SHATTERED by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes.

SHATTERED is an in-depth analysis of the stunning defeat of the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign. And how and why it went wrong. Jonathan Allen is one of the authors. He is an award-winning reporter and often appears as a political analyst on national TV News programs. Also, he has written at length about Congress and national politics. He lives on Capitol Hill. Amie Parnes is the co-author. She's a White House correspondent for THE HILL newspaper in Washington. She has covered the Obama administration. She has been in political journalism for ten years. She traveled with the Clinton, Obama, and McCain campaigns. She covered the 2008 presidential race for POLITICO. She appears on MSNBC, CNN, FOX News, and other networks. The two authors open SHATTERED with an Introduction. They spread their contents over 21 chapters. They follow this content with Notes of Sources they used, Acknowledgments, and an Index.

This is a lengthy, comprehensive book. I knew just what to expect because both authors had appeared on TV channels which I watch. They were sharing something of the premise of this book. The title says it all. The Presidential bid of Hillary Clinton and her dreams, were SHATTERED. Both authors express their opinion, is that Clinton bears the responsibility for her loss. I tried to read this book without any preconceived notions, as I had already seen the authors give their views on the Clinton campaign. SHATTERED is well-researched and informative. As promised, the authors take us behind the scenes in Clinton's campaign. I didn't see all the campaign infighting episodes which the authors have spoken about in TV interviews. I believe the authors miss one factor that has contributed to Clinton's loss. I believe that she no doubt lost the votes of many of the estimated 20 million pro-life Democrats who may have wanted to vote for her. Her abortion-on-demand stance cost her the White House. Many in the pro-life movement believe their abortion-on-demand stance keeps them from willing elections.

Whom do I recommend this book for? It is a specialized book for political junkies. And so I recommend this book for political junkies. And I recommend it for students in political science. Outside of this, I doubt that others would be interested. This I say with certainty because of the current toxic atmosphere.
I received a complimentary copy of this book via Blogging For Books, in exchange for my honest review. I wasn't required to give a positive review of this book.

More Info Author Bio

THE DANIEL CODE by O.S. Hawkins

This newly minted devotional builds on the Bible character, Daniel. This black books sports a lovely leather-like covering on its edges and spine. Hawkins begins this book with an Introduction to the book. It describes the challenges that face us and which the the Book of Daniel applies to. This book occurs in six parts. They are meant to grab reader attention and hold it. The author covers four chapters each of the six parts. The author puts thirteen chapters under Part 4. Parts 5 and 6 have five chapters each. Put together, all these chapters equal 25. Then Hawkins provides a Conclusion, a Mission: Dignity Section, a Bibliography, and an author bio. For over 25 years, O.S. Hawkins has served pastorates. Among them are First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas. He serves as President of Guidestone Financial Resources, which serves 250,000 pastors, church staff members, missionaries,and other nonprofit staffers. He has authored over 30 books. These include The Joshua Code, The Jesus Code, and The James Code. He preaches regularly at conferences, universities, business groups, and churches all over the nation.

I found this book a fast and easy read. I was able to use it in my devotions because of its strong emphasis on Scripture. Bible verses precede each chapter. Early on, the author's bias is clear. I would give this book five stars but for what I found on page 22. On that page, the author gives a couple examples of how humanism was starting the U.S. on a cultural decline, as early as 1933. This author compares the proposal of the barbaric practices of abortion and euthanasia with, guess what? He lumps these evils in with what he calls "redistribution of wealth"in the U.S.! That sentence angered me; how can pastors be so opposed to entitlements? I had a pastor who had stated, "I don't think Jesus would have supported Social Security and other entitlements." Since when have "entitlements come to be seen as a moral, Christian issue? I know that the Bible says that people who won't work shouldn't have the right to eat. But I didn't get the sense that the author was talking about that. Because of this I'm not giving this book five stars. Other than Hawkins' obvious conservative bias and failure to speak to social justice issues, I applaud this book. It'll speak powerfully to those who feel that we're in the middle of a "cultural war" and that our religious liberties are at risk. Compared to what our severely persecuted brothers and sisters in Christ suffer all around the world, our lot is pretty good. Our government is flawed because these people we vote for come from us. But our system is better than that of most people in Third World countries. Overall, the tone of this book is encouraging and aptly ends with a Gospel invitation. Good job!

I recommend this book for all those who feel "outnumbered" by our politically correct culture that values tolerance above anything else. This includes pastors and all those who identify as "conservative, Evangelical Christians." Any Christian, no matter what stage of spiritual growth, can benefit from this book. This book is great for teenagers to encourage and equip them to stand strong for Jesus amid their temptations. Those who identify as more progressive or liberal may be put off by the conservative bias of this book.

I received a complimentary copy of this book through BookLookBloggers, in exchange to my honest review of this book. I wasn't required to give a positive review of this book.

There are 182 Signatures on This Petition! Help It Grow!

Because of online political involvement over the past months, I've neglected this petition. Now that the primaries are practically over, I'm back to my primary activity. Months ago, I began a petition to get legislation creating a nationwide abortion alternative. It would give those facing unplanned pregnancies several years of temporary foster care. I have just shortened this period to two years, in recognition that a child needs stability. Two years is still ample time to allow birth parents to improve their own lives to be able to comfortably raise children. While n amount of time in the foster care is ideal in any sense of the world, it's far better than being murdered! This would offer those facing unplanned pregnancies another incentive to choose life for their babies. Temporary foster care isn't available widely or nationwide or pregnancy resource centers would present it as an abortion alternative. The fact that they don't proves we need nationwide legislation, so many babies would be saved through another abortion alternative! If you have already signed this petition, SHARE it! If you haven't yet done so, ADD YOUR NAME! Thank you!

THE BRIDE (ZILLA) OF CHRIST by Ted Kluck and Ronnie Martin

This book is part memoir, part how-to. Its focus is on interpersonal conflict among those in the Christian community. Ted Kluck, one of the authors, is a professional writer. He has written or co-written many books. These include Why We're Not Emergent, a bestseller. His work has appeared in ESPN the Magazine, Sports Spectrum Magazine, and at ESPN.com. He's an assistant professor at Union University. Ronnie Martin is an internationally known Dove Award-nominated recording artist. He has more than 20 album credits that span three decades. He is the lead pastor of Substance Church. The authors open this book with their Prologues. They alternate chapters, over nine chapters. They end this book with Acknowledgements of those who made this book possible. Both authors include their credits. Then they wrap it all up with notes crediting outside sources they used.

In the literary sense, I found this book very easy to read. I read it in two days. Emotionally, it's very hard to absorb. I didn't expect this book to be so convicting and focused on the inherent corruption and wickedness of the reader. This is true whether we are the ones being wounded or are doing the wounding. This isn't a soothing, feel-good book. I rather expected it to be. I have read other books on this same topic which were more soothing and less convicting than this book. As I read, I was taken back to hurts I experienced in the Christian community that were based on cliques, church politics and favoritism. In fact, our family left one congregation because of my interpersonal conflicts with some members whom I got to know really well. I fully agreed with the authors when they point out that we need to lower our expectations of fellow Christians. I do wish he had addressed the reality that not everyone who attends church possesses saving faith. Being part of a church fellowship doesn't make us believers. In fact, Rev. Billy Graham one said that he believes that only five percent of members in any American local church fellowship are true Christ-followers. He needed to point out that many people we attend church with may not know Christ. And that may be the biggest reason that they act unChristian--they don't have the Holy Spirit living inside them. But the authors are 100% right in asserting that we are to relate to people based on appreciating the underserved grace that God extends to us in His Son Jesus. Then with this appreciation of knowing that we are the recipients of God's grace, we extend this same grace to others. I would have liked to see more examples of the authors' principles but I understand they may have felt that the excluded them because of confidentiality, space and readability. One of the authors briefly mentioned "the horrors of abortion" as part of the depravity of our culture, which is behind church conflicts.

I recommend this book for all pastors. Above all those in any congregation, they and their families have to deal with the Christian community. This book will give them talking points for preaching on interpersonal relationships in sermons. This book is for every Christian. We all need the foundation of the knowledge of God's grace toward us in the face of our sins and wrongs. Without this understanding, the principles in this book and in the Bible, are foolishness. There is no earthly reason to obey many of the Bible's precepts, except love for God and knowing His grace toward us. Because of bullying in schoold and online, a youth version of this book needs to be written.

I received a complimentary copy of this book through BloggingFor Books in exchange for my honest review of this book. The book I received was an uncorrected proof. It was not the finished product. I was not required to give a positive review of this book.

