| |
|
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
Father: 'System' killing my disabled daughter'If they had treated a dog this way, they would be doing jail time'
Posted: July 19, 2008
11:10 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
The father of a disabled Delaware woman who recently earned the support of state lawmakers says the system – of courts, lawyers, hospitals and disability agencies – literally is combining to bring about the death of his daughter.
"The court system should not have the right to impose this kind of treatment on a mentally disabled person," Randy Richardson told WND today. His daughter, Lauren Richardson, has been disabled since an apparent drug overdose nearly two years ago.
Judie Brown of the American Life League recently issued a call to those who are concerned about such cases to help.
"The governor of Delaware, Ruth Ann Minner, is being asked by pro-life Americans across this nation to intervene in this case in order to save Lauren from what many fear is an imminent court order dictating that Lauren be starved and dehydrated to death," she wrote. "I am asking you to be one of those who communicates your passionate belief that Lauren's life is sacred and deserves to be protected from those who would order her death. The governor's e-mail address is governor.minner@state.de.us."
Brown said "it has been a source of ongoing sadness to read of the difficulties Lauren Richardson's father has had over the course of the past several months.
"For those of you who are not familiar with her case, Lauren overdosed on heroin on August 28, 2006. She suffered oxygen deprivation as a result of the overdose and Lauren is now ... unable to speak out for herself. At the time of the overdose Lauren was expecting a baby. Her parents honored what they knew would have been her wish and did all they could to keep her healthy and comfortable until the child was born. Today, though Lauren may not be aware of it, she is the mother of Ember Grace, who was born in February 2007," Brown wrote.
Lauren's case has been compared to that of Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman who died after courts ruled doctors could follow her husband's orders to deprive her of food and water until she died.
The Schiavo case, on which WND has reported exhaustively since 2002 – far longer than most other national news organization – ended in March 2005 when she died, despite a battle by her parents who wanted to care for her to overturn a court order allowing the removal of her feeding tube.
Randy Richardson says he now is battling his former wife, the medical establishment and the court system for the life of his daughter.
He told WND that the courts in Delaware are considering whether to designate that Lauren is in a persistent vegetative state, even though, "We've had doctors look at her … There are possibilities with treatments. But she's not getting treatments."
"The state does not allow this for prisoners. If they had treated a dog this way, they would be doing jail time," he told WND.
"With therapy, she might be eating [by herself] within a couple months," he said. "Right now they're trying to hang her out to dry."
He said he's identified treatments that could be tried and therapy that could be attempted, and he's offered to provide the care his daughter needs, but has been rejected.
"My daughter has been there for 16 months. I've had enough," he said. "I'm really ticked about it. This Medicaid thing is paying huge numbers to keep her in this home when she could be at my home for nothing."
Even now, without substantive treatment, he said, "She has been trying to sit up and also has tried to verbalize. She looks good, is loving, she cries, she can giggle, she can't talk but does try to verbalize, we can tell when she's in pain or uncomfortable."
He previously posted a YouTube video of her, which can be seen here:
But he told WND the court-appointed lawyers have now banned him from showing any pictures or videos which reflect Lauren's condition.
He said he and Lauren's mother, from whom he is divorced, worked together following Lauren's accident to make sure her care was provided until her baby was born. Then Randy Richardson got a letter from his ex-wife's lawyer telling him the goal would be to "permit Lauren's starvation," according to Brown.
At LifeForLauren.org Lauren's father confirmed, "We struggle at times as we seek to share with the public the details of what is happening with Lauren because of the disagreement we have with Lauren's mother. We cannot understand her reasoning in refusing a path of hope, healing and restoration for Lauren and insisting on causing her death by withholding food and water from her. The issue in Lauren's case is the eternal truth that all people, no matter what their medical condition, bear the image of God and deserve basic care and an opportunity to be restored to health."
The statement from the House of Representatives said:
BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the 144th General Assembly of the State of Delaware that it is against the public policy of this State and this State's interest in life, health and safety, for hydration and nutrition that is not harming a patient to be involuntarily removed from a non-terminal, apparently brain-incapacitated patient if doing so will cause the individual's death. Furthermore, such withholding of hydration and nutrition without: 1) clear written direction from a legally competent patient or, 2) a valid written advance health-care directive that was previously executed by a patient who is now incapacitated and that either allows such withholding under such circumstances or grants an agent authority to make that decision by an incapacitated patient is also against the public policy of the State of Delaware.
The lawmakers' plan cites the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which "asserts that 'everyone has the right to recognition as a person before the law' and that 'all are equal before the law.'"
They also cite the Americans with Disabilities Act that "clearly identifies the rights of the disabled to access essential needs and have essential services provided to them."
Further, they affirm, "it is becoming increasingly apparent that persons who are suffering from severe brain injuries often have cognitive functions significantly beyond what medical science previously estimated."
