President Obama ~ Eloquently Incorrect

This morning, President Obama gave a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC. He spoke very eloquently on the subjects of God, faith, prayer, civility, and government. I must confess that despite my fervent dislike for many of the President's policies, he is one of the most engaging and believable speakers that I have ever encountered. He is uncannily persuasive - so much so, that I find myself almost drawn into agreeing with him ... into believing him.

His speech this morning was very much centered around one overarching theme: it was a call to civility and prayer. Many of the statements and key elements in his speech were hardly surprising. In fact, much to my own astonishment, I found myself agreeing with several of the things he said. For instance, his appeal to civility was very candid. Statements such as, "Civility is not a sign of weakness," and, "The erosion of civility in the public square sows division and distrust among our citizens," are very honest and truthful statements. Regardless of our own belief system, we ought to treat all our opponents with kindness and respect. However, I found that things began to become rather nebulous every time President Obama mentioned the word, "God." I scarcely know what the word implies when coming from his lips, and it leaves me with a great degree of uncertainty. I am left wondering, "Who is this God?"

I believe that the President's fuzzy description of the Almighty is politically purposeful. It is an offenseless, religious maneuver. When Obama speaks of God he does so without defining his terms, and in doing so, he creates his own version of God - an infinite, loving being who just wants everyone to get along, and who sits in Heaven eagerly awaiting our prayers. "Let us be guided by our faith and prayer," said the President. Faith? Faith in what? Faith in who? Obama's claims of belief in an obscure sort of deity do well to bolster his image as a "religious man" - a man with morals and an appreciation for the essentially Christian foundation upon which America was built. Everyone, even Atheists, can appreciate a man of sound, moral, character. But regardless of how the President views himself, his claims of morality are doubtful at best and completely ludicrous at worst. To quote President Obama again, he says:

"Surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith."

This statement is erroneous! Proverbs 27:19 says, "As water reflects a face, so a man's heart reflects the man." Therefore, President Obama's political agenda is a reflection of what is in his heart.

Let us pretend for a minute that this "God" President Obama claims to have faith in is the one true God (as defined by Himself in the Holy Bible). Now, if Barak Obama follows God with the faith and determination which he asserted in his speech this morning, then logically his policies would tend coincide with Biblical principles. However, this is obviously not the case. One of the very first things President Obama took an unyielding stand on was "a women's right to choose," or in other words, the slaughter of millions of young Americans each year. Obama heartily supports abortion. Abortion is homicide. There is no other way to correctly explain the procedure - it kills a human being. Anyone who wishes to dispute this statement is foolishly unaware of the fact that life has been scientifically proven to begin at conception. Look it up. This "reflection" of the President's heart that manifests itself in "the right to choose" to kill the smallest amongst us is not biblical, nor is it not godly - it is Satanic.

To conclude, I end with quoting the President once again:

"When we challenge each other's motives it becomes harder to see what we hold in common. We forget that we share, at some deep level, the same dreams."

This statement seeks to lull his viewers into complacent trust. All I hear is, "Don't question my decisions." We share the same dreams, eh? I must confess that my greatest hopes for the future of North America, and the world entire, have never been centered around the legal slaughter of our children. The President often speaks of "freedom and equality," but freedom and equality for who? Somehow, Obama must have either missed or disregarded the memo stating, "Life begins at conception." But more essentially, he is disregarding the decrees of God - a being in which he claims a solid, faithful belief. God has said, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). Somehow, the President seems to have missed that memo as well.

The Church Pamphlet - "Sanctity of Life Sunday"

“Abortion is a God issue, and I think that the first way

you see that is in Psalm 139 where it says, “I am fearfully

and wonderfully made” (verse 14). And the language that

is used is that a baby is knit together in its mother’s womb.

Well who’s the knitter? The knitter is not nature. The knitter

Is God, which means that what’s happening in a woman’s

tummy is that God is at work. God is making a human being.

Now you don’t mess with that. You just don’t get in God’s face

And say, “Let me at it! I’m going to take it out! I’m going to

chop it into pieces.” You don’t do that.”

