Abortion is a Black & White Issue

After I went to bed last night, a person on Twitter sent me a post stating that the abortion issue is not black and white, which I interpret to mean that abortion is a very complex issue. Here is my response:

I believe that abortion is black and white issue that people do their best to complicate. The abortion debate boils down to one simple question: Is the human fetus a human being that has the right to life? If the fetus is a human being, killing it is a crime. It's a scientific and logical fact that a fetus is a human being in an early stage of development. To say that a fetus is anything else but a human being has no basis in science, reason, or logic. It is a fact that the killing of a human being is murder. Therefore, abortion is murder and should be made illegal.

There are a variety of reasons why women seek abortions. I'm certain that many, if not most, women who seek abortions are in very difficult situations, and I feel for them. However, no matter how difficult the situation is, the fact remains that the fetus inside the woman is a human being that has the right to live, just as much as the mother has the right to live. Nothing justifies killing the unborn child. Nothing. The rights of both the mother and the unborn child can and should be respected. Rather than allow abortion to remain legal, we need to make it illegal and find ways to help women with unwanted pregnancies.

Sounds pretty black and white to me.

Caitlin Jane's "Unborn" Music Video

Live Action Films provided a link to a beautiful pro-life video on YouTube called "Unborn". The video is very well done, and does a great job at illustrating the beauty of all life, especially the unborn. I hope the video touches your heart, as it did mine:



If you have difficulty viewing this video, click here.

Does Conception Occur at Fertilization, or Implantation?

Earlier today I was chatting with a pro-choice friend of mine about the terms "fertilization" and "conception". To me, these two words are synonymous. When the sperm and the egg unite, the egg is fertilized, and conception occurs. To my friend, however, these two words have very different meanings. When I asked what the difference was, she said that fertilization occurs when the sperm and the egg unite, but conception doesn't occur until the fertilized egg implants itself in the uterine wall. I asked her where she got this information, and she said that she got it from "medical books."

After doing some research, I discovered that the distinction between fertilization and conception isn't as clear cut as my friend wanted me to believe. According to Wikipedia, "Fertilization (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy), is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism." [1] According to About.com, "Conception is when the female's egg is fertilized by a male's sperm." [2] According to the Merck medical manual, "For conception (fertilization) [to occur], a live sperm must unite with an ovum in a fallopian tube with normally functioning epithelium" [3] However, according to Ovulation-Calculator.com, "cell division and implantation of the egg must take place for conception to be successful." [4] According to Guttmacher.org, a pro-abortion organization, "A pregnancy is considered to be established only when the process of implantation is complete" [5]

So why all the confusion as to whether fertilization and conception occur at the same time, or not? According to PhysiciansForLife.org, conception "was redefined by contraception & abortion promoters in the 1960’s to mean 'implantation in the uterus', not 'fertilization'. " [6] After further research, I discovered that it was the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) that redefined conception in 1965. ACOG is a known supporter of abortion rights. Even though ACOG redefined the point at which conception (pregnancy) occurs, it appears that many people in the medical community didn't get the message, and still believe that conception occurs at fertilization. Results of survey taken by the Louisville Ob/Gyn Society showed that 73% of the respondents indicated that conception occurs at fertilization.[7]  

So what difference does it make if conception occurs at fertilization or implantation? It makes a big difference in regards to hot button reproductive issues such as in-vitro fertilization (IVF), cloning, stem cell research, and the use of so called pregnancy prevention drugs such as Plan B. If conception (pregnancy) occurs at implantation, the disposal of the fertilized egg after fertilization but prior to implantation can be considered contraception, instead of abortion. By saying that conception occurs at implantation, abortion rights supporters can claim that the use of drugs like Plan B prior to implantation does not result in an abortion. If conception occurs at fertilization, Plan B would be considered an abortifacient, which would most likely deter many women from using it. If less women use Plan B, the drug companies that make Plan B make less money.

