to dwell heavily upon the devastating reality of the rape victim. When all other questions have been curbed, the violated woman pops onto the scene and with her comes a ocean-full of impossibly hard questions. What, oh what to do with the baby conceived from the seed of violence? This author does not approach said topic and all of the gravity and pain that accompanies it with a flippant attitude. Instead it is with a heavy heart that I ask myself, "What care or advise would I offer to ease the mind of a woman who has conceived through no act of her own, but through the sin of another?" I cannot imagine the agony of it. Even when I try my hardest and employ every ounce of my imagination, my brain cannot muster up such a helpless feeling. To be so cruelly used, so completely violated to such an end as would lead to pregnancy - I cannot understand. Many may condemn this article entirely because I have never experienced the grief that accompanies the object that is now my topic. Regardless of this fact, I will try my utmost to be both sensitive and logical. 

The problem lies in what to DO with the pregnancy? Should it be terminated due to the pain it would inflict on the woman? A pregnant womb (all that should be rapped up in the beauty of a swollen belly and promise of a new life) would do very little to allow the rape victim to forget the terror of her ordeal, some conclude. How could we possibly force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy through to term? Therefore, the pregnancy should be ended to give the woman peace of mind. 

Such a statement seems like a proper and fair stance in the eyes of society. Undoubtably so! Abortion on demand is readily available in Canada and is not capped by law.  This means that any woman can simply waltz into the doors of an abortion clinic at any stage in her pregnancy and request that it be put to a speedy end. Therefore, one would naturally conclude that if abortion is available at the whim of convenience, it should most assuredly be available for the woman who, through no fault of her own, has forcibly become pregnant. So now what? Would it not seem gravely inhuman and unfeeling to present any other view? 

Based on my other postings one could already assume that this writer cannot easily accept the above view. The sterile and lawful death that accompanies the completion of every abortion, regardless of how that pregnancy came to be, cannot be overlooked. Even in the most bleak situations, we are not dealing with terms. We are dealing with lives. The words "rape" and "unwanted pregnancy" deeply involve more then one person. Although this sin rests heavily upon the shoulders of the woman who has been so helplessly violated, it also involves the soul of another: the baby in question. 

One cannot forget that this child has had no say in how it was conceived. Indeed, no one living or reading this humble paper has had any say in how they came into being. Wether it was through the passion and love of two individuals, or through terror and the sin of one individual forcing himself on another, the way that a person is conceived makes no difference in respects to viability of their person-hood. Therefore, it should be fair to conclude that the child who is a product of rape is still, in every respect, as much of a human being as is the child who is the product of a love. Is it not so? Let us be fair and logical. Let us call a, "Spade a spade." The situation of person-hood does not change based on "how" or "why."

On another note, many utter the assumption that an abortion would provide relief to the emotional aspect of the situation. When one removes the evidence of conception by rape, namely the baby in question, it is thought that the emotional wounds will mend more readily. Indeed, a pregnant belly (which is normally a universal sign of beauty) would be a definite reminder of the horror experienced by the mother. But riddle me this: Is abortion going to solve the emotional trauma associated with rape? I don't believe so. 

While seeking to justify my opinion, I was reminded of the day that I first observed an abortion in progress. I was not present in the flesh but was viewing the procedure over the internet. I winced at the computer screen and could not help but squint, grit my teeth, and cringe at the grizzly sight which met my gaze. Never before had I observed anything so violent. The hidden abortionist employed the suction cathiter and curette in a most forceful and brutal manner. As he (or she) scraped bits of baby from the inside of the womb of the woman it was all I could do to keep my eyes from wandering from what was transpiring before them. All at once the statistics became more real and vivid - not just regarding the 115, 000 babies who are destroyed daily world-wide by abortion, but the reality that many women cannot bare or carry a baby through to term after an abortion. As the metal rod of the curette flashed and scraped in a circular motion, expelling pieces of a tiny baby - a little soul being preciously knit together by the hands of the Almighty God, my eyes were opened to a new reality. Not only does abortion undoubtedly kill a baby, but it does well to maim the mother in the process. This "quick fix" called abortion often yields tragic and lasting results. 