John Piper

The Sanctity of Life Sunday –

Why do we remember?

The month of January is “Sanctity of Human Life”

month. This particular Sunday, the 24^th, has been

singled out especially as “Sanctity of Human Life

Sunday.” Today, we as a Church, along with the

broader Church of Jesus Christ, take time to reflect

upon the splendor and wonder that accompanies

God’s gift of LIFE, and to remind ourselves that this

precious gift is oftentimes devalued by both culture

and society – being deprived and stolen from the

most helpless amongst us.

The necessity of the reminder of the beauty and

dignity of human life is, indeed, significant and

desperately essential for many reasons. As

a Church, this specific Sunday offers us a reminder

that the world we live in, and the ideologies under

which our world operates, are held captive by Satan.

Humanity is indeed a renegade assembly! Mankind

has forsaken the glorious Word and will of the

Almighty and are living in enmity toward His law

and name. As those who are saved by grace, it is no

secret that we live in a world that disregards both

love for God and the importance of living by the

principles set forth in His word.

Thus, today is a sad reminder. It brings to mind the

many gut-wrenching statistics that prevail in regards

to the subject of abortion. Let us not forget that today,

worldwide, 115,000 children will die at the hands of

the practice. When we compound abortion at a yearly

rate it equals a figure of approximately 42 million

children. The amount of children killed yearly by the

abortionist exceeds, by almost 10 million, the current

population of Canada. (*Note – this statistic does not

include those children whose lives are taken through

the use of the morning after pill and thorough the use

of many birth control pills.)

Today we must also be reminded that, in the USA,

43% of all abortions obtained are sought by women

identifying themselves as Protestant. (I am unsure

regarding this statistic as pertaining to Canada, but

you can be certain that our own percentage will

probably closely mirror that of our southern-most

neighbor). This statistic is as troubling as it is tragic.

That figure accounts for nearly half of the 1.21 million

abortions performed yearly in the US. Now we obviously

cannot take the above information and claim that every

women in that 43 % bracket belongs to a Church.

However, regardless of this fact, we cannot forget to ask

ourselves, “Where is the Church?” Have we forgotten our

God-given mandate to, “… rescue those being lead away

to death; hold back those staggering towards slaughter”

(Proverbs 24:11)? Are we about the business of holding

out the hope of the gospel to those women who find

themselves unexpectedly pregnant with an unwanted

child, or those who are currently suffering the mentally

and physically damaging effects of post-abortion

trauma?

Today, let us remind ourselves that these babies are

living beings from the time of conception – being

intricately woven and knit together by the hands of God.

Let us remember and heartily seek to practice what

James calls, “… religion that God our Father accepts

as pure and faultless.” This year, by God’s grace, may

we be dedicated to looking,“ … after orphans … in their

distress “ (James 1:27). After all, there is no group

more orphaned, in every sense of the term, then those

whose parents seek to destroy them.

--------------------------------------------

"We represent Christ in this world. People cannot see

Him; they must look at us—to see a little of what He

is like. Whatever great work we may do for Christ—if

we fail to live out His life of love, kindness and patience

—we fail in an essential part of our duty as Christians."

JR Miller

What Can We Do?

* Pray! Plead that God would, through the use of

strong, scientific, pictorial evidence, and the

conviction of His Word, open the eyes of the pro-

choice around us and around the world.

* Educate yourself and those around you about the

process and statistics of abortion, and acquaint

yourself with the scientific and biblical nature of the

fetus. Know the facts and develop sound arguments

for the pro-life position.

* Financially support those people and agencies who

seek to make abortion unthinkable. The CCBR

(Canadian Center for Bio-ethical Reform) is located in

Calgary and is an agency worth supporting.

* Something as simple as placing a bumper sticker

on your car that echoes the evils of abortion can cause

others to think about their position on the subject.

*Consider volunteering at the Calgary Pregnancy Care

Center - located in downtown Calgary (www.pregcare.com).

