Country-loving Elizabeth

Swagbucks

2011-10-10T23:30:00.001-07:00

This is a great way to earn Christmas money.

The Lazy Meme

2011-06-30T19:38:00.000-07:00

The instructions with this are to bold the ones you've done, leave the others in
normal type.

1. Started your own blog
2.Slept under the stars
3.Played in a band
4.Visited Hawaii
5.Watched a meteor shower
6.Given more than you can afford to charity
7. Been to Disneyland/world
8. Climbed a mountain.
9. Held a praying mantis
10. Sang a solo
11.Bungee jumped
12.Visited Paris
13. Watched a lightning storm at sea
14. Taught yourself an art from scratch
15. Adopted a child
16. Had food poisoning
17.Walked to the top of the Statue of Liberty
18.Grown your own vegetables
19.Seen the Mona Lisa in France
20.Slept on an overnight train
21.Had a pillow fight
22. Hitch hiked
23. Taken a sick day when you’re not ill
24. Built a snow fort
25. Held a lamb(I've held a kid. That's close enough, I think.)
26. Gone skinny dipping
27. Run a Marathon
28.Ridden in a gondola in Venice
29 Seen a total eclipse
30.Watched a sunrise or sunset
31.Hit a home run
32.Been on a cruise
33 Seen Niagara Falls in person
34. Visited the birthplace of your ancestors
35. Seen an Amish community
36. Taught yourself a new language
37. Had enough money to be truly satisfied
38. Seen the Leaning Tower of Pisa in person
39. Gone rock climbing
40. Seen Michelangelo’s David
41 Sung karaoke
42. Seen Old Faithful geyser erupt
43. Bought a stranger a meal in a restaurant
44. Visited Africa
45 Walked on a beach by moonlight46. Been transported in an ambulance(I'm assuming that when I quit breathing when I was 2 they called 911 and went to the hospital in an ambulance)
47. Had your portrait painted
48. Gone deep sea fishing
49. Seen the Sistine Chapel in person
50. Been to the top of the Eiffel Tower in Paris
51. Gone scuba diving or snorkeling
52. Kissed in the rain
53. Played in the mud
54. Gone to a drive-in theater
55. Been in a movie
56. Visited the Great Wall of China
57. Started a business
58. Taken a martial arts class
59. Visited Russia
60 Served at a soup kitchen
61. Sold Girl Scout Cookies
62. Gone whale watching
63. Gotten flowers for no reason
64 Donated blood, platelets, or plasma
65.Gone sky diving
66 Visited a Nazi Concentration Camp
67 Bounced a check
68. Flown in a helicopter
69. Saved a favorite childhood toy
70.Visited the Lincoln Memorial
71. Eaten Caviar
72. Pieced a quilt
73. Stood in Times Square
74. Toured the Everglades
75. Been fired from a job
76. Seen the Changing of the Guards in London
77. Broken a bone
78. Been on a speeding motorcycle
79 Seen the Grand Canyon in person
80. Published a book
81. Visited the Vatican
82. Bought a brand new car
83. Walked in Jerusalem
84. Had your picture in the newspaper(Every year, just about)
85. Read the entire Bible
86. Visited the White House
87. Killed and prepared an animal for eating
88. Had chickenpox
89. Saved someone’s life
90. Sat on a jury
91. Met someone famous
92. Joined a book club
93. Lost a loved one
94. Had a baby
95. Seen the Alamo in person
96. Swam in the Great Salt Lake
97. Been involved in a lawsuit
98. Owned a cell phone
99. Been stung by a bee

Crab and Cream Cheese Wontons (Sweet!)

2011-06-23T22:53:00.000-07:00

Homemade Chinese Takeout

2011-06-23T21:00:00.000-07:00

Makes 4 servings

1 tsp sesame oil
1 Tbsp olive oil
2 garlic cloves, pressed
2 dried cayenne peppers, crumbled
2 boneless, skinless chicken breast halves, cut into bite-size piecess
1 bag frozen Aisan-style mixed vegetables
1/3 cup hoisin sauce
1/4 cup honey
Ginger
Onion powder
Garlic powder
Hot cooked brown rice

Heat the oils in a large skillet over medium heat. Add the garlic and cayenne peppers and saute for 1 minute, until the garlic begins to brown.
Add the chicken and saute for 6-8 minutes, stirring often, until no longer pink on the inside.
Add the vegetables, hoisin, honey, and spices to taste. Continue to cook until the vegetables are tender.
Serve hot over cooked rice.

Thai Coconut-Red Curry Soup

2011-06-23T20:52:00.000-07:00

Makes 6 servings

2 cans coconut milk
4 cups chicken broth
2 Tbsp packed brown sugar
1-3 tsp red curry paste
1 Tbsp fish sauce
1 tsp sesame oil
1 lb cubed tofu
1 sweet potato, diced
1 small zucchini, sliced
1 can sliced water chestnut, drained
1 Tbsp lime juice
2 Tbsp portobello mushrooms, sliced
6 green onions, sliced
1 lb cooked shrimp

Shake up the cans of coconut milk before opening them. Combine the coconut milk, broth, sugar, curry paste, fish sauce, and sesame oil in a large pot. Bring to a simmer over medium-low heat. Add the tofu, sweet potato, zucchini, and water chestnuts and let simmer for 15-20 minutes.
About 5 minutes before serving, stir the lime juice, mushrooms, and green onions into the soup. add the shrimp just before serving. Serve hot.

Louie Giglio "How great is our God"-Part 4

2010-10-12T02:01:00.000-07:00

Louie Giglio "How great is our God"-Part 3

2010-10-12T02:00:00.001-07:00

Louie Giglio "How great is our God"-Part 2

2010-10-12T02:00:00.000-07:00

Louie Giglio "How great is our God"-Part 1

2010-10-12T01:59:00.000-07:00

Indescribable by Louie Giglio - Part 5 of 5

2010-10-12T01:58:00.000-07:00

Indescribable by Louie Giglio - Part 4 of 5

2010-10-12T01:57:00.000-07:00

Indescribable by Louie Giglio - Part 3 of 5

2010-10-12T01:54:00.000-07:00

Indescribable by Louie Giglio - Part 2 of 5

2010-10-12T01:53:00.000-07:00

Indescribable by Louie Giglio - Part 1 of 5

2010-10-12T01:52:00.000-07:00

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Declaration of American Values

2010-07-04T00:00:00.000-07:00

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Declaration of American Values

Posted using ShareThis

Why Homeschool: Would you like to be on the Today show?

2010-05-14T12:27:00.000-07:00

Why Homeschool: Would you like to be on the Today show?

Why Homeschool: Funny thought about phones and computers

2010-05-05T13:02:00.000-07:00

Why Homeschool: Funny thought about phones and computers

The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer (1947) - You Remind Me of a Man

2010-04-16T22:42:00.000-07:00

Dawn Wells Potato Peeling Video

2010-04-16T22:39:00.000-07:00

How To Fold a T-shirt in 2 seconds

2010-04-16T22:38:00.000-07:00

The Common Room: Boys and Girls Are Different. Really.

2010-03-20T02:38:00.000-07:00

The Common Room: Boys and Girls Are Different. Really.

Sending a Message with the Census - Mark Krikorian - The Corner on National Review Online

2010-03-11T12:51:00.002-08:00

Sending a Message with the Census - Mark Krikorian - The Corner on National Review Online

2010-03-11T12:51:00.001-08:00

Sending a Message with the Census - Mark Krikorian - The Corner on National Review Online

Why Homeschool: Census questions about race

2010-03-11T12:50:00.000-08:00

Why Homeschool: Census questions about race

Printing a Book, Old School

2010-02-27T23:07:00.001-08:00

The Myth of the Divine Matchmaker

2010-02-14T00:00:00.000-08:00

By Jason DulleMay 24, 2004
A recent Big Question concerned the way in which readers defined “soul mates.” As expected many of the responses reflected the idea that there is one person out there personally created for us by God. While not directly expressed, those who believe that often advance a particular method for finding this “one” as well—diligently seeking the Lord through prayer, and being sensitive to His voice as communicated through personal feelings or signs.
As romantic and spiritual as this may sound, upon further examination it’s found to be unreasonable, unbiblical, and impractical.
UnreasonableWhen it comes to marriage there is no such a thing as “the one.” Soul mates do not exist as such. That this is so becomes immediately apparent when we consider the idea in practice. If God has destined one particular mate for every person throughout time, what would happen if just one person wasn’t “listening to God’s voice” and chose the wrong mate? It would have a domino effect that would prohibit anyone in future generations from being able to marry their soul mate. Let me illustrate.
David’s soul mate is Mary. David, however, marries Jane because He failed to hear the voice of God telling Him to wait until Mary comes along. What does Mary do, then? She has to marry someone other than her soul mate. She marries Glenn. But Glenn was soul mate to Brenda. Now that Brenda’s soul mate has married someone else, she is forced to marry Roger. Roger’s soul mate, Linda, is forced to marry someone else’s soul mate. The circle widens ad infinitum until in encompasses every living person within several generations.1
This logical quandary should lead us to abandon the idea of “the one” altogether. If the lack of rationality supporting this idea is not enough, however, let us examine the Biblical data to see if we find something different there.
UnbiblicalFrankly, there is no Biblical evidence for the notion of soul mates. Unlike most fictitious views concerning God’s design and will for mankind, the idea of soul mates is not even based off of a misreading of Scripture. In the absence of a Biblical basis, it becomes difficult to offer a Biblical critique. The only way to do so is to examine what the Bible does say concerning the topic, and then show how this is inconsistent with the belief being passed off as Christian. Because I will do this below, here I will simply challenge those holding to the soul mate idea to provide a single passage of Scripture that either implicitly or explicitly teaches this idea.
I am confident that no such verse will be provided because no such verse exists. Sure, we find an example or two in which God plays matchmaker at human request, but there is no indication that the individuals would have been out of the will of God had they married someone else, nor is there any indication that this is the divine pattern for finding a marriage partner.2
Scripture actually describes many different ways in which people obtained a spouse, but never proscribes any of them as the divine method of mate selection:3
■ Jacob, for example, worked 14 years to obtain his wife Rachel.■ The children of Benjamin had a unique method of obtaining wives: they hid in bushes while foreign women danced, then at just the right moment ran out and kidnapped them, taking them for wives.
I don't hear anyone using these passages as the Biblical model for finding a marriage partner!
To choose one instance of how one individual came to find their spouse as the Biblical norm, to the exclusion of all other methods, is arbitrary, and an example of poor Biblical interpretation. There is simply no Biblical authority to hold up one example over the other as the preferred method, yet alone the norm.
ImpracticalI have known many sincere individuals who have experienced heartache due to this myth. Some of these individuals have passed up many possible mates because they just did not feel that (s)he was the one, or because God failed to give them the signs they were expecting to receive when they had stumbled upon their soul mate. Years later they find themselves alone and full of bitterness over the hand that “God” has dealt them. “How could it be?” they ask. “I thought God promised me a soul mate?”
Others married their spouse because they just knew that they knew that they knew that they were Mr(s). Right. The way they felt when in the presence of this person was so different from the feeling with all the others that it must be God’s will. Then there are those who had all the “confirmations” that they were supposed to marry so and so:
■ They prayed that God would let the phone ring three times before their newfound love picked up, and this would be a confirmation that they were to be married…and it did.
■ They prayed that if it was God’s will for them to marry that they would turn the radio to a certain station and there would be a song about marriage…and there was.
■ They were driving down the road wondering if they should marry this person when (lo and behold!) they see a car just up ahead with a sign on the back: Just Married. This must be God! So they marry.
Years later, however, when Mr(s) Right fails to exhibit the same characteristics (s)he did in the beginning of the relationship, or when (s)he has had an affair or leaves the faith, or when (s)he files for divorce, they are left wondering what happened to their match made in heaven. Did God lead them astray? Were they not spiritual enough to discern the signs God was giving them? Confusion and misery consume them as their ideal relationship vanishes before their eyes.
Can the notion of soul mates hurt people? Yes, it can, and it does.
True Biblical TeachingRather than trying to touch on everything the Bible has to say about marriage I will focus exclusively on I Corinthians 7, the most extensive passage dealing with the issue of marriage and mate-selection.
As unspiritual as this may sound Paul never suggested that we should pray about who God wants us to marry,4 nor that God is in the soul mate matchmaking business. Ironically, the question Paul asked was not, “Who should you marry?,” but, “Should you marry at all?” If I could sum up Paul’s argument in common vernacular, he said, “Here's the deal. If you are single you can better serve the Lord, but you will have to live with the sexual frustration that accompanies the celibate life. If you are married, you will be sexually fulfilled, but your spouse will be a distraction from serving the Lord. Oh yeah, if you choose to marry you cannot divorce. It's until death do you part. There's the pros and cons, now make your choice.” He even gave his own opinion on the matter. His wise advice was based on spiritual expediency (I Corinthians 7:20-21, 28, 29-31, 32, 40, exemplified and summarized in verse 35).
Paul never appealed to prayer, nor did he tell the Corinthians to let the Lord make their decision for them. He never hinted at the notion of soul mates, nor did he teach that God will confirm for us who we are supposed to marry. Why? It’s because the concepts of soul mates and divine confirmations are mere inventions of Western romanticism mixed with spiritual aspirations, not Biblical teaching.
The following is a list of the Biblical principles (with verse numbers) set forth by Paul concerning our choice to marry, and by implication our choice concerning who to marry:
1. Do what is good and profitable (1, 8, 26)2. Do that which leads to peace (15)3. Do what helps you best keep God’s commandments (19)4. Do what causes the least trouble (28)5. Do what makes the best use of time (29)6. Do what makes you most free of external concerns (33)7. Do that which leads to undistracted devotion to Christ (35)8. Do what promotes personal happiness (40)
Pay particular notice to the following verses:
■ “concerning virgins…we have received no command of the Lord” (I Corinthians 7:25).
■ “if you marry you have not sinned” (I Corinthians 7:28).
■ “let him do what he wishes” (I Corinthians 7:36).
■ “she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes” (I Corinthians 7:39).
These verses make it clear that the choice to marry, and the choice of who to marry are personal choices, not something God has predetermined.
The Only QualifierWe are not obliged to marry at all, yet alone marry a particular individual. As Paul declared, we can marry whom we wish, so long as they are in the Lord (I Corinthians 7:39). That is his only qualifier. So not only do we fail to find the idea of soul mates in this passage, but the perceived method of finding our mate (receiving signs from God) is necessarily nullified.
From the Biblical data we must conclude that while God cares about what type of person we marry, He does not have a specific will on who it is that we marry. As long as the individual falls within the sphere of certain guidelines He has set forth in His Word concerning mate selection, the choice on who to marry is up to us.
Only Biblical CriteriaThere are only two Biblical criteria for mate selection. First, our mate must be someone of the opposite sex (Romans 1:27). This narrows our choice to 3 billion people. Secondly, we must marry someone of like precious faith (I Corinthians 7:39; II Corinthians 6:14). This narrows our selection down to about 8 million people. Here is where explicit Biblical teaching ends, and Biblical principles and commonsense pick up.
We cannot marry those we have never come into contact with, narrowing our choice to several hundred or several thousand people. To choose from among this group we must employ wisdom—Do we get along? Do we compliment one another? Do our families and elders approve of the relationship?
The next level of consideration is spiritual expediency—Will this individual bring me closer to God? Will they support me in the exercising of my spiritual gifts? Will they unnecessarily distract me from the work of the Lord?
The final level of consideration is personal preference—Blonde? Brunette? Caucasian? Latin? Family Background? Money Management? Neat or Messy? Make no mistake about it…these things are quite important.5
But God Could…The common objection at this point is to argue that God could reveal our mate to us through some sort of sign or feeling. I agree. Yes, God could reveal our ideal mate to us through some feeling, impression, or sign, but the question here is not what God can or cannot do. He can do anything He wants. The question is, What does the Bible teach about making decisions about our marital partner? Do we have any reason to believe that as a matter of course God both determines and reveals to us a specific person for marriage? No.
For those of us who claim to base our beliefs and practices on the Bible, then, we have no other choice but to abandon the idea that there is only one person in this world we can marry in the will of God, and that He will reveal this individual to us through some sort of feeling or sign.
So Stop It Already!The Biblical, rational, and experiential evidence speak in one accord against the myth of the divine matchmaker. Rather than asking who we should marry the Bible asks if we should marry. Rather than teaching that God will reveal “the one,” the Bible teaches that the decision concerning who we marry is a personal choice informed by wisdom. As lovely as the notion of soul mates may be, and as spiritual as the method for finding that soul may sound, neither are Biblical concepts and thus both must be dismissed by those whose authority for faith and practice is Scripture.
God is not in the matchmaking business. He has set forth some general guidelines in His Word concerning marriage and mate-selection, but has given us the freedom to choose who we marry within those guidelines. So long as our mate selection is within the moral parameters of Scripture and informed by wisdom, spiritual expediency, and in consideration of personal preferences, we can be assured that our choice is in the will of God.
Chances are good that in our lifetime we will meet several individuals with whom we could establish a life-long, meaningful, and happy marriage, all of whom would be pleasing to God. If, when, and who we marry is a decision God has left to us to make in a responsible and wise manner.
With Scripture as our guide we must confess that there is no room at the inn for soul mates. Reason and experience follow suit in posting their own “no vacancies” sign. The myth of the divine matchmaker is just one more Christian fairytale that’s made its way into mainstream Christian culture. As appealing as the myth may be to our romantic and spiritual nature, Scripture, not popular belief or fairy tale, must be our guide for mate selection.

ninetyandnine.com
© 2004, Jason Dulle
---------
Jason Dulle has been happily married for three months. He and his wife met at a Barnes and Noble in sunny California. The Lord confirmed that she was the one when Jason discovered that they were both reading the same book. From that moment on Jason knew he had found his soul mate. Just kidding!
Footnotes
1. This situation is further complicated in that some men take more than one wife, and some people marry more than once. And let’s not forget about the problem of the children born to non-soul mates. These children weren’t even supposed to exist. Who are they supposed to marry?
2. I am thinking of the occasion in which God gave a sign to Abraham’s servant that he was to choose Rebekah as Isaac’s wife (Genesis 24). Even if one wishes to argue that in this particular instance the Lord specifically wanted Rebekah as Isaac’s wife, one would need to consider the fact that God was preparing the lineage of the Messiah before they extrapolate any implications for mate selection from this event. The special nature of the circumstances would justify a special act of God.
3. Many misunderstand the difference between a description and a prescription. The former simply describes the way things are; the latter prescribes the way things should be. It is a mistake to extrapolate a prescription from mere description (in philosophy this is called the is-ought fallacy). There are many historical happenings recorded/described in the Bible that we should not, or need not do. The only way we are justified in mimicking some act as recorded in Scripture is if Scripture itself makes it clear that the action described is being described for prescriptive reasons. If the Bible is not clear that we ought to mimic the acts described, or expect the results someone else received, we are not justified in concluding that we are. If we do not carefully distinguish between the descriptive and prescriptive aspects of Scripture we will find ourselves creating doctrines and practices that are foreign to the very text from which they are supposedly derived.
4. This is not to say that prayer has no role in mate selection. Indeed, prayer is essential in the process. What this is to say is that the reason for which we pray during the mate selection process is often uninformed by Scripture. Usually we pray so God can tell us whether or not (s)he is “the one.” This sort of prayer finds no basis in Scripture. Scripture does advocate praying for wisdom (James 1:5), however, and wisdom is essential in the mate selection process.
5. To some, this last criteria may sound the most “unspiritual” because they have this sadomasochistic view of God’s will. For them God’s will must always be opposed to their will. If they are attracted to blondes God’s will, for them, must surely be a brunette. If they want somebody who is really “hot,” God must want them to marry someone they consider a little on the ugly side. This is a distorted picture of God’s will. God’s will is not that we are miserable, or that we never get what we want, but that we receive the desires of our heart so long as they are within His moral perimeters. Clearly there is nothing immoral about preferring brunettes to blondes!

The Fall of the Family: The Chanting of the Children

2010-01-23T00:00:00.000-08:00

By James Robison

Finally, the family is in trouble because the children are chanting. The children are chanting on the streets, but in a ven more universal way are chanting with their lifestyle. Youth are screaming for attention- from the music they listen to down to the way out clothes they wear.

While many parents seek to give their children the "things we never had" the "thing" children of the "now generation" long for is pure love. That's the one thing most of them never had.

There is a trend in America to abolish all moral absolutes. When moral absolutes are abolished, we can wave good-bye to the family. Children must be taught a solid distinct moral code of right and wrong. Although many fundamentalist groups are sharply criticized for having a list of no-no's that prohibit certain forms of music,movies, hairstyles,etc.; it might be said that it is far better to label a "right" as "wrong" than to label a "wrong" as "right" as is being done in American society today.

As long as the men melt, the women wander, and the children chant, the very fiber of the family will cotinue to degenerate. The future of the family is the future of our society, and we must make the strengthening of the family our formost priority. The hope for the family does not lie in "how-to" books, seminars, or psychological counseling. Family life in America is being dangled over the very depths of destruction by the thinnest of threads, and will be saved only as each individual member of each individual family lets the very God who planned, prepared, produced, and preserved the family be the God of their role in the family. God help us keep the family!

Robison, James. "The Fall of the Family." Life's Answer October 1977: 1-2.

The Fall of the Family: Melting of the Men

2010-01-09T00:00:00.000-08:00

by James Robison

For one thing, men are no longer the "head of the house." The so-called "women's liberation movement" is not the cause, but rather the result of men melting away from their God-given responsibility as the "king of their castle."

Ephesians 5:25 explicitly states that a husband is to love his wife in the same manner as Christ himself for her. The modern American male either has no earthly idea of the way in which Christ loved His Church, or else is totally disobedient to the word of God. Jesus did not come to earth to be waited on hand and foot, but rather to demonstrate the fine art of waiting on others hand and foot (Mark 10:45). And while it is true that many in the New Testament did serve Jesus, it was always in response to His initiating love.

A husband must put his wife before his work, his hunting trips, his "important meetings," his tinkering with the car, or even before the abundance of church activities that he may be engaging in. Serving the church is no virtue if one is not first and foremost serving his wife. The idea that one "bust a gut for God, (pardon the expression) and He'll take care of my wife" is neither Biblical nor sane.

Men are also melting from a responsibility as fathers. The faithless fathers of America were meant to be spiritual leaders- both in the home and in the church. And if one wonders why women are now being ordained as deacons and even preachers in conservative churches, the answer is that the "prayerless Papa's" of America have cowered in the corner and have offered no Godly leadership in the home or in the church. When leadership in the church is in the hands of women, you can bet your copy of Ms. Magazine that at home the only time "he" puts his foot down is when "she" says "he" can.

Many of these fearless fathers whose blood boils when they remember the day prayer was outlawed in school are cold-blooded against instituting prayer at home. Yet, nowhere in God's Word has the responsibility of teaching our children things of God been delegated to the goverment or our public schools. But there is a crystal clear Biblical direction that God does intend for parents to "train up a child in the way he should go" at home.

Robison, James. "The Fall of the Family." Life's Answer October 1977: 1-2.

The Fall of the Family: Introduction

2010-01-02T00:00:00.000-08:00

by James Robison

The family is the very foundation of any society. Historically, when the family fails the society fails. The great Roman Empire was not toppled by invading armies, but was destroyed from within by the decay of the family. Gibbon's classic, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" lists the "rapid increase in divorce in the home" and "undermining the sancity and dignity of the home" as 2 major reasons for the collapse of the Roman Empire. If the forces of darkness can destroy the family, they will have destroyed the very foundation on which any sane civilization sits.

If the above is true, them America is in serious trouble. The divorce rate is rapidly approaching the 50% mark in America (1 million couples were divorced last year), and the practice of living together without being married has increased 5 fold among persons under 45 in the past 6 years alone. Dr. Frederick Humphrey, President of America Ass'n of Marriage and Family Counselors, says that one half of the cases counselors deal with involve adultry. The Portland, Oregon, Housing Authority now allows unmarried couples to apply for subsidized housing. And a recent survey by Redbook Magazine revealed that 9 out of 10 women surveyed indicated they had had premartial sexual relationships.

The family structure is not the result of man's wisdom, but is a God-designed institution through which life is to exist. God's first human creations, Adam and Eve, were put together as a family. Even the very son of God, Jesus, was born into the context of a family. And as Gos inspired the writing of His word, he chose the family structure as an illustration of the relationship between Christ and His Church. Why then, is the family failing to stand firm against the threatening alternatives?

Robison, James. "The Fall of the Family." Life's Answer October 1977: 1-2.

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Christmas With the Presidents

2009-12-25T00:00:00.000-08:00

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Christmas With the Presidents

Posted using ShareThis

Amy Elizabeth Ermyntrude Annie

2009-12-17T13:28:00.000-08:00

Amy Elizabeth Ermyntrude Annie
Went to the country to visit her Grannie;

Learnt to churn butter and learnt to make cheese,
Learnt to milk cows and take honey from bees;

Learnt to spice roseleaves and learnt to cure ham,
Learnt to make cider and black-currant jam.

When she came home she could not settle down,
Said there was nothing to do in the town.

Nothing to do there and nothing to see:
Life was all shopping and afternoon tea!

Amy Elizabeth Ermyntrude Annie
Ran away back to the country and Grannie!

~ By Queenie Scott-Hoppper~

The Price of Children

2009-12-04T01:36:00.001-08:00

This is just too good not to pass on to all. Something absolutely positive for a change. I have repeatedly seen the breakdown of the cost of raising a child, but this is the first time I have seen the rewards listed this way. It's nice.

The government recently calculated the cost of raising a child from birth to 18 and came up with $160,140.00 for a middle income family. Talk about price shock! That doesn't even touch college tuition.

But $160,140.00 isn't so bad if you break it down.

It translates into:

* $8,896.66 a year,
* $741.38 a month, or
* $171..08 a week.
* That's a mere $24.24 a day!
* Just over a dollar an hour.

Still, you might think the best financial advice is don't have children if you want to be 'rich.' Actually, it is just the opposite.

What do you get for your $160,140.00?

* Naming rights. First, middle, and last!
* Glimpses of God every day.
* Giggles under the covers every night.
* More love than your heart can hold.
* Butterfly kiss es and Velcro hugs.
* Endless wonder over rocks, ants, clouds, and warm cookies.
* A hand to hold, usually covered with jelly or chocolate.
* A partner for blowing bubbles and flying kites.
* Someone to laugh yourself silly with, no matter what the boss said or how your stocks performed that day.

For $160,140.00, you never have to grow up. You get to:

* finger-paint,
* carve pumpkins,
* play hide-and-seek,
* catch lightning bugs, and
* never stop believing in Santa Claus.

You have an excuse to:

* keep reading the Adventures of Piglet and Pooh,
* watch Saturday morning cartoons,
* go to Disney movies, and
* wish on stars.
* You get to frame rainbows, hearts, and flowers under refrigerator magnets and collect! spray painted noodle wreaths for Christmas, hand prints set in clay for Mother's Day, and cards with backward letters for Father's Day.

For a mere $24.24 a day, there is no greater bang for your buck.

You get to be a hero just for:

* retrieving a Frisbee off the garage roof,
* taking the training wheels off a bike,
* removing a splinter,
* filling a wading pool,
* coaxing a wad of gum out of bangs, and coaching a baseball team that never wins but always gets treated to ice cream regardless.

You get a front row seat in history to witness the:
* first step,
* first word,
* first bra,
* first date, and
* first time behind the wheel.

You get to be immortal. You get another branch added to your family tree, and if you're lucky, a long list of limbs in your obituary called grandchildren and great grandchildren.. You get an education in psychology, nursing, criminal justice, communications, and human sexuality that no college can match.

In the eyes of a child, you rank right up there under God. You have all the power to heal a boo-boo, scare away the monsters under the bed, patch a broken heart, police a slumber party, ground them forever, and love them without limits, so one day they will, like you, love without counting the cost. That is quite a deal for the price!!!!!!!