There are many factors that play into procuring an abortion. Not only are there many physical ramifications to consider, but emotional drawbacks as well. Guilt and despair often follow swiftly behind the completion of an abortion. To be clear and fair, this author strongly believes that many women abort out of sheer ignorance to the wonder that is transpiring within their bodies. Indeed, it would be much easier to claim ignorance and undergo the procedure immediately after one finds herself pregnant rather then to research and try to clearly understand the splendor that encompasses all that pregnancy involves - especially if the woman in question deeply desires to rid herself of the unwanted baby. This is why I believe that it is so essential to present the truth of what abortion does to the bodies of the most innocent among us. The pictures, offensive though they may be, do well to educate the public. But all that aside, despite the ignorance and the complacency, many women regret and despair over their decision to kill their babies. Going back to the question of the baby conceived through the despicable sin "rape," I cannot imagine how adding the burden of murder into the mix would help heal the heart of the victim. Women know most deeply and personally, regardless of a lack of education on the subject, that abortion kills a valuable part of themselves - a part of themselves that is worthy of vigorous protection. 

"For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them."

Psalm 139: 13-16

"Rescue those being lead away to death; hold back those staggering towards slaughter. If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has 

done?"

Proverbs 24:11,12

So how to conclude this paper? Based on everything this author knows about the Almighty God, I am most assuredly convinced that the Lord despises abortion. It destroys the abundance of creativity He has invested into the knitting together of persons created in His image. With the Bible as our guide, all followers of Christ are to, as commanded in Proverbs 24, "... hold back those staggering towards slaughter." Even though rape is a grave and most touchy subject, the child conceived by rape is still a human being, and one who is, despite the sin, being intimately knitted together by the hand of a sovereign God. I have often been told that there are many "grey areas" when dealing with humans and abortion. No one situation is the same as the next, and conception through rape cannot possibly be compared to conception through fornication or adultery. Despite this, nothing can logically justify the destruction of a human life. Therefore, there are no grey areas. Abortion is murder. Murder is sin. Sin robs God of the glory due His name. God hates being robbed of His glory. It is that simple ... 

A Myth - "It's my body ..."

Pro-choice advocates tend to beat this statement to death: "It's my body. I should have the right to do what I please with it and to it." Now, the former statement would, in essence, be fair - if it were only correct. But it's not correct. It is, indeed, a BIG statement, but one fraught with falicy none the less. The womb belongs to the woman, but what lie peacefully growing therein does not. 

This morning while searching YouTube, I stumbled upon a video entitled, "It's My Body." Sighing, I clicked on it, assuming to be met with a volley of pro-choice statements. But instead, I saw a woman brandishing many coherent and logical truths. As an introduction to her topic, she stated with some reservation that she used to be pro-choice. That is, until she experienced abortion in a most personal manner. After having an abortion herself, she began an inquiry into her own mind, asking herself (my paraphrase), "Do I have four eyes? Four feet? Four hands? Do I have two sets of DNA? Two individual and separate personalities?" Dawn had broken in her mind, and had transfered this ray of light and logic into my own. Indeed, the womb belongs to the woman. Of that statement there can be no dispute. But what lay inside it, the life that is being knitted together within the security of its walls, is most certainly not her body. It contains the body and soul of another -  a unique human being. It contains another set of hands which do not belong to the mother, a unique set of fingerprints, a sparkling pair of eyes that have never been possessed by another human baby, and a distinct personality different from the woman in whose womb he or she resides. Such truths are indisputable. There is more then one body, and vastly more then one soul, involved in abortion. 

But, one might argue, this baby is a paracitic creature. It relies on the body of the mother for survival, and therefore, such reliance should relinquish all "rights" to life. If it cannot survive on its own, then it is not a human being. The former argument is both redundant and foolish. Regardless of popular feminist opinions or the multitude of pithy sayings employed by the enemies of pro-life logic; the truth still stands. The baby's body is not the mother's body. Indeed, a baby, who is essentially a body inside a body, assuredly relies on his or her mother for the continuance of existence. But the facts do not change in light of this reality. Moreover, if we applied this exception to those who are already born, we would have to assume that all those on insulin, all those undergoing dialasis, everyone who is on oxygen, and any person who is currently on life support are not fit to be called a human being. Such a presupposition, when woven into the fabric of our everyday existence, would yield sobering and drastic results.