Finally, they determine, "it is also becoming increasingly apparently that the diagnosis of 'persistent vegetative state' or 'PVS' is a category that recent science shows is far more uncertain and overly broad than had been previously thought, including a high rate of misdiagnoses of PVS patients who have not been able to exhibit responses, but whose consciousness can now sometimes be measured."
In an explanatory note accompany the resolution, the lawmakers said: "This Resolution establishes protections for mentally disabled individuals in the State of Delaware. The impetus for this Resolution comes from the case of Lauren Richardson, a 24-year-old Delaware woman who, after suffering brain injuries and impaired consciousness, now faces the possible removal of her nutrition and hydration, despite the absence of her clearly specified and legal consent to any such a course of action. The State of Delaware has, through recent legislation prompted by the abuses at the Delaware Psychiatric Center, endeavored to protect the rights of mentally disabled patients in the First State. Lauren, as a mentally disabled person, is enumerated those same protection and rights."
A priest who was with Terri Schiavo during her final hours in this life later told WND society has it all wrong – because it does not understand the difference between a futile treatment and a futile life.
Father Frank Pavone, of Priests for Life, said even healthy people, if brain-injured, are in danger under the current precedent of cases.
"Terry left no indication that she wanted to be deprived of food and water. Yet the courts insisted that this happen. Nor was Terri lacking a family ready to care for her, without complaint. Yet they were not allowed to," he said.
"Many people fear that they will be given all kinds of machines and medicines against their will," Pavone told WND. "What they should fear is exactly the opposite, namely, that even when they indicate that they want appropriate treatments, these will be denied them."
A Delaware court in January awarded guardianship of Lauren Richardson to her mother, Edith Towers, who has told reporters her daughter would want artificial life support ended.
lifesabench6 at 8:59:55 PM EDT
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
Monday, June 30, 2008
Let My People Go, AIDS Profiteers
Washington Post
By Sam L. Ruteikara
Monday, June 30, 2008; Page A11
KAMPALA, Uganda -- The President's Emergency Plan for HIV-AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has been mired in the Senate for months. Last week finally brought signs that a vote, and passage, could be near. The program would cost $50 billion -- that's $165 from each American to fight AIDS, or $1.3 billion from New York City alone. But will the money allocated for AIDS stop the spread of the virus in sub-Saharan Africa, where 76 percent of the world's HIV-AIDS deaths occurred last year?
Not if the dark dealings I've witnessed in Africa continue unchecked. In the fight against AIDS, profiteering has trumped prevention. AIDS is no longer simply a disease; it has become a multibillion-dollar industry.
In the late 1980s, before international experts arrived to tell us we had it all "wrong," we in Uganda devised a practical campaign to prevent the spread of HIV. We recognized that population-wide AIDS epidemics in Africa were driven by people having sex with more than one regular partner. Therefore, we urged people to be faithful. Our campaign was called ABC (Abstain, or Be Faithful, or use Condoms), but our main message was: Stick to one partner. We promoted condoms only as a last resort.
Because we knew what to do in our country, we succeeded. The proportion of Ugandans infected with HIV plunged from 21 percent in 1991 to 6 percent in 2002. But international AIDS experts who came to Uganda said we were wrong to try to limit people's sexual freedom. Worse, they had the financial power to force their casual-sex agendas upon us.
PEPFAR calls for Western experts to work as equal partners with African leaders on AIDS prevention. But as co-chair of Uganda's National AIDS-Prevention Committee, I have seen this process sabotaged. Repeatedly, our 25-member prevention committee put faithfulness and abstinence into the National Strategic Plan that guides how PEPFAR money for our country will be spent. Repeatedly, foreign advisers erased our recommendations. When the document draft was published, fidelity and abstinence were missing.
And somehow, a suspicious statistic attacking marriage appeared. The plan states that the HIV infection rate among married couples is 42 percent, twice as high as the rate among prostitutes. Our requests for the source of this statistic were repeatedly ignored. In fact, the 2004-05 Ugandan HIV/AIDS Sero-Behavioral Survey found that HIV prevalence among married couples is only 6.3 percent, far lower than infection rates among widowed (31.4 percent) or divorced (13.9 percent) Ugandans.
When Washington insiders were alerted to these scandals, the words "abstain" and "be faithful" were quietly reinserted into the plan -- on paper. But that doesn't guarantee these methods will be implemented or promoted. Meanwhile, the dubious marriage statistic remains.
As fidelity and abstinence have been subverted, Uganda's HIV rates have begun to tick back up.