Love & enjoy your children & grandchildren & great-grandchildren !!!!!!!

It's the best investment you'll make!

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Celebrating Thanksgiving In America

2009-11-26T00:00:00.002-08:00

12:00WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Celebrating Thanksgiving In America

Posted using ShareThis

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Thanksgiving in America

2009-11-26T00:00:00.001-08:00

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Thanksgiving in America

Posted using ShareThis

THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT

2009-11-26T00:00:00.000-08:00

THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November [New Style, November 21], in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620.

John Carver
William Bradford
Edward Winslow
William Brewster
Isaac Allerton
Miles Standish
John Alden
Samuel Fuller
Christopher Martin
William Mullins
William White
James Chilton
John Craxton
John Billington
Richard Warren
John Howland
Steven Hopkins
Edward Tilly
John Tilly
Francis Cook
Thomas Rogers
Thomas Tinker
John Rigdale
Edward Fuller
John Turner
Francis Eaton
Moses Fletcher
Digery Priest
Thomas Williams
Gilbert Winslow
Edmond Margeson
Peter Brown
Richard Bitteridge
Richard Clark
Richard Gardiner
John Allerton
Thomas English
Edward Doten
Edward Liester
John Goodman
George Soule

Love Story Taylor Swift meets Viva La Vida Coldplay by Jon Schmidt; Piano Cover mix

2009-11-08T00:00:00.000-08:00

Does the birth control pill cause abortions? "Appendices"

2009-11-03T00:00:00.000-08:00

Appendix A: When does each human life begin? The answer of scripture

"The babies [Jacob and Esau] jostled each other within her [Rebekah]." (Genesis 25:22)

"In the womb he [Jacob] grasped his brother's heel; as a man he struggled with God." (Hosea 12:3)

"Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese, clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit." (Job 10:8-12)

"Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?" (Job 31:15)

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." (Psalm 139:13-16)

"Surely I was sinful at birth; sinful from the time my mother conceived me." (Psalm 51:5)
Note: Only a person can have a sin nature. David's statement clearly shows he was a person at the point of conception.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

"His mother Mary . . . was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit . . . [the angel said] 'what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.'" (Matthew 1:18-20)

"But the angel said to Mary 'you will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. . . . The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.'" (Luke 1:30-31, 35)

Summary of Luke 1:39-44: After the angel left, Mary "hurried" (v. 39) to get to Elizabeth. Unborn John the Baptist (in his 6th month after conception) responded to the presence of the unborn Jesus inside Mary. Allowing for travel, Jesus was no more than 8-10 days beyond conception when they arrived. Implantation doesn't begin until 6 days after conception and isn't complete until 12 -- most likely Jesus was not yet fully implanted in his mother's womb when unborn John responded to his presence.

Appendix B: When does human life begin? The answer of science

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life."

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. . . . This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes in Paris (discoverer of the Down Syndrome chromosome)

"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter -- the beginning is conception."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School

"I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest -- that human life commences at the time of conception and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances."

Dr. Landrum Shettles, pioneer in sperm biology, fertility and sterility, discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm.

Appendix C: Abortion: perspectives of the early Church leaders

Note: The Didache was a second century (AD 120) catechism for young Christian converts. The inclusion of these statements shows that instruction to not commit abortion was a basic and essential Christian teaching, not a fringe or secondary issue.

"Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a new-born infant." (The Didache 2.2). "The Way of Death is filled with people who are . . . murderers of children and abortionists of God's creatures." (The Didache 5:1-2).

"You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay a child by abortion. You shall not kill that which has already been generated." (Epistle of Barnabas 19.5; 125 AD)

"We say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God. For the same person would not regard the child in the womb as a living being and therefore an object of God's care and then kill it. . . . But we are altogether consistent in our conduct. We obey reason and do not override it." (Athenagoras, Legatio 35, AD 165)

"The fetus in the womb is a living being and therefore the object of God's care" (Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, 35.6; AD 177)

"It does not matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. In both instances, the destruction is murder." (Tertullian, Apology, 9.4-6; second century)

"Our whole life can go on in observation of the laws of nature, if we gain dominion over our desires from the beginning and if we do not kill, by various means of a perverse art, the human offspring, born according to the designs of divine providence; for these women who, in order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs which expel the child completely dead, abort at the same time their own human feelings." (Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 2, AD 175)

"Reputed believers began to resort to drugs for producing sterility and to gird themselves round, so as to expel what was conceived on account of their not wanting to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time." Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies 9:7, AD 200)

"The wealthy, in order that their inheritance may not be divided among several, deny in the very womb their own progeny. By use of parricidal mixtures they snuff out the fruit of their wombs in the genital organs themselves. In this way life is taken away before it is born. . . . Who except man himself has taught us ways of repudiating children?" Ambrose of Milan, Hexameron, c. AD 350)

"Those who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons." (Basil the Great, Canons, 188.2; fourth century)

"Thou shalt not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. For everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if slain, it shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed." The Apostolic Constitutions 73; AD 380)

"Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before birth? For you do not even let the harlot remain a mere harlot, but make her a murderer also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather something even worse than murder. For I have no real name to give it, since it does not destroy the thing born but prevents its being born. Why then do you abuse the gift of God and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the place of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?" (John Chrysostom, Homily 24 on Romans, c. AD 375)

Jerome called abortion "the murder of an unborn child" (Letter to Eustochium, 22.13; fourth century). Augustine used the same phrase, warning against the terrible crime of "the murder of an unborn child." (On Marriage, 1.17.15; fourth century)

"The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being and it is a most monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man's house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light." (John Calvin, sixteenth century reformer)

Appendix D: God is Creator and Owner of all people (and therefore has sole rights over all)

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27)

"Know that the Lord Himself is God: it is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people and the sheep of His pasture." (Psalm 100:3, NASV)

"For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son." (Ezekiel 18:4)

"Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand." (Isaiah 64:8)

"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body." (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

Appendix E: God has exclusive prerogatives over human life and death

"See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand." (Deuteronomy 32:39)

"The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up." (1 Samuel 2:6)

"You shall not commit murder." (Exodus 20:13)

Note: Except when he specifically delegates that right to men (e.g. capital punishment, self defense, or just war), God alone has the right to take a human life.

"And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. . . . And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man."(Genesis 9:5)

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (Exodus 21:22-25)

"Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account." (Hebrews 4:13)

Appendix F: The shedding of innocent blood

"Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD." (Leviticus 18:21)

"The LORD said . . . 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. . . . by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. . . . If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech . . . I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him . . ." (Leviticus 20:1-5)

"Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed." (Deuteronomy 19:10)

"The LORD sent Babylonian, Aramean, Moabite and Ammonite raiders against him. He sent them to destroy Judah, in accordance with the word of the LORD proclaimed by his servants the prophets. Surely these things happened to Judah according to the Lord's command, in order to remove them from his presence because of the sins of Manasseh and all he had done, including the shedding of innocent blood. For he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD was not willing to forgive." (2 Kings 24:2-4)

"The LORD said, 'What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.'" (Genesis 4:10)

"For God will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight." (Psalm 72:12-14)

"There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers." (Proverbs 6:16-19)

"Therefore as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I will give you over to bloodshed and it will pursue you. Since you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you." (Ezekiel 35:6)

Appendix G: How God sees children

"See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven." (Matthew 18:10)

"But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." (Luke 18:16)

"Your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost." (Matthew 18:14)

"Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him." (Psalm 127:3-4)

Appendix H: Defending the weak and helpless

"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." (Psalm 82:3-4)

"Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, 'But we knew nothing about this,' does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?" (Proverbs 24:11-12)

"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." (Proverbs 31:8-9)

"Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." (James 4:17)

"House of David, this is what the LORD says: 'Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done -- burn with no one to quench it.'" (Jeremiah 21:12)

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come . . . take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. . . . I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me. . . . For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me. . . . 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'" (Matthew 25:31-46)

Randy Alcorn is the author of "Money, Possessions & Eternity"; "Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments", and other books. He is on staff at Multnomah Bible College. He and his wife Nanci founded Eternal Perspectives Ministries in Gresham, Oregon.

Does the birth control pill cause abortions? "PART 7"

2009-11-02T00:00:00.000-08:00

Conclusion

Convictions or convenience: A spiritual stronghold? -- Where do we go from here?

It is a tragic irony that we who are Christians try to persuade people not to have a single surgical abortion, while as a result of our choice to take the Pill we may be having two, three or a half dozen chemical abortions ourselves.

My intention is not to finger-point. I take no glee whatsoever in writing this. I do not wish to put my brothers and sisters on the defensive. Nor do I assume the worst of them, that they will all ignore this evidence and be callous to the lives of their unborn children.

If we'd had the information then that we do now, I am convinced Nanci and I would have stopped using the Pill. In the face of the overwhelming evidence, I think many others will make the same decision. Of course, I am not naive. I realize that many otherwise pro-life people will continue to take the Pill and many Christian physicians will continue to recommend it. I do hope that over time this will change, as our consciences become sensitized.

I have spoken with many Christian physicians, brothers I deeply respect, asking them their opinions on this research. One said, "I've never heard of any of this before." Another said, "I've heard rumors, but no one has ever pointed me to any hard evidence."

I believe what I've presented here is hard evidence. There is a clear answer to our question "Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?" The answer is definitely "yes."

In the face of this overwhelming evidence, our position on the Pill offers a great test of our true convictions. Do we really believe human life begins at conception? And will we exercise this conviction even at the cost of our personal inconvenience?

Or perhaps what we thought was a conviction will be proven to be no more than a preference. Perhaps the truth is, if we can avoid abortion without inconvenience to ourselves we will do so, but if it requires extra effort on our part, we will go ahead and risk the lives of our children. (In fact, they are really not "our" children to risk -- they are created by God and owned by God, and entrusted to us by Him to protect and nurture.)

Can God, who creates each human life at the point of conception, fully bless the pro-life efforts of CPC volunteers and Right to Life workers and sidewalk counselors and pastors and doctors -- and any of us -- when we turn right around and use, prescribe or recommend a product that sometimes takes the life of an unborn child?

Are we consistently pro-life or only selectively pro-life? Do we oppose later abortions while not really caring about the earliest ones? Is the only difference between us and those we call "proabortion" that they are willing to embrace the killing of bigger and older children while we are willing to embrace the killing only of smaller and younger children? Are we moral relativists and gradualists different only in degree but not in kind with those we call abortionists?

Because we have grown so accustomed to the Pill, will we turn our heads away from the risks it poses to our children? Do we dare to play God by infringing upon his sole and sacred prerogatives over human life?

We often encounter proabortion people who deny the basic medical and moral realities of the issue, and sometimes we shake our heads in wonder at the extent of their denial of the obvious, that abortion kills children and that it is ethically unacceptable. Many pro-lifers, for instance, have lived in denial when we've said, "I oppose abortion, except in cases of rape, incest and deformity." (Of course, an unborn child is a child; regardless of how he was conceived and what his handicaps are, it is wrong to kill a child.)

Because of social pressures and half-hearted convictions, when it comes to something so deeply entrenched in our society and in the Christian community as the Pill, each of us is fully capable of denial. Looking back, I believe I was in denial on this issue from the time I first heard about it six years ago. Why didn't I dig deeper? Why didn't I research it more carefully?

I have many other reasons to explain it away, but perhaps the bottom line is because I just didn't want it to be true. But there are many things I don't want to be true that still are. I don't want to believe there is an eternal hell; or that as a Christian I will be held accountable for my life's works at the judgment seat of Christ; or that millions of children go to bed hungry each night; or that abortion kills children; or that the Pill causes abortions. I don't want to believe any of these things, but I believe each of them nonetheless because the evidence clearly demonstrates them to be true.

Is there a supernatural reason for our ignorance and denial on this issue? As much as I believe in the spiritual realm and the spiritual battle, I am not as quick as many people to attribute every misunderstanding or problem in the church to demonic influence. However, consider what Jesus said: "the devil . . . was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44). When Satan carries out murder in an outwardly "civil" society, inevitably he must bury the murder in a huge grave of lies so that no one sees the corpses. When he convinces the church of these lies he has achieved his greatest victory -- it's hard to imagine a more horrid irony or a more crippling blow to the church than that we, followers of Christ, would make choices that result in the deaths of our own children.

The biggest threat to Satan's success in killing the innocent is that people become aware of the truth and then act on it. When I consider my own ignorance and lack of motivation to pursue and act on the truth that the Pill kills children, I am forced to conclude this may well be a spiritual stronghold that the evil one has on the church. Until we come to grips with, repent of and abstain from the chemical abortions we ourselves are having, I wonder how effective we will be as Christ representatives in general, and in particular in our efforts to prevent abortions.

Many surgical abortions happen in Christian churches, far more than most people realize. According to the latest Guttmacher Institute study, it is now just under one out of five women getting surgical abortions who claims to be a born again Christian. But it is the chemical abortions that are going almost completely unchallenged, even in the most pro-life churches and organizations, and it is these that represent the direction of abortion in America and around the world. Trends indicate that in years to come there will be fewer surgical abortions, because of the popularity and "ease" of chemical abortions. If the church herself is committing chemical abortions as a way of life, then we are woefully unprepared to fight the abortion battle at any level, let alone this one.

Ironically, the move to chemical abortifacients brings us full circle, since it is actually a return to the ancient way of doing abortions. In times where surgical abortions were very rare, certain herbs, chemicals and poisons were given to women by abortionists, who were often apothecaries or unethical doctors with a knowledge of what chemicals induced miscarriages.

That's why the ancient Hippocratic Oath taken by physicians stated, "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest such counsel, and in like manner, I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce an abortion." A pessary was an oval stone inserted in the vagina sometimes used to prevent conception and sometimes used to cause an abortion.

As the IUD is parallel to the "pessary" (a physical device) of the Oath, so the Pill and other chemical abortifacients are parallel to the "deadly medicine" ethical physicians would not prescribe.

It was in the face of such chemical and device-caused abortions that Christian leaders in the first few centuries consistently denounced all abortions. For instance, in about AD 200, Minucius Felix wrote in Octavius, "There are women who swallow drugs to stifle in their own womb the beginnings of a man to be -- committing infanticide before they even give birth to the infant." In the fourth century Basil the Great wrote, "Those who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons." (See Appendix C: Abortion: Perspectives of the Early Church Leaders.)

In fact, a strong case can be made for understanding the Greek word translated "sorcery" in Galatians 5:20 as a reference to administering drugs to commit abortions. This word is "pharma-keia," from which we get our word "pharmaceuticals," or drugs. The administering of drugs and potions was common in sorcery, and hence the word sometimes took on that secondary connotation. But it is also used in the Greek literature of the day with its original primary meaning of drugs, chemicals or medications. The most prevalent social example of the evil use of chemicals was using them to induce abortions. Pharmakeia was used early in the second century by the physician Soranos of Ephesus in his book Gynecology, referring specifically to drugs which cause abortions.

Galatians 5:20 lists pharmakeia as one of the "acts of the sinful nature," and precedes it with sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery and idolatry. All of these relate to the immoral practices that led to many unwanted children and therefore many abortions, giving further logic to the idea that pharmakeia may in fact refer to using chemicals to kill unborn children.

The same word is used three times in Revelation. In Revelation 9:21 it says: "Nor did they repent of their murders, their pharmakeus, their sexual immorality or their thefts." In 21:8 it states: "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, the pharmakeus, the idolaters and all liars -- their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur." In Revelation 22:15 it says, "Outside are the dogs, the pharmakeus, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."

As the devil loved the sacrifice of children in the ancient heathen cultures, so he loves the sacrifice of our children in our modern culture. Whether children are sacrificed to a heathen god called Moloch or to the god of our own convenience, he does not care. (See Appendix F: The Shedding of Innocent Blood.) Whether these children are born or unborn does not matter to the Murderer from the beginning, for each of them is equally created in the image of God, and by killing them he comes as close as he can to striking out at God himself. In killing those created in his image, Satan kills God in effigy.

The evil one's vested interests in our blindness on this issue cannot be overstated. The forces of darkness desperately do not want us to see these newly conceived children as their Creator sees them. If we are to come over to God's way of thinking about them, it will only be through searching the Scriptures, praying, examining the evidence and openly and boldly addressing this issue in our churches and Christian organizations.

Time to search our hearts and change our ways?

Christian couples who are using the Pill, it is time to sit down and have a heart to heart talk. As a matter of conscience and conviction, do you believe you can or should continue with the Pill? Or is it time to consider other alternatives? Surely we should search the Scriptures together, pray together, look at the facts presented here, and ask God's guidance for our families.

Pastors, counselors, physicians, nurses, pharmacists and others: what will you do with this information? Our churches, our patients, our counselees, our families look to us for leadership. Let's take our God-given role seriously and provide that leadership. At the very least we must present people with both the scientific facts and the biblical principles, so they can be informed enough to make wise and godly decisions. We dare not be silent in the face of the lives of children created in the image of God. "Speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves; defend the rights of the poor and needy." (Proverbs 31:8-9) (See Appendix H: Defending the Weak and Helpless)

If for some reason you are not satisfied with the evidence presented here, will you commit yourself to find out the truth? Go to the Scriptures first, then go to the medical journals and textbooks. Call the Pill manufacturers. (Of course, you must be prepared for the fact that they have been trained to deal with questions from pro-lifers and to minimize concerns about abortion. Even then, if you persist in your questions, most of them will acknowledge that their literature is in fact correct -- the Pill does sometimes prevent implantation of a newly conceived human being.)

If after investigating the issue, you still are not convinced, ask yourself "If this evidence doesn't convince me, is there any evidence that would?" Is it possible -- and I ask this with caution and, I think, without a critical spirit -- that your own vested interests in this issue are blinding you to the truth?

It is always better to live in the light than the darkness, even if for the moment the darkness may be comforting to the eye. Ultimately, facing the truth will set us free, while denying it will put us in bondage. The truth about the Pill may disturb us -- it certainly disturbs me -- but if we respond prayerfully to what we know, we can make informed choices to follow the Lord and affirm his Lordship over us, our families and our churches. God will surely bless us for that.

Let God's Word be the final one: "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live." (Deuteronomy 30:19)

Note: If you wish, feel free to copy this booklet or download it from our website at http:/www.epm.org/~ralcorn and give it to your friends, family, church or anyone else. You have my full permission to do so. If you prefer to order copies of this booklet from Eternal Perspective Ministries, you can contact us at 2229 East Burnside #23, Gresham, OR, 97080.

Does the birth control pill cause abortions? "PART 6"

2009-11-01T00:00:00.000-07:00

"Life is full of risks -- you can't avoid them all"

This is certainly true. We put ourselves and our children at risk every time we drive a car. If we let our kids go swimming we take risks. Our child's ability to grow and mature and gain confidence and trust in God in a world of risks partially depends on our willingness to take reasonable risks.

But we are also careful not to take unnecessary risks. Our risks are wise and calculated. Because we love our children we expose them only to a measured level of risk -- they ride in the car, yes, but we belt them in and drive carefully. As they grow up they learn to make their own decisions as to what level of risk is wise and acceptable.

And the younger our children are, the less risks we take with them. We might leave an eight year old free to roam the house, while we wouldn't a toddler. When we are talking about a newly conceived human being, if we take the Pill it is his life we are risking. The reason we're doing so is not for his growth and maturity, but for our convenience. We are unnecessarily putting him at risk of his very survival. Through the choice to take certain chemicals into our bodies via the Pill, we may be robbing him of the single most important thing we can offer a newly conceived child -- a hospitable environment in which he can be nourished and grow.

We would not consider withholding food and a home and physical safety for our children who are already born. We would not be careless about what we eat and drink and the chemicals we ingest and the activities we do that could jeopardize the child within when she's six months after conception. Then neither should we put our child at unnecessary risk when she's six days after conception. Yes, we can't know for certain she's there at six days. But if we've been sexually active we know she may be there. And therefore we should do nothing unnecessarily that could jeopardize her life.

A sexually active woman runs a new risk of aborting a child with every Pill she takes. Of course, the decision to take the Pill isn't just a woman's but her husband's, and he is every bit as responsible for the choice as she is. As the God-appointed leader in the home, in fact, he may be even more responsible.

How much risk is acceptable risk? Part of it depends on the alternatives. There is no such thing as a car or a house that poses no risk to your children. But there is such a thing as a contraceptive method which does not put a child's life at risk. There are safe alternatives to the birth control Pill that do not and cannot cause abortions.

"Can't we just take higher dose pills?"

At first, I'd hoped this was the case. But I kept running into materials showing that even when high dose estrogen was used the pregnancy rate of women on the Pill was still 1% and the effects on thinning the endometrium were the same as they are now. This means that breakthrough ovulation, perhaps at a little lower rate, certainly still took place. It may have added up to fewer abortions then, but not no abortions.

To double check on this, I asked the pharmacist at Ortho-McNeil if the higher dose pills were more successful in suppressing ovulation. He said, "Not really -- there's a ceiling point of estrogen, beyond which more isn't better. By the time you get to 35 micrograms, for most people you've reached the point of maximum ovulation suppression." (This appears to contradict some other sources I cited earlier. I include it for the sake of fully representing viewpoints.)

In any case, unless you were able to get three current "high dose" birth control prescriptions (50 micrograms) and take three pills a day, you could not equal the 1960s standard of 150 micrograms of estrogen each day. Even if you did, you would have to face the very serious side effects and risks to women that motivated pill manufacturers to lower the estrogen level in the first place.

"Without the Pill there would be more unplanned pregnancies and therefore more abortions"

A pro-life physician pointed this out in a letter to her pastor, stating that 50% of unwanted pregnancies end in abortion, and therefore a million more pregnancies each year could mean a half million more abortions each year.

Suppose this were true. The logic would be, "let's go ahead and kill some children now because at least if we do there may be other children, more of them, who won't get killed." The same approach could be used to deny drowning children access to a crowded life raft. This sort of pragmatism rings hollow when we put certain human lives at risk, without their consent, for the supposed good of others.

Ultimately, however, the premise itself is not true, since (unfortunately) it is only a small minority who would even consider not taking the Pill because it causes early abortions. The only people who will stop taking the Pill for this reason are not only pro-life, but deeply committed to their beliefs. The point of this booklet is not to attempt to ban the world from using the Pill, but to convince the people of God we should choose to live by a higher moral code than the world does.

A person who as a matter of conscience will not risk the life of a newly conceived child -- whose presence in her womb she cannot even yet feel -- will surely not turn around and kill a child just because she has an unplanned pregnancy. Among people who stop taking the Pill to protect unborn children, there may be more unplanned pregnancies, but they will result in births not abortions.

"But how can we exercise birth control without the Pill?"

Some will respond to this question by saying, "You shouldn't be taking birth control in the first place -- it's God who opens and closes the womb, and it's playing God to try to dictate your family size. The Bible says children are a blessing from the Lord -- not inconveniences to be avoided. Children are blessings sent from God. Which of his other blessings -- such as financial provision, a good job, a strong marriage, or a solid church -- are you desperately trying to avoid?"

Though this is not the point of view I've embraced over the years, and for various reasons my wife and I "stopped" after two children, I still cannot take this position lightly. Frankly, as I tell the students in my Bible college ethics class, I think we must look at both sides of this issue seriously and be sure we are not succumbing to our society's "Planned Parenthood" view of children rather than God's view of children. Appendix G: How God Sees Children.) I believe God is grieved by the anti-child mentality that surfaces with every negative comment made to and about families with more than three children. I believe large families should be seen as a blessing from God. (My own father was the tenth of thirteen children. Am I glad his parents didn't stop after nine children? If they would have, I wouldn't be here to write this article, and my daughters wouldn't be here to make the difference for God's kingdom they're making.)

However, this article is not motivated by a hidden agenda in which I'm trying to persuade people that all attempts at family planning are wrong. My only agenda here is an open one that I believe all Christians should agree on regardless of their position on family planning -- namely, that no "family planning" which sacrifices the lives of a family member can be morally right and pleasing to God.

For genuinely pro-life Christians who believe in family planning and the use of contraceptives, the question is, "what are the non-abortive alternatives to the Pill, Minipill, IUD, Depo-Provera and Norplant?" The answer is, the barrier methods, such as condoms and diaphragms. Though they can have their own problems and inconveniences, they are not abortive.

There is also Natural Family Planning, which is not simply the old "rhythm" method, but a very thoughtful and scientific approach. The Couple to Couple League is a good source of information on natural family planning. They cite a number of studies showing their methods to be extremely effective. Detailed information can be found on the Couple to Couple League's website at www.ccli.org, or they can be contacted e-mail at 73311.256@Compuserve.com or at P.O. Box 111184, Cincinnati, Ohio 45211-1184, or telephone 513-471-2000. Though I am not a student of this method, everything I have seen suggests it is certainly worth exploring.

"But these methods aren't as effective -- we may have an unwanted child." In fact, the barrier methods, especially when used in combination with spermicides, are highly effective, though not as effective as the Pill and certainly less convenient. Natural Family Planning, practiced by informed couples, can be just as effective as the Pill. Some studies suggest it is actually more effective.

But let's look at the "worst case" scenario -- you conceive and give birth to an unplanned child. Consider how many people have been richly blessed by children who were unplanned. These are not "accidents," they are precious creations of God. Babies are not cancerous tumors to be desperately avoided and dramatically removed. That they are unplanned by us does not mean they are unplanned by God.

We have to weigh the greater "risk" of having a child (whom God calls a blessing) against the possibility of killing a child (which God calls an abomination). No matter where a Christian stands on the birth control issue, we should surely be able to agree that the possibility of having a child is always better than the possibility of killing a child!

I know a man whose married daughter recently stopped taking the Pill when she learned it sometimes causes abortion. She got pregnant soon thereafter. He said to me with a smile, "thanks to my daughter not taking the Pill, God gave us a wonderful grandchild!" Is that really so bad? I am convinced God was pleased by their choice to not place children at risk for the sake of their convenience.

There may also be some health benefits to women who choose not to take the Pill. As anyone who has read the inserts packaged with birth control pills knows, there are serious risks to some women associated with oral contraceptives, including increased incidence of blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, high blood pressure, sexually transmitted diseases, pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, breast cancer, cervical cancer, liver tumors, and ectopic pregnancy. These and other risks are spelled out under each bcp's listing in The Physician's Desk Reference. (The health issue is not my central concern in this article, but the life issue. Still, health issues are worth considering.)

There are some benefits in taking the Pill that have no relation to issues of pregnancy. It is prescribed by doctors to regulate hormones connected to such conditions as ovarian cysts. It is used to treat acne, and to get women "on schedule" who desire ultimately to go off the Pill and have children. If one was careful to use a nonabortive contraceptive in addition to the Pill, perhaps it could be reasonable to use the Pill briefly to regulate her periods in preparation for a pregnancy. If a single woman has had certain ovarian problems, as long as she does not engage in sex her doctor's prescription of the Pill to treat her condition might be very appropriate.

As long as sexually inactive women are aware of the physical risks to themselves, which they may well determine are acceptable, they are certainly free to take the Pill for its other benefits. The moral problem is when, regardless of the reasons for taking it, a sexually active woman takes the Pill and thereby runs the continual risk of aborting a child.

One Ob/Gyn told me that years ago, after coming to realize the Pill causes abortions, he decided he could no longer prescribe it. He informed his patients why. At first, he lost a significant number of patients and income. Ultimately his practice started thriving again, since many pro-life people who respected his stand and believed they could trust him on matters of principles and ethics, came to him as their physician. Of course, even if he had never regained the lost patients and income, the important thing is that he believes he made the decision that honored God and the sanctity of human life created by God.

Similarly, there are pharmacists, including those who are part of Pharmacists for Life, who are committed not to distribute the Pill because of their convictions. This can create difficulty and controversy, but sometimes taking a stand for what is right inevitably does that, and people are ultimately informed, challenged and benefited.

"I never knew this about the Pill -- should I feel guilty?"

