The arguments are sound. The logic is perfect. The questions are answered. The opposition has no intelligent response. Yet, are you willing to live the life of a pro-lifer when the going gets tough? If you are faced with a crisis pregnancy yourself are you willing to choose life? If you are one the hard cases talked about in your arguments are you going to stand true to your convictions?
It is imperative that we human beings mean what we say. Indeed it is true; "Let your 'Yes' mean 'Yes,' and your 'No' mean 'No'" (Matthew 5:37) What we say should be how we live unless, that is, we don't really mean what we say.
Getting Married
I got married as a Catholic back in July of 2009. I learned growing up that abstinence was the answer to preventing unplanned pregnancy. Indeed, my wife and I remained abstinent until the day that we got married. We were as chaste as we could have been. We had a honeymoon in Hawai'i and had a great start to our marriage. We were able to *barely* afford our wedding and honeymoon with a combination of debt and the wage that I earned as a Licensed Vocational Nurse at a local hospital. The wage that I earned from my nursing job was the way that we survived.
Coming Home for the Worst
One week following a great honeymoon, I was called into the nurse manager's office at my work. My nurse manager explained to me that I have been a great employee who has worked very hard, worked well with others, been great to patients, and even have volunteered to work shifts that were not required of me. However, I was released from my position during the probationary period that day. The reasons have never been clear to me since the nurse manager stated that during the probationary period an explanation is not given. She did, however, share that it had nothing to do with patient safety. I have been a safe nurse working on the unit.
This experience left me feeling devastated. How would I pay the bills such as rent and electricity? How would I be able to continue to survive without a job? How would I be able to continue nursing school to become a Registered Nurse? How would my wife continue going to school at the local university? My car was close to the brink of breaking down and so was I.
The Week After
Pregnant. We were looking forward to our first child being conceived. Indeed, we knew that life began at conception and should be protected once the knowledge of a child's existence became evident. I was happy that my wife became pregnant. However, I was extremely worried about how we could afford both of our schooling, rent, bills, food, and now prenatal care.
Was abortion ever considered? Nope! Both of us have discussed the issue of abortion at length long before we got married. We were both ardently pro-life and very well educated about it. I even joked with my wife that this would be a "perfect example" of a pro-choicer's "hard-case" to prove that abortion is somehow necessary.
Resourcefulness
After feeling beaten down, I swept up my pride and went to the welfare office. We received some governmental assistance. I also started to receive unemployment. I landed a part-time job (about 6-24 hrs a week) getting paid minimum wage as a caregiver. My parents helped us to *barely* pay our rent and bills. I continued to go to school as did my wife. I graduated and got my Registered Nursing license months later. Seven months of barely making it and wondering what would become of us had ended once I got a job full-time as a Registered Nurse in hospice. My wife had MediCal (California form of Medicare) which paid medical expenses through pregnancy, labor, delivery, and afterbirth. There were even pro-life protesters whom we protested with who gave us free clothes, blankets, and supplies although we did not ask for anything.
The Affirmation of Life
The story of my wife, my son, and I is a testament to how an unborn child's life should be respected no matter the circumstances. Our situation was definitely not the hardest, but it did present with itself many difficulties. I hope sharing our situation will help people understand that handling a difficult time financially and situationally during pregnancy is possible without killing a single unborn child.
We named our son Adam. He is a beautiful boy whom we love very much.
Reader, if you ever need a helping hand please do not hesitate to contact me and my family.
Christopher Schmenk, Facebook Profile, Email
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Dad Confronts Abortion Protesters Rebuttal
On October 23, 2010, a video was posted on YouTube that has now been viewed 716,000 times as of today. Why is it so popular? Apparently, it is popular because of a man who had an angry tirade against pro-life protesters holding signs outside of an abortion clinic.
The man stated that the pro-life protesters yelled at his wife while she was entering the facility. I have been a protester in front of abortion clinics before. I know how hard it is to get even one word heard by those who enter those clinics. The protesters know nothing regarding each person's situation other than there abortions are provided in that facility on that particular day. Thus, the most important information is quickly stated loudly to those who enter it ("please do not kill your baby," "what you have inside of you is a baby, it has a heartbeat"). Oftentimes literature is handed to these people as they enter the clinic. Usually the people who enter the clinic do not accept the literature; most clinics instruct their patients to have no interaction with pro-lifers including to not accept any literature. Other times, the literature is ripped out of their hands by clinic staff once they enter the clinic.
Furthermore, during the few protests in front of clinics that I have been to, I have been the one on the receiving end of violence and yelling. People have thrown things at me as they drive by. Numerous people yell obscenities at me as they walk or drive by. Some people who enter the clinic go into a yelling tirade. One woman who was entering the clinic yelled at those protesting "f*** you! I'm going to kill my parasite! You guys [pro-lifers] are worthless pieces of s***!" I can guarantee you that these pro-life protesters were peaceful and welcoming to those who wished to talk.
As illustrated in the following video, it was the man with the video camera that was being irate while the pro-life protesters were hardly ever given the chance to respond in a peaceful way. I will respond to the majority of the man's talking points after you watch the behavior of both the man and the pro-life protesters.
What are you looking to accomplish here?
Simple: to prevent unborn babies from being killed at the hands of another. Would you protest a clinic that killed born children? Pro-lifers value the unborn as much as we do the born.
We were trying to have a kid, [but our kid has "mermaid syndrome" - sirenomelia]. You're yelling at my wife, for having nothing more than having a dead baby inside of her?
An unborn human being who has sirenomelia is not dead. To the contrary, an unborn human being with that condition can very much be alive. Sirenomelia is a congenital deformity that results in their being fused legs and oftentimes a lack of a lower urinary tract and patent anus. Many cases of sirenomelia result in death shortly after birth (at times it does happen before due to chronic oligohydramnios from the lack of fetal urine production). There are rarely survivors. However, there are a few survivors of this condition. [1] To assume that an unborn child with this condition will die is to deny the very real possibility.
Do you maybe want to ask before?
As mentioned previously, there is no time at all to be asking what each person is there at the clinic for. Women who enter the clinic get out of their car and walk into the clinic in approximately one minute. This is one of the many reasons why Crisis Pregnancy Centers exist. There are many of these in my own immediate area and they are staffed by life-affirming and well-trained volunteers.
You have no idea what you are doing to [women who enter the clinic].
Many women put their trust into the doctors and paraprofessional people involved in the abortion industry. After all, women reason with themselves, these people have a really good education and know what they are doing. Carol Everett ran abortion clinics for a living where 35,000 abortions took place. She wrote a book titled Blood Money. In her book, Carol Everett chronicled how abortions were sold. Abortions were sold as a product; as if abortion was a product at a furniture store. "Counselors" were trained to play on the emotions of women and hide facts from them. [2,3] Thus, it would be wise for all people to seek information regarding abortion from all sides of the debate. More importantly, non-biased scientific information should be sought. Education is key.
Because of people like you, no one wants to perform these anymore.
Unfortunately, the numbers of abortions completed in the United States continue to remain high; "In 2006, 846,181 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. This total presents a 3% increase from the 820,151 abortions reported for 2005 [NOTE: the actual numbers of abortion are higher since multiple states are not counted in the CDC's statistics]." [4] Why? Because there the industry is highly unregulated and the procedure is vastly legal and unimpeded by government intervention.
There are not really many places to go anymore.
Aside from abortion clinics, approximately "367 doctors’ offices perform" abortions when asked by their private patients in the United States. [5] Altogether, "there were 1,787 abortion providers in the United States" in 2005 and "The number of abortion clinics has remained relatively constant." [5] However, there have been recent reports from pro-life sources who claim that there has been a drastic decline in abortion clinics nation-wide. One such source Operation Rescue who claims that "over two-thirds of the nation's abortion clinics have closed in the past 18 years." [6]. At best, the Alan Guttmacher institute, the research arm of the largest abortion provider in the United States, Planned Parenthood, the availability of abortion services has remained relatively stable. Thus, this man may be right that the number could be declining but there still are plenty of abortion clinics available to the public.
[Abortion is a] time sensitive in nature.
Time sensitive in that the further a baby develops the harder his tissue and the larger his body becomes thus making abortions more difficult. The irate father is correct in this assertion.
My wife does not want to deliver a still-born baby.
She wants a dead baby as soon as possible rather than an abnormally developed and very unhealthy baby? This is called discrimination against the disabled. It would be very rare for anyone to suggest killing a disabled born person, yet it is socially acceptable to do so to the disabled unborn? Even unborn children with Down's Syndrome and non-fatal neural tube defects such as spina bifida are discriminated against with purposeful death (abortion).
Why don't you go help average kids? Why don't you try to stop the problem before-hand?
The woman in the video answered that she has adopted children. Indeed, adoption is the answer to helping women in crisis pregnancies. It is the ultimate sacrifice to give of oneself in the raising of another for the sake of another.
Helping children? What are these protesters doing? They are trying to save the very lives of children at their most vulnerable stage of development: in the womb! I'd say that's helping "average kids." Further, should no one help "non-average kids" such as those with disabilities? A child with sirenomelia is someone with a grave disability and needs the most help from others! That child needs a chance at life--NOT absolute death!
Stopping the problem before-hand? Regardless of the efforts of organizations like Planned Parenthood and the vast majority of public schools that push contraceptives there are still a high number of unintended pregnancies. Planned Parenthood's research arm the Guttmacher Institute admits that "for teens, abortion
rates and numbers decline due to increasing abstinence and teens
continuing unwanted pregnancies"-a clear admission that abstinence works more efficiently than contraceptives. [5] Indeed, failure of condoms and all reversible contraceptives is 19% in the first two years; further, those who are targeted most to use reversible birth control have the highest rates (higher than 19%) of failure (teens, hispanics, blacks, poor, and unmarried) [7,8,9]. Contraception does not work in preventing pregnancies. Thus, it makes sense to defend those "unwanted" or "unintended" children to survive as pro-life protesters do.