Western media have been told this renewed surge of HIV infection is because there are "not enough condoms in Uganda," even though we have many more condoms now than we did in the early 1990s, when our HIV rates began to decline. Condom promotions have failed in Africa, mostly because fewer than 5 percent of people use condoms consistently with regular partners. Indeed, the loudest HIV-prevention message in Africa is "universal access" to condoms, testing, anti-retroviral treatment, and assorted other drugs and devices. All these commodities must be transported, stored, distributed, advertised and resupplied endlessly.
Meanwhile, effective HIV prevention methods, such as urging Africans to stick to one partner, don't qualify for lucrative universal-access status.
Do not misunderstand me: Treatment is good. But for every African who gains access to HIV treatment, six become newly infected. To treat one AIDS patient with life-prolonging anti-retroviral drugs costs more than $1,000 a year. Our successful ABC campaign cost just 29 cents per person each year.
International suppliers make broad, oversimplified statements such as "You can't change Africans' sexual behavior." While it's true that you can't change everybody, you don't have to. If the share of men having three or more sexual partners in a year drops from 15 percent to 3 percent, as happened in Uganda between 1989 and 1995, HIV infection rates will plunge. It is that simple.
We, the poor of Africa, remain silenced in the global dialogue. Our wisdom about our own culture is ignored.
Telling men and women to keep sex sacred -- to save sex for marriage and then remain faithful -- is telling them to love one another deeply with their whole hearts. Most HIV infections in Africa are spread by sex outside of marriage: casual sex and infidelity. The solution is faithful love.
So hear my plea, HIV-AIDS profiteers. Let my people go. We understand that casual sex is dear to you, but staying alive is dear to us. Listen to African wisdom, and we will show you how to prevent AIDS.
The Rev. Sam L. Ruteikara is co-chair of Uganda's National AIDS-Prevention Committee.
lifesabench6 at 9:27:04 PM EDT
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
| Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Survivor of Late-Term Abortion Comments on Barack Obama
Nanci and I just returned from the Resolved Conference in Palm Springs (where highs ranged between 110 and 115 degrees). I want to share some reflections and pictures from this remarkable conference with 3300 young people. But it will take me a little while to get to it.
Meanwhile, I'd already started on the following, which I'll share with you now. Besides, it's been a while since I said something politically controversial, so now maybe the Comments will heat up.
Years ago in Washington, DC, I met a woman named Gianna Jessen, then a teenager. She sang at an event I was speaking at, and we had a delightful conversation. She is musically gifted and I found her a wonderful testimony to God’s grace. No one could spend two minutes with this woman without being convinced it would be a tragedy for her to have been killed, as she nearly was in an attempted abortion. Gianna is an abortion survivor. Gianna's website ( http://www.giannajessen.com/) includes her biography as well as a sample of her music and information about Gianna by Jessica Shaver, the book that tells the incredible story of her survival.
Gianna Jessen does not quit. Giving up is not an option to her. Gianna has what
she refers to as the "gift" of Cerebral Palsy. She weighed a mere 2 lbs at birth
and the doctors said she would never be able to hold up her head, sit up, crawl
or walk. She began to walk by the age of three years old with the help of leg
braces and a walker.
Gianna doesn’t believe that her Cerebral Palsy takes away her life, but, rather, enriches it. . . she walks with a slight limp today and runs marathons.
Gianna understands the plight of orphans, being one herself. She was placed into the foster care system early on in life, eventually being taken into the loving home of a woman named Penny. Penny has been a mother to 56 foster children in her life. Gianna was later adopted by Penny's daughter, making Penny Gianna's grandmother. According to Gianna, Penny saved her life.