*Strongly promote, and support, adoption. Consider

whether or not God might be leading you to personally

serve the unborn through adoption. A good book

for those considering adoption is, “Adopted for Life,”

by Russell Moore.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

“The pro-choice position always overlooks the victim’s

right to choose. Blacks didn’t choose slavery. Jews

didn’t choose the ovens. Women don’t choose rape.

And babies don’t choose abortion."

Randy Alcorn

What Are YOU So Afraid of?

This morning, I sat as I always try to sit, on the couch for a few quiet minutes before my day begins. As I sat in momentary solitude, I stumbled upon a fascinating and hopeful article by The (online) Huffington Post entitled, "Tim Tebow Super Bowl Add: Woman's Group Pressure CBS." You might wonder what would have sparked my interest in such a title? Despite my love of football, my almost total lack of knowledge on the subject would have to truthfully conceal that I do not know what team Tebow plays for, nor am I sure of what position he holds. However, when I view his name in both news and or media I always think of one thing: Abortion. This connection might seem odd to some of you, I cannot help but draw it - here's why.

Tim Tebow's very earliest beginnings were fraught with uncertainty. He was born to Christian missionary parents Bob and Pam Tebow on August 14, 1987. At the time of his birth his parents were situated as missionaries in the Philippines, and his mother became ill with an infection caused by a pathogenic amoeba. Because of the drugs being used to treat the infection, doctors advised an abortion in order to preserve Pam's life. But, regardless of medical recommendation, Bob and Pam decided to continue with the pregnancy. The decision may not have been an easy one. On this point I cannot venture to even speculate. However, despite the uncertain outcome of the situation, Tim's parents thoroughly grasped the obvious - there was more then one life at stake in the decision to abort. As a result, Tim was born - alive and healthy.

From such precarious beginnings, Tim Tebow thrived and went onto become the first sophomore to win the Heisman Trophy. However, my interest lies not in Tebow's football stats, impressive as they may be. I am much more interested in the very public stance that he has taken in regards to abortion, especially his latest endeavor. Apparently this year's Super Bowl will be hosting a commercial funded by Focus on the Family that will feature Tim Tebow, his mother Pam and, a probable anti-abortion message. The football player had this to say regarding the anticipated controversial nature of the commercial, "I know some people won't agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe. I've always been very convicted of it (abortion) because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it."

And as you can imagine the critics are already buzzing! Among those particularly piqued are a national coalition of women's groups who fear that Tebow's message, as reporter David Crary puts it, "... is likely to convey an anti-abortion message." Jehmu Greene, president of the New York Woman's Media Center made the following remark upon the subject, "An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year – an event designed to bring Americans together." But the most interesting, not to mention scathing criticisms centers not around the Tebow family, but was made regarding the Christian principles of Focus on the Family. "By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," stated a letter written by the Woman's Media Center. A spokesman for Focus on the Family, Gary Schneeberger, explained away all concern, stating, "There's nothing political and controversial about it (the commercial). When the day arrives, and you sit down to watch the game on TV, those who oppose it will be quite surprised at what the ad is all about."

Despite the flurry of negative opinions, CBS has stood by their decision to support the commercial, stating that the add is "appropriate for air." However, some sports fans do not agree. "If you're a sports fan, and I am, that's the holiest day of the year," wrote national columnist for CBSSports.com Gregg Doyle. "It's not a day to discuss abortion. For it, against it, I don't care what you are. On Super Sunday, I don't care what I am. Feb. 7 is simply not the day to have that discussion."

Phew! What grips me most about the scathing nature of the controversy is the fact that not one of the protesters has actually viewed this commercial. That privilege will postponed until game day. However, the spirit behind all this hullabaloo cannot be ignored, and as I sit here, I silently ask myself, "What are they so afraid of?" The very likelihood that this impending commercial will contain a strong pro-life message is more then enough to send woman's rights groups scurrying to the nearest post office, letter in had, demanding that CBS rethink the stance on the use of such inappropriate material. Is Super Sunday, as Gregg Doyle said above, an inappropriate day to, "discuss abortion?" I don't think so.