Why do you stand out here to make people feel bad about themselves?
When a pro-life protester speaks the truth ("please do not kill your baby") they are neither making people feel good nor bad about themselves. If the truth hurts, so be it. The truth is the most important thing for all people in the world in all situations. If a woman is unsure about having an abortion due to these statements then that women should take the time and research the topic more. Abortion is not something to be taken lightly. Even those who are ardently pro-choice frown upon the perspective that abortion is similar to a tooth extraction--it is NOT. It is a lot more than that. Pro-lifers contend that it is the taking of another person's life! Scientifically, that is the most true statement a person could make.
Lowest common denominator [in reference to the pro-lifers].
Rather than judging someone without giving them a chance to talk, why don't you engage these people in a civil and calm conversation? You may find that they are not the lowest common denominator. You may find that these protesters have a heart willing to care for a child with sirenomelia. Indeed, there are plenty of peri-natal hospice programs available for this very reason: to care for ill newborn children who are expected to die at birth or shortly thereafter. [10]
The name of the man in the video is Aaron Gouveia. His article regarding his experience surrounding this video is available through the following link: URL [11]. The following is a very thought-provoking response to the father in the video:
Indeed, "[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." [12]
[1] A Warm Place (blog), "The Little Mermaid Syndrome," written by (unknown author, can't seem to find out who). **The links are the most important in this source** URL
[2] Blood Money: Getting Rich Off Woman's Right to Choose, written by Carol Everett, 1991, 1992, published by the Heidi Group.
[3] Blood Money: A Documentary. Access a trailer to this movie containing first-hand accounts regarding the business of abortion: URL to YouTube
[4] Center for Disease Control, "CDC’s Abortion Surveillance System FAQs" accessed on November 16, 2010. URL
[5] The Alan Guttmacher Institute (research arm of Planned Parenthood, the United State's largest abortion provider), "An Overview of Abortion in the United States" - a presentation with slides. PDF
[6] Opposing Views (blog), "Number of abortion clinics continues to decline." URL
[7] Center for Disease Control (CDC), "2002 PRAMS Surveillance Report: Multistate Exhibits: Unintended Pregnancy and Contraceptive Use." URL
[8] Ranjit N, Bankole A, Darroch JE, Singh S. Contraceptive failure in the first two years of use: differences across socioeconomic subgroups. Family Planning Perspectives 2001;33(1):19–27.
[9] Fu H, Darroch JE, Haas T, Ranjit N. Contraceptive failure rates: new estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Family Planning Perspectives 1999;31(2):56–63.
[10] Perinatal Hospice and Palliative Care: A Gift of Time (website). URL
[11] Good Men Project (magazine), "Confronting Life," October 23, 2010 By Aaron Gouveia. URL
[12] The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. 1998, pg. 2-18.
The man stated that the pro-life protesters yelled at his wife while she was entering the facility. I have been a protester in front of abortion clinics before. I know how hard it is to get even one word heard by those who enter those clinics. The protesters know nothing regarding each person's situation other than there abortions are provided in that facility on that particular day. Thus, the most important information is quickly stated loudly to those who enter it ("please do not kill your baby," "what you have inside of you is a baby, it has a heartbeat"). Oftentimes literature is handed to these people as they enter the clinic. Usually the people who enter the clinic do not accept the literature; most clinics instruct their patients to have no interaction with pro-lifers including to not accept any literature. Other times, the literature is ripped out of their hands by clinic staff once they enter the clinic.
Furthermore, during the few protests in front of clinics that I have been to, I have been the one on the receiving end of violence and yelling. People have thrown things at me as they drive by. Numerous people yell obscenities at me as they walk or drive by. Some people who enter the clinic go into a yelling tirade. One woman who was entering the clinic yelled at those protesting "f*** you! I'm going to kill my parasite! You guys [pro-lifers] are worthless pieces of s***!" I can guarantee you that these pro-life protesters were peaceful and welcoming to those who wished to talk.
As illustrated in the following video, it was the man with the video camera that was being irate while the pro-life protesters were hardly ever given the chance to respond in a peaceful way. I will respond to the majority of the man's talking points after you watch the behavior of both the man and the pro-life protesters.
What are you looking to accomplish here?
Simple: to prevent unborn babies from being killed at the hands of another. Would you protest a clinic that killed born children? Pro-lifers value the unborn as much as we do the born.
We were trying to have a kid, [but our kid has "mermaid syndrome" - sirenomelia]. You're yelling at my wife, for having nothing more than having a dead baby inside of her?
An unborn human being who has sirenomelia is not dead. To the contrary, an unborn human being with that condition can very much be alive. Sirenomelia is a congenital deformity that results in their being fused legs and oftentimes a lack of a lower urinary tract and patent anus. Many cases of sirenomelia result in death shortly after birth (at times it does happen before due to chronic oligohydramnios from the lack of fetal urine production). There are rarely survivors. However, there are a few survivors of this condition. [1] To assume that an unborn child with this condition will die is to deny the very real possibility.
Do you maybe want to ask before?
As mentioned previously, there is no time at all to be asking what each person is there at the clinic for. Women who enter the clinic get out of their car and walk into the clinic in approximately one minute. This is one of the many reasons why Crisis Pregnancy Centers exist. There are many of these in my own immediate area and they are staffed by life-affirming and well-trained volunteers.
You have no idea what you are doing to [women who enter the clinic].
Many women put their trust into the doctors and paraprofessional people involved in the abortion industry. After all, women reason with themselves, these people have a really good education and know what they are doing. Carol Everett ran abortion clinics for a living where 35,000 abortions took place. She wrote a book titled Blood Money. In her book, Carol Everett chronicled how abortions were sold. Abortions were sold as a product; as if abortion was a product at a furniture store. "Counselors" were trained to play on the emotions of women and hide facts from them. [2,3] Thus, it would be wise for all people to seek information regarding abortion from all sides of the debate. More importantly, non-biased scientific information should be sought. Education is key.
Because of people like you, no one wants to perform these anymore.
Unfortunately, the numbers of abortions completed in the United States continue to remain high; "In 2006, 846,181 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. This total presents a 3% increase from the 820,151 abortions reported for 2005 [NOTE: the actual numbers of abortion are higher since multiple states are not counted in the CDC's statistics]." [4] Why? Because there the industry is highly unregulated and the procedure is vastly legal and unimpeded by government intervention.
There are not really many places to go anymore.
Aside from abortion clinics, approximately "367 doctors’ offices perform" abortions when asked by their private patients in the United States. [5] Altogether, "there were 1,787 abortion providers in the United States" in 2005 and "The number of abortion clinics has remained relatively constant." [5] However, there have been recent reports from pro-life sources who claim that there has been a drastic decline in abortion clinics nation-wide. One such source Operation Rescue who claims that "over two-thirds of the nation's abortion clinics have closed in the past 18 years." [6]. At best, the Alan Guttmacher institute, the research arm of the largest abortion provider in the United States, Planned Parenthood, the availability of abortion services has remained relatively stable. Thus, this man may be right that the number could be declining but there still are plenty of abortion clinics available to the public.
[Abortion is a] time sensitive in nature.
Time sensitive in that the further a baby develops the harder his tissue and the larger his body becomes thus making abortions more difficult. The irate father is correct in this assertion.
My wife does not want to deliver a still-born baby.
She wants a dead baby as soon as possible rather than an abnormally developed and very unhealthy baby? This is called discrimination against the disabled. It would be very rare for anyone to suggest killing a disabled born person, yet it is socially acceptable to do so to the disabled unborn? Even unborn children with Down's Syndrome and non-fatal neural tube defects such as spina bifida are discriminated against with purposeful death (abortion).
Why don't you go help average kids? Why don't you try to stop the problem before-hand?
The woman in the video answered that she has adopted children. Indeed, adoption is the answer to helping women in crisis pregnancies. It is the ultimate sacrifice to give of oneself in the raising of another for the sake of another.
Helping children? What are these protesters doing? They are trying to save the very lives of children at their most vulnerable stage of development: in the womb! I'd say that's helping "average kids." Further, should no one help "non-average kids" such as those with disabilities? A child with sirenomelia is someone with a grave disability and needs the most help from others! That child needs a chance at life--NOT absolute death!
Stopping the problem before-hand? Regardless of the efforts of organizations like Planned Parenthood and the vast majority of public schools that push contraceptives there are still a high number of unintended pregnancies. Planned Parenthood's research arm the Guttmacher Institute admits that "for teens, abortion
rates and numbers decline due to increasing abstinence and teens
continuing unwanted pregnancies"-a clear admission that abstinence works more efficiently than contraceptives. [5] Indeed, failure of condoms and all reversible contraceptives is 19% in the first two years; further, those who are targeted most to use reversible birth control have the highest rates (higher than 19%) of failure (teens, hispanics, blacks, poor, and unmarried) [7,8,9]. Contraception does not work in preventing pregnancies. Thus, it makes sense to defend those "unwanted" or "unintended" children to survive as pro-life protesters do.
Why do you stand out here to make people feel bad about themselves?
When a pro-life protester speaks the truth ("please do not kill your baby") they are neither making people feel good nor bad about themselves. If the truth hurts, so be it. The truth is the most important thing for all people in the world in all situations. If a woman is unsure about having an abortion due to these statements then that women should take the time and research the topic more. Abortion is not something to be taken lightly. Even those who are ardently pro-choice frown upon the perspective that abortion is similar to a tooth extraction--it is NOT. It is a lot more than that. Pro-lifers contend that it is the taking of another person's life! Scientifically, that is the most true statement a person could make.