Gianna is a Christian. Her life was given to her by the grace of God. She shouldn't be walking, but more miraculous still; she should not even be alive. Gianna's biological mother was 17 when she had a saline abortion in her third trimester. Many Americans don’t realize it is legal to have an abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. After being burned alive for approximately 18 hours in the womb from the saline solution, Gianna was delivered alive in a Los Angeles County abortion clinic. Her medical records state, "born during saline abortion"...this is what caused her Cerebral Palsy. Because I've met Gianna, I was especially interested in a recent Wall Street Journal interview with her, which focused on Gianna's thoughts about the upcoming presidential election. Here it is: The Audacity of DeathBy Daniel Allott Wall Street Journal, June 5, 2008 According to Barack Obama, Gianna Jessen shouldn't exist.  Miss Jessen is an exquisite example of what antiabortion advocates call a "survivor." Well into her third trimester of pregnancy, Gianna's biological mother was injected with a saline solution intended to induce a chemical abortion at a Los Angeles County abortion center. Eighteen hours later, and precious minutes before the abortionist's arrival, Gianna emerged. Premature and with severe injuries that resulted in cerebral palsy. But alive. Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation. As it was, a startled nurse called an ambulance, and Gianna was rushed to a nearby hospital, where, weighing just two pounds, she was placed in an incubator, then, months later, in foster care. Gianna survived then, and thrives now, because, as she told me recently with a laugh, "I guess I don't die easy." Which is what the abortionist might have thought as he signed his victim's birth certificate. Gianna's medical records state that she was "born during saline abortion."  As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment. A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House. Gianna was present when President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002. When I asked Gianna to reflect on Mr. Obama's candidacy, she paused, then said, "I really hope the American people will have their eyes wide open and choose to be discerning. . . . He is extreme, extreme, extreme." "Extreme" may not be the impression the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have bought Mr. Obama's autobiography have been left with. In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama's presidential manifesto, he calls abortion "undeniably difficult," "a very difficult issue," "never a good thing" and "a wrenching moral issue." He laments his party's "litmus test" for "orthodoxy" on abortion and other issues, and even admits, "I do not presume to know the answer to that question." That question being the moral status of the fetus, who he nonetheless concedes has "moral weight."  Those statements are seriously made but, alas, cannot be taken at all seriously. Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime "pro-choice" voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers' abortions. To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is "one of the most fundamental rights we possess." And he promises, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion. Then there's Mr. Obama's aforementioned opposition to laws that protect babies born-alive during botched abortions. If partial-birth abortion is, as Democratic icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan labeled it, "too close to infanticide," then what is killing fully-birthed babies? To read the entire article, see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121261107480446197.htmlOn a related note, here's a recent article about a woman whose son was born last year after surviving an abortion. Please join me in praying for the unborn and for this upcoming election, that the American people will, as Gianna says, "have their eyes wide open and choose to be discerning." Randy Alcorn http://www.randyalcorn.blogspot.com/http://www.epm.org/
lifesabench6 at 1:51:43 PM EDT
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
| Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
Friday, June 20, 2008
This is Where Socialized Healthcare will lead to...
MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
State denies cancer treatment, offers suicide instead'To say, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel'Posted: June 19, 2008
11:15 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
<DIV class=KonaBody _WLLv="true">
State officials have offered a lung cancer patient the option of having the Oregon Health Plan, set up in 1994 to ration health care, pay for an assisted suicide but not for the chemotherapy prescribed by her physician.
The story appears to be a happy ending for Barbara Wagner, who has been notified by a drug manufacturer ( Liberals have always led people to believe that they are inhumane evil corporations!) that it will provide the expensive medication, estimated to cost $4,000 a month, for the first year and then allow her to apply for further treatment, according to a report in the Eugene Register-Guard.
But the word from the state was coverage for palliative care, which would include the state's assisted suicide program, would be allowed but not coverage for the cancer treatment drugs.
"To say to someone, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel," Wagner told the newspaper. "I get angry. Who do they think they are?"
She said she was devastated when the state health program refused coverage for Tarceva, the drug her doctor ordered for treatment of her lung cancer.
The refusal came in an unsigned letter from LIPA, the company that runs the state program in that part of Oregon.
"We had no intent to upset her, but we do need to point out the options available to her under the Oregon Health Plan," Dr. John Sattenspiel, senior medical director for LIPA, told the newspaper.
"I understand the way it was interpreted. I'm not sure how we can lift that. The reality is, at some level (doctor-assisted suicide) could be considered as a palliative or comfort care measure."
The 64-year-old Wagner lives in a low-income apartment in Springfield with her dog, the newspaper said.
State officials say the Oregon Health Plan prioritizes treatments, with diagnoses and ailments deemed the most important, such as pregnancy, childbirth and preventive care for children at the top of the list. Other treatments rank below, officials said.
"We can't cover everything for everyone," Dr. Walter Shaffer, a spokesman for the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, told the paper. "Taxpayer dollars are limited for publicly funded programs. We try to come up with policies that provide the most good for the most people."
He said many cancer treatments are a high priority, but others reflect the "desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile."
Wagner, however, is ending up with the treatment needed when her lung cancer, in remission for two years, returned.
She reported a representative for the pharmaceutical company called and notified her the drug would be provided for at least the first year.
"We have been warning for years that this was a possibility in Oregon," said the "Bioethics Pundit" on the Bioethics blog. "Medicaid is rationed, meaning that some treatments are not covered. But assisted suicide is always covered."
"This isn't the first time this has happened either," the blogger wrote. "A few years ago a patient who needed a double organ transplant was denied the treatment but would have been eligible for state-financed assisted suicide. But not to worry. Just keep repeating the mantra: There are no abuses with Oregon's assisted suicide law. There are no abuses. There are no abuses!
lifesabench6 at 3:06:06 PM EDT
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
| Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
Monday, June 9, 2008
Adult stem cell findings offer new hope for Parkinson's cure
Research released today provides evidence that a cure for Parkinson's disease could lie just inside the nose of patients themselves.