I know exactly what you're experiencing. If we had known, I believe Nanci and I would never have used the Pill. But we didn't know, and there's nothing we can do now to change that. If we were still using the Pill, upon discovering these realities, we would immediately stop using it. But I also must deal with my failure in recent years (long after we stopped using the Pill) to investigate the occasional reference I heard to the possibility that the Pill causes abortions.

What about guilt? There is true guilt and there are guilt feelings that plague us even when we are not guilty, or no longer guilty because of Christ's promise of forgiveness. Whenever we have done something in ignorance, it is hard to discern our level of responsibility, but Scripture makes clear we are capable of doing wrong even when not consciously aware of it.

When a person commits a violation and sins unintentionally in regard to any of the LORD's holy things, he is to bring to the LORD as a penalty a ram from the flock . . . It is a guilt offering . . . If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible. He is to bring to the priest as a guilt offering a ram from the flock, one without defect . . . In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the wrong he has committed unintentionally, and he will be forgiven. (Leviticus 5:14-18)

We are to seek out before the Lord unintentional and unknown sins:

How many wrongs and sins have I committed? Show me my offense and my sin. (Job 13:23)

Who can discern his errors? Forgive my hidden faults. (Psalm 19:12)

Test me, O LORD, and try me, examine my heart and my mind. (Psalm 26:2)

I have considered my ways and have turned my steps to your statutes. (Psalm 119:59)

Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. (Psalm 139:23-24)

Scripture clearly teaches we will each stand before the judgment seat of Christ and give an account of what we have done in our lives on earth (Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10). While our salvation doesn't depend on this, our rewards in heaven do.

The Bible teaches that by coming to terms now with our sin and our responsibility, we can to a certain extent preserve ourselves from having to face judgment later: "But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment" (1 Corinthians 11:31).

All of us who have used the Pill may have unknowingly caused abortions, and we certainly ran a risk of doing so. All of us who have recommended it are also accountable.

Because of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross on our behalf, God freely offers us pardon and forgiveness for everything -- known sins, unknown sins, and actions taken in ignorance and sincerity that have terrible and unintended results.

He does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust. (Psalm 103:10-14)

Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea. (Micah 7:18-19)

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)

To be honest, I haven't quite known exactly how to respond to our years of our using the Pill and my recommending it to others. My prayer has gone something like this -- "Lord, I'd like to think this wasn't a sin, given our ignorance, but based on your word I suspect it probably was. Since I am usually more guilty than I think, not less, I would rather assume I have sinned rather than presuming I have not. Please forgive me. I thank you that the price you paid means I need not labor under the guilt of my wrong choices in the past. Help me now to demonstrate the condition of my heart by living out consistently my convictions about the sanctity of human life. Help me never to dare to play God by usurping your sole prerogatives as the giver and taker of life. And help me do what I can to encourage my brothers and sister not to do so either."

I have been told that it would be better to be silent, to not raise the issue of the Pill's being able to cause abortions. Why? Because it will make people feel guilty, and it will make them more accountable. But sometimes a greater sense of guilt and accountability is exactly what we need, for then we can deal with them in God's way, and be relieved of them rather than ignoring or stuffing them. The same "don't make people feel guilty" logic prompts people not to say what the Bible really says. But ultimately it is never in people's best interests to keep them in ignorance and give them no opportunity to respond to the Lord.

Our mission must be to tell the truth, not to hide it. We are here not simply to help each other feel good, but to help each other be good. Ultimately, the greatest kindness we can offer each other is the truth. The Christian life is not based on avoiding the truth but hearing it and submitting to it. Far better to feel guilty, repent and become obedient than to not feel guilty, and continue to disobey our Lord, endanger the lives of the innocent, and lay up judgment for ourselves.

I've given my understanding of it, but whether we consider ourselves innocent or guilty due to our past ignorance, I believe we ought to agree that in light of our knowledge of the truth that the Pill can cause abortions, we should no longer use or recommend it, and should take the opportunity to explain, especially to our brothers and sisters in Christ, why we cannot.

Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the LORD. (Lamentations 3:40)

He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy. (Proverbs 28:13)

"Let's not get sidetracked from fighting real abortions"

One pro-life physician read a few of the citations in this booklet, and wrote me this in an email: "I think pro-lifers should stay away from these theoretical arguments and stick with fighting what we know to be wrong: elective induced abortions. We defeat ourselves if we get carried away on tangents arguing about bcps."

But when I examine the evidence, I do not see it as theoretical, I see it as actual. We don't know how many children are dying from the use of oral contraceptives, but we know that some, and likely many, certainly are.

As to sticking with fighting "what we know to be wrong," the question is whether we know that early abortions are wrong, just as we know later ones are. Or whether we know killing children by chemicals is wrong, just as we know killing them with surgical tools is wrong. The answer to both these questions, I believe, is yes. Both really happen, both result in the deaths of children created in God's image, and both are surely worthy of our attention.

Will we "defeat ourselves" by speaking up for children killed by chemicals as we do for children killed by surgeries? Or will we just become more consistent (and less hypocritical) advocates of the unborn? Is pointing out the abortifacient nature of birth control pills a "tangent," or is it just staying (or getting) on track by obeying God's command to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves?

Does the birth control pill cause abortions? "PART 5"

2009-10-31T00:00:00.000-07:00

When the first mechanism fails, how often does the second work?

We've seen that various sources put ovulation failure at rates of 7%, 2-10%, 4-10%, 4.7%, 20% and even Dr. Ronald Chez's whopping 50%. Let's take 5-10% as a figure to work with. That would mean in an average woman's cycle, she will have two to four breakthrough ovulations every three years.

The question then becomes, how many times when ovulation occurs does the second mechanism, the thickened cervical mucus, prevent sperm from reaching the egg? It is impossible to know, but studies on animals suggest this mechanism may not be as effective as Pill manufacturers seem to assume.

Drs. MC Chang and DM Hunt did experiments on rabbits what could not be done on human beings ("Effects of various progestins and estrogen on the gamete transport and fertilization in the rabbit," Fertility and Sterility, 1970; 21, p. 683-686.) They gave the rabbits estrogen and progestin to mimic the Pill, then artificially inseminated them. They then killed the rabbits and did microscopic studies to examine how many sperm had reached the fallopian tubes.

The progestin, the hormone that thickens cervical mucus, might be expected to prevent nearly all the sperm from traveling to the tubes. However, it did not. In every rabbit that had taken the progestin, there were still thousands of sperm which reached the fallopian tubes, as many as 72% of the number in the control group. This is noteworthy evidence that the progestin-caused increased thickness of cervical mucus does not necessarily significantly inhibit sperm from reaching the egg, and therefore does not serve as an effective contraceptive.

When ovulation takes place and the thickened mucus fails to prevent conception -- which may well be the majority of the time -- the significantly altered and less hospitable endometrium caused by the Pill comes into play. Given the observably diminished capacity of the endometrium to sustain life, it seems likely that implantation may be the exception rather than the rule. For every child that does implant, many others may not. Of course, we don't know the percentage that will implant in a normal endometrium unaffected by the Pill, but it is reasonable to believe whatever that percentage is, the Pill significantly lowers it.

Approximately fourteen million American women take the Pill each year. At the 3% rate, which is firmly established statistically, in any year there will be 420,000 detected pregnancies of Pill-takers. (I say "detected" pregnancies, since pregnancies that end before implantation will never be detected but are nonetheless real.) Each one of these children has managed to implant even in a hostile endometrium.

The question is, how many children failed to implant in that hostile environment that would have implanted in a nurturing environment unhindered by the Pill? The number who die might be significantly higher than the number who survive. If it was four times as high, that would be 1,680,000 deaths; if twice as high, 840,000 deaths. If the same number of children do not survive the hostile endometrium as do survive, it would be 420,000. If only half as many died as survived, this would be 210,000 -- still a staggering number of Pill-induced abortions each year.

In his brochure "How the Pill and the IUD Work: Gambling with Life" (American Life League, P.O. Box 1350, Stafford, VA 22555), Dr. David Sterns asks:

Just how often does the pill have to rely on this abortive 'backup' mechanism? No one can tell you with certainty. Perhaps it is as seldom as 1 to 2% of the time; but perhaps it is as frequently as 50% of the time. Does it matter? The clear conclusion is that it is impossible for any woman on the pill in any given month to know exactly which mechanism is in effect. In other words, the pill always carries with it the potential to act as an abortifacient.

Though they have been unable to cite studies indicating lower figures than these, physician friends of mine tell me they believe the highest figures I've cited here are too high. I hope they are right. It concerns me, however, that they have not provided empirical evidence that refutes such figures. (If any reader has such evidence, I would greatly appreciate seeing it.)

In any case, even if the numbers are lower, they could still add up to hundreds of thousands of child casualties per year. When pro-lifers routinely state there are 1.5 million abortions per year in America (I have often said this myself), we are leaving out all chemical abortions and are therefore vastly understating the true number. Perhaps we are also immunizing ourselves to the reality that life really does begin at conception and we are morally accountable to act like it.

Let's make it more personal by bringing it down to an individual woman. If a fertile and sexually active woman took the Pill from puberty to menopause, she would have a potential of 390 suppressed ovulations. Eliminating those times when she wouldn't take the Pill because she wanted to have a child, or because she was already pregnant, she might have 330 potentially suppressed ovulations. If 95% of her ovulations were suppressed (it could be considerably less, but not much more), this would mean she would have sixteen breakthrough ovulations.

If she is fertile and sexually active, a few of those ovulations might end up in a known pregnancy because the second and third mechanisms both fail. Of the other fourteen, perhaps nine would never be fertilized (some prevented by the number two mechanism, the thickened cervical mucus). And perhaps, as a result of the number three mechanism, she might have five early abortions because conception took place, but the children could not be implanted in the endometrium.

If the same woman took the Pill for only ten years, she might have one or two abortions instead of five. Again, we don't know the exact figures, and likely never will. Some would say these estimates are too high, but based on my research it appears equally probable they are too low.

There is no way to be certain, but the truth is that a Christian woman taking the Pill might over time have no Pill-induced abortions, or she might have one, three or a dozen of them.

Our beliefs should be governed by the evidence, not by wishful thinking. But since the numbers cannot be decisively determined, based on what you do know, come up with an estimate you think might be in the ballpark. Now, whatever that figure is, ask yourself this question -- is it morally right to unnecessarily risk the lives of those children?

Questions & objections

In the process of research I've had countless conversations with Christians, including physicians, pastors and many others. These are some of the questions and objections people have most often raised.

"If this is true, why haven't I heard it before?"

There are many possible answers to this question. One is that concerns about abortions, especially early ones, are not widespread among researchers, scientists and the medical community in general. Since preventing implantation isn't of concern except to those who believe God creates people at the point of conception, it isn't terribly surprising the experts haven't gotten the word out. In their minds, why should they?

While the evidence for Pill-caused abortions is substantial, it is spread out in so many obscure and technical scientific journals, dozens of them, that relatively few physicians -- much less the general public -- have ever seen the most compelling evidence at all, or if they have, only piecemeal. It has effectively fallen through the cracks and failed to get their attention.

Many well-meaning physicians, including Christians, simply are not aware of this evidence. (I know this, because that's what they've told me.) When patients hear someone suggest the Pill causes abortions, they will often come to their physician, who may be pro-life, and ak if this is true. The physician may sincerely say, "According to my understanding, the Pill just prevents conception, it doesn't cause abortions. You have nothing to be concerned about." Physicians assume that if this were really true, they would surely know it. In most cases they are not deliberately misleading their patients, but unfortunately the bottom line is that their patients are indeed misled. Based on their physician's reassurances, they don't look into the matter further, and because the dedicated physician is so busy, and confident that the Pill only prevents conception, neither does he.

An isolated reference here or there simply isn't sufficient to change or even challenge the deeply-ingrained pro-Pill consensus of medicine, society or the church. If Time magazine -- or even a major Christian periodical -- devoted a cover story to the subject, the information would reach a popular level in a way it never has before.

Even when the information leaks out, so many Christians -- including pastors and parachurch leaders -- have used and recommended the Pill, that we have a natural resistance to raising this issue or looking into it seriously when others raise it. This is likely why so few individuals or organizations have researched or drawn attention to this subject.

Ultimately, the widespread ignorance and blindness on this issue among Christians may be largely attributable to supernatural forces of evil which promote the deaths of the innocent and lie and mislead to cover those deaths. (I address this in the Conclusion.)

We also cannot escape the fact that the Pill is a multi-billion dollar worldwide industry. Its manufacturers, the drug companies, have tremendous vested interests. So too do many physicians prescribing it. (I do not mean by this that most physicians prescribe it primarily for financial gain, but simply that it is a significant part of many practices.)

Those in the best place to disseminate this information are the Pill-manufacturers. The problem, however, is that they gain customers by convincing them the Pill works, not by teaching them exactly how it works. No one takes the Pill because she knows it prevents implantation, but many might stop taking it if they knew it does.

Hence, a pharmaceutical company has nothing to gain by drawing attention to this information, and potentially a great deal to lose. There are many people in America who profess to believe life begins at conception; companies do not want these people to stop using their pills. This concern for good public relations was very evident to me in my conversations with staff at four major Pill manufacturers. It is also demonstrated in the fact that their FDA-monitored disclosures in the fine-print professional labeling, and in Physician's Desk Reference, all mention that the Pill prevents implantation, but this is stated in very few of their package inserts and none of their colorful consumer-oriented booklets.

Dr. James Walker, in his paper "Oral Contraception: A Different Perspective" (Pharmacists for Life, PO Box 1281, Powell, OH, 43065), points out the Pill's potential to cause abortion. He then says,

A large percentage of consumers would undoubtedly refuse to use this form of birth control if they were aware that oral contraceptives worked in this way. Also, a large number of physicians would refrain from using this method of contraception if they were aware of the abortifacient mechanism of oral contraceptives . . . why is the medical (or prescribing) and consumer population so poorly informed? It could be that the pharmaceutical industry is interested in making large profits without regard for the sanctity of human life. Or it could be that the medical community has become so conditioned to supply means for instant gratification, that our eyes have been blinded to the eternal consequences of our daily action.

"If we don't know how often abortions happen, why shouldn't we take the Pill?"

We can be certain that the Pill causes some abortions. But since we are uncertain about the actual numbers of abortions, how should we act on our uncertainty?

If a hunter is uncertain whether a movement in the brush is caused by a deer or a person, should his uncertainty lead him to shoot or not to shoot?

If you're driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be a child, but it may just be the shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes?

Shouldn't we give the benefit of the doubt to life? Let's say that you are skeptical of all this research, all these studies, and all the Pill manufacturers' claims that the Pill sometimes results in the death of a child. (You might ask yourself if the reason is because of your bias and vested interests, but for the moment let's just say you're genuinely uncertain.) Is it a Christlike attitude to say "Because taking the Pill may or may not kill a child, I will therefore take it"? If we are uncertain, shouldn't that compel us not to take it?

My research has convinced me the evidence is not uncertain, but compelling, in the single most important sense -- the Pill does result in abortions. Only the numbers are uncertain. Can we really say in good conscience, "Because I'm uncertain exactly how many children are killed by the Pill, therefore I will take it"? (How many dead children would it take to be too many?)

It seems to me more Christlike to say, "Because I know there is a widespread understanding of the most informed scientific and medical people (including the research departments of those manufacturing it) that the Pill does sometimes cause abortions, I will therefore not take the Pill and I will encourage others not to."

"But spontaneous abortions happen frequently anyway"

One physician pointed out there are many spontaneous abortions and miscarriages. Because of this, he felt we should not be troubled by pre-implantational abortions caused by the Pill. I've heard the same logic used to defend fertility research and in vitro fertilization in which embryos are conceived outside the womb. Three to six of these may be implanted in a uterus in the hopes one may live, but the majority die, and some are frozen or discarded. (In the best case scenario, two to five die in the attempt to implant one, and often all of them die.)

When, even under optimal conditions, physicians attempt to implant an embryo conceived in-vitro, it is true that there is a low success rate. According to Dr. Leon Speroff, the success rate in any given cycle is 13.5% and since typically three to six embryos may be used to attempt implantation, the actual survival rate is just over 3%. This means that 29 out of 30 embryos die in the attempt to implant a child (Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology and Infertility; Williams and Wilkins, fifth edition, 1994, page 937-39). This confirms that in the natural process of a woman's cycle there are likely many early miscarriages, perhaps considerably more than there are live births.

Since this is true, however, does it therefore follow, "Because God or nature causes millions of early abortions a year, it's okay if we cause some?"

The proper response to this is that there is a big difference, a cosmic difference, between God and us! What God is free to do and what we are free to do are not the same. God is the giver and taker of life. God is the potter, we are the clay (Isaiah 45:9-11). He has the right to take human life, we do not. Nature is under the curse of sin and as a result there is widespread death in this world, both inside and outside the womb (Romans 8:19-22). God is the Superintendent of nature and can overrule it when he so chooses. But none of this permits us to say "because God lets so many people die, I'll go ahead and kill some of them myself!"

It is one thing for God to take a human life. It is an entirely different thing for us to do so. His prerogatives are unique to Him. He is the Creator, we are the creatures. (See Appendix D: God is Creator and Owner of all people.) The same principle applies when someone says that since a baby will probably die within a few days or weeks of his birth, we may as well abort him now. The difference is between losing a child to death (by God's sovereign choice) and choosing to kill that child. This is a fundamental and radical difference. (See Appendix E: God has exclusive prerogatives over human life and death.)

To justify using a chemical that takes some lives by saying it really causes fewer abortions though preventing conception again puts us in the place of God. The logic seems to be that God is letting many children die, so when we will kill some ourselves we can take consolation in knowing that the chemical that kills some children prevents many children from ever being conceived and therefore from ever dying.

But God has never delegated the right to us to unnecessarily risk the lives of our children. Furthermore, if there are fewer miscarriages because of the Pill it is not because the Pill brings any benefit to a preborn child, but only because it results in less children. This is all an illusion -- it is not that lives are truly being preserved, but simply that there are fewer lives to preserve! There is less death only because there is less life.

Using this logic, the most pro-life thing we could do would be to eliminate all pregnancy and thereby all children. We could congratulate ourselves that we eliminated abortion by eliminating children. (The number of people with cancer could also be lowered by reducing the number of people in society, but we would hardly think of that as a cure -- especially if the means we used to have less people meant killing some of them!)

We may indeed lose through early spontaneous miscarriages several children we don't even know of. But that in no way justifies our choosing to take something into our bodies that puts the lives of other children in danger.

"But Pill-takers aren't intending to have abortions"

I've been told several times that because most people's intention in taking the Pill is to prevent conception, not to have an abortion, it's therefore ethical for them to continue taking the Pill.

I certainly agree that most women taking the Pill don't intend to get abortions. In fact, I'm convinced 99% of them are unaware this is even possible. But the fact remains that while the intentions of those taking the Pill may be harmless, the results can be fatal.

A nurse giving your child an injection could sincerely intend no harm to your child, but if she unknowingly injects him with a fatal poison, her good intentions will not lessen the tragedy of the results. Whether the nurse has the heart of a murderer or a saint, your child is equally dead. The best intentions do nothing to reverse the most disastrous results.

In this sense, taking the Pill is analogous to playing Russian roulette, but with more chambers and therefore less risk per episode. In Russian roulette, participants usually don't intend to shoot themselves. Their intention is irrelevant, however, because if they play the game long enough they just can't beat the odds, and they die.

The Russian roulette of the Pill is done with someone else's life, a new and unique creation of God. Each time someone taking the Pill engages in sex, she runs the risk of aborting a child. (Instead of a one in six chance, maybe it's a one in thirty or one in a hundred or one in five hundred chance, I'm not sure, but it's certainly a real risk -- the scientific evidence tells us the chemical "gun" is loaded.) The fact that she will not know when a child has been aborted in no way changes whether or not a child is aborted. Every month she continues to take the Pill increases her chances of having her first -- or next -- silent abortion. She could have one, two, a half dozen or a dozen of these without ever having a clue.

A word that continuously surfaced in my research and my dialogue with the birth control pill manufacturers was the word "primary" as opposed to "secondary." A pro-life physician told me he felt comfortable still using the Pill because "It's primarily contraceptive and only secondarily abortive."

But how would you respond to someone who says "here, eat this hamburger -- the meat we use sometimes causes fatal food poisoning, but its primary effect isn't to poison you, so don't worry about it." Or more to the point, what would you think if a doctor said to you, "This chemical I'm about to inject in your child has the primary effect of curing his allergies; it also may kill him, but that would only be a secondary effect."

Does the birth control pill cause abortions? "PART 4"

2009-10-30T00:00:00.000-07:00

Still more evidence

Three Physicians

Dr. Paul Hayes, a pro-life Ob/Gyn in Lincoln, Nebraska, pointed me to Leon Speroff's and Philip Darney's authoritative text A Clinical Guide for Contraception (Williams & Wilkins, 1992). Dr. Hayes calls Dr. Speroff, of the Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland, "the nation's premier contraceptive expert and advocate." Speroff's text, written for physicians, says this on page 40:

Since the effect of a progestational agent will always take precedence over estrogen (unless the dose of estrogen is increased many, many fold), the endometrium, cervical mucus, and perhaps tubal function reflect progestational stimulation. The progestin in the combination pill produces an endometrium which is not receptive to ovum implantation, a decidualized bed with exhausted and atrophied glands. The cervical mucus becomes thick and impervious to sperm transport. It is possible that progestational influences on secretion and peristalsis within the Fallopian tube provide additional contraceptive effects.

As a leading scientific expert on the Pill, Dr. Speroff must be taken seriously when he states that the Pill creates "an endometrium which is not receptive to ovum implantation." This means that the Pill does in fact cause abortions.

In an e-mail to me dated February 22, 1997, Dr. Hayes pointed out a semantic aspect of Dr. Speroff's statement which I, as a nonphysician, wouldn't have noticed:

I was struck dumb when I read this, at the fact that Dr. Speroff would expect me, as a doctor, to accept the 'implantation' of an 'ovum.' Call it a fertilized ovum, or a blastocyst, or a zygote, or any one of a number of other dehumanizing names for a baby, but don't warrant to me, in a textbook for doctors, that what implants is just an ovum!

Dr. Hayes's point is that "ovum" used without a qualifier always means unfertilized ovum, and that Dr. Speroff is misusing the term consciously or unconsciously to minimize the taking of human life inherently involved in the preventing of implantation. This type of semantic manipulation is common in later stages, as demonstrated by references to "terminating a pregnancy" instead of "taking a child's life." It is further illustrated in the fact that Dr. Speroff includes as a form of "contraception" the destruction of an already conceived person.

In an interview conducted by Denny Hartford, director of Vital Signs Ministries, Pharmacist Larry Frieders, who is also Vice-president of Pharmacists for Life, said this:

Obviously, the one "back-up mechanism" [of the Pill] that we're most concerned with is the one that changes the woman's body in such a way that if there is a new life, that tiny human loses the ability to implant and then grow and be nourished by the mother. The facts are clear -- we've all known them intellectually. I learned them in school. I had to answer those questions on my state board pharmacy exam. The problem was getting that knowledge from my intellect down to where it became part of who I am. I had to accept the fact that I was participating in the sale and distribution of a product that was, in fact, causing the loss of life. ("The New Abortionists," Life Advocate, March 1994, page 26)

Later in the same interview, Hartford asked world famous fertility specialist Dr. Thomas Hilgers, "Are there any birth control pills out there that do not have this potential to abort a developing child?" Dr. Hilgers answered,

There are none! At my last count in looking at the Physicians Desk Reference . . . there were 44 different types of birth control pills. . . . and they have different concentrations of chemicals that make them work. None of these so-called birth control pills have a mechanism which is completely contraceptive. Put the other way around, all birth control pills available have a mechanism which disturbs or disintegrates the lining of the uterus to the extent that the possibility of abortion exists when break-through ovulation occurs. (Life Advocate, March 1994, page 28-29)

Three more risks of the Pill to preborn children

In My Body, My Health (Stewart, Guess, Stewart, Hatcher; Clinician's Edition, Wiley Medical Publications, 1979, page 169-70), the authors point to still another abortive potential of the Pill:

Estrogen and progestin may also alter the pattern of muscle contractions in the tubes and uterus. This may interfere with implantation by speeding up the fertilized egg's travel time so that it reaches the uterus before it is mature enough to implant.

In its 1984 publication "Facts About Oral Contraceptives," the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stated,

Though rare, it is possible for women using combined pills (synthetic estrogen and progestogen) to ovulate. Then other mechanisms work to prevent pregnancy. Both kinds of pills make the cervical mucus thick and 'inhospitable' to sperm, discouraging any entry to the uterus. In addition, they make it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant, by causing changes in Fallopian tube contractions and in the uterine lining.

As noted by the previous source, these changes in Fallopian tube contractions can speed up the fertilized egg's travel time, and bring it to the endometrium when it is too immature to implant. This is another abortive possibility distinct from and in addition to the endometrium's inhospitality to the blastocyst.

But that's not all. There's yet another threat posed to a young child by the Pill. It was pointed out to me by a couple from my church who stopped using their pills after reading the package insert. I have in front of me that insert. It concerns Desogen, a combination birth control Pill produced by Organon. Near the end of the two page paper it has a heading called "Pregnancy Due to Pill Failure," under which it states:

The incidence of pill failure resulting in pregnancy is approximately one percent (i.e., one pregnancy per 100 women per year) if taken every day as directed, but more typical failure rates are about 3%. If failure does occur, the risk to the fetus is minimal.

Exactly what is this risk to the fetus? When I asked Dr. Bill Toffler of the Oregon Health Sciences University, he informed me that the hormones in the Pill, progestin and estrogen, can (though often they don't) have a harmful effect on an already implanted child. The problem is, since women do not know they are pregnant in the earliest stages, before realizing they are pregnant they will continue to take the Pill at least one more time, if not two or more (especially if cycles are irregular). This creates the risk the leaflet refers to. So not only is the pre-implanted child at risk, but so is an already implanted child who is subjected to the Pill's hormones.

The risk is called "minimal." But what does this mean? If someone was about to give your child a chemical and they assured you there was a "minimal risk," would you allow them to proceed without investigating to find out exactly what was meant by "minimal"? Wuldn't you ask whether there was some alternative treatment without this risk? Rather than be reassured by the term "minimal," a parent might respond, "I didn't know that by taking the Pill I caused any risk to a baby -- so when you tell me the risk is 'minimal' you don't reassure me, you alarm me."

So, in addition to the risk of abortion due to an atrophied endometrium, we must add the risk of the Pill causing Fallopian tube contractions that throw off the crucial timing of the blastocyst's arrival at the endometrium, as well as the chemical risk to an already implanted child.

If that isn't enough, there's still another risk, this one to children conceived after a woman stops taking the Pill:

There is some indication that there may be a prolonged effect of the oral contraceptives on both the endometrium and the cervix after a woman has ceased taking the pill. There may well be a greater likelihood of miscarriage in that period also as a result of some chromosomal abnormalities. . . . It is worth noting that the consumer advice from the manufacturers cautions that pregnancy should be avoided in the first three months after ceasing the combined oral contraceptive. (Nicholas Tonti-Rilippini, "The Pill: Aortifacient or Contraceptive? A Literature Review," Linacre Quarterly, February 1995, page 8-9)

Why should pregnancy be avoided three months after no longer using the Pill? Is it because the Pill produces effects that threaten the life and welfare of a child? If those effects are not considered no longer a risk until three months after the Pill was last taken, what does this say about the risk they pose to any child conceived when the Pill fails to stop ovulation?

The new Morning After Pill: Standard BC pills

In June, 1996 the Food and Drug Administration announced a new use for standard combination birth control pills:

Two high doses taken within two to three days of intercourse can prevent pregnancy, the FDA scientists said. Doctors think the pills probably work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the lining of the uterus. ("FDA panel: Birth control pills safe as morning after drug," The Virginian-Pilot, June 29, 1996, A1, A6.)

