The End Times? Spread the faith!

There is an article linked in the title of the post.  The article does a brief review Christian Author Jeff Kinney book about the end of times prophecies made in the Bible, specifically within Saint John’s Revelation.  You can read the article for yourself, but I just wanted to call attention to one quote within the article and book.  The article and the books author states “that Christians shouldn’t be surprised when their faith, ideas and lifestyles aren’t as accepted as they once were. But he also believes in the importance of spreading the faith before the end times unfold.”  This was the message given to me by one of my theology professors in college.  The book of Revelation is not about the signs for the end times, predicting when it will occur, pinpointing the anti-Christ, or a road map to the end of the world.  The story of Revelation is John speaking to the persecuted Christians at the end of the first century AD.  Christians were sitting on the roof tops waiting for Christ to return, instead of fulfilling the great commission.  The story of Revelation is that regardless of our persecution, we will win.  Heck, we have already won.  So get off the roof tops and start preaching the gospel and you will be awarded a crown of life.

That is why I am not overly concerned about the persecution of the Christian church today or in the future.  I know we will be persecuted against and its expected at every time and in the end times.  All we have to do is preach the gospel and give an answer when asked.  The Spirit will fill us with the words we need and we are guaranteed salvation not through our works but the works of Christ.  So get off your butts and preach the Gospel.  Amen!


Over the last several weeks I have gained over a half a dozen new readers to this blog. That is amazing.  It is probably partly due to the consistency in posting articles. Unfortunately the stock pile of articles I had finished ran out last week.  I am planning on getting back into writing on this blog again in the coming weeks.  I have a few ideas of things I can write on but just need the time and drive to do it.  I just ask for your patience with this writer for the time being.  I will return, soon.  Thanks for your support.

Questions? Comments? Concerns?  Class dismissed!

Principles Betrayed: Separation of Powers

This post is the beginning of a series of posts in which the basic principles on which our nation was founded are being or have been betrayed by those elected into power at the various levels of government.  Today’s betrayed principle is that of the Separation of Powers. This article will first outline and explain the basic understood meaning of the principle. Then it will address the specific ways this principle has been betrayed by our elected officials.  Lastly, it will address the ways we can start being true to this principle again.

The principle of separation of powers is to divide the powers of government and authority under the law into different branches. Each branch is given specific power or authority over the laws. In the U.S. system we have three branches: the legislative branch (Power to make or create the laws i.e. Congress, which is also broken up into two branches in a bicameral of the House of Representatives and Senate), the executive branch (the power to enforce the laws i.e. the President of the United States and the branches executive departments.), and the judicial branch (the power to interpret the laws i.e. the federal and Supreme Court of the United States).

Now to be honest the system in the U.S. does have a certain amount of blended powers. This was one of the major objections of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. They saw the blending of powers in several ways. One of major blending of the powers is that of the executive powers between the President and the Senate. The President can not appoint members to the executive departments to without the advice or consent of the U.S. Senate. This was the serve as a check on the President’s authority to appoint who he wants. Another major blending of power was that of the President having veto authority over legislative acts of Congress. Both of these are key examples of the principle of Checks and Balances. The purpose of which was to prevent any of the branches from becoming too powerful. These checks and balances are not isolated within the Constitution but peppered throughout the entire document. Lets deal with the ways our government has betrayed this principle.

Often times when the chief executive of a government signs or authorizes a new law, passed by the legislature, they make written or oral remarks.  Usually these are just remarks at how the law was necessary,its intention and/or what it hopes to carry out. These are not the problem. “The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional.”

The only choices a president has when they sign a bill into the law is the either enforce it or veto it.  It is right there in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution that he should “faithfully execute the laws of the United States.”  Whether or not the President likes the bill or agrees with a past law his oath of office requires him to enforce those laws.  To neglect this duty tramples on the judicial branch’s to declare laws unconstitutional.  It is also steps on the authority of the legislative branch to make the laws, since those laws often include the specifics of how the law is to be enforced.  These signing statements overrides their legislative prerogative and authority.