According to last year's statistics, the average global viewership of the Super Bowl was just over 100 million people. So I think that it is very safe to assume that, this year, around 100 million people (and possibly more) will be viewing this supposedly controversial add. So again I query, "What's the immediate threat?" How could an appropriate, possible pro-life commercial lasting 30 meager seconds harm the conscience of the American public?

One of the greatest benefits of controversy is the fact that it causes the person being opposed to stop, stand back, and wonder, "Why?" ... especially in such an obscure circumstance as a "probable" pro-life commercial. If the pro-life message had no pictorial credence, no scientific evidence to support its claims, and no truthful basis whatsoever, then no possible threat could be detected by the pro-choice community. They would simply dismiss pro-life doctrine, and this upcoming commercial, as inconsequential. Who, in their right mind, would bother wasting time in order to refute something obviously and utterly ridiculous? However, this is not the case. Abortion kills - it stops a beating heart, dismembers, and tares a tiny body to shreds. We have the pictorial evidence to prove it, and the pro-choice community knows it. They obviously want to silence the message.

Our First "Sanctity of Life Sunday"

Today was the first "Sanctity of Life Sunday" my Church has participated in "celebrating." I found the day to be filled with both great anticipation and sorrow. The word celebration doesn't really seem to fit, but for lack of a better word, I use it. Abortion was the subject of choice, and the Pastor's sermon did well to tackle the weighty and perverse nature of the practice. When considering the beauty and sanctity of life, especially when reflecting upon the Author of it, there is much to reverently and joyfully celebrate. And, indeed, when the Pastor introduced his sermon with the reading of Psalm 139, I found myself humbled and awestruck by the intimate delicacy which God uses in dealing with His children. Not only does He both, "search and know," us in the most enveloping fashion, but He bears the total responsibility for our initial introduction to life itself. "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mothers womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well" Psalm 139:13-14. Therefore, it can be said with the greatest of confidence that life is to be treasured and fully respected. The creation of flesh and spirit are never a waste, but rather a vastly complicated and intimate process.

But again, when considering the central nature of today's sermon, I hesitate (even cringe) to use the word "celebrate." There is certainly nothing worthy of invoking joy or jubilation when considering the barbaric and shameful topic of abortion. It is a demonic affront to both God and the life wrought by the careful work of His hands. However, the world sees things a little differently. Society fights for the freedom of choice and ardently demands that a woman's "right" to abortion be recognized. When the government diminishes the purity of truth in order to match up with popular or minority opinion, in this case, the pro-choice community would concede themselves a victory. Then comes the inevitable celebration in honor of "women's rights everywhere." Thus, the merrymaking begins. In all seriousness and actuality, these pro-choice rebels are hosting a party, and death is the guest of honor.

In their fight for reproductive rights, these abortion seeking crusaders have failed to reckon with several obstacles - the most formidable being God himself. As Psalm 139 clearly states that the credit in the fashioning of a human being, both soul and body, belong directly to God - and him alone. Nobody can claim the "right" to destroy what the King of Kings has created. The rest of the obstacles cover a vast deal of ground ranging from pure and undeniable logic to the witness of scientific evidence. The principle question that must be considered when debating an ethical position on the subject of abortion is, "What is the unborn?" Psalm 139 clearly answers that elementary inquiry.

And so I am left both sorrowful and rejoicing over our Church's very first "Sanctity of Life Sunday." Even as I despair over the death and destruction left in the wake of legalized abortion, I celebrate the beauty of life and the creative power of God. Life is, indeed, a most pleasant and beautiful thing. Abortion is, indeed, a most horrific deed - the shaking of a puny and rebellious fist into the face of God. I take solace in remembering that, one day, God will rightly hold mankind accountable for the death and dismemberment of what He has so marvelously created. What a terrifying day that will be.