More Info

Author Info

A Unique Way to Empower Women & Save Lives

We often ask, "If I'm prolife, how can I get involved in the prolife movement?"

We may not all be in the position to adopt or take in foster children, engage in counseling women outside abortion facilities, direct or volunteer at pregnancy resource centers, or other forms of what are considered direct prolife actions. But almost all of all can join me in helping support a unique effort to provide pregnancy resource centers a unique tool to make their outreach more accessible to their clients, those facing crisis pregnancies.

Here is how it works.

Save the Storks builds mobile medical units which they call "Stork Buses." These mobile medical units provide a private, safe, relaxed atmosphere, much like mobile mammogram vans do. These Stork Buses come complete with technology equipped with ultrasounds and couches conducive for safe and sympathetic counseling. Save the Storks partners with Mercedes-Benz to make sure these buses came equipped with the best possible. Their mission is to ensure that every woman who boards these mobile medical units will feel loved and treasured and safe, and that the pregnancy resource center is on her side and "has her back." Pregnancy Resource Centers are outreach clinics that provide free, sympathetic and confidential help to those of both genders who face crisis pregnancies. They provide counseling, educational ultrasounds, pregnancy testing, STD testing, support for pregnancy losses (including due to abortions), maternity and baby clothes, referral services, and more. Stork Buses are mobile pregnancy resource centers (PRCs), making these PRCs much more accessible to abortion-vulnerable women by coming to them rather than waiting for these women to come to them. These mobile medical units park outside of facilities like Planned Parenthood facilities and other places where abortion-vulnerable women are most likely to be found, and transport such women to their local PRCs. Statistically, over three out of every five women who board these Stork Buses will choose life for their babies.

I know that we all have financial pressures. There are bills that must be paid and it costs just to live. And many wothy causes ask for our financial support. What is unique about this one? you may wonder. This charity seeks to save the lives of the unborn, whose lives have not been recognized as worthy of protection since 1973. They do this through making pregnancy resources much more accessible to their moms in crisis and by assisting them with what they need to choose life instead of abortion. Any gift of any size will help them, whether it is $5, $10, $20, $50, or more. If every person whom I tell about my campaign gave $1 to $5, my campaign on behalf of Save the Storks would be an unqualified success and raise thousands of dollars!

What to be part of aving babies through making Pregnancy Resource Centers more accessible to women?

Visit here to help and give.

Thank you for helping to save lives and empower women!

These photos are provided courtesy of Save the Storks, and the webpage where I am raising funds for them can be found right here.

The Colson Way, by Owen Strachan

This book is part biography and part a motivational call to action. It opens with many endorsemements of Chuck Colson, this book's subject, by Christian leaders of various professions. These endoresements are also praise for the book and how it tells of his life. This book opens with an Introduction by Eric Metaxas and it announces his experience of Chuck Colson and his expectations of this book and its purpose. Then the author, Owen Strachan, includes his own introduction and tells us what the purpose of his book is and what we can expect from this book. It is arranged in eight chapters, ending with notes citing sources the author used in research. It ends with acknowledgments of sources used in the author's research and ends with his own bio.

This book is much what I expected. Because of the title, I expected that Chuck Colson would be the subject of much of this book. I did not expect the book to consist of so much biography, though. I think I was expecting that the author would use more examples from trypical people and compare them to Chuck Colson and his approach to life and especially to his approach to living out his Christian witness publicly and openly. I fear that the author may not have done this because he may not have been able to find too many of such examples from "rank and file and everyday" Christians. This book is really a spiritual motivational one, using Chuck Colson to prod Christans into public action. The author makes it clear that this public expression of Christian faith does not mean that that the Christian reader has to get involved in the political arena, or identify wiith any poltical party, though Chuck Colson had made it clear that he leaned toward conservatism in his worldview. I remember him on a talk show, many years ago, when he had referred to "our Repubican values." I also recall that he was was quoted as saying that we "did not have a problem with global warming." I had listened, sometimes, to his short breakpoint commentaries and I knew he always challenged the Christian community to live lives of radical Christian discipleship, speaking up for the vulnerable, caring for the needy, and being open and open about one's faith in the public square. I found myself wishing that the book had held up a more "everyday" person as a role model of living out a Christian life in this American culture, but that is not what he did. The author admits that Colson was a powerful and prominent Christian, with a huge platform; he admitted that Colson was not perfect but stated that his flaws were the the better ones.

I recommend this book for younger Christians, such as the twenty-somethings. This book is explicity aimed at younger people though I'm sure this author intends to reach as many people as possible. I recommend this book for every pastor of every congregation, though, to give them more ideas for hoow to motivate and exhort their hearers to biblical action. So-called "progressive Christians" will like the emphasis on social action and "conservative Christians" will like the stress on the need to advocate for the unborn and for the sanctity of traditional marriage IF they approach this book with open minds. If they do not, they will not the the fact that we care called to both advocacy of traditional values as well as social action. Certain groups of people may be offended or triggered by this book, including LGBT people and those who have been involved in abortions. I can recommend it for many people, though.

I have receive a complimentary copy of this book through Book Look Bloggers. I was not required to give a positive review of this book.

Imagine Another Option for Those Facing Crisis Pregnancies

You find yourself dealing with an unplanned or unplanned or crisis pregnancy.

You are not yet ready for the responsibilities of parenthood, often because of economic reasons. Maybe you do not have stable employment or permanent housing.

You hear the slogan, "Adoption, not abortion" and "Just place your baby in adoption; many parents would love your baby." But the thought of placing a baby you carry for nine months is like thinking about cutting off one of your body parts.

Abortion? You do not want to do that, either. Isn't that killing a baby? You probably do not want that on your conscience.

Daily, many, many girls, women, boyfriends and husbands find themselves dealing with pregnancies they do not feel prepared, at least at the time. Daily, up to 4000 of these pregnancies are terminated because the biological parents do not feel ready for parenthood at the time but cannot bear the thought of adoption.

Imagine that there was another option in crisis or unplanned pregnancies, one that would not be a perfect solution but that would open up another option for those in crisis pregnancies and serve as an incentive for many more of them to choose life for their babies.

Maybe many more lives would be saved and many more abortions would be prevented.

I'm talking about temporary foster care. I know that, right away, many pro-adoption people and adoptive parents may object that this would open the door to allow birth moms to place their babies in adoption with the possibility of reclaiming those babies years later. No, this is not a call to introduce such a loophole in adoption laws. The babes in temporary foster care would not be available for adoption so this scenario would not become an issue. I'm very much for adoption and that they remain safe and secure.

Some may argue that children need stability and that they should not have to live even in temporary foster care even as their biological parents are building their lives to be in the position to raise their own children. Those who identify themselves as prolife do not seem to realize that this option, imperfect as it is, would itself be a motive for many in crisis pregnancies to choose life for their babies as they know they would be able to regain their babies in a few years after finding employment and housing and/or education. Isn't temporary foster care a much more humane option for babies than abortion, even though temporary foster care is not perfect?

Those in the Parental Alienation movement may argue that this is a state issue and to keep Congress out of it. But we can say that of many issues that have become law of the land. There is a new petition that calls on Congress to make a law, effective in all 50 states, that would allow those facing crisis pregnancies the option of placing their babies in temporary foster care, with a four year limit to prevent abuse of this option and protect the children involved.

With the admitted imperfections of this option, it is far better than the option of ending an unborn child's life because your perceived lack of options. And can we really expect abortions to end as long as we do not offer those facing crisis pregnancies more options to choose life for their babies?

If you agree, please visit here to sign petition

Thank You!

Dear Friend Who Has Participated in Abortion

I write this to you if you have had an abortion, whether recently or decades ago.

I write this to you who coerced your girlfriend or wife into getting an abortion.

I write this to you who drove your friend to an abortion clinic.

I write this to you parents who compelled your child to get an abortion.

I write this to you doctors who counseled your patients to abort a child with a "birth defect."

I write this to you if you work in an abortion clinic, whether as a custodian or an abortionist..

I write this to you who failed to talk a friend out of getting an abortion.

I write this to you who have supported abortion in any way.

