Recently I drove past the local Planned Parenthood. On one side of the building was a vinyl banner that said something like:

I believe reproductive choice is a human right.

I’m curious – what exactly does Planned Parenthood mean by that? If it’s “reproductive choice”, they must mean we’re talking about human beings. Humans reproduce after their own kind (heredity and all that). And “choice” seems about whether you willingly want to reproduce – that is, create another human being.

So is this banner about consenting to sexual intercourse? After all, if someone forced reproduction upon someone, that wouldn’t be a choice. It would be rape, which is the use of force.

And we know human beings shouldn’t be forcefully victimized by other human beings.

All human rights are based on the right to life. If that right can be denied, then what other rights matter?

Is this banner about abortion? Not if what is being “reproduced” is a human being.

However that statement only works if you also believe that “might makes rights”.

In other words, defenseless innocents can be killed by those they depend upon for mercy.

Prior to 1973, the reproductive “right” to abortion did not exist. This is called a “positive right”, created by a government or other body.

Since when does a positive right override the inalienable right to life?

It doesn’t.

Human Rights abortion

We’ve reached the point of absolute insanity in the United States.

The House Healthcare bill does what the title says.

Download it here and search for “abortion”.

Time to choose America.

Human Rights abortion

Human Rights abortion

Here’s some questions to ask your US representatives:

Does the proposed healthcare bill allow distinctions between wanted and unwanted human beings?

Isn’t subjective actions against human beings based on various physical features discrimination?

Clearly, it wouldn’t be reproductive health without a child, and I don’t believe you’re saying pregnancy coverage would be excluded from the bill.

We also know that to some, it’s clearly a baby, while to others – an unwanted fetus (Latin for offspring-child).

You’re asking taxpayers to support paying for violent mortal discrimination against a particular class of innocent human beings.

Do you truly believe in choice?

If so, who are you to tell me and every other American who stands for life that we have no choice when it comes to our tax dollars being used to support predatory, discriminating violence in the form of elective abortion, abortive birth control or any other term you use to avoid describing the destruction of innocent human beings?

Because if you don’t exclusively stand on the principle that the life of each human being is immeasurably valuable, then you must believe each life is of some utilitarian value, meaning subjugation of the weakest by the strongest human beings.

That being the case – where do I and the remainder of your constituents stand in that regard?

And why would we want a representative who doesn’t consider us equal?

Human Rights abortion, healthcare

This is the best rational argument against abortion in it’s most basic form.

As a culture, we uphold the just, moral principle that innocent human beings ought not be intentionally killed. (”ought” is legal for “any, at all, under all circumstances”.)

So —

1. It is morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being;
2. Elective abortion* intentionally kills an innocent human being;
3. Therefore: elective abortion is morally wrong.

*performed for any reason other than saving the life of the mother.

There’s only one question in the abortion debate:
What is “it”?

Few argue it’s okay to kill innocent human beings. Most agree something is killed, and virtually all agree some sort of human flesh and blood is destroyed.

So what is destroyed during an abortion? Is that an innocent human being? If it is an innocent human being, and we agree with the 1st premise, then one cannot reasonably uphold abortion as a right.

Reasoning: Every abortion-choice person depends on others identifying them as a innocent, immeasurably valuable, living human being, and respecting their inherent right to life. Rejection of the 1st premise leaves only subjugation of the weakest by the strongest.

When advocating life, we need to identify the unborn as human beings by showing they share a universal biological human nature with the abortion-choicer, then affirm the moral principle by explaining why it’s always applicable despite human physical variations. In effect upholding the moral principle of non-discrimination.

There’s one, easy to remember acronym that summarizes the technique we use to advocate life:

BioSLED – the best argument against abortion-choice.

Remember, the objective is not to win the argument, but to win-over the other person.

Human Rights abortion, bioSLED, Debate, pro-choice

Ever need access to human embryology textbooks with accurate scientific, medical facts?

• Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human
• Larsen’s Human Embryology
• Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology
• O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.

Some are available from Amazon as paperbacks for very reasonable prices, but if you want the definitive text, be prepared to shell out $445 for the O’Rahilly and Mueller.

