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 twelve hours. 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

I wrote this little story to illustrate the essentials of the Born Alive issue that surround Barack Obama.

Once upon a time there was a successful hit-man, who occasionally blundered during his killing. One day the hit-man was hired to terminate an innocent Bystander, because Bystander’s presence and long term relationship was not desired, and it was perfectly legal for hit men to kill innocent human beings like Bystander when they were hidden.

So the hit-man executed his killing technique, but in the process, Bystander did not die, but he was flushed out into the open. The Big Law of the Land said innocents in the open were to be protected.

The hit-man was now in a quandary: If the hit-man didn’t kill Bystander he’d be taken out by his client because he didn’t fulfill his Contract. On the other hand, now that Bystander was flushed into the open, the hit-man was to care for and tend to Bystander, so Bystander would be alive for a long, long time. What to do? Would the hit-man follow the law or save his own skin (and get paid and remain at the top of his game)?

Those who saw the innocent Bystander dying wanted to call for help, but were fearful of the hit-man, who told them to shut up. Bystander, now an out-in-the-open innocent, was suffocated by the hit-man, a clear violation of the Big Law of the Land.

Jill the Nurse did not shut up, and she told others that hit-men weren’t abiding by the Big Law, because the hit-men’s killing technique included flushing innocents out into the open, where it was easier for them to kill their targets.

Soon defenders of the Big Law stepped up to say hit-men couldn’t finish their job, after they had flushed their targets into the open. A law was added to the Big Law of the Land saying you must aid innocents who were flushed, but the law didn’t stop the flushing of innocents into the open by the Hit-Men. The new law needed local Teeth.

Baracko, a champion for Hit-Men International, stepped up to defend the Hit-men when local Teeth legislation was presented. That legislation said Hit-men must call in other specialists who must work hard to keep the hit-man’s target alive.

Baracko, in his contorted, but oh-so mesmerizing manner, wove a magical spell of “Words” to defend the hit-men, claiming that their honor and integrity must not be impugned, because, after all, they were Professionals™. He claimed that when killing, if innocents (like Bystander) were flushed into the open, that the hit-men would do the Right Thing®, meaning they would follow the law, and instead of killing their targets would suddenly begin to keep them alive at all costs.

And so the local legislators, many being close and dear friends of the hit-men, bought Baracko’s spell (using power money provided by Hit-Men International.) So they ignored the Big Law of the Land because it had no local Teeth and hit-men continued to kill innocent bystanders by flushing them into the open, then dispatching them in new and novel ways, including throwing them in black garbage bags with bleach then placing the bags out into the hot midday sun.

Over the course of time, and as a reward for his loyalty, Hit-Men International helped put Baracko, a renowned scholar of the Big Law of the Land, into the office of the Big Cheese. Proving that the Big Law of the Land can be ignored when lots of Money and Power can be obtained.

The End

Human Rights BAIPA

How to apply BioSLED – the best argument against abortion-choice against those who believe a mother’s “right to bodily autonomy” justifies abortion.

In abortion debates, some concede the pre-born are human beings, but they’ll say:

Abortion is justifiable, because the mother has the right to control how her own body is used.

Such arguments justify abortion by asserting that the mother’s right to her bodily autonomy is greater than her own child’s right to life during gestation, or even later.

All bodily autonomy arguments play on Dependency. They deny the intrinsic value of human beings by falsely assuming (”begging the question” -petitio principii) that the responsibility to be morally humane can have exceptions. They subvert the intrinsic value of the mother and the definition of motherhood by insisting that an act of violence against an innocent dependent human being is moral, humane and beneficial.

BioSLED Response: “Can you name one act of mortal violence inflicted upon a dependent human being which is moral, humane, beneficial and desired by the dependent?”

Who receives the benefits of the violence?

After live birth, is it okay to kill dependent newborns, toddlers, kids, teens?

Reasoning: Show there are no exceptions for violence against dependent human beings. This pits a person’s understanding of self-determination up against their own victimizing behavior. If someone genuinely believes in the goodness of humanity and self-autonomy, when they resort to violence to benefit themselves, they desecrate their own humanity and cruelly victimize others.