Lowest common denominator [in reference to the pro-lifers].
Rather than judging someone without giving them a chance to talk, why don't you engage these people in a civil and calm conversation? You may find that they are not the lowest common denominator. You may find that these protesters have a heart willing to care for a child with sirenomelia. Indeed, there are plenty of peri-natal hospice programs available for this very reason: to care for ill newborn children who are expected to die at birth or shortly thereafter. [10]
The name of the man in the video is Aaron Gouveia. His article regarding his experience surrounding this video is available through the following link: URL [11]. The following is a very thought-provoking response to the father in the video:
Matt says:
November 1, 2010 at 10:34 am
Don explains a very valid point, and I don’t think he is trying to be obtuse. “Being a parent and being pregnant are two very different things.” That may be the case ONLY if you believe that becoming a Parent only happens when a child leaves the womb, versus when the child in conceived. “A fetus cannot survive outside of the womb.”…that is true, but neither can a baby survive on its own. It’s not a viable argument.
Think of it this way...if you TRULY BELIEVED that a child is created at conception, then you would be fighting for the life of a child.
To put it in perspective, if an abortion clinic was a clinic for mothers of 0-2 month old kids to go and kill their children, would not pretty much everyone on this board be across the street screaming in outrage? Even for a child who would die or was suffering?
So the argument is really about, if an unborn child is a child, or not. This has always been the argument. Some people believe that others are misled by thinking that a child only becomes a child at some unclear point during a late term of the pregnancy, or after the child leaves the womb. Others believe some are misled thinking that a fetus younger than some point is a child.
In this case, the child’s outlook was terminal from a doctors point of view, but at that term, the child still had time to develop, and doctor’s are not always right. I could not in this case have decided not to give my child every chance.
I feel for the father and mother in this article and their situation, but I also sympathize with the protesters, as I know how they feel watching people enter the facility.
Indeed, "[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." [12]
[1] A Warm Place (blog), "The Little Mermaid Syndrome," written by (unknown author, can't seem to find out who). **The links are the most important in this source** URL
[2] Blood Money: Getting Rich Off Woman's Right to Choose, written by Carol Everett, 1991, 1992, published by the Heidi Group.
[3] Blood Money: A Documentary. Access a trailer to this movie containing first-hand accounts regarding the business of abortion: URL to YouTube
[4] Center for Disease Control, "CDC’s Abortion Surveillance System FAQs" accessed on November 16, 2010. URL
[5] The Alan Guttmacher Institute (research arm of Planned Parenthood, the United State's largest abortion provider), "An Overview of Abortion in the United States" - a presentation with slides. PDF
[6] Opposing Views (blog), "Number of abortion clinics continues to decline." URL
[7] Center for Disease Control (CDC), "2002 PRAMS Surveillance Report: Multistate Exhibits: Unintended Pregnancy and Contraceptive Use." URL
[8] Ranjit N, Bankole A, Darroch JE, Singh S. Contraceptive failure in the first two years of use: differences across socioeconomic subgroups. Family Planning Perspectives 2001;33(1):19–27.
[9] Fu H, Darroch JE, Haas T, Ranjit N. Contraceptive failure rates: new estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Family Planning Perspectives 1999;31(2):56–63.
[10] Perinatal Hospice and Palliative Care: A Gift of Time (website). URL
[11] Good Men Project (magazine), "Confronting Life," October 23, 2010 By Aaron Gouveia. URL
[12] The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. 1998, pg. 2-18.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Hospice Nursing: Embracing the End of Life
Those who are pro-life espouse the mantra of protecting life from conception to natural death. Indeed, it is science that is on our side. To those who are pro-choice there is a mantra that bodily autonomy, freedom of privacy, and the rights to make decisions are more important than the right to life.
I am going to shortly describe how the end of life connects with the pro-life cause and relate it to my nursing career.
Do those who are dying have a right to life?
Yes. Those with a terminal diagnosis have a right to live their lives in the way that they choose. Those who are dying have a right to pain relief, to be comfortable, to be at home, to be with their loved ones, and to pass on from this life in the way that is most respectful to them. We all have a right to life; indeed, we can all choose how to be treated in end-of-life care that respects our lives.
Do those who are dying have a right to die?
No. Those with a terminal diagnosis have a right to determine in what ways they will pass from this life to the next but they do not have the right to kill themselves or to obtain aide in doing so. The rights of those who are dying are exemplified by their life itself and the quality of their lives. We cannot take one without the other.
Some claim that it is torturous to deny the right to die to those that want it.
Some have this contention. Those that have terminal diagnoses often experience pain, discomfort, loneliness, ambivalence, uncertainty about the afterlife, regret about some things done during their lives, depression, and other troublesome experiences. However, actively killing the actively dying does nothing to address these issues. It ends these issues but does not deal with them.
How can those issues be dealt with?
Pain: The ability to control pain has seen many advances over the years. It is possible to control pain for practically all terminal patients. Indeed, controlling pain is a huge priority for caregivers and the dying patient. It is up to the patient to determine how much pain relief is necessary while weighing the side effects (stupor, fatigue, constipation, etc). Death as a result from pain medication is a real possibility. However, if pain management has been done properly then death caused by pain medication is not the intent but rather a side effect. For those who are dying, death is imminent. Thus, controlling pain is vital and may hasten death as a side effect. This is not tremendously common and is also not the intention of the pain management regimen and is thus not considered in the realm of euthanasia. It is being respectful of the patient's wishes to be pain free during the dying process and nothing more.
Discomfort: Those who care for the dying are able to help a patient with comfort whether they be family, friends, caregivers, nurses, or doctors. Hospice allows a patient to experience least discomfort as can be possible. Indeed it is best for those who are dying to experience their last days in their own home in the ways that they desire. These measures reduce discomfort. Other causes of discomfort such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and other problems can also be managed with medications and other therapies.
Loneliness: Those who visit the dying patient include a wide array of individuals such as nurses, pastors, and volunteers. These resources are vital to help curve the feeling of loneliness. The worst fear many people have is of dying alone. Hospice care and loving families help prevent this from happening. Indeed, visitors are vitally important for those who have a terminal diagnosis.
Ambivalence: Hospice care provides those who are dying and their families with answers regarding the process of death, dying, and the care that they will receive. It helps all of those involved to have an understanding; this helps in reducing fear, pain, discomfort, and many other unfavorable things.
Uncertainty About the Afterlife: Having a Hospice team that is willing to speak with patients regarding the life after death is very important. One does not need to share the same faith with each other to know that most people worry about what will happen to them after dying. Some may not care, many others will. This is also why chaplain services are readily available to those on Hospice. When someone has comfort with what will happen to them following their death then it can help calm and comfort.
Depression: A broad support system oftentimes helps those who are depressed. Hospice provides that to a great deal. However, this does not always help fight against depression. Clinical depression can be treated with medications while other depression can abetted a little bit at a time by a support group. Oftentimes volunteers can provide companionship that busy nurses and other workers cannot give as much as they would like. Many Hospice organizations provide volunteers and other services to help brighten the last days of patients with terminal diagnoses.
How does hospice relate to the pro-life cause?
Hospice should not provided a means to end a persons life. It is about increasing the quality of the time a person has left to live. Allow me to simply compare and contrast:
Euthanasia is a quick end to suffering; hospice deals with the problems to allow comfort and dignity.
Abortion is a quick end to an unwanted pregnancy; choosing life deals with the unwanted pregnancy to allow a newly created human being to live.
Just like there are many issues that surround end-of-life care that can be managed, there are many problems with an unwanted pregnancy that must also be managed.
I have been a hospice nurse for seven months. It can be very stressful, but it can also be very enlightening. I have been a small part of the care to help so many patients pass away with comfort and dignity. I have such awesome coworkers who have also helped these patients in their own special way. I am so thankful to work with such a wonderful group of people who have such compassion for their patients.
Indeed, giving life is the most important aspect of hospice nursing. This is the reason why I continue to work hospice. Respect life! Give it dignity! Give it what it rightfully deserves! Embrace life from conception until natural death.
I am going to shortly describe how the end of life connects with the pro-life cause and relate it to my nursing career.
Do those who are dying have a right to life?
Yes. Those with a terminal diagnosis have a right to live their lives in the way that they choose. Those who are dying have a right to pain relief, to be comfortable, to be at home, to be with their loved ones, and to pass on from this life in the way that is most respectful to them. We all have a right to life; indeed, we can all choose how to be treated in end-of-life care that respects our lives.
Do those who are dying have a right to die?
No. Those with a terminal diagnosis have a right to determine in what ways they will pass from this life to the next but they do not have the right to kill themselves or to obtain aide in doing so. The rights of those who are dying are exemplified by their life itself and the quality of their lives. We cannot take one without the other.
Some claim that it is torturous to deny the right to die to those that want it.
Some have this contention. Those that have terminal diagnoses often experience pain, discomfort, loneliness, ambivalence, uncertainty about the afterlife, regret about some things done during their lives, depression, and other troublesome experiences. However, actively killing the actively dying does nothing to address these issues. It ends these issues but does not deal with them.
How can those issues be dealt with?
Pain: The ability to control pain has seen many advances over the years. It is possible to control pain for practically all terminal patients. Indeed, controlling pain is a huge priority for caregivers and the dying patient. It is up to the patient to determine how much pain relief is necessary while weighing the side effects (stupor, fatigue, constipation, etc). Death as a result from pain medication is a real possibility. However, if pain management has been done properly then death caused by pain medication is not the intent but rather a side effect. For those who are dying, death is imminent. Thus, controlling pain is vital and may hasten death as a side effect. This is not tremendously common and is also not the intention of the pain management regimen and is thus not considered in the realm of euthanasia. It is being respectful of the patient's wishes to be pain free during the dying process and nothing more.