These texts are invaluable when you use BioSLED to defend life. They provide the “Bio” – logical scientific portion of the argument.

Human Rights abortion, HESCR

Without a doubt, the current healthcare reform effort is about controlling expanding medical costs. Also, without any doubt, measures in the House version of a bill (H.R. 3200 section 1233) address end of life consultations. As liberal commentators Charles Lane and Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post point out, the only reason why such language would be included would be about controlling costs. See here and here.

This has ignited a firestorm of controversy with almost everyone jumping into the fray, from Sarah Palin’s “death panels” to President Obama’s wandering sophistry on the issue. Section 1233 is definitely controversial, and apparently those behind the language have no problem with either voluntary or involuntary euthanasia.

In the larger scope of things, there are two critical issues to be aware of:

1. The baby boomers have moved into retirement, with the initial boomers starting to approach the years where critical health care will be required. Some claim roughly 70% of total US healthcare costs are consumed by those in our population in their final years of life. (Never mind that particular expense shows up as income for someone else, such as medical jobs, services and product sales.)

2. The current Democratic leadership backs abortion 100%, due to it’s core constituencies demands and the lobbying of the abortion industry. For all practical purposes what’s being proposed is not just healthcare for the elderly, but also FOCA – the Freedom of Choice Act, to eliminate our youngest. (In their eyes, abortion costs less than birth, is far more repeatable, profitable, manageable and cost efficient.) And we know where Barack Obama stands on these matters.

So here we are.

From the Democratic perspective “controlling costs” can be done at either end – the elderly can be euthanized, and the unborn can be aborted. In either case, the option to kill is much less expensive than providing humane treatment.

It’s time for the pro-life cause to demand a national discussion on the immeasurable value of each human life.

Because the boomers are scared to death that the seeds they sowed about the expendability of human life, (evidenced with almost 50 million human beings being aborted) will be paid back with compassionate killing.

There is no better time to discuss this than right now, when America’s focus is on this issue.

And “controlling costs” is nothing more than a face-saving euphemism for controlling lives.

Human Rights abortion, euthanasia, immeasurable value

By way of (Prolifer)ation’s on Jill Stanek’s blog, Big Blue Wave touched on how Reuters works to govern the abortion debate via their Handbook on Journalism:

abortion

Unless quoting someone, refer to aborted foetuses rather than unborn babies. Describe those campaigning for a woman’s right to have an abortion as abortion rights campaigners and those campaigning against abortion rights as anti-abortion campaigners. Terms such as pro-choice, pro-life and pro-abortion are open to dispute and should be avoided.

Neutral? Accurate? Or divisive? Christ makes an interesting statement in Matthew 12:30 when he confronted the Pharisees:

“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.

Language is not neutral. Those at Reuters chose their language, as we all do. One cannot refer to one group as advocating rights without referring to those diametrically opposed to that position. And “anti” is almost always considered a negative. Absent such distinction, there is no news.

Still, both sides trumpet rights, including Suzanne of Big Blue Wave, who describes pro-life efforts as advocating “fetal rights”.

Yet, framing the debate solely upon rights misses a very important point. In her comments at Jill’s, Christina Dunigan of RealChoice raises what is so often overlooked by both sides: parental responsibilities. We tend to think of rights as a passive, positive, valuable property, inherent in our being, while we consider responsibilities as negative onerous duties demanded by someone else.

Notice in Mt 12:30 the two parts of Jesus’ statement. Within the passage, the Pharisees right to be guardians of the faith requires them to uphold the faith by gathering more disciples, not dividing the house. One cannot receive the benefits of rights without being accountable for the responsibilities inherent in those rights. People forget that the Declaration of Independence is truly about securing the rights of all, by being responsible to each other. Like assets and liabilities, you cannot have rights without responsibilities.

But what responsibility does a news organization have regarding language? Reuters is far from neutral. Their highest priority regarding abortion is to immediately depersonalize it by using the word fetus – Latin for “offspring” – a child. Notice it’s past-tense, so their first focus is the aborted remains of a child. When viewing a photo of such remains, how would one naturally describe it using sixth grade language? If you weren’t told the age – would you really use the word “fetus” to describe a recognizably shredded baby? So the motive is deliberate depersonalization of a human being.