Now I'm no expert, and while I have not experienced abortion, I have experienced other things that have caused me the similar mix of denial, fear, shame, guilt, anguish, and anger that you may be dealing with. We know that today, we are living in a culture where everyone is demanding their rights, including the supposed right to choose. If you have participated in, supported, had or even performed abortion, you may be dealing with a variety of feelings. You may be mentally telling yourself that you were in step with your culture, which tells you that abortion is acceptable. You may be defending yourself and what you have done, supported or participated in. You may be feeling grief which your culture does not allow you to express because, after all, you made your "choice." You may be in deep denial and may not be aware of any feelings about your actions. You may have blocked them. You may be filled with guilt, condemnation, and regret, and feel unforgiveable. I know that many abortion advocates will convince you that there is no such thing as "post abortion trauma" and that this is a made up condition and coined by "extremists." But though we do not like using the "a---" word, it is a fact that an abortion is not terminating an unwanted pregnancy, but it is the taking of a human life that has not yet been born. Therefore, when you support abortion, get an abortion, encourage another to have one, or even perform abortions, you cannot help but consciously or unconsciously violate your conscience, your humanity, and maternal instincts. I know that you may be among those women who may even see your abortion as a "badge of honor" for your worldview. This is not a matter on which good people ca disagree, thus experiencing abortion must be dealt with, just as we have to deal with any life-altering choices and conditions, whether drugs, alcohol, eating disorders, sexual addictions, among other things. I know that you may have been among the many in crisis pregnancies, who may not have seen any other option but abortion. You may even have wanted to choose life for your baby, but you had no support or encouragement from the important people in your life, your family and your friends. In that case, you may be have suppressed or repressed anger against those who coerced you into an unwanted abortion. You may have anger mingled with guilt over not being strong enough to stand up to pressure. You may even work at Planned Parenthood, knowing that many people are calling for it to be defunded, as if that would stop abortion. You mmay see what you do as just a job, and know that defunding Planned Parenthood would hurt low-income women and desperate women, unless funds are re-directed to alternatives to Planned Parenthood, where people can see that abortion is not their only option.

I don't know where you are in your life's journey. But there is One who does, and He wants to forgive you and use your life for the help of others. God has loved us enough to give His Son, Jesus, and Jesus paid the price for all our sins by bearing Divine wrath for all our sins. So if we repent (change our mind and life direction) of sin and trust Jesus (count solely on His merits alone to save us), we can know forgiveness. That includes you also! You who are reading this, I invite you to repent and trust Jesus.

Will you choose life today?

Visit Here to Find Out More

Abolishing Abortion by Rev. Frank Pavone

This book is a rousing call to the American Church and specifically to Catholics, to literally end abortion. Its focus lies in entering the public square with the "prolife message." This book begins with an introduction that sets the tone for this book, giving us the flavor of what is to come. Arranged in twelve chapters, the book is dedicated to the unborn as "our unborn brothers and sisters." Following Chapter 12, the book provides an appendix that is a written transcript of a prolife address by Rev. Derek King, nephew of Martin Luther King Jr.. This is followed by acknowledgments of those who have made this book possible. The book ends with a section of Notes of sources used by the author, and ends with his bio. This author, Rev. Frank Pavone, is the President of the National Pro-Life Religious Council and is the national director of Priests for Life. He is the national pastoral director of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign and of Rachel's Vineyard, the world's largest ministry of Priests healing after abortion. This book is endorsed by many prominent conservative political and religious leaders.

I was definitely challenged by this book. From the very beginning, I was under no illusion that I was being called to be willing and ready to sacrifice my comfort, my reputation, my freedom and even my life, for this prolife cause and to try to end abortion. As a non-Catholic, parts of this strongly Catholic book did not speak to me, especially the parts about Catholic traditions in reference to the prolife cause. I only reluctantly agreed with the author that none of us, me included, has done enough to try to end abortion. I found myself frustrated that the author gave so few practical tips for involvement, but his assumption is that readers alreadyn know what to do and either fear the fight, or don't care. Realistically, I had tried to step up my involvement in this cause in the past, but had had a bad experience when I had sought to volunteer with an area crisis pregnancy center. I found myself getting bored and having to force myself through the chapters of the book, addressed to pastors and focused on the legalities of speaking openly about abortion. During my reading of this book I found myself visiting this author's website for information and for resources to use in online advocacy. Even as people are focused on de-funding Planned Parenthood, it seems to me that this alone would not end abortion. To truly help women and save their unborn children, the funds should be re-allocated to life-affirming women's services where abortions are not done. This book's focus on prolife advocacy in the public square and in politics, is only one part of the puzzle. I feel, and many others agree, that unless we try to find common ground with the other side and work toward what we agree on (like better adoption laws, preventing pregnancies, and better laws for single parent families and low-income families, we can make abortion illegal and pull funds out of Planned Parenthood. However, women and their partners will still remain abortion-minded unless we all work together, privately and publicly, to make it so that alternatives to abortion will look more attractive and abortion less attractive.

I recommend this book for every pastor in every congregation. This book gives them re-assurance about how far they can go in speaking openly about abortion and advocate for the unborn, without breaking laws and risk losing tax-exempt status. I recommend this book for all Christian leaders at all levels. I recommend this book for all those who are passionate about ending abortions. I do not recommend this book for people for who have experienced abortions, unless they have experienced a good manner of healing. This book's impassioned rhetoric can be very triggering for such persons. For the very same reason, people, even those in the Christian community, who call themselves progressive or liberal, will probably be turned off by this book. This book is not for everyone.

I have received this book free of charge from Book Look Bloggers, in exchange for my honest review. I was not required to write a favorable review of this book.

To Any and All Who May Want An Abortion

Dear Reader:

I appeal to you if you are young, afraid, feel unsupported and feel that abortion is your only option.

I appeal to you if you find yourself pregnant and no one in your family wants you so.

I appeal to you if you have a girlfriend or wife in an unplanned pregnancy to which abortion seems the only solution.

I appeal to you if your family is full but you are, again, unhappily pregnant.

I appeal to you if you have a daughter or son who is now faced with a crisis pregnancy.

I appeal to you if you are happy in your career and find a pregnancy has interrupted it.

I appeal to you, male or female, who have no money, home or job but are dealing with a pregnancy.

I appeal to you if others are making you get an unwanted abortion, especially parents or your partner.

I appeal to you if you suffered rape or incest and see no option but abortion.

I appeal to you if the unborn child you are carrying, in testing, was found to have a "birth defect."

I appeal to you if you are dealing with an unwanted pregnancy for any reason or under any circumstances.

I know that culture is declaring that the solution to end your distress. Yes, I know it is legal. I know that, at least in the short run, it seems to be the solution. I know that many among us in the Christian community have shouted that it is wrong and are busy defending the humanity of the child in the unwanted pregnancy, but often we offer no more. That is why so many facing crisis pregnancies have made the choices they have, because they saw abortion as their only option. They may have been bullied into it, shamed into it, or talked into it. In many cases, we have failed to show love and compassion and give such people the help and support that they needed, to carry their babies to full term. On behalf of us in the Christian community, I apologize for our actions. We can and should do better, so that abortion will become unthinkable and so that other options will look more attractive to those of you for whom this post is intended.

You may have heard that it is your body and that it is a private matter, between you and God. I agree that your choice is between you and God What you do may seen only at a clinic, by a few staff and by you. But it will also be seen by God. I know that abortion may seem to "end" your distress over a crisis that you may desperately want out of your life. But it will create another set of problems. It will leave you with a sense of guilt that you have ended a human life, an innocent human life. Many who have experienced abortion may suppress or repress this guilt, and will not express any sorrow over their children lost to abortion. This culture forbids such grief. But if you turn to abortion, you will likely experience this grief that this culture will not approve of you expressing. Do you want that?

Whatever sort of crisis pregnancy you are dealing with and the circumstances facing you, there is help available for you. Please do not do anything rash or that you will forever regret and be unable to do over. The child inside you is a child created by God, with purposes, gifts and a destiny. Whatever your circumstances, God planned your child. You, your loved ones, and most of all, your child, deserve better than abortion. Please choose life. It will not be easy. But your child will appreciate you choosing life for him or her. What if your mom had not chosen life?

Please Visit Right Here To Find Help Now

What Is Going On With So Many Parents?

A mother drives her two children into a lake one day, killing them.

Believing that her four-year-old is gay, his mom beats him to death.

A dad leaves his son out in a hot car for seven hours and his son is found dead well before then.

A dad, driving in his car, takes his baby and throws the child out of the car.

Driving her car into the ocean, a mom tries to drown both her children as rescuers save them.

A mom, fed up with her two "mouthy teenagers," hatches up a plan to kill both and succeeds in carrying it out.

Managing to hide seven pregnancies, a mother kills each of her seven babies.

A mom is found in bed, naked with a knife, clutching the bodies of all three of her young children.

A dad, angered that his wife was trying to flee from him with their two children, managed to find them and murder all of them; today he remains a fugitive from justice.