On February 24, 1997, the FDA approved the use of high doses of combination birth-control pills as "emergency contraception" (Peter Modica, "FDA Nod to `Morning-After' Pill Is Lauded," Medical Tribune News Service, February 26, 1997). The article explains,

The morning-after pill refers to a regimen of standard birth control pills taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. The pills prevent pregnancy by inhibiting a fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterus and developing into a fetus.

Of course, the pills do not "prevent pregnancy" since pregnancy begins at conception, not implantation. (Acting as if pregnancy begins at implantation takes the emphasis off the baby's objective existence and puts it on the mother's endometrium's role in sustaining the child that has already been created within her.) As World magazine (March 8, 1997, page 9) points out, "In reality the pill regimen -- designed to block a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus -- aborts a pregnancy that's already begun."

It is significant that this "morning after pill" is in fact nothing but a combination of several standard birth control pills taken in high dosages. When the announcement was made, the uninformed public probably assumed that the high dosage makes birth control pills do something they were otherwise incapable of doing. But the truth is it simply increases the chances of doing what it already sometimes does -- cause an abortion.

In a April 29, 1997 USA Today cover story (page 1A), "Docs spread word: Pill works on morning after," Marilyn Elias wrote,

U.S. gynecologists are launching a major nationwide campaign to make sure women know about the best-kept morning-after contraceptive secret: common birth control pills. . . . Some oral contraceptives may be taken after intercourse -- two in the first dose up to 72 hours after sex, then two more 12 hours later -- and will prevent 75% of pregnancies . . . Critics call the morning-after method de facto abortion, but Zinberg says the pills work before an embryo implants in the uterus so there's no abortion.

Again, the truth is these pregnancies aren't prevented, they are terminated. It's semantic gymnastics to redefine abortion in such a way that killing the fertilized egg doesn't qualify. Life does not begin at implantation, it begins at conception. To suggest that a fertilized egg is not a living person just because she has not yet settled into her home (the endometrium), and therefore it's fine to make her home hostile to her life, is as fallacious as suggesting the homeless are not really people since they aren't living in a house, and it's therefore all right to burn down homes they might otherwise have inhabited and leave them out in the cold to die.

After all is said and done, the Pill appears to be different only in degree, but not in kind from every other birth control chemical, including RU-486, Depo-Provera, Norplant, the mini-pill and the morning after pill. It may not cause as many abortions as these, but like all of them, it does in fact cause abortions.

Evidence to the contrary?

Is there any evidence refuting the abortive potential of the Pill? I have not only searched far and wide to find such evidence myself, I have also asked a number of physicians to provide me with any they have or know of. Beyond the letter from Dr. Struthers at Searle, dealt with previously, I have seen very little of such evidence.

One source is "Advances in Oral Contraception" in The Journal of Reproductive Medicine (January 1983, page 100 ff.). The article is a question and answer session with eight physicians. The pro-life physician who gave this to her pastor underlined several statements that in her mind do not support the evidence that the Pill causes abortions. This is one of them:

Do the OCs with 30 micrograms of estrogen act primarily by preventing implantation rather than suppressing ovulation?

Dr. Christie: "Our studies in Europe and Canada showed that the 150/30 pill's main mode of action is inhibition of ovulation." (page 101)

This statement is not in conflict with the evidence I've presented. No one disputes whether the inhibition of ovulation is the Pill's main mode of action, only whether preventing implantation is a secondary or tertiary mode. A more significant segment of the same article is this one:

Are factors besides anovulation affected by the contraceptive action of the Pill?

Dr. Christie: Yes -- cervical mucus, maybe nidation, the endometrium, so it's not in the appropriate condition for receiving a fertilized ovum. The authorities agree that with the LH and FSH changes, no ovulation occurs; the egg isn't there to be fertilized.

Dr. Goldzieher: Some time ago Pincus found, when studying Enovid 5 and 10, that conceptions occurred with these pills. To me his evidence indicates that there must not be much of an antiimplantation effect on the endometrium if a woman can skip a very-high-dose OC for a few days and become pregnant. If there is an antiimplantation effect, it certainly is absent in some cases.

These statements are significant, but do they only qualify the mountain of other evidence, they do not refute it. Dr. Christie acknowledges the anti-implantational effect of the Pill, but says that with the proper chemical changes no ovulation occurs. He is surely not claiming that these chemical changes always happen in the intended way, nor is he denying that ovulations occur among Pill-takers. He is well aware that pregnancies occur (as Dr. Goldzieher confirms in the very next sentence), and for every measurable pregnancy there are obviously a number of breakthrough ovulations.

Dr. Goldzieher, whose own work, cited elsewhere in this booklet, acknowledges the antiimplantation effect, is affirming that "it certainly is absent in some cases." He bases this on the fact that pregnancies do occur. This is akin to Dr. Struthers' point that the blastocyst sometimes implants in 'hostile' sites such as the Fallopian tubes and the ovaries, and also in the Pill-affected endometrium. The point, a valid one, is that the conceived child sometimes implants in more hostile environments. But this is no way undermines the obvious fact that he will more often implant in a more favorable environment.

Once again, no one is claiming that the Pill's diminishing of the endometrium always makes implantation impossible. Obviously it doesn't. The issue is whether it sometimes does. That plants can and do grow through cracks in driveways does not negate the fact that they will more likely grow in the tilled fertile soil of the garden. The Pill's changing the endometrium from fertile to inhospitable does not always result in an abortion, but sometimes it does. (And "sometimes" is all it takes to be an abortifacient.)

I have before me an article, a four page letter from a pro-life physician, assuring the recipient that the Pill, Norplant and Depo-Provera are not abortifacients, while RU486, the "morning after pill" and the "minipill" are. She is not certain about the IUD. The letter is well written, but it is missing a crucial element -- it does not cite a single study or produce any evidence whatsoever to back up any of its claims. (The sole reference is to a textbook that may somewhere within it -- no page numbers indicated -- offer evidence that the IUD does not really cause abortions.) In the absence of any such evidence, I am forced to conclude that this letter is simply a sincere expression of the physician's personal beliefs about birth control methods. Unfortunately, beliefs do not constitute evidence.

I was also sent a photocopied page from an article, but unfortunately the name and date of the publication isn't included and I have no way to trace it. The article is an excerpt from a speech by a pro-life physician named Dr. Mastroianni:

"It's also important," Dr. Mastroianni added, "when talking about oral contraception, to dispel any idea that the pill acts as an abortifacient. Propaganda has led some people to believe that somehow the pill works after fertilization, and that's further from the truth than anything I can think of. The pill works by inhibiting ovulation, as well as by thickening the cervical mucus and therefore inhibiting sperm migration."

This confident claim is made wihtout the offer of any evidence to support it. (Leveling the accusation of "propaganda" is not the same as presenting evidence, or refuting it.)

When the scientific and medical sources, including not just reference books but original studies reported in medical journals over decades, consistently affirm there is a third effect of the Pill that does in fact work after fertilization, how can a physician state this to be "further from the truth than anything I can think of"? When these sources consistently and repeatedly conclude there are at least three ways the Pill works (one of which is clearly abortive), how can someone definitively say there are really only two?

I do not consider this quotation from a well-meaning pro-life physician as evidence of anything but the human tendency (which I confess to as well) to deny something we do not wish to believe. (If a reader knows Dr. Mastroianni, and he does have evidence for his beliefs not cited in his presentation or this article, I would very much like to see it.)
When I submitted to him a half dozen of the sources I've cited in this booklet, a pro-life physician I very much respect wrote this to me:

It is known fact that 6% of women on bcps will become pregnant while on the pill, meaning that cervical mucous failed, ovulation occurred, and implantation was successful. This implies that when bcps don't work, it is because they totally fail, and that when mechanisms 1 and 2 don't work, implantation is not prevented by the bcps causing an early abortion. If I believed bcps worked by causing abortion, I wouldn't recommend them. I firmly believe that when they work, they work by preventing ovulation and by creation of thick cervical mucous.

I do not question this physician's sincerity, but I do question the logic. We do not know how often mechanism number one, two or three actually work, we only know that sometimes all three fail. But because number one and two sometimes fail, no one therefore concludes that they always fail. So why conclude that because number three sometimes fails, therefore it always fails?

How can we look at a known pregnancy, which proves the failure of all three mechanisms, then conclude that number one and number two normally work, but that number three must never work? The logic escapes me. If number three were not abortifacient in nature, I don't think anyone would deny that it happens. The denial is not prompted by the evidence but by the desire that what the evidence indicates not be true.

How often does the Pill cause abortions?

Though it is clear that the Pill does in fact cause abortions, it is difficult to determine the numbers of times it does this. This depends on how often the Pill fails to prevent ovulation, and how often when ovulation succeeds and pregnancy occurs, the third mechanism prevents a fertilized egg from implantation.

I posed the question to Dr. Harry Kraus, a physician and writer of popular novels with medical themes. This was his response in a December 23, 1996 e-mail:

You have asked a very good question, but one which is impossible to answer in concrete statistics: How often do birth control pills prevent pregnancy by causing the lining of the uterus to be inhospitable to implantation? You will not see an answer to that question anywhere, with our present state of the science. The reason is that we can only detect early pregnancy by a hormone, beta-hcg (Human chorionic gonadotropin) which is produced by the embryo after implantation. After fertilization, implantation does not take place for approximately six days. After implantation, it takes another six days before the embryo (trophoblast) has invaded the maternal venous system so that a hormone (beta-hcg) made by the embryo can reach and be measured in the mom's blood. Therefore, the statistic you seek is not available.

Keeping in mind that definitive numbers cannot be determined, there are nonetheless certain medical evidences that provide rationales for some physicians and pharmacists to estimate the numbers of Pill-induced abortions.

Determining the rate of breakthrough ovulation in Pill-takers is one key to coming up with informed estimates.

In his Abortifacient Contraception: The Pharmaceutical Holocaust (Human Life International, 1993, page 7), Dr. Rudolph Ehmann says,

As early as 1967, at a medical conference, the representatives of a major hormone producer admitted that with OCs [oral contraceptives], ovulation with a possibility of fertilization took place in up to seven percent of cases, and that subsequent implantation of the fertilized egg would usually be prevented.

Bogomir M. Kuhar, Doctor of Pharmacy, is the president of Pharmacists for Life. In his booklet Infant Homicides Through Contraceptives (page 26), he cites studies suggesting oral contraceptives have a breakthrough ovulation rate of 2 to 10%. Fertility specialist Dr. Thomas Hilgers estimates the rate at 4 to 10%, adding that minipills allow ovulation 50-60% of the time ("The New Abortionists," Life Advocate, March 1994, page 29).

Dr. Nine van der Vange, at the Society for the Advancement of Contraception's November 26-30, 1984 conference in Jakarta, stated that her studies indicated an ovulation rate of 4.7% for women taking the Pill.

How do these percentages translate into real numbers? The Ortho Corporation's 1991 annual report estimated 13.9 million U.S. women using oral contraceptives. Multiplying this by the low 2% ovulation figure, and factoring in studies showing a 25% overall conception rate for normally fertile couples of average sexual activity, Dr. Kuhar arrives at a figure of 834,000 birth-control-pill-induced abortions per year. Multiplying by the high 10%, the figure is 4,170,000 per year. The low figure is over 50% the number of surgical abortions (1.5 million), the high is 250% that number. (Using other studies, also based on total estimated number of ovulations and U.S. users, Dr. Kuhar attributes 3,825,000 annual abortions to IUDs; 1,200,000 to Depo-Provera; 2,925,000 to Norplant.)

J.C. Espinoza, M.D., says,

Today it is clear that in at least 5% of the cycles of women on the combined Pill "escape ovulation" occurs. This fact means that conception is possible during those cycles, but implantation will be prevented and the "conceptus" (child) will die. That rate is statistically equivalent to one abortion every other year for all women on the Pill. (Birth Control: Why Are They Lying to Women?, page 28.)

In a segment from his Abortion Question and Answers, published online by Ohio Right to Life, Dr. Jack Willke states:

The newer low-estrogen pills allow "breakthrough" ovulation in up to 20% or more of the months used. Such a released ovum is fertilized perhaps 10% of the time. These tiny new lives which result, at our present "guesstimations," in 1% to 2% of the pill months, do not survive. The reason is that at one week of life this tiny new boy or girl cannot implant in the womb lining and dies.

There are factors that can increase the rate of breakthrough ovulation and thereby increase the likelihood of the Pill causing an abortion. Dr. Bogomir Kuhar says,

The abortifacient potential of OCs is further magnified in OC users who concomitantly take certain antibiotics and anticonvulsants which decrease ovulation suppression effectiveness. It should be noted that antibiotic use among OC users is not uncommon, such women being more susceptible to bacterial, yeast and fungal infections secondary to OC use. (Contraceptives can Kill Babies, American Life League, 1994, page 1.)

Does the birth control pill cause abortions? "PART 3"

2009-10-29T00:00:00.001-07:00

What do the Pill manufacturers say?

Searle

I asked an excellent pro-life physician, and a good friend, to call a birth control manufacturer concerning the statements in their inserts. He contacted Searle, whose package insert for their pill Demulen, says "alterations in the . . . endometrium (which may reduce the likelihood of implantation) may also contribute to the contraceptive effectiveness." (Note that Searle twice uses the term "may," in contrast to Ortho and Wyeth, which in their information in The PDR state the same effect as a fact rather than a possibility.)

Here is part of a letter dated February 13, 1997, written by Barbara Struthers, Searle's Director of Healthcare Information Services, to my pro-life physician friend:

Thank you for your recent request for information regarding whether oral contraceptives are abortifacients . . . . One of the possible mechanisms listed in the labeling is "changes in the endometrium which may reduce the likelihood of implantation." This is a theoretical mechanism only and is not based upon experimental evidence, but upon the histologic appearance of the endometrium. However, as noted by Goldzieher, the altered endometrium is still capable of sustaining nidation, as shown by pregnancies occurring in cycles with only a few or no tablet omissions.

Dr. Struthers (PhD) makes a valid point that the Pill's effects on the endometrium do not always make implantation impossible. But in my research I never found anyone who claimed they always do. The issue is whether they sometimes do. To be an abortifacient does not require that something always cause an abortion, only that it sometimes does. In fact, whether it's RU-486, Norplant, the mini-pill or the Pill, there is no chemical that always causes an abortion. There are only those that do so never, sometimes, often and usually. Thus, the point that the Pill doesn't always prevent implantation is true, but has no bearing on the question of whether it sometimes prevents implantation, which Searle's own literature indicates. (Children who play on the freeway, climb on the roof or are left alone by swimming pools don't always get killed, but this hardly proves these practices are safe and do not result in fatalities.)

Dr. Struthers goes on to say, "It is unlikely that OCs would decrease the likelihood of endometrial implantation, particularly when one appreciates that the blastocyst is perfectly capable of implanting in various 'hostile' sites, e.g. the Fallopian tube, the ovary, the peritoneum."

Her point is that the child sometimes implants in the wrong place. True enough -- but, again, no one is saying this doesn't happen. The question is whether the Pill sometimes hinders the child's ability to implant in the right place. (Whether the child implants in the wrong place or fails to implant in the right one, the result is the same -- death. But while in the first case the death is not caused by a human agent, in the second case -- by taking the Pill -- it can be.)

Dr. Struthers then says, "Used as directed, the hormone level in modern OCs is simply too low to cause interception, that is, failure of the blastocyst to implant."

If this is true, then why does the company's own literature -- produced by their researchers and submitted to the FDA, the medical community, and the public -- suggest the contrary? And why do dozens and dozens of scientific and medical sources I am drawing from in this article definitively state the contrary? If Dr. Struthers is right, not just some but all of these other sources have to be wrong.

Dr. Struthers further states, "Until the blastocyst implants . . . there would be no loss of an embryo and, therefore, no abortion. Thus, the theoretical mechanism of reduced likelihood of implantation by whatever means would not be considered an abortion by any biological definition."

Now we cut to the heart of her presuppositions. Having said implantation won't be pevented, she then says even if it is (why add this if it never happens?), the result isn't really an abortion. This statement is profound both in its breadth and its inaccuracy. It's a classic logic-class-illustration of faulty reasoning. It's like saying "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome does not affect toddlers; therefore, it does not involve the deaths of human beings." Such a statement assumes facts not in evidence -- that infants are not people because they are pre-toddlers. In exactly the same way Dr. Struthers begs the question by assuming -- without bothering to provide any evidence (there is none) for this assumption -- that pre-embryo human beings are not really human beings.

But if human life does begin at conception, which is the overwhelming biological (not to mention biblical) consensus, then causing the death of a "blastocyst" is just as much an abortion as causing the death (or she puts it, "loss") of an "embryo." The days-old individual is a smaller and younger person than the embryo, but he or she is no less a person in the sight of God who created him. (People do not get more human as they get older and bigger -- if they did, toddlers would be more human than infants, adolescents more human than toddlers, adults more human than adolescents and professional basketball players more human than anyone.)

Dr. Struthers says the "reduced likelihood of implantation by whatever means would not be considered an abortion by any biological definition." This statement is unscientific in the extreme. The biological definition she ignores is not just some obscure definition of life, but the precise definition which the vast majority of scientists, including biologists, actually hold to -- that life begins at conception. (See Appendix B: When Does Human Life Begin? The Answer of Science. An early abortion is still an abortion, and no semantics change this reality. (Though for some they do manage to obscure it.)

The letter from Dr. Struthers certainly contains some valid information along with the invalid. But how seriously can we take its bottom-line conclusions that the Pill is not an abortifacient? One physician I showed it to said a "healthcare information services director" is a public relations position with a primary job of minimizing controversy, denying blame, putting out fires, and avoiding any bad publicity for products with both with physicians and the general public. Perhaps this assessment was unfair -- I don't know. But on reading her letter I determined to personally call the research or medical information departments of all the major birth control manufacturers and hear for myself what each of them had to say.

When I called Syntex, they informed me that all their "feminine products," including the Pill, have recently been purchased by Searle. So I called Searle's customer service line, identified myself by name, and was asked to explain my question. When I said that it related to the Pill's mechanism of preventing implantation, the person helping me (who didn't identify herself) became discernibly uneasy. She asked me who I was (I gave her my name again) and then asked me to wait while she conferred with her colleagues. After several minutes she got back on the line and said "Dr. Struthers will have to talk to you about this, and she's not in."

Since Dr. Struthers was unavailable, I asked the woman if she could offer me any guidance. She said, uneasiness very evident, "By any chance are you asking about this for religious reasons?" I said, "Yes, that's part of it." She said, "Well, I can tell you that our pills are not abortifacients." I asked "then why does your professional labeling talk about the Pill reducing the likelihood of implantation?" She said, "I can't answer that question. You'll have to talk to Dr. Struthers." I left my number, but Dr. Struthers didn't call me back. Since I already had her position, as stated in her fax to my physician friend, I didn't call her back either.

Organon

Next I called Organon, the maker of the birth control pill Desogen. After explaining my question about their literature that says the Pill sometimes prevents implantation, I was handed over to Erin in medical services. She informed me "the primary mechanism is preventing ovulation." After my follow-up question, she said, "The other mechanisms also happen, but they're secondary." When I asked how often the primary mechanism fails and the secondary mechanisms kick in, she said "there's no way to determine the number of times which happens and doesn't happen."

Reading between the lines, Erin said, "If you're asking if it's an abortifacient . . . [pause]" I interjected, "Yes, I am." She continued, ". . . that's difficult to ever say that." She added, "What happens is, if ovulation occurs, the Pill will thicken the mucus and thin the endometrium so that it doesn't allow that pregnancy." She quickly added, "but it's not like the IUD." (Meaning, I took it, that preventing implantation is the primary function of the IUD, whereas it is only a secondary function of the Pill.)

Wyeth-Ayerst

Wyeth-Ayerst Labs is the maker of six combination Pills. I called and spoke with a medical information coordinator named Adrianne. I read to her the professional labeling of their Pills that says "other alterations include changes . . . in the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)." I asked if she knew how often the Pill prevents implantation.

Once again it became obvious that I was pro-life, presumably because no one but a pro-lifer would care about this issue. Adrianne read to me a printed statement that said "these mechanisms are not abortifacient in nature." She carefully explained that inhibiting ovulation and thickening the cervical mucus were contraceptive, not abortive. Of course, I agreed 100%. She then said, reading from the statement in front of her, "while it is true that progestins do alter the uterine lining, this is not considered a contraceptive action of these methods. The fact that these methods are not 100% effective and successful pregnancies have occurred clearly demonstrate that successful implantations can occur."

Over the following ten minutes, Adrianne kept talking about the first two mechanisms. I kept asking about the third. Finally she said, "That occurs, but it doesn't prevent a pregnancy." I thought, that's true, it doesn't prevent a pregnancy, it actually ends a pregnancy, but I knew that wasn't what she meant. I then referred her back to Wyeth's professional labeling and pointed out once more the third mechanism. She followed along with her copy and said, "That third effect happens, but it's not considered a contraceptive action, because sometimes it fails to prevent pregnancy."

(Of course, she had already acknowledged that sometimes the Pill fails to prevent ovulation and sometimes the thickened cervical mucus fails to prevent the sperm from impregnating the egg. In the same way a visible pregnancy proves the third mechanism has failed, it proves the other two mechanisms have also failed. Yet they are still considered to be real mechanisms of the Pill, despite the fact they sometimes fail. Why shouldn't the third effect be treated the same way?)

I said, "According to your professional labeling, sometimes your Pills do prevent a fertilized egg from implanting -- is that correct or incorrect?" She paused for a very long time and I heard papers shuffling. Finally she said, "Yes, that's correct, but not always . . . that's why we can't say contraceptives are 100% effective."

I said, "Okay, let me try to summarize, and please correct me if I'm wrong. There are three different ways the Pill operates. #1 usually works. When #1 fails, #2 may work. When #1 and #2 fail, #3 may work. And sometimes all three fail."

She said "Yes, that's correct." She offered to send me information by mail and I gladly accepted the offer. (I had asked Searle and Ortho to do this but they said they didn't have anything they could send me.) She warmly invited me to call back if I needed any more information.

When I received the information in the mail, it contained three things. The first was a cover letter written by Robin Boyle, , R.Ph., Wyeth's Manager of Drug Information. It was clearly a form letter designed for those expressing concerns about abortion, and contained the precise contents that Adrianne quoted to me. Also enclosed was a colorful booklet entitled Birth Control with the Pill, which is designed "to be distributed only with Triphasil sample." In the section "How the Pill Works," it states "The pill mainly prevents pregnancy in two ways." It then speaks of only the first two mechanisms and makes no reference whatsoever to the third, which prevents implantation. (This booklet does not fall under the same FDA requirements of full disclosure that the professional labeling does.)

The detailed, fine print "professional labeling" was also enclosed, and, as reflected in The PDR, it does in fact speak about "alterations include changes in . . the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)." It struck me as obvious that virtually everyone receiving this information would read the large print, attractive, colorful, easy-to-understand booklet (which makes no mention of the abortive mechanism), and almost no one would read the extremely small print, black and white, technically worded, and completely unattractive sheet -- the one that acknowledges in the fine print that the Pill sometimes causes abortions by preventing implantation.

It is safe to say that virtually none of Wyeth's consumers will read the highly technical study printed in a 1988 International Journal of Fertility article, by none other than Wyeth's own Regional Director of Clinical Research, who stated one way oral contraceptives work is "by causing endometrial changes that will not support implantation." (Dr. G. Virginia Upton, "The Phasic Approach to Oral Contraception," The International Journal of Fertility, volume 28, 1988, page 129.)

Ortho

On March 24, 1997, I had a lengthy and enlightening talk with Richard Hill, a pharmacist who works for Ortho-McNeil's product information department. (Ortho-McNeil and Searle are the largest birth control pill manufacturers.) I took detailed notes. Hill was not guarded, was most helpful, and never asked me about my religious views or my beliefs about abortion. He informed me "I can't give you solid numbers, because there's no way to tell which of these three functions is actually preventing the pregnancy; but I can tell you the great majority of the time it's the first one [preventing ovulation]."

I asked him, "Does the Pill sometimes fail to prevent ovulation?" He said "yes." I asked, "What happens then?" He said, "The cervical mucus slows down the sperm. And if that doesn't work, if you end up with a fertilized egg, it won't implant and grow because of the less hospitable endometrium."

I asked him how many of the contraceptives available on the market are low dose. He said, "I don't have statistics, but I also work in a pharmacy and I can tell you the vast majority of the time people get low dose pills." He confirmed that there are some "higher dose" pills available, with 50 micrograms of estrogen instead of 20-35 micrograms, but said these were not commonly used. (Remember, even 50 micrograms is only 1/3 of the average estrogen dosage in pills of the 1960's, and is still low dose by those standards.)

I then asked Hill if he was certain the Pill made implantation less likely. "Oh, yes," he replied. I said, "So you don't think this is just a theoretical effect of the Pill?" He said the following, as I took detailed notes:

Oh, no, it's not theoretical. It's observable. We know what an endometrium looks like when it's richest and most receptive to the fertilized egg. When a woman is taking the Pill you can clearly see the difference, based both on gross appearance -- as seen with the naked eye -- and under a microscope. At the time when the endometrium would normally accept a fertilized egg, if a woman is taking the Pill it is much less likely to do so.

I asked Hill one more time, "So you're saying this is an actual effect that happens, not just a theoretical one?" He said, "Sure -- you can actually see what it does to the endometrium and it's obvious it makes implantation less likely. The only thing that's theoretical is the numbers, because we just don't know that."

The pills produced by Searle, Ortho, Wyeth and Organon are essentially the same thing, with only slightly different combinations of chemicals. The professional labeling is essentially the same. The medical experts at Searle, Wyeth and Organon were all quick to pick up my abortion-related concerns and attempted to defuse them. Despite this, the pharmacist at Ortho and the medical services people at Organon and Wyeth all three acknowledged as an established fact what their literature says, that the Pill sometimes prevents implantation. Dr. Struthers of Searle appears to deny this, but then explains that if it happens it isn't really an abortion. When I stack up these responses to the wealth of information I've found in my research, I am forced to believe the people at Ortho, Wyeth, and Organon, not Dr. Struthers at Searle.

While I know that some of what she said is wrong (including the notion that preventing implantation is not a real abortion), I hope and pray that Dr. Struthers is correct and that her position is more than just a careful public relations ploy to placate known pro-lifers and religious people. The totality of my research, however, convinces me her position is simply not based on the facts.

I think the key issue is whether the Pill's prevention of implantation is "theoretical" or actual. None of the other three manufacturers spoke of it as anything other than actual except Dr. Struthers at Searle, who said it is "a theoretical mechanism only." Pharmacist Hill at Ortho stated it was "not theoretical," but based on direct, measurable observation of the endometrium. Who is correct?

Imagine a farmer who has two places where he might plant seed. One is rich, brown soil that has been tilled, fertilized and watered. The other is on hard, thin, dry and rocky soil. If the farmer's wants as much seed as possible to take hold and grow, where will he plant the seed? The answer is self-evident. On the fertile ground.

Now, you could say to the farmer that his preference for the rich, tilled, moist soil is based on the "theoretical," because he has probably never seen a scientific study that proves this soil is more hospitable to seed than the thin, hard, dry soil. The farmer might reply, based on years of observation, "I know good soil when I see it -- sure, I've seen some plants grow in the hard, thin soil too, but the chances of survival are much less there than in the good soil. Call it theoretical if you want to, but we all know it's true!"

When Dr. Struthers points out some newly conceived children manage to grow in hostile places, this in no way changes the obvious fact that many more children will survive in a richer, thicker, more hospitable endometrium than in a thinner, more hostile one. In this sense, the issue isn't theoretical at all.

Several articles I read spoke of the mucus's ability to block sperm migration and presented as evidence the fact that the thickness of the mucus is visually observable. Of course, this appearance is not incontrovertible proof that it slows down sperm migration, but it is still considered valid evidence. Why would we question the validity of the endometrium's appearance?