Sanctity of Life Sunday - January 24th 2010

Note from the author - {I must begin with a confession - I've been neglecting my blog as of late. Just as I find the reality and magnitude of abortion to be disparaging, I find it equally discouraging to sit and type, knowing that my eyes are the only ones who view these words. For the most part they seem to lay dormant and neglected; a fading whisper amongst a multitude of websites and blogs.

I have recently been confronted with how sinful my bleak outlook and dull frame of mind truly are. Indeed, I think it a sobering deed to even construct, and re-read, those lasts sentences. I find my eyes to be so blind to the reality of my own sin and the corruption of my own selfish heart. I am guilty. To be completely forthright, I find that I love and seek the vanity that accompanies human recognition and praise. As the absence of new posts can attest, I must, I do, love the praise of men more then the happy task of completing the work that God has required of me. He has laid upon my heart a great burden for the lives of the unborn in such a way that, when I am most focused on my task, I cannot go a two days without dwelling on (sometimes to the point of despair) the evils of abortion. I have often been told, by a Pastor and friend, that, "The heart of the matter is, indeed, the matter of the heart," and the exhibition of fruit that issues forth from my own heart in respects to this matter has been rotten as of late. For those whose eyes do stumble upon this post, I ask that you bare with me. My faults are great, but my task is unmistakably clear. I must do, I must write, I must remind myself, and others, that abortion and death do not sleep. For those who find themselves in a similar situation to that which I described above, I hope and pray that you do not despair as I have ... and do. Regardless of whether no one, one person, or a hundred people read this post, it should not concern me. The most important thing is to obey God ... and write. Satan has not relinquished his hold on the most vulnerable among us, and he continues to smite and destroy our young through the gloved and sterile hands of men and women employed to do his bidding. The reality of this should be reason enough for me to write all the more adamantly, all the while knowing that I write with the strength that God provides for the task He has commissioned. }

I want to being this post by reminding the reader of a very specific, increasingly large, number. That number is 40 million, and it is the number of those children killed by abortion, worldwide, on a yearly basis. Now, I know that it is easy to grow cold towards the reality that lies behind the statistical data of, "40 million." When one surveys the statistics they seem hopelessly unbelievable. I had to check, and recheck that specific statistic before using it above, as I was so sure that the number had been over estimated and blown out of proportion. But it cannot be denied.

When you dwell upon the magnitude of "40 million," do not merely view the number - survey the reality. Do you see these children in your mind's eye? Imagine 40 million little bodies: they are torn limb from limb, miniature feet, hands complete with fingernails, a heart that used to beat, laying in a basin full of blood - do you see them? They have no voice, they cannot retaliate, they can do nothing but silently succumb to the fate that awaits them at the hands of the abortionist. Can you see them?

I know that the above approach does well to tug at the emotional strings of the reader. If you live without the benefit of "emotional strings," then you don't fully grasp the reality of the situation at hand. It has been scientifically proven that life begins at conception. The offspring of humans are undeniably, precisely, and obviously made from the genetic material that forms the framework of all humanity - they are by definition human beings. Regardless of their size, their location, their level of development, and level of dependency, the fact that humans beget humans does not change. A tiny human being is still a human being. "It" is not a lump of cells, or an unfeeling mass of tissue. The child that is growing and developing inside of the womb is being intimately and wonderfully constructed by the hand of God himself. As John Piper so eloquently says, "You don't mess with that."

This Sunday is "Sanctity of Life" Sunday. It has been a day specially set aside to view the reality of abortion anew with a clear vision. Let us be reminded, this Sunday and every day, that abortion destroys a child created in the image of God. It destroys a person ... a life ... and stops a beating heart. Take the time to educate yourself about the practice of abortion, know and understand the statistics involved, lovingly offer the hope of the gospel to those women and men who are living with the guilt of participating in the sin of abortion, and pray that God would grant the mercy of a fresh and untarnished vision to those around us who do not believe in the humanity of the unborn. And when discouragement comes, as it well may, do not despair. Instead, place all your imperfect efforts and troublesome sorrows into the hands of the Almighty, Sovereign, God - who has promised to work all things, even discouragement, together for our good.

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!}