Did you know that there are hundreds of agencies within the federal government whose sole job is the enforce the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President? Well if you did not know, now, in the word of Bill Nye the Science Guy, “you know.” Congress creates these agencies for the expressed purpose to enforce the laws they were written about. The problem created in the modern-day is that these agencies have been given regulatory control by Congress.  This means that these agencies write out the specific relations and penalties for breaking the law.  This mean Congress has gotten lazy and refused to write out the specifics of the laws (despite the fact that most laws are hundreds if not thousands of pages long.). Congress has unconstitutionally delegated their legislative authority to many of these agencies, like the FCC or the EPA who both take it upon themselves to change regulations and enforce them. This is a dangerous blending of the executive and legislative powers that is strictly forbidden in the U.S. Constitution. The courts have struck down the regulations of these agencies multiple times for overstepping their authority.

This betrays our principle of separation of powers because it places the power of lawmaking into the hands of executive branch bureaucrats.  There is legislative oversight on these regulations but very few actually get dealt with in this manner.  Legislators need to make laws and leave the enforcement to the bureaucrats.  Giving them the authority to make new regulations allows another place where outside interests can lobby and affect the creation of regulations that could discriminate against one business or group against another.

In the last few years, many Presidents have hired and appointed special advisers to oversee special areas of interest. President Obama has had the most in recent history with over forty. The problem comes in that these people have not be approved by the U.S. Senate. I am not even sure what authority the Presidents are using the create these offices. It clearly states in the Constitution in Article II, Section 2:

he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint… all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law

The Constitution could not be any clearer in this matter. Any person who appointed by the President to any place under the federal government must fit two conditions. First, he seek the advice and consent of the Senate for such appointments. Secondly, the positions must be create by public law, i.e the Congress. Therefore, when the Presidents create these czars without authorization from Congress, and then appoint them without the consent of the Senate, they are in clear violation of the Constitution. And the Presidents have taken a power that was not granted to them in the Constitution, violating this key principle.

The last major betrayal of this principle is the worst of any kind. The President is responsible for signing many executive orders within their term. Most of these are orders that address the enforcement of laws, the placement of troops, or any number of other issues related to the President. Executive orders are not a clever way to subvert the legislative process. Almost every single modern president has used these to push their own agenda against the will of Congress. President Clinton asked members of his cabinet to isolate parts of his agenda that could be authorized by Executive order instead of legislation. Obama has started the same thought process. Take such as this article, where Obama is instituting new regulations on firearms.  Or even Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich’s Executive Order “blitz” on his first day in office.

Executive orders cannot create a law or abolish a bad one.  All legislative authority belongs to the U.S. Congress and the President’s use of Executive Orders to create regulations, or give money to organization (see Solyndra and other crony capitalist schemes) apart from Congress is a clear violation of this key principle of government.

How should we respond to this problem?  First, elect citizens to these offices who understand and support these principles.  Second, impeach any official who knowingly and intentionally oversteps their Constitutional authority.  Unfortunately the other branches of government, specifically the Congress, has not be diligent in protecting its legislative authority in these matters.  By giving up its authority to regulatory agencies they have betrayed this principle and given up their power voluntarily.  Many cases have struck down the over reaching regulator agencies, but they work faster than the courts and then enact more policies similar to ones already struck down.  There is no easy solution for that problem, except for citizens affect by these regulations to actively sue the federal government when the regulations clearly violate the authority of the Constitution and the laws.  Its a long path and not a sure one but it is a possible one.

“Blind Faith” Kickstarter Campaign

Dear readers, I am writing you today to tell you that for the next 41 days (ending on Saturday, April 26) I am running a funding campaign on the Kickstarter website.  What am I trying to fund?  This campaign is all about getting funds to pay for professional editing services for the science fiction novel I have worked on since the middle of 2012.  I am trying to raise $2,500 to pay for such services and the backer rewards.