Obviously, when the Pill thins the endometrium, and it certainly does, a fertilized egg has a lesser chance of survival. This means a greater chance of death. Hence, without question a woman's taking the Pill puts any conceived child at greater risk of being aborted than if the Pill wasn't being taken. Other than for reasons of wishful thinking, can anyone seriously argue against this?

We may try to take some consolation in believing that abortions happen only in theory. But we must ask, if this is a theory, how strong and credible is the theory? Once it was only a theory that plant life grows better in rich fertile soil than in thin eroded soil. But it was certainly a theory all good farmers believed in and acted upon, having every reason to believe it was true.

Does the birth control pill cause abortions? "PART 2"

2009-10-28T00:00:00.000-07:00

A wealth of scientific evidence

As a woman's menstrual cycle progresses, her endometrium gradually gets richer and thicker in preparation for the arrival of any newly conceived child who may be there to attempt implantation. In a natural cycle, unimpeded by the Pill, the endometrium experiences an increase of blood vessels, allowing an increased blood supply to bring oxygen and nutrients to the child. There is also an increase in the endometrium's stores of glycogen, a sugar that serves as a food source for the blastocyst (newly conceived child) as soon as he or she implants.

The statements in The Physician's Desk Reference, and others to follow, testify that the Pill keeps the woman's body from creating the most hospitable environment for a child, resulting instead in an endometrium that is thin and depleted, deficient in both food (glycogen) and oxygen. This deficiency may result in the child's death by starvation and suffocation. (Scientifically, one does not have to have a stomach to starve or lungs to suffocate.)

Typically, the blastocyst (new person) attempts to implant at six days after conception. If implantation is unsuccessful, she starves to death and is flushed out of the womb in an early miscarriage. (When the miscarriage is the result of an environment created by a foreign device or chemical, it is actually an abortion.)

The March 1996 issue of Fertility and Sterility presents significant research results, then states,

These data suggest that the morphological changes observed in the endometrium of OC users have functional significance and provide evidence that reduced endometrial receptivity does indeed contribute to the contraceptive efficacy of OCs [oral contraceptives]. (Somkuti, et al., "The Effect of Oral Contraceptive Pills on Markers of Endometrial Receptivity, Fertility and Sterility, Volume 65, #3, 3/96, page 488.)

In an extensive study, Chowdhury & Joshi point to the diminished capacity of the endometrium as part of the effectiveness of the Pill ("Escape ovulation in women due to the missing of low dose combination oral contraceptive pills," Contraception, 1980; 22:241).

In a study of oral contraceptives published in a major medical journal Dr. G. Virginia Upton, Regional Director of Clinical Research for Wyeth International (one of the major birth control pill manufacturers), says this:

The graded increments in LNg in the triphasic OC serve to maximize contraceptive protection by increasing the viscosity of the cervical mucus (cervical barrier), by suppressing ovarian progesterone output, and by causing endometrial changes that will not support implantation. ("The Phasic Approach to Oral Contraception," The International Journal of Fertility, volume 28, 1988, page 129.)

Dr. Goldzieher (Hormonal Contraception, page 122) says as a result of the combined Pill's action "possibly the endometrium in such cycles may provide additional contraceptive protection. ' (Note that the author redefines "contraceptive," which historically meant something which prevents conception, yet is used here of preventing implantation of an already conceived person.)

The medical textbook Williams Obstetrics (Cunningham, et al, Stamford, CT: Appleton & Lange, 1993, page 1323) states, "Similar to estrogens, progestins produce an endometrium that is unfavorable to blastocyst implantation."

Drug Facts and Comparisons says this about birth control pills in its 1996 edition:

Combination OCs inhibit ovulation by suppressing the gonadotropins, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and lutenizing hormone (LH). Additionally, alterations in the genital tract, including cervical mucus (which inhibits sperm penetration) and the endometrium (which reduces the likelihood of implantation), may contribute to contraceptive effectiveness.

"The Pill: How does it work? Is it safe?" (The Couple to Couple League, PO Box 111184, Cincinnati, OH, 45211) states on page 4:

When the Pill fails to prevent ovulation, the other mechanisms come into play. Thickened cervical mucus may make it more difficult for the sperm to reach the egg: however, if the egg is fertilized, a new life is created. The hormones slow the transfer of the new life through the fallopian tube, and the embryo may become too old to be viable when it does enter the uterus.

If the embryo is still viable when it reaches the uterus, underdevelopment of the uterine lining caused by the Pill prevents implantation. The embryo dies and the remains are passed along in the next bleeding episode which, incidentally, is not a true menstruation, even though it is usually perceived as such.

A standard medical reference, Danforth's Obstetrics and Gynecology (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1994, 7th edition, page 626) states this: "The production of glycogen by the endometrial glands is diminished by the ingestion of oral contraceptives, which impairs the survival of the blastocyst in the uterine cavity."

In her article Abortifacient Drugs and Devices: Medical and Moral Dilemmas (Linacre Quarterly, August 1990, page 55), Dr. Kristine Severyn states,

The third effect of combined oral contraceptives is to alter the endometrium in such a way that implantation of the fertilized egg (new life) is made more difficult, if not impossible. In effect, the endometrium becomes atrophic and unable to support implantation of the fertilized egg. . . . the alteration of the endometrium, making it hostile to implantation by the fertilized egg, provides a backup abortifacient method to prevent pregnancy.

Established fact even in the Seventies

One of the things that surprised me in my research was that though many recent sources testify to the Pill's abortive capacity, it has been well established for more than two decades. The following eight sources were all written in the 1970's. (Keep in mind that the term "blastocyst" refers to the newly conceived human being -- "it" is not a thing, but a person, a "he" or "she."

Dr. Daniel R. Mishell of the USC School of Medicine said,

Furthermore, they [the combination pills] alter the endometrium so that glandular production of glycogen is diminished and less energy is available for the blastocyst to survive in the uterine cavity. ("Current Status of Oral Contraceptive Steroids," Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology 19:4, December 1976, page 746.)

[While serving as] president of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr. J. Richard Crout said this of combination birth control pills:

Fundamentally, these pills take over the menstrual cycle from the normal endocrine mechanisms. And in so doing they inhibit ovulation and change the characteristics of the uterus so that it is not receptive to a fertilized egg. (FDA Consumer, HEW publication number 76-3024, reprinted from May, 1976.)

In 1970, J. Peel and M. Potts's Textbook of Contraceptive Practice (Cambridge University Press, 1970, page 8) acknowledged,

In addition to its action on the pituitary-ovarian axis the combination products ["the Pill"] also alter the character of the cervical mucus, modify the tubal transport of the egg and may have an effect on the endometrium to make implantation unlikely.

In their book Ovulation in the Human, P.G. Crosignani and D.R. Mishell (Academic Press, Inc., 1976, page 150), stated that birth control pills "alter the cervical mucus . . . as well as affect the endometrium, reducing glycogen production by the endometrial glands which is necessary to support the blastocyst."

The 1977 sixth edition of the Handbook of Obstetrics & Gynecology, then a standard reference work, states on pages 689-690,

The combination pill . . . is effective because LH release is blocked and ovulation does not occur; tubal motility is altered and fertilization is impeded; endometrial maturation is modified so that implantation is unlikely; and cervical mucus is thickened and sperm migration blocked.

(Notice that in this case four mechanisms are mentioned, and the prevention of implantation is listed before the prevention of conception by the thickened cervical mucus.)

The book My Body, My Health (Stewart, Guess, Stewart, Hatcher; Clinician's Edition, Wiley Medical Publications, 1979, page 169-70) states,

In a natural cycle, the uterine lining thickens under the influence of estrogen during the first part of the cycle, and then matures under the influence of both progesterone and estrogen after ovulation. This development sequence is not possible during a Pill cycle because both progestin and estrogen are present throughout the cycle. Even if ovulation and conception did occur, successful implantation would be unlikely.

It was not just obscure medical journals and textbooks which contained this information in the 70's. The popular magazine Changing Times explained, "The pill may affect the movement of the fertilized egg toward the uterus or prevent it from imbedding itself in the uterine lining." ("What We Know About the Pill," Changing Times, July 1977, page 21).

Pro-abortionists know it: Why don't we?

If most pro-lifers have been slow to catch on to this established medical knowledge (I certainly have been), many proabortionists are fully aware of it. In February 1992, writing in opposition to a Louisiana law banning abortion, Tulane Law School Professor Ruth Colker wrote,

Because nearly all birth control devices, except the diaphragm and condom, operate between the time of conception . . . and implantation . . . the statute would appear to ban most contraceptives. (The Dallas Morning News, February 6, 1992, 23A)

Colker referred to all those methods, including the Pill, which sometimes prevent implantation.

Similarly, in 1989 attorney Frank Sussman, representing Missouri Abortion Clinics, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that "The most common forms of . . . contraception today, IUDs and low-dose birth control pills . . . act as abortifacients" (New York Times, National Edition, April 27, 1989, pages 15 & B13). (Remember, by that time all Pills were "low dose" compared to the Pill of the 60's and 70's and 97% were low dose by recent standards, in that they had less than 50 micrograms of estrogen.)

This is such well-established knowledge that the 1982 revised edition of the Random House College Dictionary, on page 137, actually defines "Birth Control Pill" as "an oral contraceptive for women that inhibits ovulation, fertilization, or implantation of a fertilized ovum, causing temporary infertility." When the Pill successfully inhibits implantation of a fertilized ovum, it causes an abortion. (I'm not suggesting, of course, that Random House or any dictionary is an authoritative source. My point is that the knowledge of the Pill's prevention of implantation is so firmly established scientifically that it can be presented as standard information in a household reference book.)

I found on the World Wide Web a number of sources that recognize the abortive mechanism of the Pill. For instance, the "Marie Berry Archive" has an article called "Remembering to Take the Pill." It states matter-of-factly, "Combination oral contraceptives . . . inhibit two other hormones -- H and FSH -- preventing the lining of the uterus or endometrium from developing and thus not allowing ova implantation" http://www.escape.ca/~jdk/mb0996.htm .

Another article, "Oral Contraceptives: Frequently Asked Questions," says "The combined oral contraceptive pill . . . impedes implantation of an egg into the endometrium (uterine lining) because it changes that lining" (http://www.nau.edu/~fronske/bcp.html). Again, most sources on the web are not authoritative, but these two articles, both carefully written, do reflect what is a widespread consensus about the abortive action of the Pill. (This reality does not present a problem to most of these researchers and writers, because of their belief systems.)

For years proabortionists have argued that if the Human Life Amendment, which recognizes each human life begins at conception, was to be put into law, this would lead to the banning of both the IUD and the Pill. When hearing this I used to think, "As usual, they're misrepresenting the facts and agitating people by pretending the Pill would be jeopardized by the HLA."

I realize now that while their point was to agitate people against the Human Life Amendment, they were actually correct in saying that if the amendment was passed and taken seriously, the Pill would violate it because it takes the life of an already conceived human being. They never claimed condoms or diaphragms would be made illegal by the Human Life Amendment. Why? Because when they work, those methods are 100% contraceptives -- they never cause abortions. It's because they know that the Pill sometimes prevents implantation that prochoice advocates could honestly make the claim that an amendment stating human life begins at conception would label the Pill as a product that takes human life.

Breakthrough ovulation & backup mechanisms

One of the most common misconceptions about the Pill is that its success in preventing discernible pregnancy is entirely due to its success in preventing ovulation. If a sexually active and fertile woman taking the Pill does not get pregnant in 97-99% of her cycles it does not mean she didn't ovulate in 97-99% of her cycles.

Many months the same woman would not have gotten pregnant even if she wasn't using the Pill. Furthermore, if the Pill's second mechanism works, conception will be prevented despite ovulation taking place. If the second mechanism fails, then the third mechanism comes to play. While it may fail too, every time it succeeds it will contribute to the Pill's perceived contraceptive effectiveness. That is, because the child is newly conceived and tiny, and the pregnancy has just begun six days earlier, that pregnancy will not be discernible to the woman. Therefore every time it causes an abortion the Pill will be thought to have succeeded as a contraceptive. Most women will assume it has stopped them from ovulating even when it hasn't. This illusion reinforces the public's confidence in the Pill's effectiveness, with no understanding that both ovulation and conception may have in fact not been prevented at all.

In his article "Ovarian follicles during oral contraceptive cycles: their potential for ovulation," Dr. Stephen Killick says, "It is well established that newer, lower-dose regimes of combined oral contraceptive (OC) therapy do not completely suppress pituitary and ovarian function" (Fertility and Sterility, October 1989, page 580).

Dr. Thomas Hilgers, renowned fertility expert, personally heard Dr. Ronald Chez, a scientist with the National Institute of Health (NIH), publicly state that the pills of today, with their lower estrogen doses, allow ovulation up to 50% of the time. Dr. Chez was at that time the head of the pregnancy research development branch of the NIH. (Having read this, I sought direct confirmation from Dr. Hilgers; I have a letter from him acknowledging that he did in fact hear Dr. Chez say this.)

Dr. David Sterns, in "How the Pill and the IUD Work: Gambling with Life" (American Life League, PO Box 1350, Stamford, VA 22555), states that "even the early pill formulations (which were much more likely to suppress ovulation due to their higher doses of estrogen) still allowed breakthrough ovulation to occur 1 to 3% of the time." He cites an award winning study by Dutch gynecologist Dr. Nine Van der Vange in which she discovered in Pill-takers "proof of ovulation based on ultrasound exams and hormonal indicators occurred in about 4.7% of the cycles studied."

To check this out myself, I obtained a copy of Dr. Van der Vange's original study, called "Ovarian activity during low dose oral contraceptives," published in Contemporary Obstetrics and Gynecology, edited by G. Chamberlain (London: Butterworths, 1988). On pages 323-24, Dr. Van der Vange concludes,

These findings indicate that ovarian suppression is far from complete with the low dose OC . . . Follicular development was found in a high percentage during low-dose OC use. . . . ovarian activity is very common for the low dose OC preparations. . . . the mode of action of these OC is not only based on ovulation inhibition, but other factors are involved such as cervical mucus, vaginal pH and composition of the endometrium.

This means that though a woman might not get measurably pregnant in 98% of her cycle months, there is simply no way to tell how often the Pill has actually prevented her ovulation. Given the fact that she would not get pregnant in many months even if she ovulated, and the fact that there are at least two other mechanisms which can prevent measurable pregnancy (one contraceptive and the other abortive), a 97% apparent effectiveness rate of the Pill might mean only a 70-90% effectiveness in actually preventing ovulation. (We could go much lower if we took the 50% figure stated by Dr. Chez of the National Institute of Health, but to be conservative I am choosing the higher rates of ovulation.) The other 7-27% of the Pill's "effectiveness" could be due to a combination of the normal rates of nonpregnancy, the thickening of the cervical mucus and -- at the heart of our concern here -- the endometrium's hostility to the fertilized egg.

Does the birth control pill cause abortions? "PART 1"

2009-10-27T00:00:00.000-07:00

by Randy Alcorn

Introduction: What's at stake?

The Pill is the popular term for more than forty different commercially available oral contraceptives. In the medical field, they are commonly referred to as BCPs (Birth Control Pills), OCs (Oral Contraceptives) and/ or OCPs (Oral Contraceptive Pills).

The Pill is used in America by about fourteen million women each year. Across the globe it is used by hundreds of millions. The question of whether it causes abortions has direct bearing on untold millions of Christians, many of them pro-life, who use it and recommend it. For those who believe that God is the creator of each person and that He is the giver and taker of human life, this is a question with the most profound moral implications. A great deal is at stake here not simply for society, but for the church of Jesus Christ.

After coming to grips with the importance of this issue, and hearing conflicting opinions for the last few years, I determined to thoroughly research this question and communicate my findings, no matter what they might be.

I wanted, and still want, the answer to this question to be "No." I came to this issue as a skeptic. Though I heard people here and there make an occasional claim that the Pill caused abortions, I learned long ago not to trust everything said by sincere Christians, who are sometimes long on zeal but short on careful research.

While I'm certainly fallible, I have taken pains to be as certain as possible that the information I am presenting here is accurate. I've examined medical journals and other scientifically oriented sources -- everything from popular medical reference books to highly technical professional periodicals. I've checked and double checked, submitted this research to physicians, and asked clarifying questions of pharmacists and other experts. Few of my citations are from pro-life advocates. Most are physicians, scientists, researchers, Pill-manufacturers and other secular sources. I am not a physician, but I am an experienced researcher. I have sought to put the most stock in sources that appear to be the most scientifically credible. (If I were conducting medical studies, obviously my not being a physician would disqualify me_but I am not doing medical studies, I am simply reading, collecting, and organizing them for this presentation.)

Because I want readers to be able to do what I did -- hunt down every original source you can and see it for yourself -- I have included full documentation and reference information directly in the text. I realize this may not feel "reader friendly" to some, but it will keep the reader from constantly having to turn to an endnotes section to see what source is being cited. (I have sometimes put in boldface type certain quoted phrases I wish to emphasize -- these are not boldfaced in the originals.)

Before going further, let me affirm a truth that is a foundational premise of all I am about to address: each human being is created by God at the point of conception. This is the clear teaching of the Bible and is confirmed by the scientific evidence. If you are not completely convinced of this, please stop now and read the first two appendices. They both answer the question, "When Does Human Life Begin?" Appendix A gives the answer of Scripture and Appendix B the answer of science. You may also wish to read the other appendices to bring a biblical perspective to the importance of the issue dealt with in this booklet.

(Because there is so much at stake, and because there is a great spiritual battle surrounding this issue, I ask the reader to pause and pray, asking God to give you his mind and heart concerning what we are about to deal with.)

Background: "Contraceptives" that aren't contraceptives

Contraceptives are chemicals or devices that prevent conception. A birth control method that kills an already conceived person is not a contraceptive, it is an abortifacient.

The problem of "contraceptives" that are really abortifacients is not a new one. Pro-life Christians have long opposed the use of Intra-Uterine Devices (IUDs), because they do not prevent conception, but keep the already conceived child from implanting in his mother's womb. (A recent study challenges this understanding, but many prior ones support it.) Likewise, we oppose RU-486, the anti-progesterone abortion pill. RU-486 is a human pesticide, causing a mother's womb to become hostile to her own child, resulting in an induced miscarriage.

Depo-Provera is an anti-progesterone injected every three months. It sometimes suppresses ovulation, but also thins the lining of the uterus, preventing implantation. Norplant is another anti-progesterone drug enclosed in five or six flexible closed capsules or rods, which are surgically implanted beneath the skin. It often suppresses ovulation, but sometimes ovulation occurs, and when it does an irritation to the uterine wall often prevents implantation.

The Emergency Contraceptive Pill (ECP) also known as the "Morning After Pill" does not prevent pregnancy, but keeps a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

All of these birth control methods either sometimes or often alter the mother's womb in a way that causes it to reject the human life which God designed it to nourish and sustain. Christians properly reject these methods because they know that human life begins at conception, six days before implantation begins. Therefore, anything that interferes with implantation kills a person created in the image of God.

These birth control methods are often referred to as "contraceptives," but they are not exclusively contraceptives. That is, they do not always prevent conception, but sometimes or often result in the death of already conceived human beings.

(The term "fertilized egg" is itself unfortunate and dehumanizing -- the truth is that both egg and sperm are in no sense human beings, but simply products of two human beings. At the point of fertilization someone brand new comes into existence, with twenty-three chromosomes from the egg and twenty-three from the sperm combining into a never-before-existing and unique human being. As the sperm no longer exists, neither in essence does the egg, for it is replaced by a new creation with a unique DNA, rapidly growing and dividing on its own. This new human being is no more a mere "fertilized egg" than it is a "modified sperm." He or she is a newly created person, with not only gender but the equivalent of hundreds of volumes of distinct genetic programming.)

The Mini (progestin-only) Pill

Progestin-only pills (which have no estrogen) are often called "minipills." (Many people confuse them with the more popular combination estrogen-progestin pills, which are the true "Birth Control Pill."

Drug Facts & Comparisons is a standard reference book for physicians. In the 1996 edition (page 419), it says this under "Oral Contraceptives":

Oral contraceptives (OCs) include estrogen-progestin combos and progestin-only products. Progestin-only [pills] . . . alter the cervical mucus, exert a progestational effect on the endometrium, apparently producing cellular changes that render the endometrium hostile to implantation by a fertilized ovum (egg) and, in some patients, suppress ovulation.

Note that progestin-only pills have as a primary effect to make the uterine lining (endometrium) "hostile to implantation by a fertilized ovum." In other words, they cause an abortion of a human being roughly a week after his or her conception.

I have been told that many users of the minipill erroneously think their ovulations are being suppressed. In his book Gynecology: Principles & Practices (YearBook Medical Publishers, 3rd edition, 1979, page 735), R.W. Kistner says, "Certainly the majority of women using the progestin-only pill continue to ovulate."

In his book Hormonal Contraception: Pills, Injections & Implants, Dr. Joseph W. Goldzieher, states, "Endometrial resistance to implantation is an important mechanism of the minipill." (Essential Medical Information Systems, PO Box 811247, Dallas, Texas, page 35).

A 1981 Searle leaflet, packaged with their progestin-only pill, says that product "makes the womb less receptive to any fertilized egg that reaches it."

The Physician's Desk Reference, 1996 edition (page 1872) describes "Progesten-Only Oral contraceptives" by saying they "are known to alter the cervical mucus and exert a progestational effect on the endometrium, interfering with implantation."

Clearly the progestin-only pill, by its effects on the endometrium, causes abortions and must be added to the list of abortive birth control methods. Like all the aforementioned products, the changes the mini-pill creates in the mother's endometrium make the womb hostile to the newly conceived child, rather than hospitable to him, as God designed the mother's womb to be.

But what about the far more widely-used Birth Control Pill, with combined estrogen and progestin? Is it exclusively a contraceptive? That is, does it always prevent conception? Or does it, like these other products, sometimes result in abortions? That is the central question of this booklet.

The birth control pill: My own vested interests

To make the issue more personal, I'll share my own experience. In 1991, while researching my book Pro-life Answers to ProChoice Arguments, I heard someone suggest that birth control pills can cause abortions. This was brand new to me -- in all my years as a pastor and a pro-lifer, I had never heard it before.

My vested interests were strong in that Nanci and I used the Pill in the early years of our marriage, as did many of our pro-life friends. Why not? We believed it simply prevented conception. We never suspected it had any potential for abortion. No one told us this was even a possibility. I confess I never read the fine print of the Pill's package insert, nor am I sure I would have understood it even if I had.

In fourteen years as a pastor, doing considerable premarital counseling, I always warned couples against the IUD because it causes abortions. I typically recommended young couples use the Pill because of its relative ease and effectiveness.

At the time I was researching Pro-life Answers, I found only one person who could point me toward any documentation that connected the Pill and abortion. She indicated just one primary source that supported this belief and I only came up with one other. Still, these two sources were sufficient to compel me to include this warning in my book:

Some forms of contraception, specifically the intrauterine device (IUD), Norplant, and certain low-dose oral contraceptives, often do not prevent conception but prevent implantation of an already fertilized ovum. The result is an early abortion, the killing of an already conceived individual. Tragically, many women are not told this by their physicians, and therefore do not make an informed choice about which contraceptive to use. . . . Among pro-lifers there is honest debate about contraceptive use and the degree to which people should strive to control the size of their families. But on the matter of controlling family size by killing a family member, we all ought to agree. Solutions based on killing people are not viable. (Pro-life Answers to ProChoice Arguments, Multnomah Press, 1992, 1994, page 118).
In reference to the abortive potential of low-dose oral contraceptives, in my book I footnoted two articles, one "Investigational Contraceptives," in the May 1987 Drug Newsletter, page 34; the other the January 1990 "Contraceptive Technology Update," page 5.

At the time, however, I incorrectly believed that "low dose" birth control pills were the exception, not the rule, and that most people who took the Pill were in no danger of having abortions. What I've found in my recent research is that since 1988 virtually all oral contraceptives used in America are low-dose, that is, they contain much lower levels of estrogen than the earlier birth control pills. Danforth's Obstetrics and Gynecology (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1994, 7th edition, page 626) says this:

The use of estrogen-containing formulations with less than 50 micrograms of estrogen steadily increased to 75% of all prescriptions in the United States in 1987. In the same year, only 3% of the prescriptions were for formulations that contained more than 50 micrograms of estrogen. Because these higher-dose estrogen formulations have a greater incidence of adverse effects without greater efficacy, they are no longer marketed in the United States.

After the Pill had been on the market fifteen years, many serious negative side effects of estrogen had been clearly proven (Nine Van der Vange, "Ovarian activity during low dose oral contraceptives," published in Contemporary Obstetrics and Gynecology, edited by G. Chamberlain; London: Butterworths, 1988, page 315-16). These included blurred vision, nausea, cramping, irregular menstrual bleeding, headaches and increased incidence of breast cancer, strokes and heart attacks, some of which led to fatalities.

Beginning in the mid-seventies, manufacturers of the Pill steadily decreased the content of estrogen and progestin in their products. The average dosage of estrogen in the Pill declined from 150 micrograms in 1960 to 35 micrograms in 1988. These facts are directly stated in an advertisement by the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals and Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation in Hippocrates magazine, May/June 1988, page 35.

Likewise, Pharmacists for Life confirms:

As of October 1988, the newer lower dosage birth control pills are the only type available in the U.S., by mutual agreement of the Food and Drug Administration and the three major Pill manufacturers: Ortho, Searle and Syntex. (Oral Contraceptives and IUDs: Birth Control or Abortifacients?, November 1989, page 1.)

What is now considered a "high dose" of estrogen is 50 micrograms, which is in fact a very low dose in comparison to the 150 micrograms once standard for the Pill. The "low dose" pills of today are mostly 20-35 micrograms. As far as I can tell (from looking them up individually in medical reference books), there are no birth control pills available today that have more than 50 micrograms of estrogen. If there are any, they are certainly rare.

Not only was I wrong in thinking low dose contraceptives were the exception rather than the rule, I didn't realize there was considerable documented medical information linking birth control pills and abortion. Still more has surfaced in the years since.

I say all this to emphasize I came to this research with no prejudice against the Pill. In fact, I came with a prejudice toward it. I certainly don't want to believe I may have jeopardized the lives of my own newly conceived children, nor that I was wrong in recommending it to all those couples I counseled as a pastor. It would take compelling evidence for me to change my position, but I resolved to pursue this research with an open mind, sincerely seeking the truth and hoping to find out the Pill does not really cause abortions. As we will now directly examine the evidence, I urge you to ask the Lord to give you an a truth-seeking mind and an open heart.

The Physician's Desk Reference

The Physician's Desk Reference is the most frequently used reference book by physicians in America. The PDR, as it's often called, lists and explains the effects, benefits and risks of every medical product that can be legally prescribed. The Food and Drug Administration requires that each manufacturer provide accurate information on its products, based on scientific research and laboratory tests. This information is included in The PDR.

As you read the following information, keep in mind that implantation, by definition, always involves an already conceived human being, and therefore any agent which serves to prevent implantation thereby functions as an abortifacient.

This is the PDR's product information as listed by Ortho, one of the two largest manufacturers of the Pill, under Ortho-Cept:

Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation. (The PDR, 1995, page 1775).

The FDA-required research information on the birth control pills Ortho-Cyclen and Ortho Tri-Cyclen also state that they cause "changes in . . . the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)." (The PDR, 1995, page 1782).

Notice that these changes in the endometrium, and their reduction in the likelihood of implantation, are not stated by the manufacturer as speculative or theoretical effects, but as actual ones. (The importance of this distinction will surface later.)

Similarly, Syntex, another major Pill manufacturer, says this in Physician's Desk Reference (1995, page 2461) under the "Clinical Pharmacology" of the six pills it produces (two types of Brevicon and four of Norinyl):

Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus), and the endometrium (which may reduce the likelihood of implantation).

Wyeth, on page 2685 of The PDR, 1995, says something very similar of its combination Pills, including Lo/Ovral and Ovral: "other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus . . . and changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation." Wyeth makes virtually identical statements about its birth control pills Nordette (The PDR, 1995, page 2693) and Triphasil (page 2743).

