American Minute from William J. Federer
AUGUST 17, 1955, President Eisenhower authorized the code of conduct for U.S. soldiers, which stated: "I serve in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense...If captured...I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy...I will never forget I am an American fighting man, responsible for my actions and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America."
In 1947, the U.S. Corp of Cadets required: "Attendance at chapel is part of a cadet's training; no cadet will be exempted. Each cadet will receive religious training in one of the three particular faiths: Protestant, Catholic or Jewish."
In 1949, the U.S. Naval Academy required: "All Midshipmen, except those on authorized outside church parties, shall attend Sunday services in the chapel."
On November 15, 1862, Lincoln ordered: "The Commander in Chief...enjoins the...observance of the Sabbath...The sacred rights of Christian soldiers and sailors, a becoming deference to the best sentiment of a Christian people...demand that Sunday labor in the Army and Navy be reduced to the measure of strict necessity."
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Military Tradition for God and Country
Steadfastly Avoiding the Tough Questions
It's as predictable as the sun coming up every morning that in any discussion, liberals will always try to move it away from whether it is right or wrong. How disappointingly fearful that they just can't bring themselves to get down to the really important questions in life.
Anna never fails to disappoint as she posts today at DakotaWomen that, by golly, if we can just steer this issue of abortion away from a moral issue to one of convenience or practical outcomes, well, those silly pro-lifers are on the losing end of the proposition.
Well, health issues for the woman aside, Anna would probably be right. Back when I was pro-abortion, I thought abortion was simply a matter of expediency. I thought it was simply a matter of a woman's right to have dominion over her own body.
I still do think a woman has a right to dominion over her own body (within reasonable limits, of course, such as illegal drug use, prostitution, etc. which really connect to issues outside her body).
But what I just said in the last paragraph is essentially at the heart of why I am no longer pro-abortion: I realized abortion doesn't just affect her body. Abortion affects the body of the child inside her.
If a woman had a benign tumor she wanted to remove, no one would really stand in her way. If a woman wanted to remove a part of her body with liposuction or a tummy-tuck or something of this nature, nobody would really object. Why? It would only be affecting her own body.
But this is why attempts to move the discussion of abortion away from the question of whether it's right or wrong are utterly useless, except to salve our hurting consciences.
Because if what is growing inside the woman's womb is not just a part of her body but a separate and unique human being, as science indicates it is, then abortion is also affecting another human being.
Then, if we are intellectually honest or have the slightest interest in being genuine seekers of the truth, we have to deal with the question of whether abortion is right or wrong.
Here is how Anna attempts to neatly (in her mind) sidestep the real issue:
Incidentally, Cory is absolutely right about one thing: the question facing South Dakotans in November is not whether abortion is right or wrong. It's whether abortion should be legal with some restrictions like parental notification, waiting periods, and paperwork requirements, or whether it should be largely illegal. It's about the role the government ought to play in the relationship between a doctor and a patient, and, in my mind, it's ultimately about the role women ought to play in our society. Women are either capable of making these decisions ourselves or we aren't
Let's consider this question another way.
It's whether rape should be legal with some restrictions like parental notification, waiting periods, and paperwork requirements, or whether it should be largely illegal. It's about the role the government ought to play in the relationship between a rapist and a woman, and, in my mind, it's ultimately about the role rapists ought to play in our society. Rapists are either capable of making these decisions themselves or they aren't.
Or try this:
It's whether child abuse should be legal with some restrictions like parental notification, waiting periods, and paperwork requirements, or whether it should be largely illegal. It's about the role the government ought to play in the relationship between a child abuser and a child, and, in my mind, it's ultimately about the role child abusers ought to play in our society. Child abusers are either capable of making these decisions themselves or they aren't.
Now both of these examples seem silly, don't they? Why? Because they completely ignore the question of whether rape or child abuse is wrong. And they ignore that question because they ignore the subject of the action being taken.
In the case of abortion, the question ignores the effect of the action on the child.
Just as the question of whether abortion is wrong is ignored in Anna and Cory's non-judgmental fantasy world.
And that question, of whether abortion is right or wrong, comes down to whether the contents of the womb are simply a piece of tissue that the woman can do with as she pleases as pro-abortionists contend...or if the contents of the womb are a separate human being created in the image of God and endowed by its creator with certain inalienable rights which include the right to life.
Even pro-abortionist will usually conceded that abortions should be rare. If abortions are not wrong, why is there a need to minimize them?