Most of you know that I have been busy writing a science fiction novel over the last two years.  I had one draft finished at the end of the last school year.  At that point, I sent it out to friends and colleagues who said they would be interested in reading the manuscript and providing me notes on the writing.  A few months later I reread my manuscript while writing my own notes and then started rewriting the manuscript into my second complete draft.  This second draft had significant changes from the first, including eliminating a huge chunk of the story because it did not make sense.  The only way I can take this book forward is to get it edited by a professional.

I have already scouted out a few websites that will edit the story.  These include FirstEditing and BubbleCow.  Both of these sites offer editing both on the grammar of my writing and analysis of the plot.  If it comes down to pure economical price, I will probably go with BubbleCow because they offer both a line edit and analysis for a lower price than FirstEditng even does a general line edit for grammar.  If I have enough money, after Amazon and Kickstarter take their cut and I pay for the backer’s rewards, I may send the manuscript to both websites so that I can get two different perspectives on my novel.

What rewards did I come up with for my Kickstarter backers?  I am glad you asked.  The biggest reward goes to the one person who decides they want to fully fund my project.  They will have the privilege of naming of one of the prominent characters in this novel.  It will probably not be one of the major stock characters, but this character could make appearances in future books of this series (if successful).  Another big reward that includes allowing one of the backers to decide the gender of one of the major characters of the novel and series.  While writing the book I had the hardest time trying to decide the gender of one of the crew during my writing so leaving it to someone else might be a better idea.  Other rewards include a bound and signed copy of the updated manuscript from the editor’s notes, a personalize thank you note, and being included on the email list for future updates on the project, etc.  An additional reward for $100 backers. will include bound and signed copies of the major drafts of the novel so far.

What do I need from you my readers?  First, you could give to my Kickstarter campaign.  Any amount would be helpful and appreciated.  Secondly, you could promote his Kickstarter campaign in your own way.  Maybe on your personal blog or Facebook feed.  Thirdly, I am still looking for people who are willing and able to read my manuscript and give me notes on its content and quality.  If interested shoot me an email and I will send it on to you at my earliest possible convenience.  Fourth, sending your personal thoughts, prayers , and good Juju would be appreciated as I take this next big step into the publishing of my novel.

To sum up, I have a book I am writing that needs to be professionally edited.  I am running a Kickstarter campaign to raise the money to pay for those services.  There are some interesting and unique rewards for all backers but especially those who support me with a significant amount of money (Yes, my artistic integrity can be bought for a price).  I need you help in any way, shape, or form that you can provide for me (money, promotion, reading or praying).  Thanks in advance for any and all the help you provide either little or small.

Here is the link to my Kickstarter Campaign Page:  Editing “Blind Faith.”

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Have a nice day! Class dismissed!

Book Summary: Broke by Glenn Beck – Chapter #10: The Truth

In this long continuing books summary of Glenn Beck’s Broke we have moved past the first section on history and move into the the present problem.  The first part dealt with how we got into our current fiscal situation as a nation.  The second part is titled the Crime of the Century.

Where We Are Now (143-144)
The financial legacy left behind not just about the next generation, this is about our current generations.  Unless the United States is willing to take radical actions to change our fiscal course the nation is in real jeopardy.  The people to blame for this mess though is ourselves; we did not hold our leaders accountable for all the reckless spending that has occurred in the last one hundred years.

Mandatory Bankruptcy (144-148)
The budget of the federal government contains two major spending categories: mandatory and discretionary.  Mandatory spending is what it sounds like, it is mandatory.  These program operate by determining who is eligible and what is the benefit they get.  They operate on autopilot and increase as more people enroll in the programs under this umbrella.  The only way to change this type of spending is by legislatively changing the programs.  The programs that operate under mandatory spending include: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other welfare programs.  It is these programs that make up the largest part of our annual federal budgets and they are getting larger each year.

Discretionary spending encompasses everything else in the budget from national defense to educational spending and the payments made to the national debt.  These are passed by annual appropriations bills that must be voted upon by both houses of Congress and approved by the President.