A young couple showed me their pill, Desogen, a product of Organon. I looked it up in The PDR (1995, page 1744). It states one effect of the pill is to create "changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation."

The inserts packaged with birth control pills are condensed versions of longer research papers detailing the Pill's effects, mechanisms and risks. Near the end, the insert typically says something like the following, which I am quoting directly from the Desogen pill insert:

If you want more information about birth control pills, ask your doctor, clinic or pharmacist. They have a more technical leaflet called the Professional Labeling, which you may wish to read. The Professional Labeling is also published in a book entitled Physician's Desk Reference, available in many bookstores and public libraries.

Of the half dozen birth control pill package inserts I've read, only one included the information about the Pill's abortive mechanism (a package insert dated July 12, 1994, found in the oral contraceptive Demulen, manufactured by Searle). Yet this abortive mechanism was referred to in all cases in the manufacturer's Professional Labeling, as documented in The Physician's Desk Reference. (Again, the full disclosure in the Professional Labeling is required by the FDA.)

If all this is repetitive, it establishes that according to multiple references throughout Physician's Desk Reference, which articulate the research findings of a variety of birth control pill manufacturers, there are not one but three mechanisms of birth control pills: 1) inhibiting ovulation (the primary mechanism), 2) thickening the cervical mucus, thereby making it more difficult for sperm to travel to the egg, and 3) thinning and shriveling the lining (endometrium) of the uterus to the point that it is unable to facilitate the implantation of the newly fertilized egg. While the first two mechanisms are contraceptive, the third is abortive.

When a woman taking the Pill discovers she is pregnant (according to The Physician's Desk References efficacy rate tables, listed under every contraceptive, this is 3% of pill-takers each year), it means that all three of these mechanisms have failed. Clearly then, this third mechanism sometimes fails in its role as backup, just as the first and second mechanisms sometimes fail. Each and every time the third mechanism succeeds, however, it causes an abortion.

The Centrality of the Home in the Evangelism and Discipleship of the Next Generation

2009-10-20T21:25:00.000-07:00

SBTC Evangelism Conference

By Voddie Baucham

Bible Text: Ephesians 6:1-4

Preached on: Saturday, February 18, 2006

Grace Family Baptist Church

8765 Spring Cypress Road

Suite L

Spring, TX 77379

Website: www.gracefamilybaptist.net

Online Sermons: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5209234630

Well, good evening. It is good to be here with you this evening.

If I had had an opportunity and was ready to come, been able to come and get right in line with the theme and do what I always try to do which is preach what I am asked to preach, but they didn’t ask me to preach anything. They just asked me to come. So you get what I’ve been sitting on and what I have been living with. I hope that’s all right.

You just... if you will allow me, I see my former pastor, Dr. John Morgan and his lovely wife sitting up here in the front row and you need to know that one of the greatest periods of ministry in my life was the time that I spent as a teaching pastor at Sagemont Church in Houston. And much of what I am today is because of my time there.

You know, there are two sides of my life. There is this one side where cultural apologetics is what I live and breathe and teach and preach and there is the other side where I am Bridget’s husband and Jasmine’s Trey and Elijah’s father and by the way we have another baby who will be here any day now. And so God continues to be good to us.

And there is a place where these two parts of my life merge. I want to share something with you tonight that has been sobering to me. The place where these two things merge is here and I am not real big on statistics, but I just need to share a few things with you to paint a picture and I want to do the best that I can to let you know where these things come from.

Those of you who know me know that I am... it just pains me to ever have any noteswhen I preach. I just can’t do it. I just can’t have any notes. But I had to have some things here so I could tell you exactly where this information comes from and where you can go and find it.

One is this, that we are losing a generation and we are losing that generation rapidly. For instance, depending on where you look, we are losing somewhere between 75 and 88% of our young people by the end of their freshman year in college, somewhere between 75and 88%. For that low number you can look at Glen Shultz’ work on kingdom education, for that high number, the 2002 Southern Baptist council on the family.

And so these are not things that are just made up, that are just grabbed out of the air. That is what has been happening over the last few decades. We are losing somewhere between 75 and 88% of our young people by the end of their freshman year in college.

There are a lot of you in here and you are upset about the whole Emerging Church movement. You are upset about Brian MacLaren and some of the theology that he is espousing. I don’t like much of the theology that is coming out of the Emerging Church movement, but can I tell you what the impetus is behind the Emerging Church movement. Twenty somethings are gone. The Emerging Church movement is saying, “What do we do to recapture this age group?”

By the way, if you look around you will see that we have a generation gap in the SBC.

Amen, lights. There is a tremendous generation gap among Southern Baptists and it is time that we got honest about it. And part of it is because of what I am telling you. Hold on, though. I am not finished painting the picture.

In our culture, in America for the first time, our birth rate is below replacement rate. Replacement rate is 2.1 children per family. We are at 1.9. Now we are not as bad as much of the industrialized world. For example in France I think they are around 1.5 children per family. In Italy they are somewhere around 1.1 children per family.

Now, in case you don’t understand what that means, what that means is we are not having enough children for our culture to continue to survive. Our culture is dying one generation at a time.

Now, let me put skin on that for you. France, they have a birth rate of about 1.5. However, there are North African Muslims and Arab Muslims who have emigrated into France and we saw some unrest because of those folks. Their birthrate is about six children per family which means in two generations France will be a Muslim nation by sheer numbers alone.

Why? Because they want prosperity more than they want children. And it is the same for us.

Now let me put these two pieces of statistical information together. At two children per family, Southern Baptists, because we are no better than the rest of the culture on this, our attitude towards children is a boy for me and a girl for you and praise the Lord we are finally through. Amen. It is an unwritten rule that you can only have two kids.

However, there is one exception to the unwritten rule where you can have a third child and that is if your first two children were the same sex you get to try one more time for the other. That is the unwritten rule.

We despise children in our culture. We despise children in the Southern Baptist Convention.

You don’t believe me? Find a woman with six or seven kids and follow her into a Southern Baptist Church and watch the way we mock her. Watch the way people who don’t even know her come up to her and say, “Haven’t you guys figured out how that happens yet?”

Now let me put these two statistics together. We lose 75... let’s take the most optimistic number. We are losing 75 by the end of their freshman year in college. We average two children per family. That means it currently takes two Christian families in this generation to get one Christian into the next.

Let me make it even more plain. There’s 16 million Southern Baptists on paper. By these numbers next generation, four million; third generation, one million; fourth generation, 250,000. More than numbers now, aren’t they?

Oh, but that’s ok. We’ll just replenish those numbers through evangelism.
Interesting. In order to replenish those numbers through evangelism alone what we would have to do is reach three lost people for every one Christian. Currently we only reach one lost person for every 43 Southern Baptists.

Now, let me make it plain and bring it home. Christianity in America is dying one generation at a time, one a home at a time. Christianity is dying.

Among the Jewish community the same thing is happening. Two scholars, Anthony Gordon and Richard Horowitz, have done a study on what is happening in the Jewish community and listen to what they say. The research targeted three key qualifiable elements of Jewish survival: intermarriage rates as believers marrying other believers instead of nonbelievers so that they lose the faith, birth rates and levels of Jewish education. When all these factors are tabulated and correlated, a troubling picture emerges of the future of American Jewry. Sky rocketing intermarriage rates, declining birth rates and inadequate Jewish education continue to decimate the American Jewish people.

We are right behind them.

There was a front page article in the Wall Street Journal just yesterday about Zoroastrians in India. Now what does Zoroastrians in India have to do with anything? I will tell you.

Here is what they were saying in the article, front page article in the Wall Street Journal.

Because of low birth rates and because people are getting married later and having fewer children than ever before, the Zoroastrian religion is about to be wiped off the face of the planet simply because they are not having kids and retaining the kids that they have.

Are you smelling what I am stepping in?

What has been our answer? Here has been our answer. Our answer has been to divorce ourselves from the issue and hire youth pastors to make it better. If you can’t say amen you ought to say ouch.

That has been our answer.

By the way, Alan Reed in his book Raising the Bar makes this observation. “Over the last 30 years we have seen the largest increase in the number of professional youth ministers, youth ministry degrees being handed out and para church organizations designed to reach youth and we have seen the greatest decline in youth baptisms ever.”

Let me make this statement and then I will back it up while you open your Bibles to Ephesians chapter six. Let me make this statement. Our current approach to youth ministry, number one, is unbiblical; number two is antithetical to what the biblical model is for the evangelization and discipleship of young people; and, number three, it doesn’t work.

Let me recap. Number one, our current approach is unbiblical. I am going to show you that. Number two, our current approach is actually antithetical to the biblical model. It is one thing for something to not be found in the Scripture. It is another thing for something to actually work against what is clearly found in the Scripture. And, number three, which shouldn’t be surprising at all, it doesn’t work. Or do I need to say it again? 75 to 88% is our current failure rate.

Ephesians chapter six verses one through four. I want to show you from the Scripture the centrality of the home in the evangelism and discipleship of the next generation, the centrality of the home in the evangelism and discipleship of the next generation. God has a plan for multi generational faithfulness. That plan is the family. Unfortunately, many of the things that we currently involve ourselves in actually work against God’s plan of the family. And so currently what we are doing is we are actually... this is... let me give you, for example.... When is say that what we are doing is unbiblical, let me give you what we say is the goal of many of our youth ministries.

What we say is this. The youth ministry at so and so Baptist Church exists to evangelize teenagers, to disciple them and to equip them to go and evangelize other teenagers. Two problems with that. Number one, nine times out of 10 we never mention parents. And, number two, not your job. Whose job is it to evangelize my children? The Church? No, it is mine. Whose job is it to disciple my children? The Church? No, it’s mine, which means that at best any youth ministry that is going to exist at all had better have a mission statement that says, “We exist to equip and assist parents as they do what God called them to do and not the Church.”

It is one thing for me to make that statement, but I don’t want you to just take my word for it.

Ephesians chapter six verses one through four. Oh, they are messing with me on my time. All right, Ephesians chapter six verse one through four. But, trust me, you needeto know all of that.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.1

The centrality of the home in the evangelism and discipleship of the next generation, the centrality of the home. Now please note. There is a difference, because what is happening now is people are looking at the data and a lot of our youth ministry programs are now moving toward ministry to youth and their families. And so we were saying, “The kids are ours and it is our job to evangelize them, our job to disciple them and our job to mobilize them.”

Now we say, “It is still our job, but we want parents to help us.”

That is still the wrong answer.

“Well, but you don’t understand. These families out there, they are not doing it.”

Isn’t that interesting? For 30 years here is what we have been telling them. “We are trained professionals. Please don’t try this at home. You don’t understand your kids.Your kids don’t like you. Trust me. Just drop them off now.”

And now we are mad because they are doing what we have taught them to do for 30 years.

All right, I am going to get to this text. Now, come on.

Three things demonstrate the centrality of the home in this process of evangelizing and discipling the next generation. First, a context of that first verse. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.”

Now in order to understand the context of that verse you have got to back up to the paragraph before it. You back up to the paragraph before it and you start with, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church.”

But the problem with that is you get there and you have got to back up to the paragraph before that one to see the context of this section. “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.”

The problem with that is that it is the beginning of the section, but it has got no verb. I know what you are saying. “It has got a verb right there. Be subject. Isn’t that the verb?”

It ought to be italicized in your Bible. The reason it is italicized is because it is borrowed from verse 21. In the Greek there is verb there in verse 22. So it is borrowed from verse 21. The problem with starting with verse 21, if you start with verse 21 you start at the end of a paragraph and you can’t do that. So in order to understand the context of Ephesians chapter six verse one, you have got to go all the way back to Ephesians chapter five and verse 15. Trust me. We are going somewhere.

When you back up to Ephesians chapter five and verse 15 here is what you get. You get three contrasts and then you get three commands and then you get three contexts. All right? Three contrasts.

Let’s look at them beginning at verse 15. Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil.

That is contrast number one.

Contrast number two, next verse: “So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.”

That is the second contrast. Don’t be foolish. Understand the Lord’s will.

Third contrast: “Do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit.”

On the third contrast you get three commands. Those three commands are connected to the third contrast. Look at what he says beginning in verse 19. How do you know somebody is living the Spirit filled life?

Verse 19. “Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord.”

4 Ephesians 5:22.

5 Ephesians 5:15-16.

If you show me a worshipful person, I will show you a person who is more than likely being controlled by the Spirit of God. Show me a person who is not a worshipful person and I will show you somebody who more than likely is not being controlled and is not yielding to the Spirit of God.

You can’t tell me that somebody is Spirit filled and they are not worshipful. The two just don’t go together. Fair enough?

Look at the next verse. Here is the next command. Verse 20. “Always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father.”

So you are a worshipful person. Secondly, you are prayerfully thankful, prayerfully thankful. Show me somebody who is prayerfully thankful and I will show you somebody who is probably being controlled by the Spirit of God. Show me somebody who ineither prayerful nor thankful and I will show you somebody who is not Spirit filled.

Fair enough? Those were easy.

Verse 21. “Be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.”

Show me somebody who submits to proper biblical authority in their life and I will show you somebody who is Spirit filled. Show me somebody who does not submit to proper biblical authority in their life and I will show you somebody who is not Spirit filled.

Now go to chapter six and verse one and look at it in context. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.”

In other words, three contrasts, three commands. On the third command you get three contexts. Context number one, wives and husbands; context number two, children and parents; context number three, servants and masters.

Here is what he is saying in verse one. Show me a child who is not submissive to their parents’ authority and I will show you a child who is not yielded to the Spirit of God which means if we want to lead children toward being Spirit filled, we don’t lead them toward the youth pastor, we lead them toward mom and dad because the measure of their yielding to the Spirit of God is whether or not when their parents say something they do what they are told when they are told and with a respectful attitude. That is what obedience is.

So, number one, we see the centrality of the home in the context here. He says, “You want to take the spiritual temperature of a young person, you take the spiritual temperature of a young person by whether or not they are submissive to the authority of their parents.”

That is the authority in their life. That is the spiritual authority in their life.

The spiritual authority in my child’s life is me. The spiritual authority in your child’s life is you which means anything that the Church does had better not rob spiritual authority from mom and dad.

I don’t write the mail. I just deliver it.

Secondly, look at the centrality in the home in his use of the Fifth Commandment. Look at what he says there, the next verse. “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth."

Now, as Americans, we are rugged individualists. So the first thing we want to do with this verse is we want to say, “That is talking to the individual child.”

“Child, you obey me, you will have a long prosperous life.”

No. No. Understand the significance of the Fifth Commandment. First of all the Fifth Commandment is the first of the horizontal commandments. There’s 10 Commandments.

The first four are vertical. The last six are horizontal. Number one on the hit parade of the horizontal commandments, the man to man commandments, number one is: Honor your father and your mother, which means there is nothing that the Church can teach a child that is more important than honoring their father and their mother.

Now, not only do we see it because of the position, secondly, we see it because of a promise. That is the first one with a promise. Folks, that’s huge. Do you know what the first four commandments are?

Commandment number one, “I am God. You don’t get another one.”

“Lord, can we get a promise with that one?”

“No, no promise. Just do it.”

Commandment number two. “Don’t even make nothing that look like me.”

“Ok, God, can we get a promise with that one?”

“No. Just do it.”

Commandment number three. “Don’t even mess with my name.”

“Ok, God. That is kind of serious right there. You have got to give us a promise on that one.”

“No.”

Commandment number four. “Don’t even mess with my day.”

“Now, wait a minute, now. You know, I want my boy to be a baseball player and most of the teams, you know, he have to go and he have to play on Sunday sometime and, God, I am sure you will...”

“Don’t mess with my day.”

“Get a promise with that one, Lord?”

“No promise.”

Commandment number five. “Honor your father and your mother.”

“Can I get a promise with that one, God?”

“You better believe you can. On that one I give you a promise.”

Do you see the importance of the Fifth Commandment? It is huge. Its order screams about its importance. The fact that it is the first one with a promise screams of its importance.

Now, listen to this. The Fifth Commandment was not for the individual child. It was for the community of faith. Here is what the Fifth Commandment is about. Remember, we get them in Deuteronomy five. In Deuteronomy chapter six what does he teach us? He teaches us how to disciple our children in our homes. He teaches us, “Listen, Israel...”

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.

Disciple your children.

““Can I give it to somebody else to do?”

“No. It is your job as parents.”

Listen to me. You are clapping, but almost everyone of you has a youth ministry in your church that is operating unbiblically. Don’t clap if you are not going to change it. And I am not talking about including more parents in what we do. I am talking about changing the entire paradigm.

Why? Because here is the purpose of the Fifth Commandment. God says, “You are my people, but you are about to go into a pagan land where they worship pagan gods. If you want to continue to be my people here is what you must do. Number one, you must have a boatload of kids. That is what it means to multiply greatly.”

By the way, when he sends them into the Promised Land, what does he say to them in Deuteronomy? That they are to multiply greatly so that when he sends them into the Promised Land they won’t disappear as God’s people. When he sends them into exile in Jeremiah 29 what does he say? Multiply greatly.

You want to avoid disappearing in the midst of a pagan culture? Out breed them.

Let me tell you something. There are some of us in the room that need to repent because of our attitude toward children and because of what we have said to people communicating our attitude and not the biblical attitude toward children. Some of us need to get on our faces before a holy God because we have mocked being fruitful. I have heard pastors from pulpit, from the pulpit talk about their children like they despise the number of children that God has given them. I heard a pastor from the pulpit talk about their third children being named Miny.

“Yeah, Eeny, Meeny and Miny because we ain’t having no more.”

That is a mockery before almighty God. Children are a gift of the Lord. The fruit of the womb is a reward.14 Our attitude from here is why a lot of people out there aren’t having enough kids.

It starts with us. And it all goes back to prosperity. The poorest nations in the world see children as a blessing. The richest nation in the world, we talk about children in terms of how many we can afford. God help us. We are dying one generation at a time because we refuse to receive the gift that God wants to bring through the womb.

Our attitudes. God says, “You want to continue to be my people? You do two things. Number one, you gladly receive these blessings that I give you called children. And, number two, you disciple them in your homes so that they don’t look like the culture around them.”

The minute you stop receiving the gift of God through the womb and the minute you stop discipling them in your home, they begin to look like the culture and the community of God begins to vanish before your eyes.

Two Christian families in this generation to get one generation into the next. I believe that is a plague on us.

It is amazing. We always talk about how we want more souls in the kingdom. If we were honest, here is what we would say. “We want more souls in the kingdom, as long as we don’t have to birth them, raise them and feed them.”

Finally, in case you don’t understand what he said by the context of this passage and in case you don’t understand what he said by him pointing to the Fifth Commandment, how about a plain, black and white, straightforward word?

Verse four.

And fathers... And fathers... And fathers... And fathers...

Everybody is trying to figure out how to make men excited about church again. Everybody is figuring out how do we challenge our men, how do we get our men involved? God has got an answer. “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”15

It doesn’t get clearer than that, folks. The context of this passage says the home is central in the evangelism and discipleship of the next generation. The fact that he points to the Fifth Commandment screams that the home is central in the evangelism and discipleship of the next generation. And then, in case we didn’t get those two hints, he says it in black and white. “Fathers, disciple your children. Fathers.”

If we believe this then why is it that we have done everything in our power not to allow that to happen? We don’t expect that from our men.

I hear you. We go back to this whole thing. I understand that. But they are just not equipped. They just don’t know.

Here is what is interesting. If the people in your church are not tithing, you don’t start a ministry to tithe for them, do you? No. You simply teach them and expect them to do what the Bible says is their job. If it works for tithing, why don’t we think it will work for the discipleship of the next generation.

So what do we do with this? I am not telling you all to go fire your youth pastors tomorrow. That is not what I am saying here. But we have to completely revamp our philosophies.

In the last couple of minutes that I have left let me give you a few things that we must do because currently all of our evangelistic efforts amount to no more than filling up a bucket with a hole in the bottom. We are not growing. I want you to hear that today.

And, by the way, and this is all you out there you are going, “Eh, those 16 million, we are not going to.... of course not. We won’t go down to four million in just one generation.”

No. Listen to me. Our churches will continue to be filled, but here is what we do know.

Number one, we know because of Tom Raider’s research that was published in the Spring edition of the Southern Baptist Theological Journal according to their research, if their estimations are correct, somewhere around half of all Southern Baptist members are unregenerate.

By the way, according to the Nehemiah Institute, the Barna Research Group and the National Study of Youth and Religion, less than 10% of professing Christian teenagers operate from a biblical worldview. Less than 5% are theologically born again. By that, I mean they say they are born again and they trust Christ as Savior and Lord of their life. But they are wrong on the deity of Christ. They are wrong on substitutionary atonement. They are wrong on just about every important theological issue related to salvation. Only 5% of them theologically have the information that they need to be saved.

So our churches will continue to look big, but the overwhelming majority of the people inside will not be Christ’s followers.

So what do we do? Number one, I beseech you, if you don’t have a biblical view of children, get on your face before almighty God and repent. And if you have been mocking children from your pulpit and if you like one pastor, one pastor that I talked to recently said, “Brother, when you said that here is what I thought. The first thought that came to my mind was last week I talked to my people and I told them that we thought my wife was pregnant. And when I said that I told them that after we found out that she wasn’t I said, whew, we had a close call.” He said, “I need to go get on my face right now because I communicated to my people that children are a curse and a scourge and not a blessing.”

Do not make a mockery of children. You encourage people to welcome children into their homes. You throw a banquet when that woman walks into your church with six or seven kids behind her. You honor her and let everybody see you do it because if it weren’t for women like her we would have no future.

Secondly, you have a youth ministry in your church and you have a mission statement. You line it up against what we have looked at tonight in Scripture and if it is wrong on its biblical and theological merit, you crumble it up, put it in the trash and start over because it will not change until we change our entire mentality about what it means to disciple the next generation.

As long as you think it is your idea or it is your responsibility, as long as you think that our job in discipling the next generation means hiring some guy who is 25 years old and got spiked hair and has never raised a teenager himself, Lord, help us. Our entire mentality has to change.

Thirdly, and this is the toughest one to talk about, we have to adopt a biblical view of church leadership. I want to tell you something. There is two skills required of a pastor and only two skills. There are a lot of character qualities that are required, but only two skills. Number one, he must be able to teach. Number two, he must manage his household well. Our churches are filled with biblically disqualified pastors.

Titus chapter one makes it clear. If you do not have faithful children and if your children are accused of rebellion or dissipation you are disqualified biblically. And you hear that.

And I know we hear that and we go, “Oh, brother, that is harsh. Nobody is perfect.”

Listen to me. The same passage says... and here is what boggles my mind. Same passage, same paragraph, “must not be addicted to wine.” That says, “He must not be drunkard. He must not drink in excess.”

We say, “He can’t drink at all.”

Listen to me. I am not a drinker. I am not promoting drinking. I have never had a drink. But this is what I want you to hear tonight. Not drinking is easy for me and it is easy for most of you because most of you never drank and you stick your chest out and pop your collar because you don’t drink. It means nothing to you unless you have been an alcoholic. It is not hard for you to do.

Discipling your family is a different story and it amazes me that in the same paragraph we take one of those requirements and raise it and the other one and lower it.

You want to know why our families are in turmoil? Because most of you when you got hired at the church that you are at right now, they never even met your family. They heard you preach and voted on you when the Bible says if you are not discipling your children in an exemplary fashion you are not worthy of being called a pastor. From the top down we are wrong on the family. And we are losing the culture war one family at a time. And we have gotten so pathetic that now there is a euphemism in our culture called the PK. Why do we use that term as a euphemism? Because pastor’s kids who live like they were raised by the devil has almost become the norm. If the church’s incorporation has completely acceptable because all you have to do is stand at the top of a machine and make sure that people go in one side of it and out the other and that there is more of them going through the machine next year than this year, but if the church is a family of families and if God is serious about families being expected and equipped to disciple their children, then the people who stand at the helm had better be exemplary husbands and exemplary fathers.

And until we believe that we will continue to lose the culture war, one family at a time.

Listen to this from Richard Baxter in The Reformed Pastor. “If you are ungodly and teach not your families the fear of God, nor contradict the sins of the company you are in, nor turn the stream of their vain talking, nor deal with them plainly about their salvation, they will take it as if you preached to them that such things are needless and that they may boldly do so as well as you.”

Mist in the pulpit, fog in the pew. We will never be able to tell our children to raise and disciple a house full of warriors for Christ if we don’t begin to do it from the top.

The Old Account by Johnny Cash

2009-10-17T21:28:00.001-07:00

Rich Mullins - If I Stand [with lyrics]

2009-09-23T20:27:00.001-07:00

The Different Methods Of Home Schooling

2009-09-08T22:41:00.001-07:00

by Ken Snow

There are a variety of methods that can be applied in the area of homeschooling. The method you select will have an impact on the curriculum and style of teaching. The following are some of the most popular homeschooling methods.
The Charlotte Mason method is named after Charlotte Mason, who is known as the originator of the homeschooling movement. She herself was a homeschooler, and she wanted to establish a basic plan for a complete and effective homeschooling program. The Charlotte Mason method emphasizes poetry, fine arts, classical music, crafts, and classical literature. This method is designed to encourage an awareness of literature and involves reading to the child every day. The child is then asked to tell what he or she has heard. This starts at the age of six. By the age of ten, the child is expected to write narrations in a book. Mason encouraged the use of nature diaries as well. The child writes observations of nature in the book as well. This creates a sense of respect for the environment in the child. Mason thought that good behavior and character were critical for a child's complete personality development.

The Eclectic Homeschooling method is a combination of several techniques. Innovative parents rely on their own judgment to select topics that make up the curriculum for their own child. These parents are always looking for the best products they can find to help them meet the needs of their home schoolers. Many of the curricula in this method are improvised. This means that, while the basic curriculum is established, parents change it to adapt to the individual needs and interests of their children. The curriculum is generally established according to the temperament, learning style, and interests of the children. These programs typically include visits to libraries, factories, and museums.
John Holt, a public educator in Boston, developed the 'unschooling' method. Holt believed that children learn best when they learn at their own pace and are guided by their own interests. He wanted to 'unschool' the child by requiring parents to take their cues from the children. This approach has no set curriculum, schedules, or materials. It is the most unstructured of the homeschooling techniques.
The Montessori method had its start in Italy. It was found that children go through extremely sensitive periods in which they experience periods of intense concentration. In these phases, children will repeat an action until they receive some measure of self-satisfaction from it. This method relies on prepared environments to facilitate learning. All materials utilized in this method are meant to satisfy the child's interior desire for spiritual development. Materials for this method range from simple to complex, and they are relatively costly.
Whatever method is selected, the underlying concept is flexibility and a strong interest in the child's own desires. The key is to use children's desire for knowledge to further their education.

To learn more about education and learning visit http://total-education.com

Article Source: http://unschoolers.com/articles/homeschooling/different_methods_of_homeschooling_ken_snow.html

Different Methods of Homeschooling

2009-09-08T22:38:00.001-07:00

School at home: This is where parents try and re-create a public or private school classroom setting at home. There is usually a special room or place set aside just for this. It is very structured, usually using a packaged curriculum, and working around predetermined schedules.
Classical Schooling/Education: This is based on something called the trivium, which means three-fold way or road. The three stages (or ways) of learning are - Grammar, Dialectic, and Rhetoric. Each stage is taught in order, and uses language, rather than images.

Charlotte Mason Method: This method uses "living books" that are full of characters and places that come alive, instead of dry, boring textbooks. It's focus is strongly on the liberal arts.

Unit Studies: A specific topic is chosen, and all subjects - Math, English, Geography, etc. - are integrated into that one topic.
Eclectic: Eclectic learners pick and choose from all the different educational methods to develop a unique learning style that works best for them.

Unschooling: This term was originally coined to describe "not going to school" or "learning without school." They believe that a person does not have to be in a school setting to learn, and that learning is not something that needs to be restricted to a specific time of day.