I can go on and on. So can you, I am sure, if you are aware of what is going on. What is causing all this violence among family members? Are we now just hearing more about it because we live in the age of communication and information? Along with all this violence of parents against their children, spouses, youth and even children are becoming more violent. But lately, the violence of parents against their children seems to have spiked at an all-time high. The media, especially CNN, have covered the "car dad" case, hashing every detail of this disturbing and heartbreaking case. When this story first broke, I was mad at the cops for what appeared to be a rush to judgment and a witch-hunt against a dad who may have well made the tragic mistake of his life. They charged him with "Cruelty to Children" and "Felony Murder." They declared with passion: "This is the most shocking case of our careers and to our consciences as fathers and husbands." Couldn't they cut this dad any slack? But as the case unfolded and details kept coming to light, I came to change my mind. It was revealed that on the day that his son was killed, this dad came out to the car in the afternoon and placed something in the car. At his web designer job, he was sexting women, including a sixteen-year-old girl; he sent pics of his erect penis! Details concerning what, to me, were the odd responses of his wife to all of this, also surfaced. Whenever I hear of one case after another like this, I wonder: What about adoption? If these people don't want to deal with their children, why don't they surrender them to relatives or to a safe place? Why do these people turn to murder?

Life is not as valued as it once was. It is getting cheaper and more expendable.

I believe that we, in the West and particularly in the US, have been on a downward spiral since 1973. That was when abortion became legal. Many abortion advocates have argued that by eliminating children (whom they call "fetuses") that we would reduce child abuse and violence. According to this reasoning, getting rid of "unwanted problems" would reduce "stressors" that supposedly drive people to crime and child abuse in particular. But guess what? The legalization of abortion has not reduced child abuse or any other forms of abuse. If anything, child abuse and all forms of violence have increased since then. Because unborn life has become cheap and expendable, the stage has been set for the slippery slope of valuing life at other forms of development less. I don't think this is any accident that this is so. Life has become cheaper. This, combined with our very fast pace of living in the West, has helped us on this downward spiral of violence. People today are more likely to turn to abuse, suicide and murder, to "solve problems" than was the case four decades ago. I had grown up in the 1960's and 1970's, and I don't remember hearing about violence of the scale that is epidemic today. Am I missing something? Was it just swept under the rug? Do we just talk about these things more openly?

All this makes me think, Jesus, can You come back today?

Another Pro-Life Thing To Do

We are all fully aware of "the pro-life movement." It's impossible not to be. You may or may not consider yourself a member of this movement, depending on your position on the controversial issue of abortion. Everyone has strong feelings about this issue. One side sees it as a matter of choice, a right to privacy and to control one's body. The other side sees it as a matter of protecting unborn life in the womb and that violating it through exercising this choice, is murder. You probably know that every year, those in this movement rally in a "March on Washington." In many parts of the country, members of this movement engage in protests, holding up signs outside of abortion providing clinics. Members, calling themselves "sidewalk counselors," try to dissuade entering patients from making the choice. Once every January, in the Church, many local congregations participate in an event called "Sanctity of Life Sunday." One controversial group engages in "civil disobedience" where they enter abortion-providing clinics and "neutralize" equipment." The news has most often told us about bombings of these abortion providers. Is this all that there is to being "pro-life"?

Pro-Life, What Exactly Does This Mean?

"Pro" means "for," right? In today's debates, the word seems to mean "pro-birth." Yes, I believe that life ought to be upheld, protected and defended, from conception to the grave. But those who sympathize with the "pro-choice" side are right when they tell us that we ought to be "pro-life" about those who are already born. And since we are to be for the lives of those who are already born, does this not include those children on the other side of the world? The media usually do not cover their stories. The current kidnappings of hundreds of schoolgirls out of Nigeria have captured worldwide attention. And it should! Actually, a number of us were already aware of their very sad plights before the media brought it to world attention. This is, sadly, only one of many such atrocities that happen in Africa and in the Middle East. It is children in these parts of the world, and in other developing countries, who are forced to grow up in severe poverty. Without caring relief workers, they may die of water-borne illnesses because they have no access to clean drinking water. They may die of hunger or disease because of lack of food or medical care. Most do not get an education, unless caring relief workers build schools in their areas. You may know that relief workers already work in many of these areas and still their need seems as great as ever. What can I do, anyway?

Saving the Life of One Child, A Family & A Community

I know that while most people laud child sponsorship, many of us may wonder, How much does it actually help? It helps the child, but while it focuses on the child, does it help anyone else? Yes, we're told that not only is the sponsored child help, but his or her family and community is helped. My hope is that these images will speak for themselves and let you know that this indeed is so. I know that many of you already sponsor a child(ren). THat is wonderful! You can pass this on, and help more of these children get sponsored. Will you?

These photos are courtesy of Compassion International.

Life, Choice, or Both?