Killing is an act of commission, meaning the violence of abortion is a direct application of force (argumentum ad baculum) on the mother’s behalf, and the violence only happens because she is a mother.

Those who defend bodily autonomy violence provide a circular argument. They reject the notion of the intrinsic value of the dependent human child while at the same time demanding the intrinsic-value of the mother be upheld. Such inequality of basic human rights is the hallmark of discrimination.

Further, some claim the Environment – the natural location of the child in the mother’s womb, justifies the abortion, but admit bodily dependency ends when birth occurs. Others, like Peter Singer, and President Barack Obama, aim to sever relational dependency, to permit the killing of dependent newborns.

So the issue is not gestational dependency alone, but violence explicitly against a dependent. On this planet, we are all dependent upon each other to some degree. There are no exceptions to being humane with dependents.

For Legalists: Legalists place functionality above morality by falsely assuming human rights are granted by a government. The documented, legally demonstrable view is that human rights are endowed by a Creator (meaning they are intrinsic) and merely defended by a government. Some claim gestation is a special right granted to the pre-born by the mother but this rejects the notion that life is a right granted from outside of man’s control, and rejects the very process of motherhood by which all humans live. So it condones the use of violence against the very nature of human life itself.

Another variation, pregnancy as slavery, is invalid because pregnancy is a humane, survivable natural good, beneficial to all of humanity, while murder of posterity is not. Consent to intercourse was free-will consent to a dependent human being, as that is the natural purpose of intercourse. Demanding one uphold their responsibilities to other human beings, such as respecting the life you participated in creating, is a far cry from imposing situations upon human beings who had no choice in the outcome – which is precisely what those who demand abortion do to the unborn human beings.

So legally, the government is failing to uphold the very human rights they are incorporated to defend.

Human Rights abortion, autonomy, bioSLED

How to handle personhood arguments using BioSLED – the best argument against abortion-choice.

In abortion debates, one often hears:

“Abortion is okay because the fetus is not a person.”

Non-personhood arguments play on Level of Development. They deny the intrinsic nature of human beings by falsely assuming (”begging the question” -petitio principii) two components (body and person), instead of one. They justify abortion by asserting a “person” is not present at the time of an abortion by defining what it means to be a person.

BioSLED Response: “Can you prove to me you are a person without using your physical body in any way?” The other person won’t be able to.

Reasoning: Self-awareness doesn’t require communicating your own awareness to others. Yet body presence indicates you exist – your body is your means of communication. A test for intangible personhood which ignores the human body is an invalid test, because no natural human being can pass it.

Science tells us the pre-born are human beings, based on numerous established facts, such as embryological development, uniqueness of DNA and that life comes from life – the Law of Biogenesis. After amphimixis humans exist – they have human flesh and blood. Given a proper environment and nourishment they thrive.

Demanding the pre-born communicate at an advanced level of development is unfair because it smuggles in the idea that communication only occurs according to a presumed definition provided by the abortion-choicer.

The abortion-choicer imposes a conditional test of self-awareness they cannot pass, and assumes their own level of development is sufficient. So abortion-choicers discriminate against the pre-born due to their level of development, but use their own level of development as a definition of their humanity.

Placing the abortion-choicer back at the same level of development as the pre-born should alter their perspective, if they are intellectually honest, on what it means to be a human person.

For the Philosophers: Ontological vs Epistemilogical Statements
Ontological thoughts have to do with the metaphysical – existence/being/nature. Epistemological has to do with knowing – beliefs, opinions etc. We shouldn’t confuse these terms or switch their meanings. Descartes, no matter how much thinking he did, did not exist due to his thinking. He existed prior to his conscious thoughts and that existence was a pre-requisite for his ability to communicate his beliefs. “I think, therefore I am” is putting Decartes before the horse.

If you find this valuable – please link to it. If you think it needs improvement – let me know in the comments. Thanks!

Human Rights abortion, bioSLED

Squiggling in the word “choice” allows people a conscientious backdoor to escape.

When someone says “choice” they need to be asked – what is the result of an abortion-choice?

Because the only factual answer is: a dead human being.

And birth-choice terminates pregnancy with a live baby.