Over time the mandatory spending has grown and has started to grow larger each year. And it only threatens to grow larger over time due to the large number of baby boomers retiring each day and year that will be drawing on Social Security, and Medicare.  There is no control over this spending without legislating those changes.  And even suggesting that the country change Social Security or Medicare is political suicide.

Pork:  Not Just the Other White Meat (148-419)
Earmarked appropriations are little projects that senators and representatives allocate money to in their state or district for museums, studies or other projects.  It is estimated that they cost the taxpayers over $16 billion in 2010.  In the end though these projects are a distraction to the hundreds of billions and trillions of dollar we have had in deficit spending in the last few years and decades.  While we focus on the small projects, which politicians should be held accountable for in elections, we take our eyes off the major structural problems in our country’s finances.

An Interesting Look at Interest (149-152)
The interest on our national debt is about 8.6% of our annual federal budget.  Not a big deal if we weren’t still wracking up debt on the country’s credit card every year.  The Congressional Budget Office predicts that this percentage will more than double in the next six years, but this assumes the interest rates will remain stable, but they probably will not.  Include the problem of investors now looking for increased rates to compensate them for the increased risk of buying our nation’s securities and we have a disaster.  As the amount of interest we pay increases the amounts of money we can spend on other programs the nation cares about decreases.  This will lead to every budget being cut if not eliminated.

The Big Unknown (152-154)
Everyone has a credit score, even nations like the United States.  In recent history the credit rating for many nations started to be lowered by Standard and Poor’s.  The U.S. lost its precious triple A rating which means the interest we have to provide to investors who buy U.S. bonds and other securities has to be higher.  Though a lower credit rating might be the wake up call that is needed to bring about the necessary fiscal changes needed in our nation.

I.M. Freaking Out (154-156)
The International MOnetary Fund (IMF) released a report that shows how much debt and its maturity rate would be needed to fund our budget deficits, its not good for the United States.  According to the report we would need to raise 32.5% of our annual GDP ($15 trillion) to make sure everything is running smooth.  This is worse than Greece, Portugal and Spain.  The only nation worse than us, Japan with 64%.  The difference here is between a 30-year fixed rate and a five year adjustable rate mortgage.

A Lot of Work to Do (156)
The IMF predicts that in order to bring about stability to our nation’s economic troubles, the U.S. would need to make an adjustment equal to 12% of our GDP or $1.7 trillion.  The only real way to make these adjustments is through serious structural reforms to programs and agencies.

All Debt is Local (156-159)
The debt and financial problems of the U.S. government are not the only ones our nation faces.  Many of the state and local governments are in fiscal trouble as well.  Many of the state rely on monetary support from the federal government for their welfare programs and Medicare payments.  Governors penciled in amounts into their state budgets they expected to get from the feds only to see those amount drop sharply and leave them with budget shortfalls.  And the money that is given to them by the feds is not free, its all funded by the American tax payer (of which there are fewer every day).

Huge Returns, No Risk… Call Now! (159-161)
So the states are in trouble too, but so are local government, where there is an estimated $3 trillion in unfunded liabilities surrounding the pension systems put into place to provide retirement to government workers.  This means that there is not enough money in the bank to fund all people who will eventually retire from local and state governments.  The reason for this underfunded situation is because the state government predicted an 8% annual return on the investments and money deposited into the pensions.  They rarely get an 8% return.  The big problem is the american and state tax payer is legally obligated to pay these pensions, much like Social Security.  And when these states run out of money to pay the pensions they will more than likely turn to the feds who will borrow more money to bail out the states.

A Chart is Worth a Thousand Books (164-169)
Glenn ends this chapter with a series of charts that outlines some of the major fiscal problems the nation is currently facing.  Among them include how federal spending has increased by the median household income has not over the last forty years.  Another shows how government transfers to people in benefits (subsidies, paychecks, etc.) is going up over government production (providing services).  A great one shows the reductions that are needed in our fiscal system at various intervals.  It shows we could make smaller cuts now 8.1% (in 2009) instead of larger cuts later, 15.5% in 2040.