Since there appears to be ambiguity in the medical community as to whether conception occurs at fertilization or implantation, how can a person decide which is the case? For a person that only has the civil law and secular culture to gauge what is true or not, it is a difficult question to answer. As a Catholic, I can defer to the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding when life begins. According to the Catholic Church, "Pregnancy, in fact, begins with fertilization and not with the implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall" [8]

References:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilization

[2] http://contraception.about.com/od/contraceptionoverview/p/conception.htm

[3] http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec18/ch258/ch258a.html?qt=conception&alt=sh

[4] http://www.ovulation-calculator.com/pregnancy/pregnancy-conception.htm

[5] http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html

[6] http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1170/2/

[7] http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a907299020&db=all

[8] Statement on the So-Called "Morning After Pill" http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html

The "My Body, My Choice" Fallacy

The battle cry of the pro-choice/pro-abortion movement is "My body, my choice!" In other words, they are saying that a woman is the owner of her body, and only she can decide what can or cannot be done with or to her body. They believe that no person or law should force a woman to do something to or with her body that she doesn't want to do, or prevent her from doing something to or with her body that she wants to do. This belief has its roots in the feminist and women's rights movements.

In regards to the abortion issue in particular, members of the pro-choice movement say that a woman is justified in having an abortion performed on her body to remove a fetus (unborn baby) from her womb because she owns her body, and can choose to do whatever she wants to her body. Whenever I'm discussing the abortion issue with someone who uses this argument, I ask them if they support laws that prevent people from ingesting or injecting narcotics like cocaine and heroin into their body? More specifically, I ask them if a woman should be able to take narcotics legally, since they believe a woman has a right to do whatever she wants to her body? This question usually poses a quandry for abortion rights supporters. Most people, including most pro-choice supporters, are against narcotics use. The reasons for being against the legalization of narcotics is because narcotics can harm people. People can become addicted to narcotics. People who are high on narcotics can harm other people, especially when they are operating large machinery, like automobiles.

So why does the narcotics legalization question pose a quandry for some people with the "My body, my choice" mentality? If such a person supports laws that prevent women (and men) from ingesting or injecting narcotics into their body, they are, in effect, preventing women (and men) who want to take illegal narcotics from doing what they want with their body. They are against a woman's (and man's) "choice" when it comes to narcotics use, but for a woman's (and man's) "choice" when it comes to abortion. The conflict this situation sets up is obvious.

When I ask abortion-rights supporters if they support laws that prevent women from taking narcotics, they often respond that they think narcotic use should be legalized, or that the restrictions on narcotics use should be relaxed. Although this may shock you, it shouldn't really surprise you. They probably feel it would be hypocritical to support a law that upholds a woman's right to choose abortion, and at the same time support a law that takes away a woman's right to take narcotics. Rather than risk being accused of hypocrisy, they say they support the legalization of narcotics.

Some abortion rights supporters say that they oppose the legalization of narcotics because narcotics harm people. The same could be said for abortion. Many women are physically, emotionally, and mentally harmed by abortion. Abortion also results in the death of another human being, the unborn child that is forcibly removed from the mother's womb.

If a woman's right to do what she wants with her body is not an absolute right that applies to all situations, the possibility exists that there are some situations where a woman does not have the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. This reduces the "My body, my choice" argument to mere opinion. If you are pro-life, and a person tries to use the "My body, my choice" argument to justify abortion, respond by saying "That's your opinion, and I disagree with it."

Peace be with you!

Paul

P.S. - This post only addresses the "My choice" part of the "My body, my choice" argument. The "My body" part of the argument is really a separate issue. I believe that a woman doesn't own her body. God owns her body, because he created it. Hmm, that sounds like a good topic for another blog post!

Poll: If you support abortion rights, do you think narcotics use should be legalized so that women and men have the right to choose to take drugs?

Is Forced Pregnancy the Same as Forced Child Support?

Consider the following two scenarios:

Scenario #1: A woman named "Kathy" has consentual sex with her partner and gets pregnant. Not wanting to have a child at this phase of her life, Kathy is faced with a dilemma: should she carry the child to term, give birth, and give the child up for adoption, or should she have an abortion? Kathy decides to have an abortion, because she doesn't think she should be forced to endure nine months of pregnancy for a child she doesn't want.

Scenario #2: A man named "John" fathered a child with his wife. When the child was one year old, John decided he didn't want to be a father or a husband at this phase of his life, and decides to divorce his wife. He moves out, and leaves his wife and his child. John is faced with a dilemma: should he pay child support to his wife for the child they had together, or not? John decides to not pay his wife child support, because he doesn't think he should be forced to pay child support for a child he doesn't want.