Discomfort: Those who care for the dying are able to help a patient with comfort whether they be family, friends, caregivers, nurses, or doctors. Hospice allows a patient to experience least discomfort as can be possible. Indeed it is best for those who are dying to experience their last days in their own home in the ways that they desire. These measures reduce discomfort. Other causes of discomfort such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and other problems can also be managed with medications and other therapies.
Loneliness: Those who visit the dying patient include a wide array of individuals such as nurses, pastors, and volunteers. These resources are vital to help curve the feeling of loneliness. The worst fear many people have is of dying alone. Hospice care and loving families help prevent this from happening. Indeed, visitors are vitally important for those who have a terminal diagnosis.
Ambivalence: Hospice care provides those who are dying and their families with answers regarding the process of death, dying, and the care that they will receive. It helps all of those involved to have an understanding; this helps in reducing fear, pain, discomfort, and many other unfavorable things.
Uncertainty About the Afterlife: Having a Hospice team that is willing to speak with patients regarding the life after death is very important. One does not need to share the same faith with each other to know that most people worry about what will happen to them after dying. Some may not care, many others will. This is also why chaplain services are readily available to those on Hospice. When someone has comfort with what will happen to them following their death then it can help calm and comfort.
Depression: A broad support system oftentimes helps those who are depressed. Hospice provides that to a great deal. However, this does not always help fight against depression. Clinical depression can be treated with medications while other depression can abetted a little bit at a time by a support group. Oftentimes volunteers can provide companionship that busy nurses and other workers cannot give as much as they would like. Many Hospice organizations provide volunteers and other services to help brighten the last days of patients with terminal diagnoses.
How does hospice relate to the pro-life cause?
Hospice should not provided a means to end a persons life. It is about increasing the quality of the time a person has left to live. Allow me to simply compare and contrast:
Euthanasia is a quick end to suffering; hospice deals with the problems to allow comfort and dignity.
Abortion is a quick end to an unwanted pregnancy; choosing life deals with the unwanted pregnancy to allow a newly created human being to live.
Just like there are many issues that surround end-of-life care that can be managed, there are many problems with an unwanted pregnancy that must also be managed.
I have been a hospice nurse for seven months. It can be very stressful, but it can also be very enlightening. I have been a small part of the care to help so many patients pass away with comfort and dignity. I have such awesome coworkers who have also helped these patients in their own special way. I am so thankful to work with such a wonderful group of people who have such compassion for their patients.
Indeed, giving life is the most important aspect of hospice nursing. This is the reason why I continue to work hospice. Respect life! Give it dignity! Give it what it rightfully deserves! Embrace life from conception until natural death.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
A Life Dedicated to Life
Growing up, I wanted to become a composer for video game music. When I went to college I started out as a music major intending to accomplish that goal. I became complacent. I took an Anatomy and Physiology class to fulfill a science lab requirement and loved studying it. It was a wonderful class with great students and a wonderful professor. I was enthralled at the inner workings of our bodies created by our Almighty God that it gave me a different insight into the goals of my life. I wanted to protect life. I graduated as a Registered Nurse a few years later.
Today I work as a Case Manager for hospice. I help manage the care and also personally care for patients that are in their final moments. I help them to love life in the short time that they have left to experience it. Life is a beautiful experience with its horrible and difficult times and its wonderful and fun times. As beautiful as life is, it is short. We must value every moment that God has given us to experience it.
Among the worst things in this world is taking away someone's life. Taking a person's life takes away the experiences that God intended for that person to experience. It robs a person of the great things that can be experienced. How much worse is it to take away the life of someone who has only been in life for a few short years, months, or weeks. The beginning of life is the most precious because there is so much life to live in the young.
Indeed it is my goal to allow people to make the most of their lives, even in their end times. It is also my goal to allow people to experience a life that they deserve to experience. I strive to end abortion for this very reason. It is pure evil to take this most precious gift of life away from another human being.
As a Registered Nurse it is my duty to defend the defenseless, give a voice to the voiceless, and be an advocate to those without one. It is my duty. It is my goal.
In music-- enrich lives.
In nursing-- defend lives.
In life-- love and live what God has given us.
A life dedicated to life. We all should strive to live that kind of life.
Today I work as a Case Manager for hospice. I help manage the care and also personally care for patients that are in their final moments. I help them to love life in the short time that they have left to experience it. Life is a beautiful experience with its horrible and difficult times and its wonderful and fun times. As beautiful as life is, it is short. We must value every moment that God has given us to experience it.
Among the worst things in this world is taking away someone's life. Taking a person's life takes away the experiences that God intended for that person to experience. It robs a person of the great things that can be experienced. How much worse is it to take away the life of someone who has only been in life for a few short years, months, or weeks. The beginning of life is the most precious because there is so much life to live in the young.
Indeed it is my goal to allow people to make the most of their lives, even in their end times. It is also my goal to allow people to experience a life that they deserve to experience. I strive to end abortion for this very reason. It is pure evil to take this most precious gift of life away from another human being.
As a Registered Nurse it is my duty to defend the defenseless, give a voice to the voiceless, and be an advocate to those without one. It is my duty. It is my goal.
In music-- enrich lives.
In nursing-- defend lives.
In life-- love and live what God has given us.
A life dedicated to life. We all should strive to live that kind of life.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Playing the Human Being Word Game
When those who favor legal abortion talk to me, I always get a plethora of word games. Oftentimes my words are twisted or taken out of context. Other times issues that I present are ignored completely. There are other instances where the points on which I agree with another person are ignored entirely and maybe even refuted. These techniques are meant to etch away at my patience in a conversation so that when I end the conversation due to frustration the other person can claim victory.
Word Games Blur the Core Issue
I have an example of this. Is there a scientific definition of the phrase "human being?" I certainly have not found that particular phrasing in textbooks or online. Does this mean that the scientific community has not defined what is a human being or not? No, this is not true. However, to those who argue against me the opposite is true.
Those who argue against me claim that there are no scientists who agree that a human being's life begins at conceptions since one cannot find the exact phrase "human being" defined by science. Since no scientist can define what is a human being, they say, then we must use the philosophical framework to define what is considered a human being. In conclusion, they say, we must use the philosophical definition of a human being as having cognition which occurs at a particular point in human development. There are really huge reasons why this argument is flawed.
1. "Human being" is a phrase and not a word. Thus, one must combine two separate words to come to a definition. The word "human" means (in the context of this debate) a member of the species homo sapiens. Does science claim that a zygote is a member of the species homo sapiens? Yes it does. In fact, I have never heard of a current scientist claim anything else. The word "being" is defined as existing. Does a zygote exist? Only a moron would think that a zygote does not exist. Thus, "human being" (in the context of this debate) is considered any existing member of the species homo sapiens. Zygote easily fits this definition according to current scientific knowledge. Furthermore, the zygote is a living and independent member of the species homo sapiens whom exists in reality by objective scientific fact.
2. A philosophical framework can lead to many different definitions; not one definition could we all agree upon. I have heard people state what makes a developing human a "person" or "human being" is the detection of brain waves (8 weeks LMP [1][2]), when consciousness occurs (one claims that this is placed at approximately 28 weeks when thalamic afferents begin to enter in the cerebral cortex [3], another claims that consciousness doesn't occur until months or years after birth [4]), viability [5], birth [6], and other moments in a human's lifespan. Thus using philosophical, religious, and subjective reasons to define what is and what is not a human being cannot be trusted. These reasons are merely the inner workings of the human mind.
Yes, a fetus may not experience pain prior to 20 weeks gestation [7]. Yes, a fetus does not breath air until being born. Yes, a fetus does not respond to sound until around 20 weeks gestation [8]. Hmm... you know what? An infant cannot participate in sexual intercourse, believes that others can read his mind, does not understand commitment, does not have a fully developed nervous system, does not have fully functional visual capabilities, and has numerous other developmental milestones that he has not reached yet. I'm thinking all the more... all of us who are still alive have not experienced the developmental milestone of death.
"Development begins with fertilization, ..." [9] and ends with death.
To play the human being word game is to determine who will live and who will die.
1. Epigee: Health and Fitness, "First Trimester Fetal Growth" as accessed on March 16, 2010. "8 weeks - ... Brain waves can be measured." URL LINK
2. Abort73, "Fetal Development" as accessed on March 16, 2010 and last updated on February 27, 2010. "Primitive brain waves have been recorded as early as six weeks and 2 days (gestation)." URL LINK
3. User pirbird14 on YouTube comment on video "Abortion Pictures: The Abortion Reich Lie" comment posted on March 16, 2010. "Consciousness is a function of the cerebral cortex, which does not begin to develop prior to week 26 (sic)." URL LINK
4. Elroy. "Why Abortion is Moral" as accessed on March 16, 2010. "...consciousness normally doesn't occur until months, even years, after a baby is born (sic)." URL LINK
5. Little, Margaret. Rutgers School of Law. "Abortion and the Margins of Personhood" as accessed on March 16, 2010, published sometime in 2003. "Especially when robust viability precedes full moral status, a gray zone emerges in which decisions over the life of the fetus hover between the private and the public." PDF LINK
6. Green, John. eLetters, Denver Post. "Personhood begins on your birthday" as accessed on March 16, 2010 and posted on December 17, 2007. URL LINK
7. NewsMaxx. "Reintroduced Fetal Pain Bill Garners Unlikely Supporter" as accessed on march 16, 2010 and posted on February 2, 2005. URL LINK
8. Endowment for Human Development. "Prenatal Form and Function: The Making of an Earth Suit" as accessed on March 16, 2010. "By 20 weeks it reaches adult size within the fully developed inner ear. From now on, the fetus will respond to a growing medley of sounds." URL LINK
9. T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.
Word Games Blur the Core Issue
I have an example of this. Is there a scientific definition of the phrase "human being?" I certainly have not found that particular phrasing in textbooks or online. Does this mean that the scientific community has not defined what is a human being or not? No, this is not true. However, to those who argue against me the opposite is true.