The Real Bottom Line
The United States has a massive debt problem.  We have over $17 trillion in our national debt.  The states combined owe around $2.5 trillion.  State and local pensions add another $3 trillion.  The unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare add $7.7 and $38 trillion to our possible debt.  For a grand total of $64.2 trillion dollars in debt and unfunded liabilities.  That is more than the GDP for the entire world.  We have to act now and token cuts to programs, services are not going to cut it.

The next chapter of the book deals with why we have not been hearing about this crime, the cover-up if you will.  I hope you will join me for that chapter.  Thanks for reading and have a nice day.

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed!

Uncle Tom: The Historical & Literary Reality of the Term

An Uncle Tom is a term being thrown around in the last few weeks.  I have seen it used to describe Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas both recently and in the past.  An Uncle Tom is defined as “a black who is overeager to win the approval of whites” (Merriam-Webster).  A friend used the term to refer to homosexuals who excuse the anti-homosexual agenda being debated and legislated upon in several states; Arizona being the chief among them.  The origin of the term comes from Harriet Beecher Stowe novel, of almost the same name(“Uncle Tom’s Cabin”) that condemns slavery.  The problem with the term Uncle Tom and its accepted derogatory definition do not line up with the real characterization of the character Uncle Tom as portrayed in Stowe’s book.  This article will first outline the true view of Uncle Tom as portrayed in Stowe’s novel.  Next, it will explain where the derogatory term originated.  Lastly it will analyze why its a horrible and discriminatory term for anyone to use including blacks.  Thus, calling a person an Uncle Tom is more could condemn the person using as a bigot than of the person its being used against.

Written by Stowe during the height of American sectional related to slavery and published in 1851, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” condemns the southern slavery system.  The story traces the lives of several slaves within the system, the title character of Uncle Tom being the chief protagonists.  Throughout the story Uncle Tom is sold many times, through no fault of his own, to progressively worse masters and further south.  In these situation Tom accepts his fate most of the time.  The biggest change in his character is near the end when he refuses to listen to his master’s orders to whip a fellow slave.  He also refuses to stop reading the Bible, encourages slaves to escape and eventually killed by his master for not obeying his orders.  Even with this brief description the calling a person an Uncle Tom is not a correct depiction of the derogatory term used so often against black Republicans and conservatives.  While Tom does not actively fight against the White power structure in the entire novel, he could not be seen as a person who supports slavery or is overeager to win the approval of whites.  He is just the opposite.  People like Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Jessie Jackson, Jr., and other black leaders of either political party could be called Uncle Toms and look on the term with pride, if used correctly.  The problem with the term is that it is not based on Stowe’s original work.  It is based on a satirical play that totally changes the character and the meaning of the term.

When someone calls a black person an Uncle Tom today, it refers to the derivative works of Stowe which she had not control (Williams, 2002).  These works transformed Tom from a sympathetic Christ-like figure who actively fights against the white slavery system and power to a foolish, apologist, that supports the slave system in the American south (Meer, 2005).  These inaccurate depictions of Uncle Tom have been the basis of the term used today.  This view of Tom goes completely against the view Stowe had when she published her novel and she would have disagreed with the term as an insult for blacks (Keyes, 2002).  The point being calling a person an Uncle Tom is not a correct term based on the work of Harriet Beecher Stowe.  To call a person this term, with this definition actually supports a racists view of blacks and African-Americans because it characterizes Tom inaccurately and in a stereotypical view of black created by already avowed racists and bigots.

This history of the term Uncle Tom is clearly and obviously misunderstood and used incorrectly in modern America.  To this end what should our reaction be, as citizens, to the use of this term in U.S. History.  First, we should condemn anyone who uses it because any use condemning blacks of supporting the “white” power is clearly an incorrect use of the term.  To that end we should educate our fellow citizens as to the true literary and historical meaning of the term and show how calling a person an “Uncle Tom” is actually a positive term.  Secondly, we need to educate people who would suggest that blacks and/or African-Americans have to support a particular party or political agenda is just as bigoted as an Uncle Tom.  The view that all black are required to members of the liberal Democratic Party and acts in their best interest is an ignorant view an educated and civil society.  It implies that blacks cannot think for themselves and choose for themselves their own political beliefs.  It implies that any one political party has a monopoly on the interest or agenda of any one particular group.  It also ignores history that shows the best friends of blacks for much of our history was the Republican Party while Democrats supported slavery, Jim Crowe laws and institutionalize racism and segregation for over one hundred years after the Civil War.  In the end the use of the term, Uncle Tom, shows that the person who uses the term probably more clearly an Uncle Tom than the person who is called this term, because the term supports a racists view of blacks.