          There is an issue that was not any major source of political debate in campaigns or elections in the recent past, certainly not in Presidential campaigns. Not to the degree that we are seeing now! I'm talking about the issue of reproductive rights in relation to religious liberty and what role contraception should have in health care. This holds true especially for women's access to oral contraceptives which many on the "far religious right" strongly oppose.
          Contraception as an issue is not the same as abortion, as abortion is the choice to end a life that has already been conceived (or, as many would call it, a potential human life). Contraception is a choice to prevent conception from happening in the first place. My observations of the current political debate, especially carried out by the candidates campaigning for a the spot as the Republican challenger against President Obama, is that time around, reproduction vs. religious liberty, seems to be the central issue to be reckoned with. We therefore needed to deal with it if we are to make an informed choice about the then-Candidate of our choice. Even if you are outside the US and in an area where this isn't being politicized, you will need to deal with the question of contraception, especially if you are married and in your childbearing years or if you are raising teens who are or want to be sexually active. And there are some health care settings where you must deal with it. We still need to deal with this even though the debate is not raging at this time, as these things do not go away even when Elections are won or lost.
         I have great admiration for those families who, because of their beliefs and their life circumstances, like the well-known Duggars, refuse to use any kind of contraception and keep adding one child after another to their family. The Duggars take the Biblical instruction to "Be fruitful and multiply" seriously; they are devout people of faith who believe that every child is a gift from God and should be welcomed as such. Yes, the Duggars have the resources, including the proceeds from a TV show and apparently good physical health, to be able to bear and raise a huge family. They have been in the position to have an unrestricted number of children, which we are told is around 20 children. In most cases, money will be an issue because most of us do not have unrestricted wealth and many of us may have health issues or relationship issues that make bearing and raising many children unwise, irresponsible or even risky. These factors, especially if you have more than one of these factors in operation, will limit how many children you can bear and raise or should bear and raise responsibly or safely. So, for most of us, even if we would want to have huge families, contraception is an issue. Unless you are unfortunate enough to be infertile and CANNOT bear children, there is no other way to limit family size other than sexual abstinence. And in marriage, that is NOT a good idea!
          In my own case, after I married, contraception was an issue because, from the beginning, I was discouraged from conceiving. This was not only because of our financial situation but because of my epilepsy and my Marfan's Syndrome making pregnancy risky for both a baby and me. So my spouse and I used contraception faithfully. Then I became unexpectedly pregnant and after the shock wore off, I was happy and excited. I did have to take an anti-convulsant during my pregnancy. Thank God, our beautiful, precious daughter was born healthy even though she was diagnosed with "Pervasive Development Disorder" which is a subtype of high-functioning autism. I have been unable to conceive again and have been strongly discouraged from bearing any more children. Today, for her sake, I'm much disappointed that we are being forced to raise our daughter as an only child though we are very pleased with her.
          The former political Candidate who started this debate during last year's Presidential Primaries,  Sen. Rick Santorum, is a devout person of faith who strongly opposes not only abortion but also birth control, especially oral contraceptives. I respect his personal choice to bear and raise a large family and to continue to add to his family. But finances and apparently health and relationships, are not issues for him or his wife. These things are issues for so many of us who have financial, health, or family problems. So, I don't think Sen, Santorum (or anyone) should put a guilt trip on anyone who feels the need to limit family size. Family size, whether it is large or small, is not right or wrong. What is a moral issue is respecting other people's choices and not judging them. Big families are fine as long as a couple have the resources, energy, health are support system to bear and raise lots of children responsibly, effectively and safely. Since most of us  have one or more reasons why we can't or don't feel comfortable bearing or raising lots of children, we will need to use contraception during some or much of our childbearing years. The debate is: Should it be the government's role to make it available? For contaceptives can be costly if one must pay for them out-of-pocket.
          What about contraceptives for unmarried people, including teens? The Bible is clear about that: It should not even be an issue, as contraceptives  are only needed if one is sexually active. And the Scriptures forbid sexual activity outside of marriage; it holds that sexual intercourse and bearing children are best reserved for the permanence, commitment and legal protections that marriage offers. As a child who was born to a teen mom and outside of marriage, I can testify from experience that teen parenthood means much hardship for a young mom and a life of permanent disadvantage for the child. And I have seen and read about many others who have had the awful experience of teen pregnancy. Many will say, "Use protection." I'm here to tell you that contraceptives do not always protect one from pregnancy and they often don't protect one from sexually transmitted diseases. I do not recommend contraceptives for young people; the ideal is to strongly encourage teens to save sex for marriage, for their own emotional, physical and spiritual well-being and that of their future spouse. It sounds old-fashioned but it is true; the best wedding gift one can give a spouse is one's virginity. Whatever your views on sexual intercourse and contraceptives for unmarried people, including youth, I encourage you to check out a website which discusses these matters in a sensitive, informative and truthful matter and is directed to young people. Please visit: Love Matters. If you are married and want to check out a website about contraception for married people and the ethics of using them as well as find other information that is truthfully and sensitively given, the following website: Christian Family Planning
          The reason that oral contraceptives like the birth control pill and emergency contraception, "the morning after pill," can be controversial is that they are considered by many to be abortifacients, that is, they don't always prevent conception; when they don't, they work by ending a life already conceived, mainly by preventing the conceived embryo from implanting in the pregnant woman's uterus. Therefore, many people of faith strongly shun them. What these opponents don't seem to realize is that so many women use birth control pills to treat female gynecological issues like various menstrual irregularities. It angered me as a woman, as is has so many other, that the recent high-profile panel discussing contraception did not have even ONE woman on the panel. I also hate it that this issue tends to come off as one where men are telling women what to do with our bodies. It should not be this way! Birth control, bearing children and raising them, are as much a man's responsibility as a woman's. Can this be one big reason there are so many abortions of the unborn as well as abuse of so many born children, because women are doing the "heavy moral lifting" of these matters without male support? I think so!
          Whatever your view on abortion or contraception, because so many health care providers see abortion and even certain forms of contraception as very wrong and against their consciences, any political debate on reproductive rights and legislation on the availability of government funds for them, should always include a religious liberty or conscience clause. This is so that health care providers of faith or who simply believe that life begins at conception will not be forced to go against their principles and have to pay for or provide pills or procedures for their patients that they oppose. As long as we are talking tolerance, shouldn't we have tolerance for those of faith?
          There is the raging debate about whether many people, because of criminal or child abuse tendencies, should even be permitted to bear ANY children. Especially if you are unable to bear children or have seen or experienced child abuse, seeing or even hearing about people so easily bearing children and then hellishly abusing and even killing them, is infuriorating. Should contraception be made available? I say it should, but if they are unmarried, abstinence is by far the best choice. Many people declare that contraception reduces both abortions and child abuse, but I don't see that this is happening. There is no easy answer.
          What about the availability, even the mandate, of ultrasounds for women about to have abortions? What about vaginal ultrasounds? This raging debate, started by Sen, Rick Santorum, shows no signs of letting up. The argument for vaginal ultrasounds over abdominal ultrasounds is that the vaginal form is more accurate. But vaginal probing is invasive and makes the woman feel very vulnerable, as she must wear skimpy clothes with her legs falling apart in cold metal stirrups. When this is forced on her as a government mandate, this seems like a rape. No wonder there is such bitter opposition to vaginal ultrasounds! I agree that women who are about to have a serious, permanent procedure like abortion ought to be warned about the risks of this procedure and about what they are about to abort. They should be able to make an informed choice. Many post-abortive women have experienced tremendous grief and guilt and bear lifelong emotional scars from their abortions. If ultrasounds, even less invasive, abdominal ones, would save more of them from that and save their babies' lives, isn't this worth it? And they should be able to consent to this ultrasound, like any procedure. Still, I cannot see why every other medical procedure requires parental consent if done on minors. Abortion is a major procedure and its effects can never be reversed. They will last forever. So ought not parents know when their minor children are getting this procedure?
          Even though Sen. Santorum did not win his party's nomination as the contender for the White House against President Obama, and this has been taken off center stage in the current political debates, contraception vs. religious liberty remains a force many of us must reckon with. I disagree with Santorum and other strong pro-life, "anti-abortion" advocates on many other issues that it seems so many of them are inconsistent on, and that need addressing which may reduce abortions through making it less tempting or attractive to seek them.
          Abortion and contraception are like other "hot-button" issues; they are surrounded with strong codes of silence and those who are affected by them personally often wrestle with shame, stigma, prejudice, fear and even hopelessness. These kind of issues make most of us uncomfortable and are usually not easy to talk about. It's easy to live our lives so as not to offend people who vehemently disagree with us on issues deemed to be controversial, including abortion. But lives may depend on it.
As far as religious liberty goes, I read a most alarming statistic, just today, that over 70 percent of those females of those girls and women who seek abortions come from churches, where their pastors or priests are largely silent. Folks, wherever we stand on a "hot button" issue that affects the lives of people, nothing is worse than silence. Not even the position we may hold on the issue.

        Photo Courtesy of MorgueFile.com Photo by RoganJosh This photo can be found here.

Political Issue or Human Rights Issue?

This year, as in no other recent year, what are known as "life issues" vs. "choice issues" have been brought before us as has not been seen in recent campaigns for re-election, and now, in President Obama's second term in this year 2013. You know this if you follow the news. The issues I'm talking about are those that seem to be viewed by many as the "central" battleground life or choice" issues. I'm talking about mainly abortion and, to a lesser degree, euthanasia or physicial-assisted suicide (lesser because there is somewhat, I think, less controversy surrounding end-of-life issues than beginning-of-life issues). It began last year, last summer, during the primaries when some candidates called for legislation that would make contraception illegal and for the mandating of vaginal-probe ultrasounds for women considering abortion. I know that there is very strong emotion wrapped up in these issues on both sides and that differences are seen as personal attacks. I find this quite unfortunate. But, with the possible exception "marriage equality for LGBT people, nothing divides us more than the issue of abortion. Just this past week, there were demonstrations in Washington, DC, including the annual March For Life.

How is it that abortion and euthanasia came to be seen as the cental "battleground" life issues, especially the former? I don't think that abortion would ever been politicized and become so polarizing had it not been for the Roe vs. Wade ruling by the US Supreme Court in 1973 and became legal. And since then, the Church of the people of faith and many nonprofit organizations have seen ending abortion as the "primary moral or "life" issue of the day and everything else has been seen as only secondary. The argument has always been, "We are talking about our right to life in the womb and unless this right is kept safe for all of us, all the other rights we want and cry out for become meaningless." These hard-core "right-to-life" advocates do have a point, that our lives as unborn humans must be kept as safe and sacred as our lives outside the womb should be. My question is that are our lives outside the womb actually so sacred or so safe anymore, either? I wonder. Our murder rate is the highest of any country in the developed world. Many born children die daily, from things as varied as card accidents, drowning, serious childhood illness and even murder at the hands of adults or peers. This is not to mention all the other deaths that occur daily of teens and adults that are untimely and unnatural. Why does not anyone talk about being "pro-life" about these most serious matters? And poverty typically breeds crime, including murder. And it causes much hunger and illness and lack of access to health care and all of thse can kill. Why do we not use the word "pro-life in reference to poverty and related issues like access to health care for all?

I know what the argument is by confining abortion as the life issue of focus. The argument is: "The most vulnerable person is the unborn because he or she is totally helpless and totally unable to speak of for self." This is true, that the unborn are 100 percent unable to advocate for themselves. The argument that hard-core "right-to-life" advcates give for not treating the lives of others as top priority is this: "At least they are alive and are able to cry out for themselves." Well, up to a point they can. But we know that society makes it very hard to "find your voice" if you lack money or social connections. I am seeing this firsthand as I daily struggle to gather signatures for my petition for a group of people whose needs, in many ways, are going unmet because of ignorance and lack of resources. My frustration is that, to support a certain candidate and political party, and support the life issues that they oficially stand for, we have to withdraw support for the other candidate and for the life issues that they support. To stand for conservatives, we protect the unborn and infirm, dying people. But we withdraw support for the protection of the lives of everyone else from birth to old age. To support liberal candidates, we protect human life from birth to old age. But we withhold support from the protection of unborn human life and from those who are infirm or dying. I find this most frustrating and confusing. It has made me just want to stay at home on Election Day. I find it almost impossible to choose, pitting some lives against others.