Because even the pro-abortionists know--as they desperately attempt to run from the knowledge--that there is something inherently not right about abortion. We look away from that hard question and attempt to distract ourselves with questions of "tissue" and "viability" and "women's rights."
But that question of how it affects another human being--the human being whose life is to be extinguished--keeps coming around to bug us.
We can continue running from it, but if we have any interest in being honest with ourselves, if we have any interest in moving beyond a self-seeker to a truth-seeker, we have to deal with the real question.
When it comes to truth, distractions are no substitute.
The Ongoing Attempt to Justify Murder
Cory at the Madville Times is excited because he thinks he's finally found a way to justify abortion: a "fetus" (a human fetus?) and an adult are "different," and that people disagree on criminal penalties.
How is a human "fetus" different than a human "adult?" Perhaps it's because they're different in things like size, development, their environment and their level of dependency.
The human fetus is a lot smaller than the human adult. Oh, but toddlers are smaller than human adults, too. Does that mean they aren't human? Should we allow toddlers to be killed for convenience?
Well, the human fetus isn't nearly as fully developed as the human adult. Oh, but 5-year-old girls aren't capable of reproduction as adult females. Five-year-old-boys also aren't capable of reproduction like adult males, either. They're also a lot smaller, don't have the same set of teeth that adults have, and so on. Does that mean these 5-year-olds aren't human? Do they lack value because of their lack of development? Should we allow 5-year-olds lacking in development to be killed?
Okay, but the human fetus is inside the womb, while human adults are outside the womb. What, you say location doesn't change the worth and dignity of a human being? You mean I'm worth just as much on this side of the street as that side of the street? I have the same human dignity in Asia as I do in South America? You mean I'm just as human in orbit or walking on the moon as I am here on earth? You mean a child has the same human value when they're being carried on daddy's back as they do when they're walking on their own, or the baby has just as much value being held in someone's arms as they do when they're an adult holding another baby?
Yes, but the human fetus is dependent on the mother for sustenance. So are you saying that the person who is in the hospital on a life-sustaining IV suddenly loses their humanity, that their human value diminishes? Does the person with a life-sustaining pacemaker or who has to take a drug every day to keep living now have less human value than other people? Are we saying that because the infant is dependent on the parents to feed, clean and care for it that it lacks human dignity and worth?
Hmmm. Maybe there isn't really much of a difference between a human fetus and a human adult, especially when science tells us that human beings are fully programmed with everything they need for the rest of their lives from the moment of conception, and that at that moment their DNA structure is distinct from every other human being, including its mother.
Cory seems to believe because there is disagreement on what the penalty should be for an illegal abortion that this is proof abortion is not murder.
This yet another fundamental lapse of logic on the part of liberals, based on their never-ending desire to escape both moral judgments and the just penalty for moral infractions.
Currently, for one person to force themselves on another person sexually is usually considered rape. Does every rapist receive the same sentence? Does everyone agree on what that penalty should be? A quick check will reveal the answer: no.
Does this mean that for one person to force themselves on another person is not rape, or that it is not immoral?
Currently, the wrongful killing of an adult human being is considered murder. Does every murderer receive the same penalty? Are all sentenced to death? Are all incarcerated for life without parole? Do judges or the average citizen agree on what the punishment should be? A quick check will reveal the answer: no.
Does this mean that killing an adult human being is not murder and thus not immoral?
The same is true of abortion. The fact that many disagree on what the legal punishment for an illegal abortion should be in no way detracts from the fact that it would be a crime under the law, should be a crime under the law, and is immoral because it wrongfully takes the life of an innocent and unique human being created in the image of God.
Pro-abortion liberals are so desperate to justify--to others if not themselves--their advocacy of a cold-blooded immoral practice they will eagerly twist themselves into moral and logical pretzels in an attempt to escape what is common sense to most people.
If abortion ends the life of a distinct and unique human being, and science indicates that it is, then abortion is murder.
Elli's a Hit in Central States Fair Parade
This morning's post from Gideon at SD Wingnuts sounds like Elli Schwiesow's participation in the Central States Fair parade yesterday was a hit!
I had wanted to participate, but I've had a brutal to-do list for the past two weeks.
As Gid alluded to, though Elli is a bit more mature than I (not "older" just "mature"), I envy her energy and vivaciousness. She seems like the Energizer Bunny, with her boundless reserves!
I also wish I had her ease and grace. I tend to have little patience with idiocy and people who are resolutely tied to their illogic, but Elli takes it all in stride. She is a model of what the Bible calls us all to in the area of kindness and showing grace to one another.