Those who argue against me claim that there are no scientists who agree that a human being's life begins at conceptions since one cannot find the exact phrase "human being" defined by science. Since no scientist can define what is a human being, they say, then we must use the philosophical framework to define what is considered a human being. In conclusion, they say, we must use the philosophical definition of a human being as having cognition which occurs at a particular point in human development. There are really huge reasons why this argument is flawed.
1. "Human being" is a phrase and not a word. Thus, one must combine two separate words to come to a definition. The word "human" means (in the context of this debate) a member of the species homo sapiens. Does science claim that a zygote is a member of the species homo sapiens? Yes it does. In fact, I have never heard of a current scientist claim anything else. The word "being" is defined as existing. Does a zygote exist? Only a moron would think that a zygote does not exist. Thus, "human being" (in the context of this debate) is considered any existing member of the species homo sapiens. Zygote easily fits this definition according to current scientific knowledge. Furthermore, the zygote is a living and independent member of the species homo sapiens whom exists in reality by objective scientific fact.
2. A philosophical framework can lead to many different definitions; not one definition could we all agree upon. I have heard people state what makes a developing human a "person" or "human being" is the detection of brain waves (8 weeks LMP [1][2]), when consciousness occurs (one claims that this is placed at approximately 28 weeks when thalamic afferents begin to enter in the cerebral cortex [3], another claims that consciousness doesn't occur until months or years after birth [4]), viability [5], birth [6], and other moments in a human's lifespan. Thus using philosophical, religious, and subjective reasons to define what is and what is not a human being cannot be trusted. These reasons are merely the inner workings of the human mind.
Yes, a fetus may not experience pain prior to 20 weeks gestation [7]. Yes, a fetus does not breath air until being born. Yes, a fetus does not respond to sound until around 20 weeks gestation [8]. Hmm... you know what? An infant cannot participate in sexual intercourse, believes that others can read his mind, does not understand commitment, does not have a fully developed nervous system, does not have fully functional visual capabilities, and has numerous other developmental milestones that he has not reached yet. I'm thinking all the more... all of us who are still alive have not experienced the developmental milestone of death.
"Development begins with fertilization, ..." [9] and ends with death.
To play the human being word game is to determine who will live and who will die.
1. Epigee: Health and Fitness, "First Trimester Fetal Growth" as accessed on March 16, 2010. "8 weeks - ... Brain waves can be measured." URL LINK
2. Abort73, "Fetal Development" as accessed on March 16, 2010 and last updated on February 27, 2010. "Primitive brain waves have been recorded as early as six weeks and 2 days (gestation)." URL LINK
3. User pirbird14 on YouTube comment on video "Abortion Pictures: The Abortion Reich Lie" comment posted on March 16, 2010. "Consciousness is a function of the cerebral cortex, which does not begin to develop prior to week 26 (sic)." URL LINK
4. Elroy. "Why Abortion is Moral" as accessed on March 16, 2010. "...consciousness normally doesn't occur until months, even years, after a baby is born (sic)." URL LINK
5. Little, Margaret. Rutgers School of Law. "Abortion and the Margins of Personhood" as accessed on March 16, 2010, published sometime in 2003. "Especially when robust viability precedes full moral status, a gray zone emerges in which decisions over the life of the fetus hover between the private and the public." PDF LINK
6. Green, John. eLetters, Denver Post. "Personhood begins on your birthday" as accessed on March 16, 2010 and posted on December 17, 2007. URL LINK
7. NewsMaxx. "Reintroduced Fetal Pain Bill Garners Unlikely Supporter" as accessed on march 16, 2010 and posted on February 2, 2005. URL LINK
8. Endowment for Human Development. "Prenatal Form and Function: The Making of an Earth Suit" as accessed on March 16, 2010. "By 20 weeks it reaches adult size within the fully developed inner ear. From now on, the fetus will respond to a growing medley of sounds." URL LINK
9. T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Atheism and Abortion
Is atheism compatible with legalized therapeutic abortion? Through my experience talking to and hearing stories from atheists I have concluded that atheism is very much incompatible with legalized therapeutic abortion.
The key to understanding if atheism is compatible with legalized therapeutic abortion is simple: 1) remove God from the equation and 2) put in place common human decency instilled in all humans to not kill each other.
Accomplishing the first premise of removing God from the equation is a simple task. What remains is science and law. Then a question quickly becomes clear: what do we rely on for an answer, science, law, or both?
I have found that the majority of pro-choice atheist choose to base their arguments on law almost entirely. The reason for this is obvious; the law does not recognize the person that is the unborn human being. Countering this argument is easy, though. Say that slavery in the United States of American did not end with the Civil War, does that mean that slavery would still be justified and moral if it was still legal? The answer is no. Another simple rhetorical question could be that if one day a Personhood Amendment became part of the United States Constitution that defined a person as "any human being from conception to natural death" would that magically make an unborn human being a person? The answer is no, a law cannot make something true or false; law is very much just a reflection of a person's (or a people's) view in which a society should be governed. Basing an opinion from law is similar to basing an opinion based on public opinion polls; it's absolutely useless and completely illogical.
When pro-choice atheists jump into the fray of scientific evidence to support their claims, their arguments fall flat. I have oftentimes asked simple questions to pro-choice atheists that they almost always dodge and try every trick in the book to not answer. I have been discussing abortion with an atheist online, the following is a part of that conversation:
Why would pro-choice atheists choose to not answer simple and direct questions? An answer that comes to mind would be that they are uncomfortable with either the facts that they know or uncomfortable with the facts that they may learn in the process of conversation. Although I am a staunch right-wing conservative eastern Catholic Christian it is amazing to find out that I am the one siding with scientific facts.
Knowing that every human being's life begins at conception is the crux of the scientific debate. The most important hypothetical question that must be asked of these pro-choice atheists is the following: if we do not side with protecting what science defines as a human being, then at what point of development do we start defending human life? Answers to this question have much variety ranging from "when brain waves that can be detected" to the extreme "when the umbilical cord is cut after birth." Then the response to whatever their answer is should become blatantly obvious; the answer is do we base decisions on the objective facts of science or on one of the numerous subjective opinions of imperfect minds? It would be a natural choice to side with undeniable scientific facts than with the imperfect opinions that our minds have determined for ourselves.
Thus, the argument is won in favor of life. Of course, the prideful pro-choice atheist will kick and scream in objection, but there is no denying their defeat. This is all done without the acknowledgement of God's existence. To deal the deafening blow to the pro-choice atheist's argument at this time is to state that it is common human decency to protect our own species from purposeful death (murder). If the person believes that there is no such thing as common human decency, then ask him if he is willing to kill a born person to prove his thesis. If this person is not willing kill then he does have common decency and is just being stubborn. However, if the person is willing to kill a born person then there is no use in talking to an insane lunatic who may one day become a murderer (I have actually met people that have said this).
Pro-lifers of all faiths, use the following information to define the beginning of human life at conception:
**Credit goes to Abort73.com for the following list of sources**
"Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
"Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14.
"Every baby begins life within the tiny globe of the mother's egg... It is beautifully translucent and fragile and it encompasses the vital links in which life is carried from one generation to the next. Within this tiny sphere great events take place. When one of the father's sperm cells, like the ones gathered here around the egg, succeeds in penetrating the egg and becomes united with it, a new life can begin."
Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life. New York: DK, 1996. p. 13.
"Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization."
The Biology of Prenatal Develpment, National Geographic, 2006. {A video documentary]
"The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual's unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated."
In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005. [A video documentary]
"Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.
**Credit goes to Bobby Bambino of the Jill Stanek blog for the following list of sources**
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
Carlson, Bruce M., Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being."
Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1
"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. ... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.
"...the term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers, pages 17 and 23.
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2.
"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146.
"...every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."
E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
“The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are…respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
- Human Embryology. 2nd edition. 1997, p. 17
“In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
Essentials of Human Embryology 1998 1-17.
“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. 1998, pg. 2-18.
“Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote … is a unicellular embryo…”
Human Embryology & Teratology 1996 pg. 5-55.
The key to understanding if atheism is compatible with legalized therapeutic abortion is simple: 1) remove God from the equation and 2) put in place common human decency instilled in all humans to not kill each other.
Accomplishing the first premise of removing God from the equation is a simple task. What remains is science and law. Then a question quickly becomes clear: what do we rely on for an answer, science, law, or both?
I have found that the majority of pro-choice atheist choose to base their arguments on law almost entirely. The reason for this is obvious; the law does not recognize the person that is the unborn human being. Countering this argument is easy, though. Say that slavery in the United States of American did not end with the Civil War, does that mean that slavery would still be justified and moral if it was still legal? The answer is no. Another simple rhetorical question could be that if one day a Personhood Amendment became part of the United States Constitution that defined a person as "any human being from conception to natural death" would that magically make an unborn human being a person? The answer is no, a law cannot make something true or false; law is very much just a reflection of a person's (or a people's) view in which a society should be governed. Basing an opinion from law is similar to basing an opinion based on public opinion polls; it's absolutely useless and completely illogical.
When pro-choice atheists jump into the fray of scientific evidence to support their claims, their arguments fall flat. I have oftentimes asked simple questions to pro-choice atheists that they almost always dodge and try every trick in the book to not answer. I have been discussing abortion with an atheist online, the following is a part of that conversation:
SegaMon: Consider the statement: "Clearly God has caused more abortions than we have." Does that make elective abortion moral? Nope.
