….we tell ourselves, and what they do to us. Jennifer Fulwiler takes a look at how she became pro-life.
[HT:Dawn Eden of Dawn Patrol]
July 4, 2008
by Chris Arsenault
Comments Off on Convincing Little Lies…
July 3, 2008
by Chris Arsenault
1 Comment
Controlled Burn – Breaking it down for Barack
Lately Jill Stanek has been taking on Barack Obama over his stance on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act:
(5 ILCS 70/1.36)
Sec. 1.36. Born alive infant.
(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this Section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive, as defined in this Section.
(d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion.
(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards.
(Source: P.A. 94?559, eff. 1?1?06.)
The emphasis above is mine – you can grab the current section here.
The above section I retrieved via a link from Obama’s campaign at http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/06/30/washington_times_wrong_on_obam.php.
But the original bill (SB1082) can be found here.
Here’s the contentious wording of the original that Obama opposed so you can compare it to the final wording I emphasized above:
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.
Jill’s point is that Obama’s focus during the March 30th 2001, of the State of Illinois 92nd General Assembly, was distinctly about protecting abortion and not infants that might be born alive as a result of an induced labor abortion. Clearly stated:Giving birth as a means of “abortion” is infanticide. The key word term for Obama is “abortion” and not human person. The lines 24, 25 and 26 above appear to be what Obama believed was unconstitutional.
So do Barack’s rebuttal claims have merit? In particular when looking at his legislative character on this vital issue?
He seems to be pointing everywhere except his own testimony. Why?
Here’s a hint at Obama’s thinking: If a child is “born-alive” and is “viable” outside the womb with medical assistance, that will undermine the abortion precedent to electively kill children after that gestational time.
Abortion is the focus – not the human being this potential president would be sworn to protect.
Two other steps to get a clean grasp on this:
– breaking his Senate testimony down line by line.
– studying the actual wording of the act to see what it reveals
We’ll continue to fire this down to a nice precise understanding.
June 5, 2008
by Chris Arsenault
Comments Off on I have the feeling….
I have the feeling….
… I should be writing a post, but recently I’ve been helping Jill out over at Jill Stanek’s site and I’ve been working on a short, 7 week Bible study entitled “Signs of Messiah in the Seven Feasts of Israel” – one feast per week!
I suppose I could kill two birds with one stone, but I’m still trying to figure out how to do that, and stay true to my idea that this blog consist of deeper reflective material than pile-on news commentary.
Do I post some my coursework up here – is there any interest?
May 17, 2008
by Chris Arsenault
Comments Off on Thoughts on California’s Marriage Ruling
Thoughts on California’s Marriage Ruling
The cultural understanding of the purpose of marriage has been destroyed over the last 40 years because almost all sense, reason and respect has disappeared in public discourse.
Serious discourse on weighty culture-altering matters is practically non-existent, beaten down by drumbeats of obnoxious self-centered demands. For many, debate over the deep issues of life counts simply as a sideshow distraction from other forms of amusement. Most simply argue with a great unwillingness to get past their own ignorance and educate themselves, choosing instead to accept the shallow and trivial moment and every position that supports their own desires.
As a nation, we suffer terribly from a lack of rational imagination to foresee long-term consequences.
The California judicial fiat is only a spasm in the death throes of the Republic of the United States. The Cold-War era idea that relaxing laws on contraception could eventually lead to a devaluation by society in the sanctity and purpose of marriage seemed so incomprehensible as to be laughable. Yet we see the destruction all around us, some more aware of the source than others.
We try to interpret specific court rulings as though spotting a bullet in mid-flight without trying to understand the trajectory; without comprehending the pattern and result. You never see the one that hits you.
Those who believe that this ruling has few long term consequences upon families completely overlook the power exerted by a particular lobby towards manipulating judicial and public opinion in complete disregard for the natural order of things. To say that this particular power will not be exploited shows an ignorance of the degenerate state of man.
Forty years from now, the unexpected consequences will be known.
Those consequences simply won’t be a joyous matter, any more than people take joy in divorce, having an abortion, fearing for their lives or struggling with an incurable or life-altering disease contracted through promiscuous relations.
As we descend into darkness, it’s inevitable that the Lord shines brighter. So it must be.