These qualities, in addition to her considerable experience in politics and in community service, will serve her well as the South Dakota District 32 senator.
Science Now Explains The Uniqueness of Every Human Being From Conception
Dakota Voice is reviewing the Report of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, in light of the upcoming November vote on Initiated Measure 11 to end most abortions in South Dakota. Pertinent sections of the report will be reviewed each week for the next several weeks which may shed light on Initiated Measure 11.
First week: The Incorrect Assumptions of the Roe v. Wade Decision
Second Week: What Has Been Learned Since the Roe v. Wade
Third Week: The Current Practice of Abortion in South Dakota
Fourth Week: The Experiences of Women Who Have Had Abortions
Last Week: Molecular Biology & Other Science Sheds Light on Abortion
The following is from Section II.B.2 on the findings of the report: ===================================
DNA fingerprinting and the refinement of it by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)techniques developed in the mid-1990s have proven that each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization. Dr. Mark explained that the invention and widespread use of the DNA techniques such as restriction enzymes, DNA cloning, DNA sequencing, and Southern Blotting provided scientists with the ability to clone human DNA and study the organization of the genes encoded by DNA. This resulted in many discoveries in the mid-1980s leading to the finding that individual species DNA bands can be observed as a fingerprint of an individual human being. A child's DNA fingerprint is completely unique.
The invention of the PCR techniques has led to further refinements of the DNA fingerprinting techniques, which has given science the ability to obtain a human being's DNA fingerprinting – and therefore his or her identity – from a single cell.
There can no longer be any doubt that each human being is totally unique from the very beginning of his or her life at fertilization. (Mark, P. 19-21.)
The significance of methylation of cytosine was unknown until 1985. It has a profound significance in understanding the wholeness or completeness of a human being immediately following conception. Cytosine is one of the four base components of DNA. Methylation of cytosine, just as other methods of gene regulation, is a natural method by which genetic information is periodically silenced or activated for purposes of human development. Understanding how the genetic information contained in each human being's DNA is activated and how that information is programmed for life is essential to understanding that the human being is whole and complete at fertilization.
A human being at an embryonic age and that human being at an adult age are naturally the same, the biological differences are due only to the differences in maturity. Changes in methylation of cytosine demonstrate that the human being is fully programmed for human growth and development for his or her entire life at the one cell age. (Mark, P. 21-25.)
Although the material messenger RNA initially present in the fertilized egg can provide the basic functions necessary to transcribe the child's DNA in the initial one or two cell divisions immediately following fertilization, these messenger RNAs are quickly degraded and lost after the first two rounds of cell division, and the housekeeping genes in the child's own DNA are transcribed into messenger RNA at that point. This newly synthesized RNA directs the program of global demethylation of genes so that they can be activated to replenish the functions lost after the degradation of the maternal RNA. Modern molecular biology has discovered that by the third cell division (long before implantation) all control of growth and development are established by the child's DNA. This means that immediately after conception, all programming for growth of the human being is self-contained. (Mark, P. 26.)
At the pre-implantation age, the child synthesizes a platelet activating factor (PAF)(discovered by O'Neil in 1991), beginning at the one cell age, that enhances the child's ability to implant into his or her mother's uterine wall; and at 7.5 days old, before implantation into the uterus, the child begins to produce an enzyme (IDO) that inhibits the mother's immune system from attacking and rejecting the child (discovered by Mann, et al in 1998). (Mark, P. 25-26.)
Molecular biology has also revealed information about chemical reactions within the unborn child that assist the child to adjust to its environment and defend itself from painful stimuli. The role of substance P in pain transmission through activation of a sub-population of the primary afferent c nerve fibers has been recently understood and documented in the 1990s.The presence of substance P, known to be a pain transmitter, was not observed in the human being during gestation until the late 1980s. The discoveries concerning neuropeptides, enkephalin and beta-endorphin, pain modulators, natural pain inhibitors, as found in the unborn child, is discussed in Section II-H of this Report, along with studies done in the 1990s that measured fetal plasma cortical and beta endorphin responses to painful stimuli given to the fetus in utero. (Mark, P. 27, 28, Par. 9 to 11.)
*Emphasis added
The 2005 South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion was created when the South Dakota legislature passed HB 1233 with a bipartisan majority in both houses. The purpose of the task force was "to study abortion and to provide for its composition, scope, and administration." The report was completed in December 2005 after several months of meetings.