Now consider this statement: "Clearly God has caused more murders to happen than we have." Does this statement make murder moral? Nope.
Pro-Choice Atheist: Can you please have your god come out and talk to us and tell what she wants?!? That would clear up a lot of misunderstandings. Thanx.
Where is the logic of abortion being immoral?
SegaMon: Knowing what God wants can often times be internal. For specifics, the Bible has given us many things to direct us in the right way.
Killing people ourselves is wrong (ie murder is a sin). Even the majority of atheists believe in this form of morality (ie elective abortion is NOT a religious issue).
Now, can you answer the question that I asked? "Does this statement make murder moral?"
Pro-Choice Atheist: I will only answer questions that come directly from your god. You are but a misguided middle man with a tedious and banal way of thinking. As far as I can tell god hasn't caused anything, show us some proof, then I might take your ramblings more seriously. btw - Abortion cannot be murder, by the definition of murder.
SegaMon: I wasn't saying that "abortion is murder." However, if the law starts to protect the unborn just like the born, then that statement would certainly be true (it's a term of law).
My "ramblings?" Come back down to Earth, your ego is making you float away.
I don't have to "prove" God to you. Just the fact that we will NEVER fully understand the human body is enough proof of God that I need.
I was using LOGIC, something that you claim to have such a handle on. Just answer my question please.
Pro-Choice Atheist: I guess I haven't been clear enough. Your god doesn't exist and therefore your question is nonsense. You can't use logic and proof of god in the same paragraph. hehehe
SegaMon: YOU were the one talking about God, not me.
Thus, I used the same exact statement that you had and then replaced "abortion" with "murder" and asked if you could explain it.
Again, it wasn't me that brought up God, it was you!
My question was NOT about God.
Read my first post again and answer the question. If you do not answer, you have failed to follow truth and use proper logic.
If we are going to blame God for more abortions, then we should certainly blame God for more murders. God certainly kills more born people than we do from heart attacks, falls, strokes, cancer, hepatitis, HIV, TB, etc.
So please, if you fail to answer then you are conceding to defeat.
Pro-Choice Atheist: As I have said breore god does not exist (at least the christian concept) so, a nonexistent being can have no effect. No moral laws, no killing, no giving of life or death. Your question is nonsense. Change your question to something that relates directly to abortion and i will answer it.
SegaMon: [[Here I mistakenly thought that this poster was the poster of the video]] My question has EVERYTHING to do with abortion. Thus you concede to defeat.
Pro-Choice Atheist: [[Here the poster is correcting me that he is not the poster of the video]]
SegaMon: I do concede that I wrongly assumed that you made the video based upon your answers (I should have double checked).
Regardless of my mistake, my response was in regards to the video itself. My question has much merit in relation to the statements made in the video. Do you like this video? Do you agree with this video? If so then you should still answer my question.
Mistaking you for the video's creator is not as bad as not answering a simple question.
Besides does it really matter if I'm smart of not? If someone asks a very simple question, even if it's asked by a complete moron, then someone with half a brain should be able to answer it. So why do you not answer it?
Pro-Choice Atheist: I answered over and over and over and over. The question does not relate to me. How can I answer a question about god's actions if I think the whole bible is myth and metaphor ie that there is no such being? Answer your own question, i guess that's what you want to do any way?? Tell us what the point is you are trying to make.
SegaMon: You didn't answer the question: "Does the previous statement make murder moral?"
This is not a question about God. This is not a question regarding religion. This is a response to the video's statements. You didn't answer this question!
The reason why I wanted you to answer the question was to help guide you through my reasoning then hopefully you could see where I was coming from.
My point was if abortion is moral because God does it then murder must be moral because God murders too.
Pro-Choice Atheist: What if god doesn't exist? Like I've been saying over and over and over and over. Then, isn't your point meaningless? THAT'S what I've been trying to tell you.
SegaMon: My question was directly countering what was in the video (which was made by an atheist). My question was NOT about God. It was NOT about religion. How many times do I have to tell you that? I'll make my question easier for you to understand by using non-God speak:
"Clearly [mother nature] has caused more murders to happen than we have.
"Thus, does the previous statement make murder moral?"
Please answer the question. (I wonder how long this game of ping-pong will last, lol)
You said that "the question does not relate to me." Then why did you respond to my post to begin with? There must have been something that interested you in what I said. I can't stand it when people stifle conversations by not answering simple questions and ignoring the topic's core. That was what you did. If this conversation is not important to you, then maybe you shouldn't be talking to me.
Why would pro-choice atheists choose to not answer simple and direct questions? An answer that comes to mind would be that they are uncomfortable with either the facts that they know or uncomfortable with the facts that they may learn in the process of conversation. Although I am a staunch right-wing conservative eastern Catholic Christian it is amazing to find out that I am the one siding with scientific facts.
Knowing that every human being's life begins at conception is the crux of the scientific debate. The most important hypothetical question that must be asked of these pro-choice atheists is the following: if we do not side with protecting what science defines as a human being, then at what point of development do we start defending human life? Answers to this question have much variety ranging from "when brain waves that can be detected" to the extreme "when the umbilical cord is cut after birth." Then the response to whatever their answer is should become blatantly obvious; the answer is do we base decisions on the objective facts of science or on one of the numerous subjective opinions of imperfect minds? It would be a natural choice to side with undeniable scientific facts than with the imperfect opinions that our minds have determined for ourselves.
Thus, the argument is won in favor of life. Of course, the prideful pro-choice atheist will kick and scream in objection, but there is no denying their defeat. This is all done without the acknowledgement of God's existence. To deal the deafening blow to the pro-choice atheist's argument at this time is to state that it is common human decency to protect our own species from purposeful death (murder). If the person believes that there is no such thing as common human decency, then ask him if he is willing to kill a born person to prove his thesis. If this person is not willing kill then he does have common decency and is just being stubborn. However, if the person is willing to kill a born person then there is no use in talking to an insane lunatic who may one day become a murderer (I have actually met people that have said this).
Pro-lifers of all faiths, use the following information to define the beginning of human life at conception:
**Credit goes to Abort73.com for the following list of sources**
"Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
"Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14.
"Every baby begins life within the tiny globe of the mother's egg... It is beautifully translucent and fragile and it encompasses the vital links in which life is carried from one generation to the next. Within this tiny sphere great events take place. When one of the father's sperm cells, like the ones gathered here around the egg, succeeds in penetrating the egg and becomes united with it, a new life can begin."
Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life. New York: DK, 1996. p. 13.
"Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization."
The Biology of Prenatal Develpment, National Geographic, 2006. {A video documentary]
"The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual's unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated."
In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005. [A video documentary]
"Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.
**Credit goes to Bobby Bambino of the Jill Stanek blog for the following list of sources**
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
Carlson, Bruce M., Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being."
Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1
"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. ... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.
"...the term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers, pages 17 and 23.
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2.
"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146.
"...every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."
E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
“The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are…respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
- Human Embryology. 2nd edition. 1997, p. 17
“In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
Essentials of Human Embryology 1998 1-17.
“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. 1998, pg. 2-18.
“Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote … is a unicellular embryo…”
Human Embryology & Teratology 1996 pg. 5-55.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Additional source for incompetent cervix post
Sometimes I run into an extra source for a topic that I have covered in the past. I figured that it would a good idea to add these sources as they are discovered. Some posts that I write include numerous sources. These sources can oftentimes be more important than the post itself.
Blog post that source was added to: "Incompetent cervix linked with abortion"
Source added to the blog post: (8) Langerquist SL, McMillin JL, Nelson RM, Snider KE, Davis' NCLEX-RN Success: Second Edition, F.A. Davis, 2006, Philadelphia.
Sentence mentioning source: It is known that "cervical trauma may occur and may lead to incompetent cervix," a statement that my education has repeatedly confirmed.
Hopefully this additional source is useful. Also, any suggestions for added sources are certainly welcome.
Blog post that source was added to: "Incompetent cervix linked with abortion"
Source added to the blog post: (8) Langerquist SL, McMillin JL, Nelson RM, Snider KE, Davis' NCLEX-RN Success: Second Edition, F.A. Davis, 2006, Philadelphia.
Sentence mentioning source: It is known that "cervical trauma may occur and may lead to incompetent cervix," a statement that my education has repeatedly confirmed.
Hopefully this additional source is useful. Also, any suggestions for added sources are certainly welcome.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Quick thought about a common pro-choice view
I have always heard about people who believe that it would be morally sufficient to kill human beings to help alleviate the theoretical problem of world overpopulation. Through news stories I heard about China forcing their population to abort children who were their second child (oftentimes referred to as the "One Child Policy"). Very few politicians in the United States openly support this policy; however, there are many pro-choice politicians whose opinions have become known that they secretly admire this policy.
Throughout my life I have never actually met someone who told me that they would not mind killing people to abate the "problem" of a rising world population. I finally met someone with that very belief in 2003: my first year in college. I met this person while riding the city bus. On this bus, I ran into an old classmate from elementary school and, somehow, we started discussing abortion. At first he claimed that the unborn were not actually human beings. After some debate he conceded that therapeutic abortion was indeed the killing of innocent unborn human beings (and even agreed to call them "babies"). I asked him one of the questions I asked him earlier in the debate: "do you agree with legalized therapeutic abortion?" He answered "yes" with an unwavering tone. He elaborated further by saying "I don't care if abortion kills children, it is needed to decrease our world population." I was shocked to hear this coming from his mouth! He agreed that abortion was the direct and malicious killing of unborn children yet it was justifiable to him by some unproven theory that we were going to overpopulate the world!? I bid him farewell. I really did not want to see him ever again. Come to think of it, I never did.