If these scenarios took place in the United States, John would be committing a crime, but Kathy would not. In the United States it is illegal for a father to not financially support his child, but it is legal for a woman to kill her unborn child via abortion. Why is that? Why is it ok to force a man to live up to his responsibilities as a father and force him to pay child support for up to 18 years (until the child turns 18), but it's not ok to expect a mother to live up to her responsibilities and force her to remain pregnant for nine months?

I propose to you that what we have here is a massive double standard. Both Kathy and John knew what they were getting into. Kathy knew when she had sex that there was a risk that she might get pregnant, and John knew that when he decided to have a child, that he was responsible for supporting that child. Both Kathy and John are responsible for the children they conceived. If it is ok to legally force John to pay child support, it should be ok to legally force Kathy to endure 9 months of pregnancy and give birth to her child. John shouldn't be able to shirk his responsibility to his child, and Kathy shouldn't be able to shirk her responsibility to her child.

What do you think?

If you don't think Kathy should be forced through her pregnancy, but think John should be forced to pay child support (in other words, you chose answer B), please provide the reason you think that way in the comment box below.

Is a Fetus a Blessing, or a Violation? Take the Poll!

If a woman has consentual sex and gets pregnant, what do you think the resulting fetus is?

A Pro-Life Version of a Pro-Choice Analogy

Here is an analogy written by Judith Jarvis Thomson which is used by pro-choice people in an attempt to show that it is ridiculous to expect a woman who is experiencing an unwanted pregnancy to carry the child for 9 months and give birth, against her will:

"I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. . . . But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, 'Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you -- we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.'


Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, 'Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this: all persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.'


I imagine you would regard this as outrageous. . . ."

-Judith Jarvis Thomson

Below is my pro-life version of the same analogy. I have modified it so that it is a closer analogy to a women who experiences an unwanted pregnancy after having consentual sex, which is how the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies occur.

"I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. . . . But now let me ask you to imagine this. You go to a concert and meet a famous violinist, who is a hotty. After the concert, you invite the violinist back to your house. As you are sitting on the couch chatting with him, he tells you that he has a fatal kidney ailment. He tells you that he's having a very hard time finding someone with the blood type that can help him. You like him so much that you volunteer to have your blood type checked to see if you can help him. The next day, you have the blood test, and it is determined that you have the right blood type to help the violinist. When you call the violinist and tell him the good news, he is overwhelmed with joy.


The next week you go to the hospital with the violinist for the procedure. You both meet with the doctor, and he tells you the procedure (called a "quicky") normally takes about 15 minutes, but he makes you fully aware that the procedure might take up to nine months if a particular complication occurs during the procedure. You like the violinist so much that you are willing to risk being connected to him for up to nine months. You tell the doctor that you are fully aware of what you're getting into, and tell him you want to go through with the procedure.


You and the violinist are then taken to the room where the procedure will take place. The violinist's circulatory system is plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. Several minutes into the procedure the doctor informs you that the complication he had mentioned earlier has occurred, and the procedure is going to take up to nine months to complete. He says that if the violinist is unplugged before the nine months have passed, it will kill him. After the nine months have passed, the violinist will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. The doctor looks into your eyes and says, "I know that this is a very difficult situation for you to be in. Because of this situation, your life is going to be radically different for the next nine months. However, by enduring it, you will be giving this violinist the gift of life."


I pray that you would regard this as an opportunity to do something extremely heroic, to take responsibility for your actions . . . ."

- A modified version of an analogy by Judith Jarvis Thomson (with extensive meaning-changing alterations by Paul Schlenker)

I'd like to emphasize that in my version, the woman and the violinist were made fully aware before they had the procedure that they might have to be connected to each other for nine months. Whenever a man and woman have consentual sex, they are fully aware that the act might result in the conception of a child, even if they are using contraception. Contraception is not 100% effective. When a man and woman conceive a child, it is their responsibility to give birth to the child. If they don't want the child, it is their responsibility to allow someone to adopt the child, and give it the love and life that all human beings deserve. 

I hope that you can see after reading my version of the analogy that it is an act of extreme love and heroism for a woman to endure nine months of pregnancy and give birth to a child that she doesn't want or is unable to take proper care of. It is not outrageous for society to expect her to do such a thing.

Is God Pro-Choice?

In my discussions with people who support abortion rights, there have been several times when I've been told that God is pro-choice, and supports abortion. How can a person possibly think that? The very thought of God looking favorably on abortion is 100% the opposite of what I've learned and believe as a Christian. All throughout my Christian upbringing I've been taught that God is the creator of all life, and loves his creation. I've been taught that God created each human being, and knew each of our names before we were even in our mother's wombs. Above all, I have been taught that the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" means that God forbids us to kill any human being, even an unborn human being. How could God possibly support the killing of the most innocent and helpless of his creations?