The Griffith University study published today in the journal Stem Cells found that adult stem cells harvested from the noses of Parkinson's patients gave rise to dopamine-producing brain cells when transplanted into the brain of a rat.
The debilitating symptoms of Parkinson's such as loss of muscle control are caused by degeneration of cells that produce the essential chemical dopamine in the brain.
Current drug therapies replace dopamine in the brain, but these often become less effective after prolonged use.
The discovery is the work of the National Centre for Adult Stem Cell Research, part of Griffith's Eskitis Institute for Cell and Molecular Therapies.
Project leader Professor Alan Mackay-Sim said researchers simulated Parkinson's symptoms in rats by creating lesions on one side of the brain similar to the damage Parkinson's causes in the human brain.
"The lesions to one side of the brain made the rats run in circles," he said.
"When stem cells from the nose of Parkinson's patients were cultured and injected into the damaged area the rats re-aquired the ability to run in a straight line.
"All animals transplanted with the human cells had a dramatic reduction in the rate of rotation within just 3 weeks," he said.
"This provided evidence the cells had differentiated to give rise to dopamine-producing neurons influenced by being in the environment of the brain. In-vitro tests also revealed the presence of dopamine."
"Significantly, none of the transplants led to formation of tumours or teratomas in the host rats as has occurred after embryonic stem cell transplantation in a similar model.
He said like all stem cells, stem cells from the olfactory nerve in the nose are 'naïve' havingnot yet differentiated into which sort of cells they will give rise to.
"They can still be influenced by the environment they are put into. In this case we transplanted them into the brain, where they were directed to give rise to dopamine producing brain cells."
The advantage of using a patient's own cells is that, unlike stem cells from a foreign embryo, they are not rejected by the patient's immune system, so patients are free from a lifetime of potentially dangerous immuno-suppressant drug therapy.
This development follows Professor Mackay-Sim's 2006 development of a world-first technique that demonstrated that olfactory adult stem cells can give rise to heart, nerve, liver and brain cells.
lifesabench6 at 8:31:37 PM EDT
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
| Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Scottish abortion rate continues to rise
OneNewsNow - 5/29/2008 12:00:00 PM
EDINBURGH, May 28 – The abortion rate has continued to rise alarmingly in Scotland, despite claims by health officials that it would be slowed by sex education, increased access to contraceptives at earlier ages and the wide availability of the morning after pill. The leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, Keith Cardinal O’Brien, has condemned the government's sex education programs as having succeeded only in throwing fuel on the fire.
Scottish abortions topped 13,703 in 2007, up on the previous year’s figure of 13,163. The overall number of women who have had abortions differs according to region, ranging from 19.2 per cent to almost 33 per cent of 15- to 44-year-olds. Three-hundred-seventy-two of the total abortions were carried out on girls less than 16 years of age, among which age group repeat abortions also reached a record number.
In the face of rising abortion statistics in recent months, spokesmen for the Labour government’s health ministry have said that more money will be allotted to sex education programs and increased distribution of artificial contraception.
Cardinal O’Brien called the government’s “value-free” sex education “redundant”, saying, “Increased repeat abortions and record numbers of under-16s having abortions simply confirms the empirical and statistical evidence that the ‘value-free’ sex education experiment is redundant.”
A spokesman for Glasgow’s Cardinal Conti said, “It is deeply disheartening to see the abortion figures continuing to rise and rise, year after year. One abortion is one too many, but 13,703 is beyond the imagination.”
Ian Murray, from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said the abortion statistics showed that society was letting women down. He added: "Either our sexual health policies don't teach women anything about their fertility, or life in Scotland has been reduced to a commodity that can be disposed to suit the convenience of others. The reality is these statistics refer to human lives – both the babies lost and the women whose lives will be scarred by their decision forever.”
The statistics were released by the health service information department in connection with the debates in the House of Commons over proposals to lower the gestational age limit for abortion. Members of Parliament (MPs) voted to retain the current age restriction at 24 weeks, the highest in the European Union.
Some pro-life advocates objected that efforts by some MPs in Parliament to lower the age limit would have done little to improve the situation. The figures from the health department supported this criticism with early stage abortions continuing to rise. In 2007, 69 percent of all abortions were carried out on children under ten-weeks gestation. Only 44 of the total were late-stage abortions, those over 20 weeks.
lifesabench6 at 10:00:33 PM EDT
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
| Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
A Belated Mother's Day Blessing
This song is written from a son's perspective- but substitute the words to fit a daughter. Thank you Mom.