Calling a person an Uncle Tom is a condemnation of the person using as a bigot than of the person its being used against, because they clearly don’t understand the real intended meaning of the term.  This article first laid out the original intent of Stowe when writing Uncle Tom in her novel in the 1850s.  It is a term of praise for a person who fights against the white power and slavery system.  Next we traced the meaning of the term to today as it springs from works meant to make fun of Stowe’s original.  These works distort the terms real meaning based on the author’s real intent in their writing.  Lastly, we examined how we could respond to people who use this term.  What is the take away from this article.  We must be careful what we call people.  Calling a person an Uncle Tom clearly betrays the meaning intended by Harriet Beecher Stowe in her classical work.   But if we studied what it really meant we would realize being an Uncle Tom is not such a bad thing and that the use of the term discriminates against people who just have a different political perspective than the rest of or part of a group.  We should know what we say before we say it, and for that we have to understand the words we use.

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Thanks for reading and have a nice day!

Keyes, Allison (2002-11-29). “NPR : A New Look at ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin'”The Tavis Smiley Show (NPR). Retrieved 2008-01-09.

Linda Williams (2002). Playing the Race Card: Melodramas of Black and White from Uncle Tom to O.J. Simpson. Princeton University Press. pp. 7, 30–31 47–62. ISBN 978-0-691-10283-2. Retrieved 2009-04-16.

Sarah Meer (2005). Uncle Tom mania: slavery, minstrelsy, and transatlantic culture in the 1850s. University of Georgia Press. pp. 1–4, 9, 14–15. ISBN 978-0-8203-2737-2. Retrieved 2009-04-16.

“Uncle Tom.” Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2014. < Tom>.

55 Million Dead, Hundreds of Millions Wounded

Imagine that the title of this blog post was a headline in a major newspaper today.  Then let the number of the title sink in for a second.  That is the more people than many nations on the planet earth.  It is more than twenty-five times the number of wounded and dead from ALL of America’s military conflicts and wars from 1775 forward.  It is more than four times the number of people killed by Hitler during this terms as ruler of Germany.  These numbers describe a genocidal holocaust on the largest magnitude, overshadowed by the genocide of Mao Zedong’s cultural revolution.  What these fifty-five million dead represents the estimated number of abortions that have occurred since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Texas’s abortion laws in 1973 in the historical case of Roe v. Wade.  The hundreds of millions wounded describe the other fallout of that supreme court decision representing the women physically, emotionally or mentally scarred by the abortion itself.

The history of abortion is an interesting and contradictory one in the United States.  In the early years of the republic it was legal to terminated a pregnancy through different means before the quickening, the time when the mother can feel and know that a child is in her womb.  The first abortion laws passed at the behest of medical doctors to prevent midwives and other medical practitioners who were not doctors from taking their business.  That still does not make it moral, right or even ethical though.  I can usually appreciate and respect the other side of the debate in public policy.  In this case I am incapable of taking the other side.  If that offends you then stop reading.  If your interested in listening to the other side of the debate though please by all means read on.  And let’s have a discussion about this contentious public policy debate.  Here is where I stand, if it’s not already obvious.

Many of the pro-choice advocates talk about the woman’s right to choose, the right to privacy in decisions about reproductive decisions.  Logically that makes sense if the body she were making decision about was hers.  Biologically the baby is a separate person.  Since when do you get to make the choice of life or death for another person?  Not the point I was trying to make but an important one if the baby is alive and a person.  My point was that baby was not created because of the actions of only one person (Sidebar: I am obviously not including cases of rape or incest in this, but those are a smallest minority of abortion cases.)  It is clichéd, but it takes two to tango.