I watched a video this morning that gave me insight into how pro-choice people might think that God supports abortion. In the video, Reverend Rebecca Turner, a minister from an allegedly Christian religion, attempts to explain to women who are thinking of having an abortion that God supports them if they choose to go through with the abortion. At one point in the video, Rev. Turner says "Whatever you decide to do, I want you to know that God is with you. God is with you right now in the abortion clinic, and God's going to be right there by your side throughout the procedure. The bible says that nothing in all creation can separate us from the love of God." Rev. Turner is correct in that God is always by our side, no matter what we do, and will always love us. God is with us when we sin, and when we don't sin. He doesn't abandon us when we're sinning, and then return to our side once we stop sinning. That doesn't mean, however, that God always supports or condones what we are doing.

What Rev. Turner is basically saying in the video is that a person can commit whatever sin they want to commit, because God will love and support them no matter what. She is saying that you can commit any sin you want, even murdering an unborn child, because God will continue to love you in spite of it. This is a major distortion of the nature of God's relationship with humanity. If what Rev. Turner is saying is true, there would be no need for a hell. If people can commit any sin they want to commit, and remain in God's favor, who would be condemned to hell? The truth is that God gave us a free will. We can choose to follow his commandments, or we can choose to go against his commandments and commit sin. If the sin we commit is serious enough, and we do not repent, our salvation is in jeopardy. In other words, we might spend an eternity in hell after we die. It is also wrong to believe that a person can commit any sin they want to commit, as long as they apologize to God afterwards. God will not be mocked. God loves every human life, and wants everyone to be with him forever in heaven, but he gave us a free will so that we can freely choose to be with him. If we turn away from God of our own free will, it is possible that we might spend an eternity separated from the love of God. That is what hell is. 

I was tempted not to show the video because of how wrong its message is, but decided to show it because it is a classic example of how deceptive the pro-choice movement and abortion industry can be. The pro-choice movement deceives people into thinking that abortion is such a good, even healthy, thing to do. In the video, Rev. Turner uses a peaceful, sedate, and compassionate tone of voice when she speaks, which serves to fool women into thinking the abortion industry really cares about them. The reality is that the abortion industry makes billions of dollars a year off of women who are in a difficult situation. It is deceptive videos like this one that tricks thousands of women into aborting God's gift to them, their unborn child.

Here is the video:



If you have difficulty viewing the video, click here.

The Humanity of the Unborn

The following scripture passage is the gospel reading from the Catholic Mass for Sunday, December 20, 2009. I particularly like this scripture because it clearly shows the humanity of unborn children. It also causes me to contemplate how pro-life Mary was. May you be filled with a profound love for the unborn and all life this Christmas season.

"Mary set out and went as quickly as she could to a town in the hill country of Judah. She went into Zechariah’s house and greeted Elizabeth. Now as soon as Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. She gave a loud cry and said, ‘Of all women you are the most blessed, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. Why should I be honoured with a visit from the mother of my Lord? For the moment your greeting reached my ears, the child in my womb leapt for joy. Yes, blessed is she who believed that the promise made her by the Lord would be fulfilled.’"

Luke 1:39-44

Gianna Jessen - Abortion Survivor

Gianna Jessen is a person who survived a saline abortion. In the following videos Gianna tells her story, and a powerful story it is. I hope these videos touch the heart of every person who watches them, and convinces them that each and every human live is precious and deserves protection.


Part 1:



Part 2:

The Life-itudes

Blessed are they who believe that human life must be protected from the moment of conception until natural death.

Blessed are they who believe an unborn child is a human being that deserves full protection under the law.

Blessed are they who are called names, like "misogynist", "woman hater", and "antichoice", because of their efforts to protect the lives of the unborn.

Blessed are they who believe all human beings have the right to live, not just those who have already been born.

Blessed is the woman who experiences an unwanted pregnancy and chooses to give her child the gift of life, even though people around her are urging her to abort.

Blessed are those in public office who work to enact legislation that protects the lives of innocent and helpless unborn children.

Blessed are they who believe every life is special, and has dignity, regardless of how that life came into existence.