I must have felt your tears
When they took me from your arms
I’m sure I must have heard you say goodbye
Lonely and afraid had you made a big mistake
Could an ocean even hold the tears you cried
But you had dreams for me
You wanted the best for me
And you made the only choice you could that night
(Chorus)
You gave life to me
A brand new world to see
Like playing baseball in the yard with dad at night
Mom reading Goodnight Moon
And praying in my room
So if you worry if your choice was right
You gave me up but you gave everything to me
And if I saw you on the street
Would you know that it was me
And would your eyes be blue or green like mine
Would we share a warm embrace
Would you know me in your heart
Or would you smile and let me walk on by
Knowing you had dreams for me
You wanted the best for me
And I hope that you’d be proud of who I am
(Chorus)
You gave life to me
A chance to find my dreams
And a chance to fall in love
You should have seen her shining face
On our wedding day
Oh is this the dream you had in mind
When you gave me up
You gave everything to me
And when I see you there
Watching from heaven’s gates
Into your arms
I’m gonna run
And when you look in my eyes
You can see my whole life
See who I was
And who I’ve become
Mark Schultz- Everything To Me
lifesabench6 at 11:17:25 PM EDT
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
| Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Like they NEED our tax dollars!
Planned Parenthood income: $1 billion
Story by AFA Journal Staff. Sources cited for News of Interest indicate source of basic information only. April 2008
Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, made over $1 billion in income during the 2006-2007 fiscal year, according to its annual report. The non-profit group went from an income of $972 million in 2005-2006 to $1.017 billion this past year. Planned Parenthood said the increase “highlights our advancements in providing and protecting trusted healthcare services and medically accurate sexuality education.”
The report reveals that Planned Parenthood is performing more abortions now than ever. In 2005, Planned Parenthood provided 264,943 abortions, and in 2006, it was up to 289,650. In addition, the organization’s “excess of revenue over expenses” funds doubled from $55.7 million in 2005 to $112 million the following year.
Planned Parenthood also admits receiving more than $336 million in government grants and contracts from the state and federal levels.
“A majority of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion – however, still Planned Parenthood receives more than $300 million in taxpayer funding each year for ‘family planning’ projects that help bolster their abortion trade,” said Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council.
Yet, according to Perkins, the ultimate slap in the face to pro-lifers is the fact that Planned Parenthood still receives money from the government while spending $10 million in this year’s election to support pro-abortion candidates.
www.lifenews.com, 3/28/08
lifesabench6 at 10:39:39 PM EDT
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
| Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
I Can't Believe they are actually talking about this... But Then Again, maybe I can
Sad
Exclusive: Half man, half chimp - should we beware the apeman's coming?
Creation of a hybrid using human sperm to impregnate a female chimpanzee would be legal (Picture: Bill Henry)
Published Date: 29 April 2008
By JENNY HAWTHORNE
A LEADING scientist has warned a new species of "humanzee," created from breeding apes with humans, could become a reality unless the government acts to stop scientists experimenting.
In an interview with The Scotsman, Dr Calum MacKellar, director of research at the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, warned the controversial draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill did not prevent human sperm being inseminated into animals.
He said if a female chimpanzee was inseminated with human sperm the two species would be closely enough related that a hybrid could be born.
He said scientists could possibly try to develop the new species to fill the demand for organ donors.
Leading scientists say there is no reason why the two species could not breed, although they question why anyone would want to try such a technique.
Other hybrid species already created include crossed tigers and lions and sheep and goats.
Dr MacKellar said he feared the consequences if scientists made a concerted effort to cross humans with chimpanzees. He said: "Nobody knows what they would get if they tried hard enough. The insemination of animals with human sperm should be prohibited.
"The Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill prohibits the placement of animal sperm into a woman The reverse is not prohibited. It's not even mentioned. This should not be the case."
He said if the process was not banned, scientists would be "very likely" to try it, and it would be likely humans and chimps could successfully reproduce.
"If you put human sperm into a frog it would probably create an embryo, but it probably wouldn't go very far," he said.
"But if you do it with a non-human primate it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it could be born alive."
Dr MacKellar said the resulting creature could raise ethical dilemmas, such as whether it would be treated as human or animal, and what rights it would have.
"If it was never able to be self-aware or self-conscious it would probably be considered an animal," he said. "However, if there was a possibility of humanzees developing a conscience, you have a far more difficult dilemma on your hands."
He said fascination would be enough of a motive for scientists to try crossing the two species.
But he also said there was a small chance of scientists using the method to "humanise" organs for transplant into humans. "There's a desperate need for organs. One of the solutions that has been looked at is using animal organs, but because there's a very serious risk of rejection using animal organs in humans they are already trying to humanise these organs.
"If they could create these humanzees who are substantially human but are not considered as humans in law , we could have a large provision of organs."
He wrote to the Department of Health to ask that the gap in the draft legislation be addressed.
The department confirmed that the bill "does not cover the artificial insemination of an animal with human sperm".
It said: "Owing to the significant differences between human and animal genomes, they are incompatible and the development of a foetus or progeny is impossible.
"Therefore such activity would have no rational scientific justification, as there would be no measurable outcome."