I happen to belong to a Church body that, like so many others, has implicitly, if not explicitly, sent a strong message that to be true to God and His teachings, we should be "conservative" and this implies that we vote conservative. And to do that means to vote for Republicans and to support Republican "values." We are told in such church bodies, "Protect the unborn with your votes." Well, which party is oficially "anti-abortion"? The conservatives in the Republican party (there are liberal Republicans who support abortion just as there are conservative Democrats who oppose abortion). Those in the Republican party have, especially since 1973 and Roe vs. Wade, made the lives of the unborn their central life issue through for calling for restrictiong abortion, even criminalizing it. The official stance of Democrats has been to safeguard all life from birth to death, through government programs and funding of vital services for the public's protection. Those who are "pro-choice" (whether democrats or Republicans) are more convinced that life in the womb may be "potential life" as opposed to "actual life" and therefore, that the expectant mom should, in crisis situations, have "choice" available. Even hard-core "pro-choice," liberal Democrats are NOT "pro-abortion" in the sense that they affirm this procedure as the best "choice" for anyone. They simply, for the most part, believe that this "choice should be available" for those who find themselves in difficult or crisis situations. Yes, there are hard-core "abortion-on-demand" proponents but I see them as being in the minority. Even "pro-choice" people merely see abortion as an unfortunate "choice" of last resort. As I read it in my Bible, I see that the lives of ALL people, at all stages of development, are equally vluable and sacred to God. So what does this mean for electing candidates where we have to pit some lives against others? And God, unlike "pro-choice" advocates, definitely sees unborn human life not as potential humanb life but as ACTUAL human life.

In the Church body to which I belong, the life issues espouses by the Democrats are seen as "secondary issues." The "primary issue" as seen by my Church body, is ending abortion and defending the unborn. We should be doing this! But what about all those other lives that are just as important and sacred to God? This question was posed to a prominent Christian leader who appeared on a major news network. The Host asked this Christian leader something like,"What about the Republican attempts, through their proposals, to cut back on services like firefighters, law enforcement, teachers, veterans, the elderly and the disabled?" His response to that was, "Those are secondary issues." The main issue? "We need to defend traditional marriage and defend the lives of the unborn." For purposes of this post, I will NOT be going into GLBT issues but only into the "life issues." Who is to determine what lives are "primary" and which are only "secondary"? I know that Catholic nuns and others who call themselves "progressive Christians" have been speaking out against the Ryan budget plan which calls for cuts in essentail services which we need and which benefit all of us, especially the most vulnerable among us: the poor, senior citizens, veterans and those with disabilities. But I see the almost TOTAL silence on the part of those among "conservative Church bodies, Christian leaders and pastors about the Ryan plan, as disturbing and depressing. It seems that most in conservative "religious right" circles are refusing to see the moral big picture and see it reduced to just two issues: protecting the unborn and safeguarding tradional marriage. We ought to do this, I fully agree! But what about all the other moral issues that are embraced by "liberals" such as poverty, justice/injustice, education, ending corporate greed and political corruption, health care for all, and the other important issues? Must thse go begging if we embrace one set of moral values? Why must we choose?

I find it most unfortunate that abortion is seen along political party lines, with Republicans being officially "against abortion" and Democrats being "proabortion," with Republicans being "prolife" and Democrats being "prochoice." Many years ago, I was listening to a denominational radio show where the talk show host was taking live phone calls. One person was discussing abortion and was saying, "We should not call the proabortionists prochoice; we should call them pro-death." At a former congregation where my spouse and I had attended, a member had a bumper sticker which read, "Friends do not let friends vote Democrat." For one things, many people, including in politics and who are Republicans, lean toward "prochoice" views. And many people, including in politics, are Democrats who lean toward the "prolife" view. So the stereotype of either party being for one view or the other is most unfortunate. So is lumping all "prolife" people as those who do not like women, think their only role is in the home and should keep being "barefoot and pregnant." Nor should all "prochoice" people be lumped together is being "anti-family people who desire to put  all children in day care centers, destroy families and trash men, and stop population growth.

I have heard it proposed that abortion be removed from the political arena and placed in the human rights arena. I agree with this totally. As long as this keeps being seen as a hotly divisive political issue, I do not see that the "culture wars" surrounding it will ever end. I know that there are very strong feelings on both sides, one being a people group's right to full, private autononmy over their lives and bodies, the other people group's right to life even when the person (the mother or her family) does not want to let that happen. As long as both sides, the "life" side and the "choice" side continue to declare how right they themselves are and do not listen the the concerns and objections of the other side, there will always be a bitter debate. When abortion comes up for discussion, especially on TV or in politics, one cannot help but see how each side is screaming about how right I am and how wrong you are and you better listen to me! Each side has very valid points that the other side needs to consider. The unborn have the right to live and their human right needs to be defended from those who would take it away. Their mothers have the right to be offered all the support and guidance they need so that they are not even tempted to go to the most available abortion clinic because they could not find support and resources to not only complete their pregnancies but for years afterward. And the "hard cases" of rape and incest? I would not wish on anyone a a rape, much less one that results in conception! Those who advocate that babies conceived of sexual assault also deserve to live are correct, but one politician was not only scientifically incorrect but offended many when he said, "During a legitimate rape, the female body has a way of shutting that whole thing down." Putting our feet in our mouths when engaged in controversies like this does nothing for such debates.

So, when I went  to the polls on November 2, as always, I was be torn and conflicted. I know that many people fall solidly on the side of liberal or conservative and that, if they exercise their right to vote, their minds will be made up. In fact, many of such people may already have their minds made up at this moment. That is fine. What is NOT fine is when people, whether individuals, Church bodies, Christian leaders or organizations tell me how I "should vote." I do not tell anyone else how they should vote and they should not tell me how to vote. And how can Christian leaders or Church bodies make any claims that God has any monopoly on any political party, that He is Republican or Democrat? Oh, they never come out and say it like that; they just say, "But Biblcal values are consistent with what Republicans stand for." That is true of SOME of the things that this party stands for. But this same things can be said about SOME of the things that the Democrats stands for. And There are things about BOTH parties that are not consistent with Biblical values. Call me biased, but I see most of the hate and nastiness, whether you talk about the political campaigns or their supporters, as coming from the "Tea Party" element of the Republican party.

As I stated in an earlier post, someone in my social networks saw a past status update of mine and told me to state my political party for all to know. I will go on the record as saying that I am what some would call a Pro-life Democrat, a moderate, and an Independent who supports many Democratic values. I believe that we should shout out about what we are FOR, as the Bible does, whether than scream about what we are against. I see far too much screaming and railing, from politicians and from so many in "real life" and online. Even the nicest and most rational and proper of people can, if they get on political or politicized issues like abortion, find themselves engaging in nasty, uncivil, bullying, hateful and bullying behaviors. This is the reason why abortion needs to stop being seen as a political issue and instead be seen as a human rights issue, with the human rights of both the mother and the child being equally as important. This same holds true of any other "life issue." And I want to shout for what is called a "consistent life ethic" that upholds and affirms ALL life, starting from concetion to death.

Consistent Life.
This website is set up for a nonprofit of people who seek to pull together all life issues and to unite people from all poltical viewpoints and to declare all life as sacred. This site is full of information, it educates and links to other helpful resources.

Which of the Presidential Candidates is Truly Pro-Life?
This article examines how both the past Presidential candidates actually relate to life issues, especially abortion and gives perspective. Photo Courtesy of MorgueFile.com Photo by Alvimann. This photo can be found here.

Needed: A Consistent Life Ethic

This year, as in no other recent year, what are known as "life issues" vs. "choice issues" have been brought before us as has not been seen in recent campaigns for re-election, if you follow the news. The issues I'm talking about are those that seem to be viewed by many as the "central" battleground life or choice" issues. I'm talking about mainly abortion and, to a lesser degree, euthanasia or physicial-assisted suicide (lesser because there is somewhat, I think,less controversy surrounding end-of-life issues than beginning-of-life issues). It began months ago during the primaries when some candidates called for legislation that would make contraception illegal and for the mandating of vaginal-probe ultrasounds for women considering abortion. I know that there is very strong emotion wrapped up in these issues on both sides and that differences are seen as personal attacks. I find this quite unfortunate. But, with the possible exception "marriage equality for LGBT people, nothing divides us more than the issue of abortion. And, with the US election being only days away, this issue is at the center of the debate, along with the economy.