Today I was looking over some comments to a news story about abortion protesters displaying abortion photos when I cam across this very same argument:
Many who state this belief also understand the biologic and scientific proven fact that human life starts at conception. It cannot be denied that these people consider the theoretical problem of overpopulation to be more important than human life itself. This is also very telling of many of those who consider themselves pro-choice. Many pro-choice people will certainly agree with pro-lifers that human life starts at conception. For them, the only reason to remain pro-choice is because of the supposed benefits of killing an unwanted child: continuing an education, having extra free time, the ability to go to parties, the ability to save and use more money for themselves, saving the environment, reducing world population, or one or more of any many other asinine reasons.
The biggest difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers? That's simple. Pro-lifers wish to defend unborn children while pro-choicers wish to destroy unborn children to their own personal gain.
I wonder if these pro-choicers would be willing to help further reduce the population by actively killing the "unfit" or "unwanted" born people in our society?
Keep in mind that I am referring to the ideological debate of those who SHOULD know better. I am NOT referring to women who have aborted yet have received little to no information regarding the facts of the unborn, offered little in the way of support in allowing the unborn child to live, and lead to believe the numerous lies that pro-choicers espouse.
1. abc15.com (of Phoenix, Arizona), "Billboard shows aborted fetuses outside Phoenix high school: Comment from ckaye02" published on October 13, 2009. URL LINK
Throughout my life I have never actually met someone who told me that they would not mind killing people to abate the "problem" of a rising world population. I finally met someone with that very belief in 2003: my first year in college. I met this person while riding the city bus. On this bus, I ran into an old classmate from elementary school and, somehow, we started discussing abortion. At first he claimed that the unborn were not actually human beings. After some debate he conceded that therapeutic abortion was indeed the killing of innocent unborn human beings (and even agreed to call them "babies"). I asked him one of the questions I asked him earlier in the debate: "do you agree with legalized therapeutic abortion?" He answered "yes" with an unwavering tone. He elaborated further by saying "I don't care if abortion kills children, it is needed to decrease our world population." I was shocked to hear this coming from his mouth! He agreed that abortion was the direct and malicious killing of unborn children yet it was justifiable to him by some unproven theory that we were going to overpopulate the world!? I bid him farewell. I really did not want to see him ever again. Come to think of it, I never did.
Today I was looking over some comments to a news story about abortion protesters displaying abortion photos when I cam across this very same argument:
I'm all about choice. If a woman decides not to have a child by all means kill it. The world is over populated as it is, and it would be one less mouth to feed. (1)
Many who state this belief also understand the biologic and scientific proven fact that human life starts at conception. It cannot be denied that these people consider the theoretical problem of overpopulation to be more important than human life itself. This is also very telling of many of those who consider themselves pro-choice. Many pro-choice people will certainly agree with pro-lifers that human life starts at conception. For them, the only reason to remain pro-choice is because of the supposed benefits of killing an unwanted child: continuing an education, having extra free time, the ability to go to parties, the ability to save and use more money for themselves, saving the environment, reducing world population, or one or more of any many other asinine reasons.
The biggest difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers? That's simple. Pro-lifers wish to defend unborn children while pro-choicers wish to destroy unborn children to their own personal gain.
I wonder if these pro-choicers would be willing to help further reduce the population by actively killing the "unfit" or "unwanted" born people in our society?
Keep in mind that I am referring to the ideological debate of those who SHOULD know better. I am NOT referring to women who have aborted yet have received little to no information regarding the facts of the unborn, offered little in the way of support in allowing the unborn child to live, and lead to believe the numerous lies that pro-choicers espouse.
1. abc15.com (of Phoenix, Arizona), "Billboard shows aborted fetuses outside Phoenix high school: Comment from ckaye02" published on October 13, 2009. URL LINK
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Planned Parenthood's suggestion to me for birth control
I used an online algorithm advertised by Planned Parenthood called "My Method." This is a simple algorithm program that takes user answers to questions and then provides a statement based upon them. The idea is simple. However, this algorithm does not always have an answer. This also means that Planned Parenthood does not always have an answer.
"My Method" was not advertised to me as something that is only meant to be used by women. However, the questions fully expected me to be a woman. I am a man and do not experience menstruation nor do I have a vagina. Planned Parenthood must assume that only women are responsible for birth control? That's a strange proposition. Either that or they think that men have vaginas! Quality improvement, Planned Parenthood! You should have asked what gender I was at the onset of the algorithm.
For the questions assuming that I had female biological characteristics I answered how I knew that my wife would have answered. We are both very pro-life and do not agree with any form of birth control except for abstinence and natural family planning (NFP). I answered these questions with this in mind.
At the end of the algorithm, "My Method" gave me the following message:
The reason that Planned Parenthood cannot provide me with a solution is that abstinence and Natural Family Planning are not a part of their vocabulary. The reason that they believe this is simple: they believe that human beings are incapable of controlling their natural instincts of sexual behavior. They believe that each and every one of us will one day "cave in" to our sexual desires and participate in an unending parade of intercourse with person after person.
Unlike Planned Parenthood, I believe that we humans are capable of more than acting like animals.
(1) Planned Parenthood Federation of America, as accessed on the website "Sex. Really." "My Method by Planned Parenthood" as accessed in January 3, 2010. URL LINK
"My Method" was not advertised to me as something that is only meant to be used by women. However, the questions fully expected me to be a woman. I am a man and do not experience menstruation nor do I have a vagina. Planned Parenthood must assume that only women are responsible for birth control? That's a strange proposition. Either that or they think that men have vaginas! Quality improvement, Planned Parenthood! You should have asked what gender I was at the onset of the algorithm.
For the questions assuming that I had female biological characteristics I answered how I knew that my wife would have answered. We are both very pro-life and do not agree with any form of birth control except for abstinence and natural family planning (NFP). I answered these questions with this in mind.
At the end of the algorithm, "My Method" gave me the following message:
My Method cannot determine which birth control methods may be best for you based on your answers to these questions. (1)
The reason that Planned Parenthood cannot provide me with a solution is that abstinence and Natural Family Planning are not a part of their vocabulary. The reason that they believe this is simple: they believe that human beings are incapable of controlling their natural instincts of sexual behavior. They believe that each and every one of us will one day "cave in" to our sexual desires and participate in an unending parade of intercourse with person after person.
Unlike Planned Parenthood, I believe that we humans are capable of more than acting like animals.
(1) Planned Parenthood Federation of America, as accessed on the website "Sex. Really." "My Method by Planned Parenthood" as accessed in January 3, 2010. URL LINK
My email to stayteen.org
My wife and I were watching the show The Secret Life of an American Teenager and were enjoying it quite a lot. We were happy to notice that they did not offer abortion as an option for a teen pregnancy. However, this was no surprise to me since most television shows consider abortion to be a topic that is"too hot to handle." This is why I admire the movie Juno for actually addressing abortion during teen pregnancy within the movie so honestly.
Before every commercial break, one of the actors from the show suggests the viewers (which, I suppose, are mostly teenagers) to talk to their parents about sex. Another thing that they suggested to these viewers was to make a visit to their website titled StayTeen.org. The website actually gave good reasons to be abstinent from sex. However, the website went in great length about kinds of birth control methods to use other than abstinence, all of which are not 100% effective in STD prevention or pregnancy prevention (all forms other than abstinence fail in this regard). I accept this kind of talk on these sorts of websites. It's what today's society suggests to our youth. I do not agree with it, though.
The thing that bothered me the most about the website was the numerous times it linked to Planned Parenthood Federation of America's Teen Talk website. This website is filled with half-truths and lies. This is especially true regarding abortion. This is why I decided to email StayTeen.org to see if they could oblige my offer to remove the links to this organization. I know that they probably will not agree, but the least I could do was educate! I gave them over 20 sources for them to peruse as well! The email I sent them is as follows:
As you can see, I took my time in researching and providing evidence to my claims. This is something that is important in any important issue such as abortion. Please contact organizations and educate them regarding the truth about abortion. The truth is not as evident to people as it may seem. I will be praying that they understand my message.