Now Reuters is nothing but a piece of paper in some government filing cabinet, a faceless, impersonal corporate entity. Would the human beings working for Reuters seriously object to being depersonalized? Or have they done so already by resorting to propaganda language on such an important issue instead of speaking plainly?

Always bring it back to what it means to be fully human, and never forget the responsibilities that come with the rights. No amount of depersonalization will ever change the human nature of the unborn child. And for those at Reuters, if you can’t own up to a responsible use of language in discussing this issue – then you have no right to call yourself the press.

Human Rights abortion

I believe the way we view life, as in “…Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” profoundly shapes our worldview decision making. And it really comes down to only 2 possible views – either human life is expendable, or it is sacred, worthy of self-sacrifice. Our country was founded on the latter, but it is fast moving towards complete human expendability.

On Thursday, July 2nd, a meeting was held in the old Foster Town House, the oldest continuously operated public meeting house in the country. It was a great, even historic, example of how this country debates important issues. Congressman Langevin, being home in RI during the July 4th recess, wanted to hear from his constituents. Well, he got an earful.

I was called via robo-caller by the congressman to attend the meeting, and expected several hundred people to show. But short notice, and virtually no advertising made for a very small, but highly charged group of about 30 people. After the Congressman gave a brief overview of his recent efforts, the fireworks flew. (I regret not bringing my camera!)

Cap and trade (energy), the stimulus bills, exorbitant government spending, transparency and health care topped the issues. Everyone who desired got a chance to question the Congressman and air their grievances. Those present learned his primary concern was getting universal health care reform passed this year.

Accidently shot in the back at a firing range as a teen, Jim Langevin is paralyzed from the waist down. To a great extent, this experience has shaped his perceptions, colors his language and drives his ambitions. And while I applaud the many legislative successes he has made for the handicapped, I’m concerned about his ideas for the future, particularly health care and the moral implications of government oversight of each person’s life.

Our meeting eventually ventured into the public funding of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research (HESCR). The congressman considers himself pro-life, often voting against abortion, but given his injury, he expressed his own idea of what it means to be pro-life.

He suggested that excess embryos from IVF (in-vitro fertilization) procedures were only going to be discarded as medical waste. His take is, unless the “fertilized egg is implanted” it’s not going to be a child. To use these “fertilized eggs” for research that might prove beneficial to others is to be greatly “pro-life”, and he cited Sen. Orrin Hatch as a role model who held similar views.

Setting aside the Utah Senator, who is not my representative, I was perturbed by the congressman’s repeated references to “fertilized eggs” and the idea that embryos are not already children. Using the wrong term masks the moral implications of what is actually done, which is utilitarian destruction of human beings.

After the meeting, while I was speaking with one of his local aids, the congressman came over and we had a brief private conversation on this issue. Here’s what I conveyed:

“You keep referring to human embryos as fertilized eggs, but they are not eggs. Do you know how long they are fertilized eggs?” “No” “Once fertilization starts, they are fertilized eggs for about half an hour. Let me illustrate this. Say you have an ice-cube, which represents the egg, and you put it into a glass, which is the womb, or the IVF “petri-dish”, and you fertilize it – add sperm or in the case of our ice-cube, add heat. When the ice cube melts, you no longer have an ice-cube, you have water. The same is true of the human egg, it’s gone after the completion of amphimixis – you now have a zygotic human being. But to take it one step further, imagine that the water started filling the glass on it’s own. That’s what human life does – grows on it’s own in the proper environment. So we really shouldn’t refer to human embryos as fertilized eggs.”

We continued the conversation on the topic of ESCR, but Rep. Langevin continued to refer to fertilized eggs, even after I showed him I was educated on the topic. I asked him if it was okay to have a utilitarian view of human life – to use other’s body parts without their permission, and he struggled with that briefly, but was saved by his assistant who declared it was time to go.

During our discussion I asked if he was familiar with Robert P. George – he wasn’t. It’s now a goal of mine to hand Jim Langevin a personalized copy of this book.