How is it that abortion and euthanasia came to be seen as the cental "battleground" life issues, especially the former? I don't think that abortion would ever been politicized and become so polarizing had it not been for the Roe vs. Wade ruling by the US Supreme Court in 1973 and became legal. And since then, the Church of the people of faith and many nonprofit organizations have seen ending abortion as the "primary moral or "life" issue of the day and everything else has been seen as only secondary. The argument has always been, "We are talking about our right to life in the womb and unless this right is kept safe for all of us, all the other rights we want and cry out for become meaningless." These hard-core "right-to-life" advocates do have a point, that our lives as unborn humans must be kept as safe and sacred as our lives outside the womb should be. My question is that are our lives outside the womb actually so sacred or so safe anymore, either? I wonder. Our murder rate is the highest of any country in the developed world. Many born children die daily, from things as varied as car accidents, drowning, serious childhood illness and even murder at the hands of adults or peers. This is not to mention all the other deaths that occur daily of teens and adults that are untimely and unnatural. Why does not anyone talk about being "pro-life" about these most serious matters? And poverty typically breeds crime, including murder. And it causes much hunger and illness and lack of access to health care and all of thse can kill. Why do we not use the word "pro-life" in reference to poverty and related issues like access to health care for all? I do not understand that. Sometimes it seems that, judging from the way that the term "prolife" is used, what is really meant is "probirth." I have problems with that though I understand why the unborn get singled out for special protection and advocacy by those who call themselves "prolife."

I know what the argument is by confining abortion as the life issue of focus. The argument is: "The most vulnerable person is the unborn because he or she is totally helpless and totally unable to speak of for self." This is true, that the unborn are 100 percent unable to advocate for themselves. The argument that hard-core "right-to-life" advcates give for not treating the lives of others as top priority is this: "At least they are alive and are able to cry out for themselves." Well, up to a point they can. But we know that society makes it very hard to "find your voice" if you lack money or social connections. I am seeing this firsthand as I daily struggle to gather signatures for my petition for a group of people whose needs, in many ways, are going unmet because of ignorance and lack of resources. My frustration is that, to support a certain candidate and political party, and support the life issues that they oficially stand for, we have to withdraw support for the other candidate and for the life issues that they support. To stand for conservatives, we protect the unborn and infirm, dying people. But we withdraw support for the protection of the lives of everyone else from birth to old age. To support liberal candidates, we protect human life from birth to old age. But we withhold support from the protection of unborn human life and from those who are infirm or dying. I find this most frustrating and confusing. It has made me just want to stay at home on Election Day. I find it almost impossible to choose, pitting some lives against others. When I go to the voting both on November 6, I know that I will experience these feelings, knowing that to vote for certain candidates at the state and federal levels, that I will vote to protect certain groups of people and my votes will fail to protect other groups of people.

I happen to belong to a Church body that, like so many others, has implicitly, if not explicitly, sent a strong message that to be true to God and His teachings, we should be "conservative" and this implies that we vote conservative. And to do that means to vote for Republicans and to support Republican "values." We are told in such church bodies, "Protect the unborn with your votes." Well, which party is oficially "anti-abortion"? The conservatives in the Republican party (there are liberal Republicans who support abortion just as there are conservative Democrats who oppose abortion). Those in the Republican party have, especially since 1973 and Roe vs. Wade, made the lives of the unborn their central life issue through for calling for restrictiong abortion, even criminalizing it. The official stance of Democrats has been to safeguard all life from birth to death, through government programs and funding of vital services for the public's protection. Those who are "pro-choice" (whether democrats or Republicans) are more convinced that life in the womb may be "potential life" as opposed to "actual life" and therefore, that the expectant mom should, in crisis situations, have "choice" available. Even hard-core "pro-choice," liberal Democrats are NOT "pro-abortion" in the sense that they affirm this procedure as the best "choice" for anyone. They simply, for the most part, believe that this "choice should be available" for those who find themselves in difficult or crisis situations. Yes, there are hard-core "abortion-on-demand" proponents but I see them as being in the minority. Even "pro-choice" people merely see abortion as an unfortunate "choice" of last resort. As I read it in my Bible, I see that the lives of ALL people, at all stages of development, are equally vluable and sacred to God. So what does this mean for electing candidates where we have to pit some lives against others? And God, unlike "pro-choice" advocates, definitely sees unborn human life not as potential human life but as ACTUAL human life.

In the Church body to which I belong, the life issues espouses by the Democrats are seen as "secondary issues." The "primary issue" as seen by my Church body, is ending abortion and defending the unborn. We should be doing this! But what about all those other lives that are just as important and sacred to God? This question was posed to a prominent Christian leader who appeared on a major news network. The Host asked this Christian leader something like,"What about the Republican attempts, through their proposals, to cut back on services like firefighters, law enforcement, teachers, veterans, the elderly and the disabled?" His response to that was, "Those are secondary issues." The main issue? "We need to defend traditional marriage and defend the lives of the unborn." For purposes of this post, I will NOT be going into GLBT issues but only into the "life issues." Who is to determine what lives are "primary" and which are only "secondary"? I know that Catholic nuns and others who call themselves "progressive Christians" have been speaking out against the Ryan budget plan which calls for cuts in essentail services which we need and which benefit all of us, especially the most vulnerable among us: the poor, senior citizens, veterans and those with disabilities. But I see the almost TOTAL silence on the part of those among "conservative Church bodies, Christian leaders and pastors about the Ryan plan, as disturbing and depressing. It seems that most in conservative "religious right" circles are refusing to see the moral big picture and see it reduced to just two issues: protecting the unborn and safeguarding tradional marriage. We ought to do this, I fully agree! But what about all the other moral issues that are embraced by "liberals" such as poverty, justice/injustice, education, ending corporate greed and political corruption, health care for all, and the other important issues? Must thse go begging if we embrace one set of moral values? Why must we choose?

To you who are staunchly "polife" and are passionate about protecting the unborn, and who see abortion as much a form of murder as the most horrific murders we hear about in the news or follow in true crime stories, I also believe that life starts at conception. After all, given the circumstances of my own conception and the fact that teen pregnancy was seen as a disgrace in 1960, I'm very sure that I would not have ever been born had abortion been available to my teen mom. This is nothing against her as my Mom was a good mom, for her limited resources and knowledge. And I know that there are many, many others, like myself, who would not have been born had abortion been available to their parents. But to just declare, "Abortion is murder!" is not enough when so many of you also seem to not pay attention to already-born people and their needs. It is not for nothing that it has been said: "Life begins at conception and stops at birth." AND to you who are "prochoice" and as passionately believe that a woman's reproductive rights should include control over whether to continue a pregnancy or not, I do not blame you for holding that just condemning abortion as wrong is worse than usesless for stopping it. Conditions in society need to be changed so that people will not even consider abortion as a solution to unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. You who hold these viewsare so good about advocating and protecting those who are already-born.  But would many, many people, myself included, conceived in "questionable circumstances," who are alive today BEFORE abortion was made legal in 1973, have been seen as "choices" able to be "terminated"? How can thse two different worldviews, each which are wonderful about protecting us in certain stages of life but which are not so wonderful about protecting us at other stages of life, be reconciled to merge into a consistent life ethic? In the kind of culture most of us in the free world live in, they are VERY hard to reconcile.


So, as I go the the polls on November 6, as always, I will be torn and conflicted. I know that many people fall solidly on the side of liberal or conservative and that, if they exercise their right to vote, their minds will be made up. In fact, many of such people may already have their minds made up at this moment. That is fine. What is NOT fine is when people, whether individuals, Church bodies, Christian leaders or organizations tell me how I "should vote." I do not tell anyone else how they should vote and they should not tell me how to vote. And how can Christian leaders or Church bodies make any claims that God has any monopoly on any political party, that He is Republican or Democrat? Oh, they never come out and say it like that; they just say, "But Biblcal values are consistent with what Republicans stand for." That is true of SOME of the things that this party stands for. But this same things can be said about SOME of the things that the Democrats stands for. And There are things about BOTH parties that are not consistent with Biblical values. Call me biased, but I see most of the hate and nastiness, whether you talk about the political campaigns or their supporters, as coming from the "Tea Party" element of the Republican party.