(1) Schmenk, Christopher: Incompetent cervix linked with abortion, October 16, 2009. URL LINK
(2) Reardon, David, Elliot Institute, Fact Sheet, 1997. URL LINK
(3) Coleman, Priscilla: Abortion Mental Health Research: Update and Quality of Evidence, Spring 2008. PDF LINK
(4) Website Mentioned: Silent No More Awareness
(5) Xing P, Li J, Jin F. "A case-control study of reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer in Northeast China.” Humana Press, e-publication online September 2009. URL LINK (Showing increased risk)
(6) Kitchen AJ, Trivedi P, Ng D, Mokbel K. "Is there a link between breast cancer and abortion: a review of the literature." Int K Fertile Women's Med, Nov-Dec 2005. (Showing that research is unclear)
(7) Lipworth L, Katsouyanni K, Ekbom A, Michels KB, Trichopoulos D, "Abortion and the risk of breast cancer: a case-control study in Greece." Int J Cancer, Apr 1995. (Showing increased risk)
(8) Robertson C, Van Den Donk M, Primic-Zakelj M, MacFarlane T, Boyle P, "The association between induced and spontaneous abortion and risk of breast cancer in Slovenian women aged 25-54." Breast, Aug 2001. (Showing increased risk if abortion was done prior to first full-term pregnancy)
(9) LiveActionFilms: Investigation of medical lies and manipulation at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. URL LINK
(10) LiveActionFilms: Planned Parenthood lies about abortion images URL LINK
(11) LiveActionFilms: The Mona Lisa Project URL LINK
(12) Wikipedia: Information Page on Margaret Sanger. URL LINK (Even though I'm not the biggest fan of Wikipedia, the fact that this website acknowledges the true history of Margaret Sanger was notable)
(13) Green, T, "The Negro Project" URL LINK
(14) Center for Disease Control (CDC), "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Abortion Suveillance Summary" November 27, 2009. PDF LINK
(15) U.S. Census Bureau, "State and Country Quick Facts" Last revised on November 17, 2009. URL LINK
(16) Planned Parenthood Federation of America, "PPFA Annual Report" April 2009. PDF LINK
(17) Condic, Maureen. Westchester Institute, "White Paper: When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective" October 2008. PDF LINK
(18) abort73.com, "Medical Testimony" Last updated on December 8, 2009. URL LINK (This link contains many sources at the bottom of the page that are from unbiased scientists and their findings in research)
(19) My Family Doctor, "When Does Life Begin? Medical experts debate abortion issue." Accessed on Jan 3, 2010. URL LINK (Note that the debater arguing against conception being the starting point of becoming a human being is a bioethicist and not a scientist, it should be further noted that the opinion of this person is extremely subjective and not based on scientific fact)
(20) Alcorn, Randy. Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Questions: Scientists Attest to Life Beginning at Conception, published in 2000. URL LINK of book excerpt, URL LINK of Amazon book listing
(21) Schmenk, Christopher: Right Choice, October 22, 2008. URL LINK (There are many sources on the bottom of this blog entry as well)
Before every commercial break, one of the actors from the show suggests the viewers (which, I suppose, are mostly teenagers) to talk to their parents about sex. Another thing that they suggested to these viewers was to make a visit to their website titled StayTeen.org. The website actually gave good reasons to be abstinent from sex. However, the website went in great length about kinds of birth control methods to use other than abstinence, all of which are not 100% effective in STD prevention or pregnancy prevention (all forms other than abstinence fail in this regard). I accept this kind of talk on these sorts of websites. It's what today's society suggests to our youth. I do not agree with it, though.
The thing that bothered me the most about the website was the numerous times it linked to Planned Parenthood Federation of America's Teen Talk website. This website is filled with half-truths and lies. This is especially true regarding abortion. This is why I decided to email StayTeen.org to see if they could oblige my offer to remove the links to this organization. I know that they probably will not agree, but the least I could do was educate! I gave them over 20 sources for them to peruse as well! The email I sent them is as follows:
stayteen.org,
My relationship reality is simple: contraception is unnecessary and abortion is the killing of unborn human beings. That being said, I have both things to say about stayteen.org that is commemorative and horrendous. Please read my list, it is very important that you understand these things.
I commemorate the website stayteen.org for...
1. Encouraging abstinence as the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and the transmission of STDs. I knew that as a teenager and I know that now as a 24 year old Registered Nurse.
2. Encouraging teens to listen to their own voice in saying NO to having sex before they are "ready."
Those things I believe are horrendous about the website stayteen.org is...
1. Connections and links to Planned Parenthood Federation of America who has been documented time after time to pass one medical inaccurate information regarding therapeutic abortion, birth control effectiveness, and fetal development. This is the most important aspect of my email today. Please hear out my case against Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and please consider removing any and all links to this organization known to have started under the premise of eugenics.
The reasons why Planned Parenthood of America Federation should be removed from the website stayteen.org is...
1. Documented resistance of this organization to give their patients and the public accurate and unbiased information regarding therapeutic abortion. For example, PPFA states that abortion does not lead to a higher risk of premature birth or low birth weight babies. However, this is untrue! Time after time, therapeutic abortions have been shown to lead to a higher incidence of incompetent cervix (which is one cause of premature birth and miscarraiges which have to be appropriately treated through cervical cerclage etc.) (1). PPFA states that there is no such thing as "post-abortion stress syndrome." However, there is certainly evidence that it does exist through unbiased research (2,3). Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome is certainly not proven but it is also not completely disproven, either. Many people have spoken out about their own abortion stress (4). PPFA claims unequivocally that therapeutic abortion has not chance to be displayed as increasing the chance of breast cancer. However, PPFA's claim cannot be undeniably proven. In fact, there are many scientific studies that have should some type of link or that the link is unclear at this time (5, 6, 7, 8). These discrepancies are just on PPFA's teen-talk website that you have linked your visitors to (aka teenagers). Planned Parenthood also lies about medically sound information. refer to LiveActionFilms investigation regarding this reality: "Investigation of medical lies and manipulation at Planned Parenthood of WI" and "Planned Parenthood lies about abortion images" (9, 10)
2. Planned Parenthood has been documented to repeatedly allow abuse of young girls to continue. Watch the numerous examples through videos from LiveActionFilms: "Planned Parenthood clinics across the country are contributing to the abuse of young girls" (11). The fact that some (possible most of them) are encouraging minors to continue their sexual relationships with adults is truly horrible and damaging to the girls that they should be helping.
3. An organization with their beginnings as an arm to encourage eugenics should not be linked to by secular, bipartisan groups (such as stayteen.org). Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, wished to use her organization to further encourage eugenics and euthanasia to make human genetics stronger (12, 13). Furthermore, she targetted minorities, immigrants, and the poor working class. Know that today's Planned Parenthood, as part of the abortion industry as a whole, commits abortions on black women at a much higher rate than that of whites. While blacks make up 12.8% of the United States population while 38.5% of all abortions were done on black women (14, 15). This racism should not have begun. We cannot change this. However, it should not be encouraged through PPFA. Please stop linking your website to this organization.
4. Planned Parenthood is the leading organization providing abortion services in the country. They were reported to have carried out 305,310 abortion in 2007 (that is approximately 1/3 of all abortions in this country) according to their own annual report published in April of 2009 (16). This wouldn't be worrisome to those in favor of abortion, but if you realize the truth that abortion is the killing of human beings then one would feel different. It would be best for you and everyone to know the facts regarding therapeutic abortion and the development of the unborn which these procedures destroy and kill. For more information regarding this topic, visit links below range 17 through 21 (there are certainly more sources, but this is a good start)
Planned Parenthood's lies should be rebutted and/or not allowed to be spread. My offer is the following: remove the link to Planned Parenthood Federation of America or provide a source from the opposite side of the fence, namely abort73.com, which carries more true facts about abortion than any PPFA website or clinic.
Thank you for your time. I hope that you have considered this issue as much as you can. Please consider my proposition for those in need of unbiased information regarding pregnancy altogether. I hope that you read this entire message. Have a wonderful day.
Sincerely,
Christopher Schmenk, RN
As you can see, I took my time in researching and providing evidence to my claims. This is something that is important in any important issue such as abortion. Please contact organizations and educate them regarding the truth about abortion. The truth is not as evident to people as it may seem. I will be praying that they understand my message.
(1) Schmenk, Christopher: Incompetent cervix linked with abortion, October 16, 2009. URL LINK
(2) Reardon, David, Elliot Institute, Fact Sheet, 1997. URL LINK
(3) Coleman, Priscilla: Abortion Mental Health Research: Update and Quality of Evidence, Spring 2008. PDF LINK
(4) Website Mentioned: Silent No More Awareness
(5) Xing P, Li J, Jin F. "A case-control study of reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer in Northeast China.” Humana Press, e-publication online September 2009. URL LINK (Showing increased risk)
(6) Kitchen AJ, Trivedi P, Ng D, Mokbel K. "Is there a link between breast cancer and abortion: a review of the literature." Int K Fertile Women's Med, Nov-Dec 2005. (Showing that research is unclear)
(7) Lipworth L, Katsouyanni K, Ekbom A, Michels KB, Trichopoulos D, "Abortion and the risk of breast cancer: a case-control study in Greece." Int J Cancer, Apr 1995. (Showing increased risk)
(8) Robertson C, Van Den Donk M, Primic-Zakelj M, MacFarlane T, Boyle P, "The association between induced and spontaneous abortion and risk of breast cancer in Slovenian women aged 25-54." Breast, Aug 2001. (Showing increased risk if abortion was done prior to first full-term pregnancy)
(9) LiveActionFilms: Investigation of medical lies and manipulation at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. URL LINK
(10) LiveActionFilms: Planned Parenthood lies about abortion images URL LINK
(11) LiveActionFilms: The Mona Lisa Project URL LINK
(12) Wikipedia: Information Page on Margaret Sanger. URL LINK (Even though I'm not the biggest fan of Wikipedia, the fact that this website acknowledges the true history of Margaret Sanger was notable)
(13) Green, T, "The Negro Project" URL LINK
(14) Center for Disease Control (CDC), "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Abortion Suveillance Summary" November 27, 2009. PDF LINK
(15) U.S. Census Bureau, "State and Country Quick Facts" Last revised on November 17, 2009. URL LINK
(16) Planned Parenthood Federation of America, "PPFA Annual Report" April 2009. PDF LINK
(17) Condic, Maureen. Westchester Institute, "White Paper: When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective" October 2008. PDF LINK
(18) abort73.com, "Medical Testimony" Last updated on December 8, 2009. URL LINK (This link contains many sources at the bottom of the page that are from unbiased scientists and their findings in research)
(19) My Family Doctor, "When Does Life Begin? Medical experts debate abortion issue." Accessed on Jan 3, 2010. URL LINK (Note that the debater arguing against conception being the starting point of becoming a human being is a bioethicist and not a scientist, it should be further noted that the opinion of this person is extremely subjective and not based on scientific fact)
(20) Alcorn, Randy. Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Questions: Scientists Attest to Life Beginning at Conception, published in 2000. URL LINK of book excerpt, URL LINK of Amazon book listing
(21) Schmenk, Christopher: Right Choice, October 22, 2008. URL LINK (There are many sources on the bottom of this blog entry as well)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