Blessed are they who provide assistance to mothers with unwanted pregnancies, so that they may choose life for their child.

Blessed are those who offer the multitude of abortion alternatives to women with unwanted pregnancies.

Blessed are the unborn children, growing in their mother's womb. The kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Celebrate the Birth of Every Child This Christmas

The following text is the introduction to Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life), the papal encyclical of Pope John Paul II. I wanted to share it with you because it is particularly relevant this Christmas season. Not only are we celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, but those of us who are pro-life are fighting to protect the rights of those yet to be born.

"The Gospel of life is at the heart of Jesus' message. Lovingly received day after day by the Church, it is to be preached with dauntless fidelity as "good news" to the people of every age and culture.

At the dawn of salvation, it is the Birth of a Child which is proclaimed as joyful news: "I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord" (Lk 2:10-11). The source of this "great joy" is the Birth of the Saviour; but Christmas also reveals the full meaning of every human birth, and the joy which accompanies the Birth of the Messiah is thus seen to be the foundation and fulfilment of joy at every child born into the world (cf. Jn 16:21).

When he presents the heart of his redemptive mission, Jesus says: "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly" (Jn 10:10). In truth, he is referring to that "new" and "eternal" life which consists in communion with the Father, to which every person is freely called in the Son by the power of the Sanctifying Spirit. It is precisely in this "life" that all the aspects and stages of human life achieve their full significance."

To read the Evangelium Vitae encyclical in its entirety, go here.

Healthcare Reform without a Conscience Clause = Doctor Shortage

If the U.S. healthcare reform bill is passed without a valid conscience clause, Catholic health care providers will have no choice but to shut down.



This video was provided by the St. Michael Society. If you have difficulty viewing the video above, please click here.

Catholic and Pro-Choice - A Contradiction in Terms?

As a Catholic and pro-life advocate, one of the most difficult things for me to understand is how some Catholics think that they can be pro-choice, and remain in good standing with the Church. A high profile example of such a Catholic is Rep. Patrick Kennedy (http://bit.ly/7Ao89b). There are even pro-choice Catholic organizations, such as Catholics for Choice (http://bit.ly/7JvGqV). Catholics for Choice not only supports abortion rights, but they advocate contraception use, another violation of Catholic Church teaching.

The only thing I can surmise from people and groups like this is that they must take a "pick and choose" approach to their Catholic Faith. In other words, they pick and choose which church teachings they are going to believe and follow, and disregard the teachings that don't align with their personal beliefs. While this practice appears to be somewhat accepted in non-Catholic Christian churches, it is not accepted in the Catholic Church.

As far as I know, Catholics are expected to follow all church teachings to the best of their ability. If they disagree with a teaching, it is their duty and responsibility to learn why the church teaches it. The sad fact of the matter is that sometimes when Catholics disagree with a church teaching, they don't take the time to find out the reason for the teaching. They just disregard it.

Of all the teachings of the Catholic Church, one of the core teachings is the teaching that abortion is wrong. It is a core teaching because life is sacred, and to destroy life or support the destroying of life is to commit a grievous sin against God, who is the author of life. To support abortion in any way, shape, or form is in direct contradiction to the message of Jesus Christ.

If you are a Catholic who supports abortion rights, I strongly recommend you do some research into why the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is wrong, and pray to God for deeper understanding. The Catholic Answers web site is a good place to start: http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp.

It is my prayer that everyone in the world will come to know and believe that all life is sacred and deserves protection, from conception until natural death. Peace be with you.

Life Begins at Home

"We must remember that life begins at home and we must also remember that the future of humanity passes through the family." ~ Mother Teresa

Abortion - Treating the Root Cause, Not Just the Symptoms

People are spending a lot of time and energy these days trying keep abortion legal, or to make it illegal. I wish we would spend more time trying to figure out how to help women avoid the unwanted pregnancies that often lead them to have abortions. We also need to find ways to empower/encourage women to carry their babies to term and give birth when they experience unwanted pregnancies.

How can we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies? One way would be to encourage people to wait until marriage to be sexually active. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 64.4% of all abortions are performed on women who are not married. Encouraging people to not have sex if they definitely do not want to have a child, or aren't in a financial position to support a child will also help to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

How can we empower/encourage women who experience unwanted pregnancies to carry them to term and give birth? Above all we need to find ways to help them realize the value of all human life, especially helpless unborn life. In addition, we need to provide encouragement when they feel apprehensive about pregnancy and childbirth. We need to provide financial aid if needed to help her afford the pregnancy, childbirth, post natal care, and beyond.