Dr MacKellar disagrees. He said: "The chromosomal difference between a goat and a sheep is greater than between humans and chimpanzees."
Professor Bob Millar, director of the Medical Research Council Human Reproductive Sciences Unit, based in Edinburgh, agreed viable offspring would be possible. He said: "Donkeys can mate with horses and create infertile offspring; maybe that could happen with chimpanzees."
But he said he would oppose any such attempt. "It's unnecessary and ridiculous and no serious scientist would consider such a thing. Ethically, it's not appropriate.
"It's also completely impractical. Chimps would never be a source of organs for humans because of the viruses they carry and the low numbers."
Professor Hugh McLachlan, professor of applied philosophy at Glasgow Caledonian University's School of Law and Applied Sciences, said although the idea was "troublesome", he could see no ethical objections to the creation of humanzees.
"Any species came to be what it is now because of all sorts of interaction in the past," he said.
"If it turns out in the future there was fertilisation between a human animal and a non-human animal, it's an idea that is troublesome, but in terms of what particular ethical principle is breached it's not clear to me.
"I share their squeamishness and unease, but I'm not sure that unease can be expressed in terms of an ethical principle."
A Department of Health spokeswoman said: "It's just not a problem. If you inseminate an animal with human sperm, scientifically nothing happens. The species barriers are too great."
HYBRIDS ARE AT CROSS PURPOSES
EVEN though hybrids of humans and animals have never been created, many other creatures have been crossed successfully.
Lions and tigers have been bred to create ligers, the world's largest cats.
And there are also zorses (zebra and horse), wholphins (whale and dolphin), tigons (tiger and lion), lepjags (leopard and jaguar) and zonkeys (zebra and donkey).
As well as these hybrid mammals, there are also hybrid birds, fish, insects and plants.
Many hybrids, such as mules, are sterile, which prevents the movement of genes from one species to another, keeping both species distinct. However, some can reproduce and there are scientists who believe that grey wolves and coyotes mated thousands of years ago to create a new species, the red wolf.
More commonly, hybrids mate with one of their parent species, which can influence the genetic mix of what gets passed along to subsequent generations.
Hybrids can have desirable traits, often being fitter or larger than either parent.
Most hybrid animals have been bred in captivity, but there are examples of the process occurring in the wild.
This is far more common in plants than animals but in April 2006 a hunter in Canada's North-west Territories shot a polar bear whose fur had an orange tint.
Research showed that it had a grizzly bear father, and it became known as a pizzly.
In 2003, DNA analysis confirmed that five odd-looking felines found in Maine and Minnesota were bobcat-lynx hybrids, dubbed blynxes.
lifesabench6 at 11:09:41 AM EDT
Permalink
| Blog about this entry
| Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has comments: Add your own
Thursday, April 10, 2008
My friend and brother in Christ, Dave, recently wrote an article about the abortion racket- mainly Planned Parenthood's reaping tax payer's money to support their butcher shops. He received the typical response from one woman- and I'd like to post it now, along with a reply from another brother in Christ who decided to answer her. Thank you both for standing up for Life!!
Here is the original article
Subject: No proof
I didn’t see any evidence that proves how the government is giving funds to Planned Parenthood. What documents do you have? Interviews? Depositions? All I hear is you legislating your morals on those who are not asking for it, sir. What are you doing to get unwanted babies who are given up adopted? How do you plan on helping these mothers who you would force to have these babies? Do you plan on giving them welfare and food stamps? What about a job and childcare? How is this mother going to work and support a child on her own? Where are your plans on how you plan on addressing these issues? No, you people would have this child be born, grow up in a state of poverty where the only way this child sees to get out of the ghetto is to engage in illegal acts such as drugs or theft. Then this child sees a way out of the ghetto. He or she recognizes that in order to pull themselves out of the gutter, they can join the armed forces, go fight for our country, come home and lead a responsible life and contribute to society. But, they don’t make it home. You just prolonged their short, miserable life so that they could die so a bunch of fat cats can get even fatter off all their oil.
We live in the United States where we are free. We are free to make our own decisions about our own bodies. When you will agree to allow us to make decisions about your body and legislate that, then call me. Until then, you people should get a life of your own and instead of making judgments on people, take a look in the mirror.
Stephanie
The Reply
Subject: RE: No proof?