To see the whole article click here.

Unschooling Equals Natural Learning

2009-09-08T22:34:00.001-07:00

by Jeff Madison

How do you learn something in your post high school/post college life? If you sit down and think about it for awhile, you will probably discover that you pursue things you are interested in or that will help you in your life's direction. If you really think about it, you will notice that you don't really waste any time on things that don't interest you or that have no value to you. You will notice that pursuing these things are easy and enjoyable and that you sometimes you "loose track of time" when you are absorbed in pursuing these interests.

In effect, you are "schooling" yourself without anyone telling you what to do, or why you should do it, or for how long. In home education circles, this is called unschooling and it is applied to school aged children.

There are many misconceptions about unschooling. Many people think that unschooled children have no structure to their lives and that they sit around all day doing mindless things (usually visions of gameboy, X-box, TV, and movies come to mind). If you will do just a little research, however, you will find that this is simply not true. Parents who adhere to the unschooling methods do not just abdicate their responsibility in guiding their children's education, they just go about it a different way than is generally accepted by the masses.

The hardest part of unschooling is the change it requires in the minds parents. Mom and Dad have to start looking at education in a more holistic way. Everything in life becomes a learning experience, i.e. a trip to the grocery store becomes a lesson in math, consumerism, marketing, etc. Unschooling requires parents to think about education in a whole new way, the way you wish you had been allowed to learn...following your interests with no limits of time, space and age.

The role that unschooling parents play in their child's education is the role of facilitator not teacher. SHOCK! I know but that's because of our preconceived ideas about schooling, how children learn, and our whole role in it. This is not to say that a parent never "teaches" a child anything. The parent just chooses to do it in a way that follows a child's natural desire to learn. In our traditional thinking, a teacher chooses what a child need to know and when and then comes up with a plan to make sure it happens. I know, you are thinking that this doesn't sound too bad and you are right only the difference is in the method of application. In traditional schooling, the child if forced to learn things at a certain time...no matter what their interest or ability. With unschooling, the parent facilitator/teacher takes notice of what the child is interested in and provides them with the tools to make learning possible without an agenda. The parent usually has in mind things the child need to learn to function in society, they just don't stress about timetables and they find ways to intertwine the necessary learning of life into whatever the child is pursuing. Often times, the parent will see that the necessary things are usually learned by the child without much "pushing".

Most parents start homeschooling because they want to foster the creativity and curiosity they see in their child in a natural way. Most times, however, parents get bogged down by the pressure they feel to educate by the prescribed methods that the school system has invented to teach the masses.

Unschooling frees your child to love the process of learning because they are truly interested in what they are doing and are allowed the time to explore. They get to learn what they are interested in at the time they are interested in it. Parents facilitate, teach and guide as their child learns at their own pace...the way you choose to learn things yourself.

Wait. For more tips and helps on Home Schooling including informative articles on Unschooling visit http://homeschooling.tipsandhelps.com/

Article Source: http://unschoolers.com/articles/homeschooling/unschooling_equals_natural_learning_jeff_madison.html

What is Unschooling?

2009-09-08T22:29:00.001-07:00

by Scott Hughes

Unschooling is a movement in education. Basically, it can be seen as learning without school. Although unschooling may be considered a form of homeschooling, it differs from most homeschooling in that unschooling does not try to recreate the school environment at home.

Unschooling lets the child control his or her own education and learning. Instead of forcing the child to learn certain material in a certain way, unschooling consists of letting the child learn naturally on their own. Usually, this is done without a curriculum, without formal classes, and without teachers, but a child can use any of those resources if and when the child wants.

The unschooling philosophy is based in part on the belief that children are naturally curious and inquisitive. Children want to learn, and they do it best when left to explore their own curiosity.

Unschoolers often believe that schools hinder the natural learning process. In a school, the environment is too rigid and unnatural for children to learn at their best. Additionally, children are often not interested in what is being taught, since they have no choice in the matter. Having an unwanted "education" shoved down their throats turns the kids off to learning. Because children don't like school, they stop wanting to learn at all when forced to go to school.

A major problem with mainstream schools is that they can only offer a standardized, one-size-fits-all education. This does not respect the fact that children do not all learn the same. Children have different learning styles, and also have different interests and needs. In contrast to mainstream schools, unschoolers keep their children at home and allow them to explore their own individual interests in a way that they want.

While unschooling, the children like learning, and they have fun while learning. For example, a child might see a bug that interests them and the child may then want to go inside and look up information about that bug. An older child who is interested in computers might ask for a kit that would allow him or her to build a computer at home.

Since the children are following their own interests and desires, the child learns what they will want to know. For example, that child who built the computer as a kid may grow up to be a computer engineer. Had the child gone to mainstream school, the child would not have gotten the chance to explore his or her own particular interests at such an early age, and would have instead been forced to "learn" a standardized education.

Not everyone thinks unschooling is better than mainstream, standardized education. At the very least, now you know what unschooling is and some of the reasons unschoolers prefer it.

Scott Hughes owns and operates a website about unschooling at the following URL: http://unschool.info/

The website has Education and Learning Forums, which can be used to discuss education, learning, and unschooling. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.

http://unschoolers.com/articles/homeschooling/what_is_unschooling_scott_hughes.html

Afterthoughts: A Child's Government-Funded Day

2009-09-08T21:56:00.000-07:00

Afterthoughts: A Child's Government-Funded Day

Christian School - Ten Reasons

2009-09-08T00:24:00.000-07:00

by Paul A. Kienel

The Christian school movement is the fastest growing educational movement in America today. The U.S.NEWS AND WORLD REPORT and CHRISTIAN LIFE magazines have referred to the rapid proliferation of Christian elementary and secondary schools as the "Boom in Protestant Schools" and "The Christian School Explosion." Christian schools are currently being established across the United States at the rate of two new schools a day.

In California we average one new Chrsitian school each week. Obviously parents by the thousands have opted to send their youngsters to Christian schools as opposed to secular public schools. As a parent who sends my children to Christian schools and speaks to thousands of parents on the radio and on tour, permit me to share ten reasons why you should send your children to Christian schools:

ONE: You are accountable to God for what your children are taught in school. Proverbs 22:6 is a direct command to parents. It says, "Train up a child in the way he should go..." What your children are taught in school should be a direct extension of your parental views. The teachers under whom your children are taught these home should be the kind of teachers you would personally hire if your children were being educated in your home.

TWO: Christian schools offer a better level of instruction. There is no question about it. The test scores over a long period of years are conclusive. The annual Stanford Achievement Test administered to first through eighth grade Christian school students in the western states shows these students to be seven to nineteen months ahead of the national norm in reading, and seven to thirteen months ahead of the national norm in all subject areas.

THREE: The Bible does not teach that children should be exposed to all kinds of sin. We are to train "up" a child, not point him downward. Children do not grow spiritually stronger in a negative non-Christian environment.

Students do not become stronger Christians by being taught non-Christian thinking, but by being taught Christian thinking, and there is no such person as a "neutral" school teacher who neither advances nor inhibits religion. School represents 16% of your child's time. It is prime time, a training time, and Christian school education represents a positive Bible- centered form of instruction that will build a child up in the faith- -not tear him down. Proverbs 19:27 says, "Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge."

FOUR: The Christian school is right for your child because the Christian school has not cut itself off from the most important book in the world--the Bible. Without the Bible, education is nothing more than the blind leading the blind. Standards for morality must be taken from Scripture alone, not from situations as often taught in secular schools. As Theodore Roosevelt stated, "To train a man in mind and not in morals is to train a menace to society."

FIVE: The Christian school provides an opportunity for your child to witness for Christ. This surprises some people because they assume all students in a Christian school are Christians. In most cases a majority are Christian; however, in every Christian school there are always some students who need the Savior. Christian students are trained and encouraged to reach these youngsters for Jesus Christ. Witnessing in a Christian school has the support of parents, students, teachers, administration and the school board. Presenting Christ as Savior is not illegal in a Christian school.

SIX: Christian school educators teach all subject matter from a Christian context. They put the Bible at the center of the curriculum and ask students to evaluate all they see in the world through the eyes of God. To quote Dr. Roy Zuck, The secular vs. Christian school issue is really a question of whether a child will learn to view life from man's perspective or God's perspective. From man's viewpoint, history is purposeless; from God's viewpoint, history has meaning. From man's viewpoint, science is the laws of "nature" at work; from God's viewpoint, science is the outworking of His laws.

In a Christian school, a student is exposed to the centrality of God in all of life. In public education, a student is legally "sheltered" from this important dimension of education.

SEVEN:Christian schools support the family as the number one institution of society. Christian school educators train students to respect their parents. These educators agree with the early American patriot, Noah Webster, who said, "All government originates in families, and if neglected there, it will hardly exist in society."

EIGHT: "The atheists have, for all practical purposes, taken over public education in this country." Shocking words, yes, but they were spoken by a prominent public school educator, Dr. W.P.Schofstall, former Arizona State Superintendent of Schools. Paradoxically, many public school personnel openly support Christian school education.

As a matter of fact, the largest group of parents who send their children to Christian schools are public school teachers and principals. I conducted a nationwide survey among these public school educators. The following statement is typical of the responses I received: "I prefer to send my children to a Christian school because Christ is central to all information taught and caught. The public school is basically humanistic and materialistic in its approach to life and the fundamental questions of human existence and purpose. The Christian school holds a unique position with the home and the church."

NINE: Christian school educators maintain discipline in the classroom and on the playground. Without a reasonable standard of discipline, the process of education is severely hampered. "For whom the Lord loves, He disciplines..." the Bible teaches. And it is within that context of love that discipline is carried out in a Christian school. This important feature of education is rapidly disappearing from the public school education. According to the recent GALLUP POLL OF PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARDS EDUCATION, Lack of discipline in the public schools again heads the list of problems cited most often by survey respondents. Discipline has, in fact, been named the number one problem of the schools in seven of the last eight years. New evidence of its importance comes from the special survey of high school juniors and seniors. An even higher percentage of this group names discipline as the leading problem faced by the public school.

TEN: "We believe that our children are gifts of the Lord. We are responsible to train them according to His Word not only at home and in church, but in school as well." This statement was made by a parent in response to a question on an application form for enrollment of his children at Delaware County Christian School in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania.

More and more parents, especially Christian parents, are coming to the conclusion that secular public education and most of its teachers and principals no longer represent their personal parental views. These parents are exercising their freedom of choice and sending their children to Christian schools and colleges.

Article reprinted from AllonGOD.com, the complete christian resource site with more than 5000 webpages.

http://www.surfinthespirit.com/education/ten-reasons.html

Top Five Reasons Not to Send Your Kids Back to Govt. School

2009-09-07T23:31:00.000-07:00

5. YOU DON’T HAVE TO

4. AMERICA’S SCHOOLS ARE AMONG THE WORST IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD

3. AMERICA’S SCHOOLS ARE MORALLY REPUGNANT

2.GOVERNMENT EDUCATION IS ANTI-CHRISTIAN

1. THE BIBLE COMMANDS CHRIST-CENTERED EDUCATION

Five Myths About Public Education

2009-09-07T23:10:00.000-07:00

by Tory and Barb Shelton

People today tend to deem the public schools the ultimate authority on, and the best place to receive an education. In order to make such an assumption, one would have to believe in several myths, although sometimes (if not usually) unknowingly. In this paper I will present five of these commonly believed myths, along with evidence supporting the fact that public education is not, contrary to popular belief, the ideal form of education.

MYTH #1: "Public schools provide positive, appropriate socialization."

Many people assume that because their children are around other children of the same age, they are getting wholesome, proper socialization. They assume that children are best able to socialize each other, that they are the best examples for each other. But by taking a look at reality, we see that children are superficial: they form in cliques, they ridicule children with less social standing, charisma, talent or looks, and they degrade anyone who is "different." Dr. Raymond Moore, who has collected and studied much research in education, said:
"Negative, me-first sociability is born from more peer group association and fewer meaningful parental contact and responsibility experiences in the home during the first 8 to 12 years. The early peer influence generally brings an indifference to family values which defy parents' correction. The child does not yet consistently understand the "why" of parental demands... So he does what comes naturally: He adapts to the ways of his agemates because 'everybody's doing it,' and gives parent values the back of his little hand."
Chances are that many children lose their self esteem on the playground at recess from the whole "King of the Mountain" scenario. Adults in authority oftentimes stand by and watch this whole process happen because they think it is only "natural," and helps the children learn to be strong and interact with each other, to "toughen them up" and "prepare them for real life." However, in all actuality, what's really happening is that this is grinding down on their self worth, wounding them, and weighing down on them for many years to come. "Survival of the fittest" is the motto of the children on the playground, benefiting the few stronger ones, but devaluing the weaker ones, the majority. Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, said,
"I have seen kids dismantle one another, while parents and teachers stood passively by and observed the 'socialization' process. I've seen the socialization theory in action, and it doesn't hold much water."

MYTH #2: "Public education is religiously neutral."

It is commonly thought that the educational material presented in public schools is non-biased and is not partial to any certain belief. In truth, the public school could not be any more biased against God or any of His morals or principles. Karl Reed, a writer on moral and education issues, said:
"Public education has taken on the characteristics of a religion, promising answers for all ills of life and nation. ... That 'religion,' or belief system, incorporates into its dogma a faith in 'The Secular State,' which is now carved in the likeness of God. Along with holding to a belief in 'The State' has come a total lack of confidence in God and his foundation for true primary education. State-run schools have taught Americans to put faith in 'The State' instead of in God and His way."
Horace Mann, who lived in the 1800's, was called "the father of public education." Here is what he saw as being appropriate and ideal and for the future of education of America's children:
"What the church has been for medieval man, the public school must become for democratic and rational man. God will be replaced by the concept of the public good. The common (public) schools shall create a more far-seeing intelligence and a pure morality than has ever existed among communities of men."
Mr. Mann, a Unitarian, couldn't be any further from the truth in his anti-Christian beliefs. He established an abhorrently erroneous standard for the future of educating the people of our country! It's like he took the truth, poured it into a blender, and pulverized it. He then added his own seasonings and fed it to our country. Unfortunately, they drank; they bought into it and accepted his philosophy as the way things should be. The results today are quite obviously not the way God intended education to be. Cathy Duffy, author of "Government Nannies", said:
"Public schools were instituted to modify the behavior of children rather than to educate them... Most of the curriculum being used in public schools is designed to meet educational goals that differ radically from [those of Christians']. So I believe that Christian parents should not send their children to public schools if there is any other option available. I believe that when we do so, in many, but not all cases we are handing our children over to the enemy for anti-Christian indoctrination."

MYTH #3: "Traditional schools have the best methods for providing the highest quality in education."

While some students do well in the public school system, many fall through the cracks, only to become another statistic, never fully achieving their potential. They get lost in the system, with the blame usually being placed on them, the students. They are labeled "underachievers" or "slackers" when, in fact, it may be the system that is hindering them from succeeding. John Taylor Gatto, New York State Teacher of the Year in 1990, said:
"...I began to wonder, reluctantly, whether it was possible that being in school itself was what was dumbing them down. Was it possible I had been hired not to enlarge children's power, but to diminish it? That seemed crazy on the face of it, but slowly I began to realize that the bells and the confinement, the crazy sequences, the age-segregation, the lack of privacy, the constant surveillance, and all the rest of the national curriculum of schooling were designed exactly as if someone had set out to prevent children from learning how to think and act, to coax them into addiction and dependant behavior."
Many people have memories of only the good times they had during their school experience. For example they remember the new crayons, lunch boxes, recess, pep rallies, sports, extra-curricular activities, etc. But on the flip side, they overlook, or have simply forgotten, the sometimes harsh realities of their daily schooling. Ron Thruelsen, a father concerned about the decline of education, said:
"By definition, public schools are supposed to provide a quality education for all children, but this obviously is impossible. Quality education will go to a small group of students whose learning and social style fits the school system. For most of the rest, it will be a dreary marathon to be endured for many years. For the children on the fringe, school is a place of intimidation, frustration, and endless failure to reach someone else's expectations."

MYTH #4: "Better education requires higher spending."

It is obvious every voting year that the public schools think they need more money to be able to give a better education to the children in their care. In reality, more funding is not necessarily what is needed, but instead a better spending of the money they already have. Their money could be better spent if they had more of a concept of what real education is. According to the U.S. Dept. of Education, about $250 billion was spent on public schools for the 1991-92 school year.

This means that approximately $6000 was spent on each pupil in the public schools for that year. Diane Ravitch, a national leader in the area of education, stated:
"Spending is up and achievement is down. Per-pupil spending has nearly doubled from approximately $3000 to just under $6000 per student. However, the SAT scores continue to decline."
It could be thought that this money is well-spent, going toward improving the facilities and conditions in which our children are educated, but here is a shocking statistic I found in a book called "The Right Choice: Homeschooling":
"Only 60 percent of this money even gets to the classroom. At least 40 percent of the money goes to the bureaucracy. According to Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers: 'One of the major differences between American schools and all others in the world is that we spend half of our money on bureaucracy, whereas the other schools in the world don't spend more than 20 percent... You know, we have about one teacher to every twenty-five kids in the country, *but we have one supervisor for every six teachers.*'"

MYTH #5: "Education can be complete without God and the Bible."

It is commonly believed that it is not necessary to include God in the curriculum used to educate. But in actuality, education was originally intended for God to be the center and the driving force behind it. George Washington said: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." His successor, John Adams, said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Without God at the helms of education, this country has been in moral decline, and will continue to do so until people begin to wake up to the truth and do something about it. One option would be to pull out of the public school system, with the two alternatives being either to send their children to a private school, or to educate their children themselves at home. Or they can stay in the public school system and try to influence it for the good. Which path they choose would all depend on how they feel God leads them.

In Websters 1828 dictionary, the word "education" is defined as:
"The bringing up, as of a child; instruction; formation of manners. Education comprehends that series of instruction and discipline which is intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, and form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations. To give children a good education in manners, arts and science, is important; to give them a religious education is indispensable, and an immense responsibility rests on parents and guardians who neglect these duties."
With the public schools being in the state they are now in, and with the values they now possess, are they capable of producing God-fearing people or accomplishing what education was really meant to be? It is astounding to think that the institution into which we pour millions of our tax dollars is the same institution which has banned God, and therefore has banned the very principles and morals upon which our country was founded.

Copyright by Barbara Edtl Shelton. This article is used by permission from the author. The Shelton's operate a home-based ministry to homeschoolers from their home in Longview, WA, primarily through the books that Barb has written. All of Barb's speaking and writing is on topics of vital interest to burning-out as well as brand new and wanna-be homeschoolers. Barb's resources reflect her "lite" approach to homeschooling that is based on the verse in Matt. 28:11 in which Jesus says, "My yoke is easy, my burden light." With vulnerability, humor, God's Word, Barb's heart is to inspire parents to pursue God's unique plan for the education of their children, and she offers much practical help in doing so. You'll be challenged, irritated, and moved to laugh, cry, think and re-think your views about education, and best of all, get set free or freer) in Jesus! They may be contacted via their website: http://www.homeschooloasis.com

http://www.surfinthespirit.com/education/myths.html

Top 10 Excuses Not To Homeschool

2009-09-07T23:02:00.000-07:00

by Tamara Eaton

1. My kids drive me crazy.

Then maybe it's time you do something so they don't drive everyone else crazy, too! It's easier to ignore problem areas if you send your children off to school each day ~ you don't have to put up with it all the time. Let the teacher and other students do it instead.

But who must answer to the Lord for how you taught and trained your child? Not the teacher but the parent. Homeschooling isn't a "cure-all" for poor behavior but it does give us time together to work out any problems instead of ignoring them, and it eliminates the negative role models and peer pressure which often influences negative behavior.

Or maybe you feel that they DO respect others, just not you? You can tell them when to brush their teeth, get dressed, go to bed ~ just not when to do their math! There is really no difference ~ it's all a matter of obedience and respect.

Ephesians 6:1-2 "Children obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth."

2. I don't have enough patience.

Patience comes through overcoming trials and learning to yield to the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-25) instead of the fruit of flesh. You'll never develop patience if you continually avoid opportunities that would require you to put it into practice. But you might be surprised how quickly it grows with frequent exercise ~ homeschooling can be that vehicle the Lord uses to work patience in you!

3. I'm not highly educated.

Fine ~ here's your chance to learn right along with your children! There are tremendous resources available to help us teach our own children. Studies have proven time and again that the success of homeschooling is not dependent upon the level of the parents' education. According to Dr. Brian Ray's recent study, "Home educated students' test scores remain between the 80th and 90th percentiles, whether their mothers have a college degree or did not complete high school." [from National Home Education Research Institute. And there's lots more "proof in the pudding" where that came from!]

4. I love my job.

What's more important during this season of your life ~ your children or your job? Your job can wait. Your children can't. Your decisions and priorities are already influencing them every day ~ either for good or bad. I've never heard older people say that they wished they had spent more time on their job. I have heard them say they wished they had spent more time with their children.

If you love your job more than spending time with your children then maybe this is a sign that your priorities need reevaluating.

5. I don't have time.

There is always time to do the will of God. Is He calling you to homeschool? Then He will provide the time. As a result of homeschooling our children, we have limited outside activities and found a simpler lifestyle. We're not forced to succumb to the modern pressures and stresses of our society with its hectic pace ~ instead we are able to slow down enough to enjoy time together as a family, embracing a slower paced lifestyle without sacrificing the modern conveniences of our microwaves, washers, dryers and computers!

6. I'm selfish ~ I need my privacy and space.

Jesus said unless we take up our cross and die to self, we can't be His disciple. (Luke 9:23-24, 14:27) Good parenting requires sacrifices during this season of our life. However, choosing to homeschool doesn't mean that you can never have any privacy anymore. When the children are young, we have regular naptimes and bedtimes so that gives us time apart. Older children are trained to respect the need for quiet time in the afternoons and evenings. The children also have their own activities and playtimes apart from mom during the day at times, too.

7. I can't afford it.

If it's God's will that you homeschool, you can't afford not to! And He will provide all your needs if you trust Him. (Matthew 6:33) We have never been a "high income" family but God has worked in the most unexpected ways to provide our needs over the years. Think of how much you spend now by sending your child off to school ~ don't forget to include the "hidden" expenses of special school wardrobes to keep up with the peers. Homeschooling curriculum can cost as much or as little as you like ~ it all depends on what you choose to do. The public library is free and full of helpful resources for your homeschooling! We have always chosen not to purchase a full packaged curriculum and saved so much money by putting together our own curriculum.

8. I never liked school.

Homeschooling will help you see how enjoyable learning can be in a relaxed, pressure-free atmosphere at home! You don't have to structure your homeschool like a public or private school ~ so don't let your past experience with school hinder you from committing to homeschool your children. Give them the opportunity to experience what you missed out on in your childhood and see how much fun you can have while learning together!

My children are too sociable ~ they'd get lonely homeschooling.

An EXCELLENT reason to educate them at home so you can make sure their "socialization" experiences are positive instead of negative. Homeschooling doesn't require your children to become hermits, but you will have the freedom to select the activities and make sure they are blessings and not hindrances.

10. I could NEVER do that!

If we had known in advance and in detail all the negatives and challenges we'd have to face as parents, who among us would have been brave enough to have children? God gives us the grace, strength and wisdom we need when we need it ~ not in advance! I find great encouragement in scriptures that remind me that I must yield and abide, then He is sufficient to take care of all the needs and enable me to fulfill my responsibilities.

II Corinthians 3:4-5 "And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God..."

John 15:4-5 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in Me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without Me ye can do nothing."

Philippians 4:13 "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."

And the following scripture has always encouraged me when I've been tempted to dwell upon my inadequacies:

1 Corinthians 1:27-31 "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God had chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are: That no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."

Homeschooling, like parenting, requires faith ~ faith that the Lord will give us wisdom and grace as we need it. In His infinite wisdom, He has designed us so that we MUST rely upon Him! Why doesn't He give us all the wisdom we need to be parents right at the start when the child is first conceived? Instead, He allows wisdom and maturity to develop as we grow through trials, the study of His Word, and experiences ~ all the while, pointing out our need of Him daily in order to walk in His ways. Thus, He receives ALL the glory!

May the Lord direct your family in His Ways and give you clear wisdom and direction in the education of your children!

Proverbs 3:5-6 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths."

©Copyright 1997 by Tamara Eaton - http://www.chfweb.com/

http://www.surfinthespirit.com/education/10-excuses.html

Espresso Chocolate Shortbread

2009-08-21T20:34:00.000-07:00

2 C. sifted unbleached flour
1 C. confectioner’s sugar
8 oz. unsalted butter
½ C. strained unsweetened cocoa powder
Fresh ground Espresso beans, medium not course or fine ground

1. Adjust two racks to divide the oven into thirds and preheat oven to 300˚. Line cookie sheets with baking parchment or aluminum foil. , shiny side up.

2. Place the butter in the large bowl of an electric mixer and beat until soft. Add the sugar and beat to mix. Then add the flour and cocoa and beat until the dough holds together and is smooth.

3. Remove the dough from the bowl, form it into a ball, and flatten it slightly. Place the dough on a floured surface and turn over to flour both sides. With a rolling pin, roll the dough until it is ½” thick.

4. Use a plain round cookie cutter preferably 1 ½” in diameter. Place the cookies 1” apart on a cookie sheet.

5. Place a small cup of water next to you. Dip your fingertip in the water, and with your fingertip wet the tops of a few cookies.

6. Carefully sprinkle some of the ground espresso on the wet cookies (about ¼ tsp. per cookie), covering only about half of the top of each cookie. Then with a dry fingertip, press gently on the espresso to press it into the dough a bit.

7. Bake for 25-30 minutes. Watch carefully. They burn and become bitter before you know it.
Yield: About 40 cookies

Which Apples Make the Perfect Pie?

2009-08-20T23:35:00.000-07:00

Q. What kind of apples are best for pies?

A. Well, where are you and what time of year is it? The qualities you are looking for in apples for a pie are taste and texture. You want apples that have great flavor and don't turn to mush when you cook them. You don't necessarily just want sweet apples, though. Many people like a mix of sweet and tart apples in their pies.

Ideally, what you want are fresh, locally grown apples (or at least the right kind of apples grown in the right area) that hold their shape when cooked. Golden Delicious apples, which are native to the eastern half of the United States, are indeed delicious if they come from that part of the country. But those grown in the West or in Europe "have all the lure of a Styrofoam Christmas ornament," according to Frank Browning, author of An Apple Harvest (Canada, UK). Indeed, (eastern) Golden Delicious apples are the mainstream apples of choice for apple pies. When mixed with the tart Granny Smith apples, they make an excellent pie.

But if you have access to more than just the four or five varieties of apples found in most supermarkets year-round, you can raise your pie to new heights. You may have to be daring and seek out a farmers' market, but if you do, you'll be rewarded with apples that were picked when ripe and have not traveled from the far ends of the Earth.

Among the really good pie apples are Jonathan, Stayman-Winesap, Cox's Orange Pippin, and Jonagold, all of which provide a good mix of sweetness and tartness. Other sweet choices are Braeburn, Fuji, Mutsu, Pink Lady, Suncrisp, Rome Beauty, and Empire. Good tart baking apples include Idared, Macoun, Newton Pippin, and Northern Spy.

What you want to stay away from are the apples that become mushy when cooked. McIntosh and Cortland are the mainstream apples that lead that list.

My Apple Pie Recipe

2009-08-15T10:36:00.000-07:00

Pie Crust:
1 C. flour
½ t. salt
1/3 C. butter,lard, or shortening
2 T. water

• Put flour, salt, and butter in a tupperware container.

• Put lid on tightly and shake until crumbly.

• Add water and shake again until lump is formed.

• Roll out. Fold into quarters and transfer to the pie pan.

Filling:
5 apples, peeled, cored, and sliced(I use Granny Smith apples and I slice them thin)
¾ C. sugar
2 Tbls. flour
¼ tsp. nutmeg
1 tsp. cinnamon

• Mix flour, sugar, and spices together.