What about the father?  Does he not have a right and say in the life of the child?  If the woman were to keep the baby she could force him to pay child support.  How can he be held responsible for the financial support of a child, but not in the decision on whether an abortion takes place to kill the baby?  This logically does not make sense to me, especially as a man.  Where is my choice?  Are not men being deprived of their liberty to raise a child anytime a woman aborts a child that biologically is just as much his as hers? Where is the man’s right to choose?   (Please feel free to respond in the comment section below).    The right of the man is infinitesimally small when compared to another person’s right in this entire situation.  But first, lets talk about life and death.

How do we determine if a person is alive or dead?  If you stumble on an accident and see people hurt you check for a pulse.  Doctors and nurses do this all the time while examining and treating patients.  We have devices that we hook up to people’s bodies to measure and monitor their heart beat.  In emergency situations, the focus on bring people back is on ensuring that their heart is still beating.  It is only after doctors take all reasonable and/or extraordinary measures to restart the heart that a person is declared dead.   Can we all agree to the facts in question?  A beating heart means you are alive, a stopped heart means you are dead.  Agreed?  I assume your nodding your head in agreement or saying, “Yes.”

If I remember correctly from all the baby books I read when my wife was pregnant with my first daughter, the fetus develops a heart and it usually starts beating right around eight weeks after conception.  According to medical science and previously agreed to facts, that fetus is alive.  Abortion then stops that beating heart and the fetus is dead.  Regardless of the situation that created the baby (rape, incest, one night stand, failed birth control, in vitro fertilization, etc.) it is alive.  To say otherwise contradicts all known and practiced medical science.

If the baby inside the mother’s womb is alive, and we agreed that this is true, then does that person not have certain rights as a human being that should be protected?  To quote Thomas Jefferson, the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”   Does not our Constitution protect the right of people to not be deprived of “life, liberty and property without due process”?  Where is the due process for the person within the mother’s womb.  The only argument against this point would be to say that the baby in the womb is not a person.  If you want to make that argument go ahead, but you have to answer me this question.  When do they become a person worthy of the protections provided for us by our creator and secured by our Constitution?  (Again leave your comments below).  Lastly, lets talk about the difference between two similar situations.

Imagine you and your spouse are “with child.”  Your happy because you for a long time to have kids.  Things are humming along and then suddenly there are problems.  You and your spouse spare no cost to protect the life of that unborn child, but in the end its to no avail.  The child dies.  You are heartbroken.  Your life is shattered by this unexpected loss.  Maybe you bury the body of the child.  How and why is this any different from an abortion?  The only difference is that the dead child, as a victim of abortion, was not wanted, desired, or obviously loved, because we don’t like things we want, desire or love.

The problem with that argument is that this child could be loved if the parents of the aborted child made a different choice.  There are families out there who can not get pregnant, but want children.  Give that unwanted or unplanned child to them to raise in loving home.  In many states you can actually choose the parents of your child  and be involved with them if you want.  Adoption is one of the hardest and most selfless decision a person can make, but it is the best decision too because it takes the mistakes that brought about this child and creates love that was not there before.  That mistakenly created is wanted, desired and loved, we as humans, just have to find out who wants them, who desires them, and by whom this child will be loved.

In summary, men help make life and babies.  Do they also not have rights in the decision. Secondly, conception creates a beating heart; abortion stops it.  How are the rights of that person protected?  Lastly, every child is wanted, desired and loved.  What will you do to make sure yours is?

I know abortion is a very contentious and heated debate.  I honestly welcome discussion and debate on this issue.  Please keep it respectful and focused on the facts, not emotions or hyperbole.  Any personal attacks made in the comments sections will cause you to be censored by me and possibly kicked off the boards at my discretion.  If you feel you are being attacked please email me personally and I will deal with it as soon as possible.  Thanks again for your time and your readership.

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed and have a nice day.