As I stated in an earlier post, someone in my social networks saw a certain status update of mine and told me to state my political party for all to know. I will go on the record as saying that I am what some would call a Pro-life Democrat, a moderate, and an Independent who supports many Democratic values. I believe that we should shout out about what we are FOR, as the Bible does, whether than scream about what we are against. I see far too much screaming and railing, from politicians and from so many in "real life" and online. And I want to shout for what is called a "consistent life ethic" that upholds and affirms ALL life, starting from concetion to death.

http://www.consistent-life.org/
This website is set up for a nonprofit of people who seek to pull together all life issues and to unite people from all poltical viewpoints and to declare all life as sacred. This site is full of information, it educates and links to other helpful resources.

http://ncronline.org/news/politics/which-presidential-candidate-truly-pro-life
This article examines how both the Presidential candidates actually relate to life issues, especially abortion and gives perspective.

Politics and Seeking A Consistent Life Ethic

This year, as in no other recent year, what are known as "life issues" vs. "choice issues" have been brought before us as has not been seen in recent campaigns for re-election, if you follow the news. The issues I'm talking about are those that seem to be viewed by many as the "central" battleground life or choice" issues. I'm talking about mainly abortion and, to a lesser degree, euthanasia or physicial-assisted suicide (lesser because there is somewhat, I think,less controversy surrounding end-of-life issues than beginning-of-life issues). It began months ago during the primaries when some candidates called for legislation that would make contraception illegal and for the mandating of vaginal-probe ultrasounds for women considering abortion. I know that there is very strong emotion wrapped up in these issues on both sides and that differences are seen as personal attacks. I find this quite unfortunate. But, with the possible exception "marriage equality for LGBT people, nothing divides us more than the issue of abortion.

How is it that abortion and euthanasia came to be seen as the cental "battleground" life issues, especially the former? I don't think that abortion would ever been politicized and become so polarizing had it not been for the Roe vs. Wade ruling by the US Supreme Court in 1973 and became legal. And since then, the Church of the people of faith and many nonprofit organizations have seen ending abortion as the "primary moral or "life" issue of the day and everything else has been seen as only secondary. The argument has always been, "We are talking about our right to life in the womb and unless this right is kept safe for all of us, all the other rights we want and cry out for become meaningless." These hard-core "right-to-life" advocates do have a point, that our lives as unborn humans must be kept as safe and sacred as our lives outside the womb should be. My question is that are our lives outside the womb actually so sacred or so safe anymore, either? I wonder. Our murder rate is the highest of any country in the developed world. Many born children die daily, from things as varied as card accidents, drowning, serious childhood illness and even murder at the hands of adults or peers. This is not to mention all the other deaths that occur daily of teens and adults that are untimely and unnatural. Why does not anyone talk about being "pro-life" about these most serious matters? And poverty typically breeds crime, including murder. And it causes much hunger and illness and lack of access to health care and all of thse can kill. Why do we not use the word "pro-life in reference to poverty and related issues like access to health care for all?

I know what the argument is by confining abortion as the life issue of focus. The argument is: "The most vulnerable person is the unborn because he or she is totally helpless and totally unable to speak of for self." This is true, that the unborn are 100 percent unable to advocate for themselves. The argument that hard-core "right-to-life" advcates give for not treating the lives of others as top priority is this: "At least they are alive and are able to cry out for themselves." Well, up to a point they can. But we know that society makes it very hard to "find your voice" if you lack money or social connections. I am seeing this firsthand as I daily struggle to gather signatures for my petition for a group of people whose needs, in many ways, are going unmet because of ignorance and lack of resources. My frustration is that, to support a certain candidate and political party, and support the life issues that they oficially stand for, we have to withdraw support for the other candidate and for the life issues that they support. To stand for conservatives, we protect the unborn and infirm, dying people. But we withdraw support for the protection of the lives of everyone else from birth to old age. To support liberal candidates, we protect human life from birth to old age. But we withhold support from the protection of unborn human life and from those who are infirm or dying. I find this most frustrating and confusing. It has made me just want to stay at home on Election Day. I find it almost impossible to choose, pitting some lives against others.

I happen to belong to a Church body that, like so many others, has implicitly, if not explicitly, sent a strong message that to be true to God and His teachings, we should be "conservative" and this implies that we vote conservative. And to do that means to vote for Republicans and to support Republican "values." We are told in such church bodies, "Protect the unborn with your votes." Well, which party is oficially "anti-abortion"? The conservatives in the Republican party (there are liberal Republicans who support abortion just as there are conservative Democrats who oppose abortion). Those in the Republican party have, especially since 1973 and Roe vs. Wade, made the lives of the unborn their central life issue through for calling for restrictiong abortion, even criminalizing it. The official stance of Democrats has been to safeguard all life from birth to death, through government programs and funding of vital services for the public's protection.  Those who are "pro-choice" (whether democrats or Republicans) are more convinced that life in the womb may be "potential life" as opposed to "actual life" and therefore, that the expectant mom should, in crisis situations, have "choice" available. Even hard-core "pro-choice," liberal Democrats are NOT "pro-abortion" in the sense that they affirm this procedure as the best "choice" for anyone. They simply, for the most part, believe that this "choice should be available" for those who find themselves in difficult or crisis situations. Yes, there are hard-core "abortion-on-demand" proponents but I see them as being in the minority. Even "pro-choice" people merely see abortion as an unfortunate "choice" of last resort. As I read it in my Bible, I see that the lives of ALL people, at all stages of development, are equally vluable and sacred to God. So what does this mean for electing candidates where we have to pit some lives against others? And God, unlike "pro-choice" advocates, definitely sees unborn human life not as potential humanb life but as ACTUAL human life.

In the Church body to which I belong, the life issues espouses by the Democrats are seen as "secondary issues." The "primary issue" as seen by my Church body, is ending abortion and defending the unborn. We should be doing this! But what about all those other lives that are just as important and sacred to God? This question was posed to a prominent Christian leader who appeared on a major news network. The Host asked this Christian leader something like,"What about the Republican attempts, through their proposals, to cut back on services like firefighters, law enforcement, teachers, veterans, the elderly and the disabled?"  His response to that was, "Those are secondary issues." The main issue? "We need to defend traditional marriage and defend the lives of the unborn." For purposes of this post, I will NOT be going into GLBT issues but only into the "life issues." Who is to determine what lives are "primary" and which are only "secondary"? I know that Catholic nuns and others who call themselves "progressive Christians" have been speaking out against the Ryan budget plan which calls for cuts in essentail services which we need and which benefit all of us, especially the most vulnerable among us: the poor, senior citizens, veterans and those with disabilities. But I see the almost TOTAL silence on the part of those among "conservative Church bodies, Christian leaders and pastors about the Ryan plan, as disturbing and depressing. It seems that most in conservative "religious right" circles are refusing to see the moral big picture and see it reduced to just two issues: protecting the unborn and safeguarding tradional marriage. We ought to do this, I fully agree! But what about all the other moral issues that are embraced by "liberals" such as poverty, justice/injustice, education, ending corporate greed and political corruption, health care for all, and the other important issues? Must thse go begging if we embrace one set of moral values? Why must we choose?

So, as I go the the polls on November 2, as always, I will be torn and conflicted. I know that many people fall solidly on the side of liberal or conservative and that, if they exercise their right to vote, their minds will be made up. In fact, many of such people may already have their minds made up at this moment. That is fine. What is NOT fine is when people, whether individuals, Church bodies, Christian leaders or organizations tell me how I "should vote." I do not tell anyone else how they should vote and they should not tell me how to vote. And how can Christian leaders or Church bodies make any claims that God has any monopoly on any political party, that He is Republican or Democrat? Oh, they never come out and say it like that; they just say, "But Biblcal values are consistent with what Republicans stand for." That is true of SOME of the things that this party stands for. But this same things can be said about SOME of the things that the Democrats stands for. And There are things about BOTH parties that are not consistent with Biblical values. Call me biased, but I see most of the hate and nastiness, whether you talk about the political campaigns or their supporters, as coming from the "Tea Party" element of the Republican party.

As I stated in my last post, someone in my social networks saw a recent status update of mine and told me to state my political party for all to know. I will go on the record as saying that I am what some would call a Pro-life Democrat, a moderate, and an Independent who supports many Democratic values. I believe that we should shout out about what we are FOR, as the Bible does, whether than scream about what we are against. I see far too much screaming and railing, from politicians and from so many in "real life" and online. And I want to shout for what is called a "consistent life ethic" that upholds and affirms ALL life, starting from concetion to death.

http://www.consistent-life.org/
This website is set up for a nonprofit of people who seek to pull together all life issues and to unite people from all poltical viewpoints and to declare all life as sacred. This site is full of information, it educates and links to other helpful resources.

http://ncronline.org/news/politics/which-presidential-candidate-truly-pro-life
This article examines how both the Presidential candidates actually relate to life issues, especially abortion and gives perspective.