May 14, 2008
by Chris Arsenault
Comments Off on More thoughts on Abortion and the Holocaust
More thoughts on Abortion and the Holocaust
Is worldwide abortion a holocaust?
The word “holocaust” has clearly come to signify the genocide against the Jews and their supporters at the hands of Nazi Germany in WWII. The word is Hebraic, with a meaning related to making a sacrifice through fire. So I’m reluctant to use the word to imply genocide against the pre-born. This respects everyone.
I do consider abortion a kind of genocide because a specific group, the pre-born, are described as being subhuman or non-human, for the purposes of destroying them. Because the mother (and often the father) are complicit in the child’s destruction, it “orphans” the child and strikes with a particular viciousness at the idea of family, and the ideal that God calls us to in this regard. Clearly it’s Satanic mockery of God’s plan of salvation towards us as His children, becoming part of His family.
I’m not unsympathetic to the plight of the unborn, but we need to clearly define what is state-imposed destruction, and what is state sanctioned, but then personally chosen on an individual basis. We need to use those differences to explain why people need to change from the heart and not simply because the state has imposed laws.
What is fundamentally different between these two calamities is the decision point of those given the power (the mothers alone) and the consequences they bear. The Jews as a people were being destroyed by a state – Nazi Germany. But Germany, as a state, was only halted through violence, so those who lived by the sword also died by the sword – Nazi Germany fell. The German people suffered as a side effect of their political and moral ignorance.
In the case of abortion genocide, the mother, for all practical purposes, decides – and yes pressure and coercion have their influence – however, the mother also has risk and suffers the consequences for having made that decision. In effect, the mother puts herself into a kind of “concentration camp”. That’s a vastly different situation – incredibly wrong, horrible consequences, but not the same situation as the Germans who imposed their political sovereignty. We don’t do either case a favor by framing them as similar when they really aren’t the same when it comes to the decisionmaker’s consequences.
Sidewalk counselors, and those who regret abortion and speak out about it – such as Annie Banno over at After Abortion understand the persecution, and perhaps have come to a place of healing, but they really can’t be compared in the same way to Irena Sendler, for reasons I gave previously.
One of my favorite Scripture passages is what our Lord read in the synagogue from Isaiah 61:
The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed and proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor [NIV Lk 4:18-19]
The captivity of sin which leads to the despair of abortion, and the death of the child is something from which freedom needs to be proclaimed and embraced. The truth needs to be revealed – massively, and completely, but we can’t be false in how this comes about.
If the contentious issue on this matter is one of value judgement, then that is where the focus should be: why it is a value judgement to begin with? Which brings us solidly back to the pointed question – “what are the unborn? – are they human like us?”
This is far more fertile ground for discussing our condition, than drawing parallels that paint others who are blind to the truth as demons.
May 13, 2008
by Chris Arsenault
Comments Off on Abortion and the Holocaust
Abortion and the Holocaust
Jill Stanek posted a story about a true Polish hero, Irena Sendler who was instrumental in saving nearly 2500 Jewish children from the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII. A truly amazing story and a beautiful woman.
At the end of her post, Jill made a comparison between this woman and activists within the pro-life movement:
Such a beautiful woman and story. Someday many in the pro-life movement, like sidewalk counselors outside abortion mills, will be similarly honored.
The comments section soon blazed.
I’m hoping here to add a perspective that adds some light, and a lot less heat.
In 1991 I walked the ground of the Warsaw Ghetto area for six weeks. Among the dilapidated remaining buildings, complete with bullet holes and other signs of combat, I saw continued anti-semitism, particularly against the synagogue where I was conducting computer training.
One summer, when I was 12, I saw enough of the concentration camps through B&W footage at a local college to know I didn’t want to visit those camps when co-workers invited me to join them in 1991. Those who had visited the camps woke from horrible nightmares for weeks after.
Jill’s post is a fallacious equivocation – a comparison between these two situations – the nightmare of the Warsaw Ghetto/Holocaust, and the genocide of the unborn.
They aren’t the same. And we shouldn’t paint them as such.
One could draw many comparisons, but the differences are primarily in the overwhelming despair and state imposition of the Holocaust and the distributive nature of the decisions made by millions of women for the genocide of the unborn. Each genocide has an incidious nature, but Jill’s efforts, the amazing numbers of PRCs, the efforts of so many pro-life proponents in a land where people still have freedom to choose (with caveats), speaks to the light that shines brilliantly, whereas Europe was immensely dark at that time.