If we can find ways to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies, and help women with unwanted pregnancies to choose life for their unborn child, abortion will soon become a moot issue.

The Prolife/Prochoice Communication Gap

Many conversations I've had with people who support abortion rights go absolutely nowhere. The same is true for many conversations I've witnessed on Twitter between pro-life and pro-choice people. Why is that? Why are both sides unable to have productive conversations with each other? I believe there is one major factor that causes this communication gap. It is what I call the life vs. rights factor.

When a pro-life person discusses the abortion issue, they approach it from the standpoint of the life of the unborn child. The focus of their argument is to prove the unborn child is a human being that deserves to live. When a pro-choice person discusses the abortion issue, they approach it from they standpoint of women's rights. The primary goal of the pro-choice person is to ensure that women have the freedom to choose what they want or don't want to do. This goal is not limited to abortion rights.

Conversations between pro-life and pro-choice people usually start out with a debate about the personhood of the fetus. Even if the pro-life person can get the pro-choice person to admit that the fetus is a "baby", the conversation eventually stalemates. Why? Because the pro-choice person will not agree that abortion should be illegal, because that would mean that women don't have the right to do anything they want. The notion is in direct opposition to the radical feminist version of the women's rights movement that many pro-choice people belong to. On the other hand, the pro-life person will not agree that a woman has the right to do anything she wants with her body, because that would give her the right to kill her unborn child.

So, how do we get beyond this impasse? I'm still looking for the answer. One thing I do know is that the pro-life and pro-choice forces might come to a better understanding of each other if they learn to follow these simple rules:

1. Treat each other with respect and dignity.

2. Don't use inciteful words. If you don't like it when someone uses words that tick you off, don't do the same thing to others.

3. Share with the other person what you believe. Don't tell them what they believe. They know much better than you what they believe.

4. If the person you're talking to makes a valid point, have the humility to acknowledge it. 

5. If the person you are talking to is being nasty to you, try being extra nice to them. If you do, you might win them over. If you fight nasty with nasty, I'll guarantee that you won't get anywhere.

I really believe that most people in both the pro-life and pro-choice movements feel they are doing the right thing. I doubt that there are many pro-choice people who support abortion rights so that fetuses can be brutally dismembered. Likewise, I doubt that there are many pro-life people who want to make abortion illegal in order to take away women's rights and force women to do things they don't want to do.

Let us all put the rhetoric and hatefulness aside and treat each other with dignity and respect. If we do so, we might actually make progress towards a solution to the abortion issue.

Beautiful Holiday Song Featuring Yo Yo Ma and Chris Botti

A beautiful song from Yo Yo Ma's latest holiday album called "Songs of Joy and Peace":



If you have difficulty viewing the video, click here.

Peace and blessings to you and your family this holiday season!

My Favorite Christmas Carol - Star Carol

This is a YouTube video of one of my most favorite Christmas carols of all time, Star Carol. What makes this particular version of Star Carol so incredibly special to me is that it is the very same recording I listened to on my parent's record player (remember those?) when I was a child. This recording was done by an artist named Anna Maria Alberghetti on a Goodyear Christmas album. In this recording you can hear the same pops and clicks that I remember hearing when I used to listen to LP records. The noise is caused by the diamond needle coming in contact with dust on the record. Kids that have never listened to music on LP records have no idea how good CD's really are! A special thanks to my sister Linda for giving me the link to this video. I tried to find it a week or two ago, but couldn't. I hope you enjoy the beauty and tenderness of this wonderful carol.



If you have trouble launching the video, click here.

Fear This!

The concept of fear has negative connotations in modern society. To fear is considered a sign of weakness. Christians are called to "fear the Lord", but fear in this sense means "wonder" and "awe". I pray that you experience the wonder of God in your life today, and stand in awe of his greatness.

Fear of the Lord is glory and splendor,
gladness and a festive crown.
Fear of the Lord warms the heart,
giving gladness and joy and length of days.
He who fears the Lord will have a happy end;
even on the day of his death he will be blessed.
The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord,
which is formed with the faithful in the womb.

Book of Sirach 1:9-12

Restless Waters Blog Grand Opening

Welcome to the grand opening of the Restless Waters blog. I will be posting articles very soon, so stay tuned!