If abortion-choicers complain, ask them questions based on BioSLED.

Human Rights abortion, bioSLED

Lila Rose exposes yet another Planned Parenthood covering up alleged statutory rape in TN in a pattern that is not isolated to one state, but now has been exposed at 6 clinics and multiple states.

There clearly have been violations of the law requiring reporting of the statutory rape, so the truth of the situation should be confirmed by authorities.

So in these exposés:

• Does respective state case law dismiss prosecutorial actions due to journalistic exposure?
• Can charges be filed against AG officials for failing to uphold the law?
• To what extent is the state judiciary responsible for guardianship actions?

Although failure to report statutory rape is serious, a related problem is being revealed by Lila and her team at LiveAction.

Girls are sent to judges without explicit medical referral. For instance Lila is told to call on her own to obtain a judicial by-pass. Yet, with the state assuming the guardian role, the judicial by-pass hinges entirely upon the testimony of the 14 year old girl, without confirmation of pregnancy or legal determination of the father. Most states have laws stating pregnancy is a medical diagnosis made only by a doctor. How can a judge make a determination without depending upon a chain of responsible medical authority? After all, the judge is not a doctor. It seems sound medical and legal evidence is unnecessary for serious legal action. Is the judiciary breaking the law?

When medical agencies collect data, they are acting on a doctor’s behalf, thus establishing a chain of medical/legal liability. In guardianship situations, these agencies are also acting as agents of the courts because the authority over the child is transferred due to their discovery. PPA’s tactic of blaming it on employees appears to be legally non-binding.

With the financial motive/ conflict of interest in sending the girl for the bypass, there is an incentive to not investigate the cause of the pregnancy, because it may change the business dynamic if statutory rape is discovered.

If the pregnancy was the result of statutory rape, and an abortion was performed with a judicial bypass, then the state itself was complicit in destroying the very evidence of the crime!

Judicial by-passes are inherently complicit in existing abuse and encourage further abuse of little girls.

Human Rights abortion, justice, rape

Last weekend our congregation received a shock from the pulpit:

In RI, prostitution is legal if conducted indoors.

I had no idea. From the look on the faces, many in the church couldn’t believe it either. I spent some time last night researching the topic to provide a quick snapshot.

Only two states allow this, and in Nevada it’s legal only within a few counties. So RI is developing a unique statewide free market enterprise zone – sexual pleasure for sale.

Remarkably, prostitution defenders call it a viable profession to make ends meet. Disregard the moral decay or the irony here regarding the state discouraging marriage while encouraging single motherhood to discuss the primary side effect of this law: sex slavery.

While pimping is illegal, it’s almost guaranteed where prostitution flourishes. Remember supply-demand? It creates a nice cauldron of addictions and violent demands. Vice is vicious.

Now organized crime is importing sex slaves (which may include US citizens) and hiding behind privacy and an embedded bureaucracy that defends prostitution. The indoor practice covers up numerous activities, obstructing who is being chosen, masking whether this is consensual or demanded. Statutory rape? Who would know? Fetishes are being expansively entertained, bringing with them the potential depravity of snuff films. Is your skin crawling yet?

Gay sexual availability is a controlling factor and is a vehemently defended “right” . Few officers want to enter this area to enforce regulations. The violence and disease must be overwhelming, but untraceable, due to HIPPA laws.

I’ll give you an idea of where all this goes.

I’m adamantly pro-life (maybe an understatement). Logically, rationally, reasonably I can argue against abortion-choice arguments. However, one case of abortion usually done in sex slave situations inverts all reasoning.

If a female sex slave gets pregnant, the slavers don’t want her to abort – they keep her pregnant. In some cases, they will impregnate her on purpose. When she delivers, they use the child as a living ball and chain to hold onto the mother, preventing her from escaping. Later, her child is pressed into generational sex slavery.

Now you have the odd situation where abortion is considered both freeing of this depravity and merciful to the child.

It’s not consensual, it’s not her free choice, it’s not right. Birth is used as a tool of control over the enslaved woman.

Calling it “human trafficking” is too clean, too antiseptic to describe this filth, this slavery.

This evil needs to be purged from our state – and from all nations.

Human Rights abortion, Political