What makes Irena so special was her duty to save lives, at the continual extreme and imminent danger of losing her own.
While sidewalk counselors may be exposed to extreme hatred and potential violence, our rule of law still protects their rights as citizens, when all hope of such protection was missing in Poland at that time.
We should recognize Irena Sendler for her extreme dedication and sacrifice, but let us pray that things do not deteriorate to the point where such personal heroism is again necessary in the face of a state imposed genocidal solution.
April 28, 2008
by Chris Arsenault
Comments Off on My power supply ain’t supplying power.
My power supply ain’t supplying power.
UPDATE – back in operation. Apparently the power supply was toasted – found the scorch marks inside. Thanking God it didn’t turn into a fire.
Currently, my computer is non-operational.
Email can be directed to my thrufire account at gmail.
Hope to be back up soon.
April 17, 2008
by Chris Arsenault
Comments Off on Abortion Art or Infectious Hoax?
Abortion Art or Infectious Hoax?
Given the amount of immediate blog action on this story I first ran into at Jill Stanek’s rather than joining the fray of speculation, calls of outrage or diving into intense debate, I backed away – considered the mental health state of the young lady, and eventually started to question Yale University and in particular their Art department.
Doesn’t Connecticut have laws that govern infectious or pathological waste?
Why yes – they do. Certainly the University of Connecticut Health Center knows all about it.
April 15, 2008
by Chris Arsenault
Comments Off on Too much debating?
Too much debating?
Relax!April 12, 2008
by Chris Arsenault
Comments Off on Adam Hamilton’s Color Theory (part 2)
Adam Hamilton’s Color Theory (part 2)
or Illumination of Ideas
This is a continuation of my last post Adam Hamilton’s Color Theory.
I want to be fair to Adam, because in my prior post I stated he’s assuming both sides can agree on 7 points:
- Legitimate concerns of both sides
- Life of mother exception
- Decrease is desirable
- Universal birth control access and info
- Pregnancy duration & moral complexity
- Coercion
- Safety
The single thread running through these is a concern, perhaps love, for other humans. His illustrations reinforce this idea of a single dimension.
Yet I hope my extended illustration showed we can’t always assume others see things in common with us, even though we’re using the same language and words, and appear to have the same desire.
My prior post was about seeing, and that’s critical. Adam clearly sees himself as pro-life, while others see him as pseudo or perhaps semi pro-life. As I pointed out, how we perceive ourselves within the context of the problem is an essential starting point. Do we truly understand the common element? That light – absolute transcendent Truth, must be at the core of our being and we must willfully be obedient to it. If we’re not intellectually, emotionally and spiritually honest with ourselves, then there is little hope we’ll be honest with others. If two sides cannot agree about this truth, then there is no common ground at all.
The conflict between abortion-choice and pro-life is a clash of two distinct world-views about truth. The metaphysical grounds aren’t the same – it’s multi-dimensional yet primarily a spiritual contest. If you want to talk about a single continuum, you’d have to address how each individual views life itself, and what they truly believe when it comes to their own origin, meaning, morality and destiny.
Adam has an incredibly powerful and moving testimony about his own origin which places him firmly within the context of the problem, giving him a legitimacy and a voice as one who was redeemed.
But how does Adam see the meaning of his life? What about his morality, and destiny? How has this origin shaped his view of others and is that viewed through the light of absolute transcendent truth? Does he see a cohesiveness, an intrinsic quality that declares his being as a whole – as a human being? Do others see him with the same intrinsic meaning?
It is not enough to believe we hold the truth, we need to constantly pursue it and we need to know it’s a true light and not merely a reflection.
Adam’s mother loved him dearly and was willing to sacrifice her life for him. In other words her focus was not on herself, but on another – specifically Adam.
She saw something that transcended herself, that went beyond her immediate situation. Through love, she caught a glimpse of Life, the Light of the World himself. In doing so, she sought the illumination of an idea she joyfully called Adam, a man who is still pursuing the Truth.
For those who are in the dark, whether it is origin, meaning, morality or destiny, only a glimmer of light can be revealed at a time, because too much light revealed at once would be blinding.
Yet every agreement starts with the smallest perceivable amount of light, and that is sufficient to say we have something in common, even if it’s just a shade of gray.