Archive for July 25th, 2008

South Dakota Abortionists Evade Work to Avoid Law

Friday, July 25th, 2008

Developments ensue in South Dakota after an 8th Circuit Court ruling upholding a woman’s right to know law involving abortion.

Dr. Allan Unruh of Vote Yes for Life notes some of the requirements. “Abortionists who fly in have to inform a woman prior to an abortion, in writing, that she’s terminating the life of a separate, unique, whole, living human being…that she’s giving up her rights to her child, which is protected by the United States Constitution and the South Dakota Constitution…that she has a much greater risk of clinical depression and suicide, as well as suicidal ideation [and] that she also has a risk of infection and hemorrhaging and infertility afterwards and subsequent pregnancies with premature birth,” Unruh explains.

Plus, the abortionist must do a sonogram of the child and show it to the mother. Violators face potential civil and criminal charges.

The court’s ruling had an impact at the Sioux Falls Planned Parenthood facility, according to Unruh. “Monday the abortionists normally fly in to do these abortions. There were five women waiting to get abortions at 8 o’clock, and there was a big sign on Planned Parenthood that said closed, and nobody showed up,” Unruh recounts. “At 10 o’clock, there was still nobody there yet, but the pro-life counselors were around these women who all ended up leaving.”

Unruh is convinced abortionists do not want to comply with the law but also do not want to face the consequences.

Original Link

Poll: Voters Have Misgivings About Obama

Friday, July 25th, 2008

While Democrat Barack Obama continues to lead Republican rival John McCain in the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, the survey also reveals that voters have some serious misgivings about an Obama presidency.

In the poll, 47 percent of respondents said they prefer Obama to win, compared to 41 percent for McCain. That’s the same lead Obama enjoyed a month ago.

But when asked which candidate would be better when it comes to being knowledgeable and experienced, 53 percent said McCain and only 19 percent chose Obama.

Asked who would be the better commander in chief, again 53 percent said McCain, while 25 percent said Obama.

Original Link.

“To Conservatives in a Pro-Gay Culture” by Andrew Tallman

Friday, July 25th, 2008

Two different people recently contacted me for my advice on virtually identical situations that arose in the wake of California’s decision to solemnize same-gender relationships.

One woman was concerned about her job in a pro-gay workplace because a friend and co-worker had been disappointed with her inadequately enthusiastic response to his announcement that he and his lover were driving to California to get married. She wanted help expressing her real love for this man while still standing firm in her beliefs.

Another man’s company had created a pro-gay workplace initiative and then solicited employee feedback on it. He, too, was concerned about his job, but he also felt compelled to say something consistent with his conservative Christian beliefs.

Since I expect such difficulties to become far more common, I’ll share with you the principles I advised them to use.

Principle 1: Apologize in advance.

In confrontation, people mistakenly think that playing the “big fish” role will portray strength, perhaps even intimidating the other. In reality, humility best expresses strength, whereas bluster generally indicates weakness. Insecure people always get this backwards. Only the strong can control themselves enough to take the humble approach, and there is no more humble yet powerful thing to do than apologizing at the outset.

Principle 2: Say it before they do.

Generally, we try to hide anything that makes us or our position look weak. Not only is this dishonest, but such things tend to come out anyhow, and it’s always better to control the release of information than to be caught by it. Besides, it’s very disarming to have someone plainly divulge the worst about themselves. So admit anything you’re tempted to conceal, such as your religion, your personal biases, and especially your worst fears. Admitting feared reactions can often prevent them because people dislike being predictable.

Principle 3: Get permission.

Whenever you anticipate a negative reaction, soliciting permission to proceed means the other person has agreed to share responsibility for whatever difficulties ensue. Luckily, this is the easiest one of all because almost no one declines. Curiosity virtually compels their consent.

Principle 4: Be hurt, not angry.

Our instinct for confrontation is to be angry, sarcastic, and harsh. Such tactics will usually make the situation worse. Whoever is perceived as the victim or most hurt gets the most sympathy, regardless of the legitimacy of their pain. Just consider how much more ground homosexuals have gained by displaying hurt at things they oppose than by displaying fury at them. The paradox is that by trying to be tough (usually through anger) you suffer marginalization, whereas by allowing yourself to look weak (usually through sadness) you get influence.

The best way to show hurt in this case is by referencing a pain your audience already understands: that of being forced to be in the closet. Just as gays are coming out of the closet, moral conservatives feel like we’re being forced into it. The social consequences are exactly parallel, except that for us they are rising whereas for gays they are receding. Though some in the pro-gay culture celebrate this, most who have felt this anxiety will recoil at the idea of imposing what they have suffered on others.

Principle 5: Make relationship your main goal.

Winning is nice, but relationships matter more than winning. Fortunately, the best way to have a chance of winning is by cultivating relationships and the influence that comes with them. Real relationships require honesty, vulnerability, and the sort of respect which realizes that friendship cannot be conditional upon the universal acquiescence of the other person to my values. This principle obviously goes both ways.

Read the rest of the article here.

“Science Almighty Demands No Restrictions” by Chuck Colson

Friday, July 25th, 2008

The news is filled lately with stories about the promise of adult stem-cell therapy. Last fall, for example, researchers reported they successfully produced stem cells from adult skin cells, bypassing the need for embryonic stem cells. The Los Angeles Times reported recently that treatment using umbilical and marrow cells healed a boy of a fatal skin disease. Doctors said the treatment’s success may move that disease “off the incurable list” for other patients.

And the Family Research Council just released a report about more successes. “Currently, peer-reviewed studies have documented 73 different conditions in humans where patient health has been improved through adult stem cell therapy . . . and over 1,400 FDA approved trials are ongoing.”

The paper describes a myriad of therapies, including the regeneration of heart tissue for a man with congestive heart failure; enabling a patient with Type I Diabetes to become insulin-free; and the treatment of a bone-cancer victim, who is now cancer-free. The report also cites adult stem-cell treatments that could treat trauma injuries and help patients with liver cancer.

Good news, indeed—and good news that we no longer have to wrestle with the moral question of embryonic stem cell research.

Well, not so fast . . . Both candidates for president still favor it, for they are marching to the drumbeat of those who want no restrictions on science.

Michael Kinsley, for example, a columnist who himself suffers from Parkinson’s, said bluntly, “This issue [that is, embryonic stem cell research] will not go away.”

“Scientifically,” Kinsley says, “it makes no sense to abandon any promising avenue just because another has opened up . . . Every year that goes by, science opens new doors.”

I hope you see the problem: Just because science opens a door does not mean we should walk through it. In fact, science rarely asks the question, “Should we?” It only asks the question, “Can we?”

Kinsley’s response reflects a certain worldview: specifically, “scientism,” the belief that scientific investigation is the only means to knowledge and progress. As such, it must be free from restraints or interference. Scientists—not political leaders, and certainly not morally concerned citizens—ought to determine what is or is not permissible in the laboratory.

In addition, scientism, given its materialistic grounding, rejects any appeal to the sanctity of human life. The worldview of scientism teaches that we humans are merely an interesting and potentially useful collection of cells and genetic material.

The problem is, if a human embryo only has worth insofar as it can be used for others, then what worth does a person have who is dependent on others—say, someone who is permanently disabled? See where that leaves Kinsley and all the rest of us? Vulnerable.

It is certain that the next president will revisit federal policy on embryo-destructive research. Even though it is not needed, proponents are not going to back down. That is why Christians, who believe in the sacredness of human life from conception to natural death, need to continue vigorous opposition to research on living human beings. If we do not, who is next in a world with science unchecked by ethical restraints?

Original Link.