If scientific accuracy does not inform our moral decisions at the highest level of government, then I have little confidence decisons made will be in the best interests of the country. Debate is about drilling down until the solid truth is found, and building upon that.

The Congressman has some research to do about what it means to be fully human.

Human Rights HESCR, moral relativity

I provided this testimony on June 4th at the RI State House.

Honorable Chairman and Esteemed Members of the H.E.W. Committee,

Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Chris Arsenault, and although I am a board member of CareNet, Rhode Island, a pregnancy resource center equipped with ultrasound, I’m here as a private citizen to present testimony in support of both H-5334, (aka “A Women’s Right to Know Bill”), and H-5555, (aka “The Fetal Ultrasound Bill”).

I’m a firm believer that just as this particular review process desires to see the full scope and consequences of the proposed legislation, and takes the necessary steps to reveal that information, so too does every person desire to understand the full extent of medical consequences for life-impacting surgeries.

I’m offering the patient’s view on knowing.

As a man, I can’t get pregnant, but I had hernia surgery a few years ago that sheds light on this legislation. Though the surgeon discussed with me and said he performed two different repair methods, I selected one based on my best understanding at that time. Through a mix-up the surgeon used the other method. Yes, my hernia was repaired, but the result was a longer, more painful recovery.  Later, my own research showed the invasive procedure I initially chose was considerably more dangerous than the plug method performed on me. My post-op conversation with the surgeon clarified things, but revealed critical information I wish I knew at the initial consultation.

Each patient’s understanding of consequences for medical decisions requires timely, accurate and high quality information provided in easy to understand ways. This simplicity and clarity is crucial for patients making critical life impacting decisions. Such information should be free from any medical provider conflict of interest.  We need to know – would we consent if we knew other information?

This question raises two important considerations:

• Both availability of information pertinent to our decision, and our understanding of it as patients, changes as we learn.
• We obtain second opinions on critical medical conditions to verify diagnosis, affirm course of treatment and to avoid any potential provider conflict of interest.

During consultations medical professionals don’t always convey critical information for decision making in ways patients immediately grasp, because half the problem is on the patient’s end.  What are they paying attention to? What do they consider important vs what is being offered/suggested?  Learning usually leads to more, often better, questions.

As for second opinions, I later learned the method I initially chose would take almost 6-8 times longer than the 10-12 minutes needed for the plug method.  Overall, it was a more complex, expensive procedure.  And, though qualified, the surgeon’s discomfort doing that procedure, (and the risk of medical liability and death), was much greater.  As it was, he performed 3 other hernia plug surgeries scheduled immediately after mine. It appears there was a conflict of interest between what I desired and what was most valuable for the surgeon.

Abortion is much more consequential than a hernia repair. The fetus is the woman’s offspring – her child. While most everyone knows this, the average person may not know the gestational development of the child enough to fully understand medical risks, or comprehend the emotional health impacts associated with permanently denying the mothering of that child.

With abortion, there is an inherent conflict of interest between the life of the child and the motivations and purposes of the abortion provider with regard to the mother.  My discussions with many post-abortive women (and men) indicate few considered this in the midst of their decision making.

Through CareNet’s reports and personal testimonies I’ve learned of the enormous positive impacts of Limited Obstetrical Ultrasound. One angry abortion demanding young man, while viewing the ultrasound, found he already was a father. He broke down and cried.  I’ve met mothers whose first glimpse of their child’s humanity came through ultrasound imaging. I’ve seen the smiling faces of children who, had it not been for that ultrasound, and their mother’s knowing, would have been shredded into pieces.

The government’s responsibility is to protect the interests of patients where the consequences are greatest, and must fairly balance patients interests with those who provide medical care.  Our purpose in legislation is not to amend the past, but to safeguard and secure the future, not only for those who walk into clinics, but also for those yet to be born.

I urge each member of the H.E.W. Committee to visit CareNet to learn more about how it provides critical, timely and complete information on a personal basis to those facing the irreversible consequences of life-impacting decisions.

Would we consent if we had more information?

Would we consent if we really knew?

The wisest advice is : First – do no harm.

Human Rights abortion, patients, right to know, ultrasound