Dear Stephanie,
Speaking of looking in the mirror...perhaps you should be very glad that your mother wasn’t searching for evidence, documents, interviews or depositions prior to deciding to let you live. Your argument fails on so many levels but the most serious fault is that in one simple, short note you are guilty of the same things you accuse Dave of. You don’t see any evidence of government funding for planned parenthood because you don’t want to see it. A simple internet search reveals countless links that show that our government does indeed fund planned parenthood. The evidence is incontrovertible but because it doesn’t support your beliefs, you choose to ignore it. And speaking of beliefs and morals, all I see is you doing the exact same thing you accuse Dave of doing. In your note, all you do is legislate your morals on those who are not asking for it, Ma’am. You then launch into an attack that questions him about what he’s doing. He’s raising awareness. Let’s put the shoe on the other foot for a moment and ask, what you are doing to make sure that unwanted babies are killed? What are you doing to “help” women who you would encourage to murder their own children? Do you plan on providing counseling to help them live with the guilt? You then ask how this mother will work and support a child on her own. The answer is incredibly simple. She will work. I know many liberals aren’t comfortable with the idea of working to better themselves but it’s a time honored and proven way to exist without excess government intervention. You’re dead right (pun intended) about one thing. We would have this child live. What you’re wrong about is the demographics of exactly who is having all the abortions in the first place (another little fact that simple investigation would turn up...but that would involve thinking for yourself and stepping away from the Kool-Aid stand). Nearly half of the abortions that are performed aren’t performed on the poor so your whole poverty argument just doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Yes Stephanie, we would have them grow up. They might start off poor, they may join the Armed forces (and just so you know...99% of those that have joined the Armed forces since our country was founded actually survived their military service and many are doing quite well). And now we come to the heart of the matter. You actually wrote, “You just prolonged their short, miserable life....”. How arrogant!!! Stephanie Sain has apparently just been appointed the sole determiner of which lives are good and which ones are “miserable”. Watch out Stephanie...there’s a very slippery slope here and you’re diving head first down it. You want to decide what constitutes a “good” life. You think you are qualified to determine who should live and who shouldn’t (or at least you seem to trust the government to decide...how scary is that!). What happens when we take the next step? We already kill unwanted babies because it’s inconvenient (we’ll leave the fact that it’s an incredibly profitable business for another time). For now, unwanted babies are inconvenient so we turn ourselves into God and say ok...let’s just kill them. The next step? The elderly and infirm? What kind of life do they have? The elderly just sit around in homes and the crippled don’t contribute anything of value do they Stephanie? What happens to you when you’re injured on your way home from your nice, long, “good” life and are suddenly restricted to a wheelchair...totally dependent on others for your well being...not unlike a newborn. Does that make your life suddenly “miserable”? Can we just do a “procedure” and end your life (for your own good of course....we wouldn’t want you having to deal with losing your job and having to live in poverty). I hope you can sense the sarcasm and the grasp how slippery this slope truly is. Here’s the fundamental difference: You think you or the government has the right to decide which lives are valuable and which are not. I don’t believe anyone is qualified to make that decision. Your belief system seems to be based on the fact that you don’t recognize anything or anyone of greater importance than yourself. The individual person is the highest power. I believe in God. My beliefs with regard to life and who should be permitted to live aren’t based on what’s convenient for me...they’re based on what God has declared as true in His Word. You support killing babies because you believe that you are the highest power and determiner of right and wrong. I am against killing babies (independent of whether it’s convenient for me or not) because I’m not so arrogant as to believe that I’m “IT” in the universe. We do live in the United States. We are ALL free to make our own decisions about our own bodies. But we are not free to impose our will on another human being’s body. You are not free to dictate anything to me about what to do with my body and I can’t/won’t dictate what you do with yours (and yours alone....not yours and your baby). The only real difference betweenthe baby who has rights and the one who doesn’t is location. Inside the womb = no rights...but change the proximity by a foot or so and suddenly the baby has rights? Can you not see how incredibly ludicrous that is? I will never agree that one human being has the right to make decisions about the life or death of another human being (criminal cases excepted...another argument for another time perhaps). Get a life? I have one. So do you. And you have it because you weren’t murdered in the womb. I’m not judging you Stephanie, I’m judging your argument and it fails the common sense test. I have looked in the mirror and what I see is an ordinary man who has been blessed beyond all measure. I was allowed to live (even though my Mom was a single Mom in the 60’s). I see a man who is no better or worse than anyone else on the planet in God’s eyes. I haven’t judged others, I’ve taken a long hard look at myself and realized that I fall way short of what God designed me to be when He knit me together in my Mother’s womb. Because of my own failings (sin), I had no hope of ever relating to a just and holy God. He saw my need and out of love, sent His only Son to pay the consequences for my sin....and I am so grateful! I’m grateful because I’m free to allow the author and creator of life to make decisions about who lives and who doesn’t. I look in the mirror and I’m happy because I see a man who doesn’t even come close to having all the answers....but I know the One who does. I wish you could know the freedom that comes with that revelation! I don’t have to be the judge! My problem with those who want to support killing babies is that they’re trying to be the judge.....and are completely incompetent to do so.
You want to support killing babies because it’s convenient for you to do so. I wi |