Crumb Topping:
1 ½ C. flour
1 C. brown sugar
½ C. butter
1 tsp. cinnamon

• Mix together with pastry cutter until crumbly.

• Layer apples in prepared piecrust(if you do it right you can get more apples in the pie than if you just dump them in), sprinkling with sugar mixture as you go.

• Top with the crump topping(crumb topping is a lot easier to do than a regular topping. Yummier, too.)

• Bake at 425 F for 50 minutes.

• Cover with foil and bake for another 10 minutes.

2009-06-29T15:32:00.000-07:00

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety.No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

The Longing within

2009-06-21T19:43:00.001-07:00

All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.
And yet, after such a great number of years, no one without faith has reached the point to which all continually look. All complain, princes and subjects, noblemen and commoners, old and young, strong and weak, learned and ignorant, healthy and sick, of all countries, all times, all ages, and all conditions.
A trial so long, so continuous, and so uniform, should certainly convince us of our inability to reach the good by our own efforts. But example teaches us little. No resemblance is ever so perfect that there is not some slight difference; and hence we expect that our hope will not be deceived on this occasion as before. And thus, while the present never satisfies us, experience dupes us and, from misfortune to misfortune, leads us to death, their eternal crown.
What is it, then, that this desire and this inability proclaim to us, but that there was once in man a true happiness of which there now remain to him only the mark and empty trace, which he in vain tries to fill from all his surroundings, seeking from things absent the help he does not obtain in things present? But these are all inadequate, because the infinite abyss can only be filled by an infinite and immutable object, that is to say, only by God Himself. He only is our true good, and since we have forsaken him, it is a strange thing that there is nothing in nature which has not been serviceable in taking His place; the stars, the heavens, earth, the elements, plants, cabbages, leeks, animals, insects, calves, serpents, fever, pestilence, war, famine, vices, adultery, incest. And since man has lost the true good, everything can appear equally good to him, even his own destruction, though so opposed to God, to reason, and to the whole course of nature.

-Blaise Pascal

Contest to Win A Rosetta Stone Latin Program

2009-05-13T21:52:00.000-07:00

Rosetta Stone is the fastest way to learn a language and has been the #1 foreign language curriculum among homeschoolers for a while — and you can WIN the *all new* version 3 Rosetta Stone Homeschool LATIN program… FOR FREE! This is the first year you can get Latin in the brand new Version III update.

This is a $259 program (and believe me it’s worth every penny!)
This is a computer based curriculum and Rosetta Stone will also include a headset with microphone, and a supplementary “Audio Companion” CD so you can practice lessons in the car, on the go, or where-ever! Students participate in life-like conversations and actually produce language to advance through the program. Rosetta Stone incorporates listening, reading, grammar, vocabulary and writing along with speaking and pronunciation lessons. For parents, the new Parent Administrative Tools are integrated into the program to allow parents to easily enroll up to ten students in any of 12 predetermined lesson plans, monitor student progress, grade completed work (the program grades the work automatically as the students progress- I love that!), and you can view and print reports for transcripts. Homeschooling a lot of kids at your house? This program is designed to enroll and track up to ten students (five users on two computers) and will work for nearly all ages — from beginning readers up to college students.

To win this most excellent Latin program copy these paragraphs and post them in (or as) your next blog post, and/OR link to the contest from your facebook page and/OR email the information to your homeschool support group – Then go to the original page http://jeneralities.com/ and leave a comment saying that you’ve posted about, or have linked to, the contest. Please make sure the link works to get back to the original contest page when you post. And good luck!

Good Friday - Day of Atonement Part 1 of 6

2009-04-09T19:03:00.001-07:00

Good Friday - Day of Atonement Part 2 of 6

2009-04-09T19:00:00.003-07:00

Good Friday - Day of Atonement Part 3 of 6

2009-04-09T19:00:00.001-07:00

Good Friday - Day of Atonement Part 4 of 6

2009-04-09T18:58:00.001-07:00

Good Friday - Day of Atonement Part 5 of 6

2009-04-09T18:46:00.001-07:00

Good Friday - Day of Atonement Part 6 of 6

2009-04-09T18:42:00.001-07:00

Dog Aggression

2009-03-19T00:27:00.000-07:00

Here is a list of some common breeds that are more likely to bite you than a pit bull.

AFGHAN HOUND
AIREDALE TERRIER
AKITA
AUSTRALIAN CATTLE DOG
AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD
AUSTRALIAN TERRIER
BASENJI
BEAGLE
BEARDED COLLIE
BICHON FRISE
BLOODHOUND
BORDER COLLIE
BOXER
BULLDOG
BULLMASTIFF
CAIRN TERRIER
CARDIGAN WELSH CORGI
CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIEL
CHIHUAHUA
CHINESE CRESTED DOG
CHINESE SHAR-PEI
CHOW CHOW
CLUMBER SPANIEL
COCKER SPANIEL
COLLIE
DACHSHUND (MINIATURE SMOOTH)
DACHSHUND (MINIATURE WIREHAIRED)
DACHSHUND (STANDARD LONGHAIRED)
DACHSHUND (STANDARD SMOOTH)
DACHSHUND (STANDARD WIREHAIRED)
DALMATIAN
DANDIE DINMONT TERRIER
DOBERMAN PINSCHER
ENGLISH FOXHOUND
ENGLISH SETTER
FIELD SPANIEL
FINNISH LAPPHUND
FINNISH SPITZ
GERMAN PINSCHER
GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG
GERMAN SHORTHAIRED POINTER
GERMAN WIREHAIRED POINTER
GIANT SCHNAUZER
GORDON SETTER
GREAT DANE
GREATER SWISS MOUNTAIN DOG
GREYHOUND
HAVANESE
IRISH TERRIER
ITALIAN GREYHOUND
JACK RUSSELL TERRIER
KEESHOND
KERRY BLUE TERRIER
KUVASZ
LAKELAND TERRIER
LHASA APSO
LOWCHEN
MALTESE
MINIATURE PINSCHER
MINIATURE POODLE
MINIATURE SCHNAUZER
NEAPOLITAN MASTIFF
NORWEGIAN ELKHOUND
NORWICH TERRIER
NOVA SCOTIA DUCK TOLLING RETRIEVER
OLD ENGLISH SHEEPDOG
OTTERHOUND
PAPILLON
PATTERDALE TERRIER
PEMBROKE WELSH CORGI
PHARAOH HOUND
POMERANIAN
PORTUGUESE WATER DOG
RAT TERRIER
RHODESIAN RIDGEBACK
ROTTWEILER
SAINT BERNARD
SALUKI
SAMOYED
SCOTTISH TERRIER
SHETLAND SHEEPDOG
SHIBA INU
SHIH TZU
SHILOH SHEPHERD
SILKY TERRIER
SKYE TERRIER
SMOOTH FOX TERRIER
SOFT COATED WHEATEN TERRIER
SPINONE ITALIANO
STANDARD SCHNAUZER
TIBETAN MASTIFF
TIBETAN TERRIER
TOY FOX TERRIER
TOY POODLE
TREEING WALKER COONHOUND
VIZSLA
WEIMARANER
WELSH TERRIER
WIRE FOX TERRIER
YORKSHIRE TERRIER

http://www.atts.org/

Open-Mindedness

2009-03-18T12:56:00.000-07:00

Gombojav Tribe said...
Logically, one only needs to be open-minded until they are convinced. Once they decide what to believe, logically, they should be closed-minded. What's with perpetual open-mindedness anyway?

For Most People, College Is a Waste of Time

2009-01-19T19:56:00.000-08:00

By CHARLES MURRAY

Imagine that America had no system of post-secondary education, and you were a member of a task force assigned to create one from scratch. One of your colleagues submits this proposal:

First, we will set up a single goal to represent educational success, which will take four years to achieve no matter what is being taught. We will attach an economic reward to it that seldom has anything to do with what has been learned. We will urge large numbers of people who do not possess adequate ability to try to achieve the goal, wait until they have spent a lot of time and money, and then deny it to them. We will stigmatize everyone who doesn't meet the goal. We will call the goal a "BA."

You would conclude that your colleague was cruel, not to say insane. But that's the system we have in place.

Finding a better way should be easy...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121858688764535107.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Men are Visual

2008-12-25T00:13:00.001-08:00

Christ The Only Way-R.C. Sproul

2008-12-24T10:54:00.001-08:00

Your Future: Tyranny, Courtesy of George W. Bush

2008-12-10T15:28:00.001-08:00

Ob*ma and the Rule of Law

2008-12-10T15:25:00.000-08:00

Change.gov: Infringements on Liberty

2008-11-12T21:19:00.000-08:00

Afterthoughts: Change.gov: The New Slavery

2008-11-07T22:13:00.000-08:00

But What About Samson?!

2008-10-24T20:05:00.000-07:00

A Little German History

2008-10-22T18:22:00.000-07:00

Bodie and Brock Thoene wrote a series of books about World War II, and this woman is one of the characters. Lori Kalner is a real person (though her name is not really Lori Kalner). She has been sharing the insights gained from a long life and early experience inside Germany while submitting to the Nazi philosophies. Many of her letters warn Americans of the similarities she has noticed.

In Germany, when Hitler came to power, it was a time of terrible financial depression. Money was worth nothing. In Germany people lost homes and jobs, just like in the American Depression in the 1930s, which we have read about in Thoene's Shiloh books.
In those days, in my homeland, Adolph Hitler was elected to power by promising "Change."

He blamed the "Zionists" around the world for all our problems. He told everyone it was greedy Zionist Bankers who had caused every problem we had. He promised when he was leader, the greedy Zionist bankers would be punished. The Zionists, he promised, would be wiped off the face of the earth.

So Hitler was elected to power by only 1/3 the popular vote. A coalition of other political parties in parliament made him supreme leader. Then, when he was leader, he disgraced and expelled everyone in parliament who did not go along with him.

Yes. Change came to my homeland as the new leader promised it would.

The teachers in German schools began to teach the children to sing songs in praise of Hitler. This was the beginning of the Hitler Youth movement. It began with praise of the Fuhrer's programs on the lips of innocent children. Hymns in praise of Hitler and his programs were being sung in the schoolrooms and in the playyard. Little girls and boys joined hands and sang these songs as they walked home from school.

My brother came home and told Papa what was happening at school. The political hymns of children proclaimed Change was coming to our homeland and the Fuhrer was a leader we could trust.

I will never forget my father's face. Grief and fear. He knew that the best propaganda of the Nazis was song on the lips of little children.

That evening before he said grace at the dinner table, he placed his hands upon the heads of my brothers and me and prayed the Living Word upon us from Jeremiah 1:4-5…

'Now the Word of the Lord came to me, saying,
"Before I formed you in the Womb I knew you,
And before you were born I Consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to The nations."

Soon the children's songs praising the Fuhrer were heard everywhere on the streets and over the radio. "With our Fuhrer to lead us, we can do it! We can change the world!"

Soon after that Papa, a pastor, was turned away from visiting elderly parishioners in hospitals. The people he had come to bring comfort of God's Word, were "no longer there."

Where had they vanished to while under nationalized health care? It became an open secret. The elderly and sick began to disappear from hospitals feet first as "mercy killing" became the policy. Children with disabilities and those who had Down syndrome were euthanized.

People whispered, "Maybe it is better for them now. Put them out of misery. They are no longer suffering…And, of course, their death is better for the treasury of our nation. Our taxes no longer must be spent to care for such a burden."

And so murder was called mercy.

The government took over private business. Industry and health care were "nationalized." (NA-ZI means National Socialist Party) The businesses of all Jews were seized. (Perhaps you remember our story in Berlin on Krystalnacht in the book Munich Signature)

The world and God's word were turned upside down. Hitler promised the people economic Change?

Not change. It was, rather, Lucifer's very ancient Delusion leading to Destruction.

What began with the propaganda of children singing a catchy tune ended in the deaths of millions of children. The reality of what came upon us is so horrible that you in this present generation cannot imagine it.

Our suffering is too great to ever tell in a book or show in a black and white newsreel.

When I spoke to Bodie about some of these things, she wept and said she could not bear to write them. Perhaps one day she will, but I asked her, "who could bear to read our suffering?"

Yet with my last breaths I warn every Christian and Jew now in the name of the Lord,
unless your course of the church in America is spiritually changed now, returning to the Lord, there are new horrors yet to come.

I trembled last night when I heard the voices of American children raised in song, praising the name of Obama, the charismatic fellow who claims he is the American Messiah.

Yet I have heard what this man Obama says about abortion and the "mercy killing" of tiny babies who are not wanted.

There are so few of us left to warn you. I have heard that there are 69 million Catholics in America and 70 million Evangelical Christians.

Where are your voices? Where is your outrage? Where is passion and your vote?

Do you vote based on an abortionist's empty promises and economics? Or do you vote according to the Bible?

Thus says the Lord about every living child still in the womb…

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you…"

I have experienced the signs of the politics of Death in my youth.

I see them again now.

Christians! Unless you stand up now, you will lose your freedom of religion.

In America priests and preachers have already lost their freedom to speak openly from their pulpits of moral danger in political candidates. They cannot legally instruct you of which candidate holds fast to the precepts of scripture! American law forbids this freedom of speech to conservative pastors or they will lose their "tax exempt" status.

And yet I have heard the words of Obama's pastor Damning America! I have heard the words of Obama damning and mocking all of you in small towns because you "Cling to your religion…"

But I am a woman whose name is unknown. My life is recorded as a work of fiction. I have no fear of reprisal when I speak truth to you from the pages of a book. (Though the Zion Covenant books are mocked and condemned by the Left in America.)

I am an old woman and will soon go to be with my Lord. I have no fear for myself, but for all of you and for your children, I tremble.

I tremble at the hymns to a political leaders which your children will sing at school. (Though even now a hymn or a prayer to God and our Lord Jesus is against the law in public school!)

Your vote must put a stop to what will come upon America if Barrack Obama is elected.

I pray you will personally heed this warning for the sake of your children and your grandchildren. Do not be deceived.

The Lord in Jeremiah 1:7-8 commands every believer to speak up!

"Do not say, 'I am only a youth,' for to all whom I send you, you shall go, and whatever I command you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid of them for I am with you, declares the Lord!"

I am in Prayer for you, and for the Church! Spoken to you in the authority of Jesus the Christ, the Name Above All Names,

Lori Kalner

THE HYPHEN

2008-10-19T22:22:00.000-07:00

By John Wayne

The Hyphen, Webster's Dictionary defines,
Is a symbol used to divide a
compound word or a single word.
So it seems to me that when a man calls himself
An "Afro-American," a "Mexican-American,"
"Italian-American," An "Irish-American,"
"Jewish-American,"
What he's sayin' is, "I'm a divided American."

Well, we all came from other places,
Different creeds and different races,
To form a nation...to become as one,
Yet look at the harm a line has done-
A simple little line, and yet
As divisive as a line can get.
A crooked cross the Nazis flew,
And the Russian hammer and sickle too-
Time bombs in the lives of Man;
But none of these could ever fan
The fames of hatred faster than
The Hyphen.

The Russian hammer built a wall
That locks men's hearts from freedom's call.
A crooked cross flew overhead
Above twenty million tragic dead-
Among them men from this great nation,
Who died for freedom's preservation.
A hyphen is a line that's small;
It can be a bridge or be a wall.
A bridge can save you lots of time;
A wall you always have to climb.
The road to liberty lies true.
The Hyphen's use is up to you.

Used as a bridge, it can span
All the differences of Man.
Being free in mind and soul
Should be our most important goal.
If you use The Hyphen as a wall,
You'll make your life mean...and small.
An American is a special breed,
Whose people came to her in need.
They came to her that they might find
A world where they'd have peace of mind.
Where men are equal...and something more-
Stand taller than they stood before.

So you be wise in your decision,
And that little line won't cause division.
Let's join hands with one another...
For in this land, each man's your brother.
United we stand...divided we fall.
WE'RE AMERICANS...and that says it all.

And this one by Theodore Roosevelt

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.... A hyphenated American is not an American at all... Americanism is a matter of the spirit, and of the soul...The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans...each preserving its separate nationality.... The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans.... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American."

Affirmative Action

2008-10-19T10:46:00.000-07:00

In late 2002 and early 2003 a new genre of fundraiser began popping up on campuses around the country—Affirmative Action Bake Sales. The bake sale to gain the most publicity was one hosted by Bruin Republicans at UCLA.

Students sold cookies at different prices depending on the buyer’s race and gender. Black, Latina and American Indian females were charged 25 cents for cookies that cost minority males 50 cents. White females were charged $1, while white males and all Asian Americans were charged $2. The Bake Sale brought cries of outrage from a top California Democrat and student groups on campus. President of the Bruin Republicans Andrew Jones said the intent of the sale was to “bring the issue (of affirmative action) down to everyday terms. We wanted to show how affirmative action is racial division, not racial reconciliation.”

Nicholas Taborek, “Democrats Riled by Race-, Gender-biased Bake Sale,” Daily Bruin, Feb. 17, 2003.

Patrick Henry's ''Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!'' Speech

2008-10-18T21:38:00.000-07:00

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

2008-09-27T23:37:00.000-07:00

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams

Why Vote Chuck Baldwin instead of GOP or Dem?

2008-09-27T13:30:00.001-07:00

The Fallacy of the "Wasted" Vote

2008-09-27T12:12:00.000-07:00

If you are like most people, you might say something like:

"The way I see it, there are only two possible outcomes in any election: either the Democrat will win or the Republican will win. I vote for one of these two because I do not want to waste my vote on someone who has no chance of winning."

Roughly 80% of Americans use this procedure when deciding how to vote, and this is unfortunate. Voting for a candidate other than your true favorite has the EXACT OPPOSITE of the desired effect. Let's see why...

"But I don't want to vote for someone who can't win."
Voting for a candidate other than your favorite has the exact opposite of the desired effect. If your beliefs exactly match those of some particular candidate, then you ought to vote for them. Of course, this never happens, so you have to pick the lesser, or the least, of several evils.

Suppose you, and people like you, almost always vote for candidates from one of the two major parties. If you do this, the optimal strategy for the parties is to IGNORE you completely. Since the candidate already knows that your vote is in hand, he can then concentrate on moving the platform AWAY from your wishes, in order to court the votes of people with beliefs far from your own.

For example, many people who like Libertarian ideas always vote for Republicans. What does the party do to reward them? They make policies to win over moderate liberals. Similarly, many people who like Green Party ideas always vote for Democrats, and so the Democrats ignore them and make policies to win over moderate conservatives. Either way, the voters get the opposite of what they wanted, as the Democrats and Republicans move toward the political center.

To give recent example, in this year's presidential race, it is likely that most of Pat Buchanan's supporters will vote for Bob Dole in the coming election. Dole knows this, so he simply ignores Buchanan and his platform, and even tries to make himself look more liberal in order to court centrist Democrats.

Politicians don't need your approval, so long as they have your vote.

"But I dont want that other guy to win!"
Perhaps you feel that if you vote for your favorite candidate instead of a more popular alternative, then things will backfire on you because then your LEAST favorite candidate might win, and if he does then it will be your fault. This is a false fear.

If your least favorite candidate wins, then it is NOT your fault. You personally have only one vote. Like it or not, you are powerless to turn the results of a democratic election. This being the case, your one vote counts for something only in the sense that it represents your approval of some set of principles. Voting is a means of conveying information about what you believe. If you ignore your principles then this information is lost, and your vote really is wasted.

In preparation for subsequent elections, all politicians in the dominant parties continuously review polls and election results to see what voter blocks they might like to try to sway. If your block or party is big enough, these politicians will make some effort to win some of you over by implementing policies that you favor. They would be fools not to, since politicians and parties that enact unpopluar legislation lose the next election. Recall what happened to George Bush after he broke his "no new taxes" pledge.

The only way you can make your vote worth something is to use it to vote for the candidate whose principles are closest to what you really want.

The Clear Conclusion
In short, voting for someone other than your favorite candidate is not only unappealing, but also contrary to your own best interests. The only way to make your voice heard is to actually VOTE, and when you do, vote for your principles.

In the 1996 presidential primaries in South Carolina, Republican candidate Bob Dole spent several hundred thousand dollars running an ad that said:

"Bob Dole is going to be the nominee. Don't waste your vote."
We leave it to you to resolve the paradox.

http://www.3pc.net/essays/fallacy.html

3rd Parties: What They’re For and What They Do

2008-09-27T11:58:00.000-07:00

by Rick Gaber
___

Third parties shouldn’t really need an introduction. In my opinion they should be widely welcomed as an exciting and necessary part of political activity and policy advocacy. The fact that they’re not has inspired me to go ahead and set down some of the purposes and reasons-for-being of third parties and the benefits and services they provide. In the United States the founding fathers had no intention of prescribing political parties at all, let alone limiting the number of them. In fact, they’re not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. And that's why no fewer than 5 different candidates won electoral votes in each of the first four presidential elections. The dominance of two parties today is mostly the result of the states' using questionable winner-take-all electoral systems with built-in conflicts of interest, which even include allowing the winners to rewrite the election laws and redraw the legislative districts(!). This in turn elevates those people who are willing to compromise principles (if they even have any) to major player status, as it entices them to dilute their messages (if any) and join "major" political parties along with many other politicians with whom they would normally disagree. Besides, it (obviously) disadvantages, if not discourages, any principled competitors from the start.

The primary purpose of third-party candidates running for public office is to call attention to otherwise ignored, misrepresented, or even suppressed principles or issues. Eugene Debs did so for the plight of the factory worker and Ross Perot for the national debt crisis.** There are usually MORE than two sides to every issue – WAY more. And yet despite their hype and hysteria, when the smoke clears, the "major" parties often turn out to be on the same unprincipled side anyway.

The secondary purpose is to get the major parties to adopt the most important portions of the 3rd party platform as part of theirs (The Socialist Debs ran 4 times but quit after not only achieving this, his goal, but after seeing the progressive income tax and the Federal Reserve System, his two most history-changing platform planks, actually become law.).

Third parties give the far-sighted voter a way to make a visible statement and have a greater impact on the direction the country moves far into the future. In 1908 a vote for Debs had at least 33 times the long-term impact on the nation as a vote for any major party candidate (including the Republican Taft, who "won"), by my calculations.

They give the principled and knowledgeable voter a chance to cast his vote without feeling dirty afterwards, even feeling good, especially since every vote really counts to help a 3rd party get or keep ballot access (it's enormously important for helping a 3rd party get on the ballot in the future).

They work to enhance the prospects and credibility of lesser-known ideas and lesser-known candidates, especially the 3rd party's state and local candidates, to gain and solidify ballot access, to expand the party’s influence, to develop an ever-larger national presence, and maybe even to replace or supplant one of the so-called "major" parties.

They serve as what Richard Winger calls an " 'emotional bridge' for voters who have given up on supporting one major party but are not yet ready to vote for the other," and in so doing they don't just lure voters to the polls; in the long run they even help prevent "stagnation and tyranny," (see http://www.ballot-access.org/winger/iba.html)

Third parties give sources of leverage and ideas to major-party loyalists to "keep the pressure on" their party to adopt or emphasize positions or principles it tends to ignore, abandon or advocate much too feebly.

They provide a vehicle for like-minded people to meet, share ideas, brainstorm, strategize, develop new approaches to public policy, and spin off subgroups to raise public awareness of, and campaign about, specific issues even on a local basis.

Their presence and activity give whoever does win office more latitude and public support in choosing new or different public policy approaches or solutions to existing or anticipated problems, challenges, concerns or crises. THIRD PARTIES ARE WILLING TO TACKLE THIRD RAILS. SOMEbody’s got to be available to do it!

They often work to encourage changes in election laws where the 3rd party, its supporters and other voters would like to see fair and equal ballot access for all parties, or runoff elections whenever no one gets a clear majority, or cross-endorsement of candidates, or preferential voting, or proportional representation, or ease of casting write-in votes, or choice of "NOTA" (none of the above). After all, stupid, unfair, even outrageous state and local election and ballot access laws and enforcement methods have gone unchallenged long enough in hundreds of jurisdictions.

They actually IMPROVE the health of the "two-party system." According to Richard Winger in The Importance of Ballot Access, "Using the criteria of high voter turnout, the absence of gridlock, and exchange of power between the two major parties, we can see that our two-party system was healthy in the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s ... [when] our political system contained many vigorous and powerful third parties."

(...and that this is NOT necessarily the only or primary purpose of a 3rd Party is a point often lost on many politicians, journalists and academics, let alone on the general public): They strive to win (which IS possible IF real equality in media coverage, as 3rd party candidate Abraham Lincoln enjoyed, is reestablished).

They give the otherwise ignored, used, abused, betrayed, disgusted, disappointed, frustrated, victimized, insulted, and/or outraged voter a chance to cast a vote without feeling dirty afterwards, a reason to go to the polls AT ALL in the first place, and maybe even to come out of the voting booth feeling GREAT!

"The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day." -- Theodore Roosevelt
"Third parties are very effective vehicles for forcing issues that neither party wants to address because of their controversy. They are very influential as incubators of ideas.'' -- Prof. Jeffrey Sedgwick, University of Massachusetts-Amherst in The Boston Herald, Sept. 17, 2000

** "It was third parties who FIRST introduced ideas like restricting slavery, granting suffrage to women, establishing minimum wages and controlling child labor... The difficulty of getting on the ballot state-by-state is surely a barrier deliberately erected by the major parties to keep third parties out of the field of play." ~ American University Professor Allan Lichtman on The Jim Lehrer Newshour, Oct. 22, 1996

"The irony is that no leading political scientist who studies political party systems believes that it is necessary to squelch minor parties in order to 'defend' the two-party system. The true definition of 'two-party system' is a system in which two particular parties are much bigger than all the others; it doesn't mean a system in which minor parties have atrophied into non-existence. The last leading political scientist who believed that it is socially useful to squelch minor parties was Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia, but he changed his mind over five years ago, and now advocates that election laws treat minor parties equitably." -- Richard Winger, Ballot Access News December 12, 1996

"...when the variety and number of political parties increases, the chance for oppression, factionalism, and nonskeptical acceptance of ideas decreases." -- James Madison

"A sect or party is an elegant incognito devised to save a man from the vexation of thinking." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis Hopkinson, Paris, Mar. 13, 1789

"If parties in a republic are necessary to secure a degree of vigilance sufficient to keep the public functionaries within the bounds of law and duty, at that point their usefulness ends. Beyond that they become destructive of public virtue, the parent of a spirit antagonist to that of liberty, and eventually its inevitable conqueror." -- William Henry Harrison, Inaugural, March 4, 1841

"Look at the tyranny of party--at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty--a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes--and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits..." -- The Character of Man, Mark Twain's Autobiography"

"Joining a political party is like joining a gang." -- Chris Rock

"If mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." -- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

"Not voting is just as bad as voting for evil men because it allows evil to succeed by default. Take a stand with people who support what you really support. Stop cowering and merely complaining about America's pending demise and act in such a way as to truly make a difference." -- Tom Ambrose

"In your entire lifetime, you will probably never vote in an election where your one vote decides the outcome. So why bother to vote at all? The correct answer to that question, the purpose you should have in mind when you enter the voting booth, is: 'my vote can make a difference because it tells incumbent politicians what I believe is right'. My vote simply says, 'this is the direction I want the country, state or community to take.' That's it." -- Richard Boddie

"If your one vote is like one drop of fertilizer in an eye dropper, and you had to choose between giving it to a small but vigorous tree seedling and an ancient, rotting (but huge!) old oak tree, WHICH ONE IS YOUR DROP GOING TO HAVE THE GREATER IMPACT ON? And how much greater would the relative impact be? Especially when you consider all the restrictive, unequal ballot-access laws which CAN make any one vote crucial to future ballot access for a third party. Don't you think those people who can and do THINK LONG-TERM should be the ones most encouraged to (and able to) vote?" -- from http://FreedomKeys.com/myvccount.htm

©1997 Rick Gaber. Permission to reprint is hereby granted so long as it is done in its entirety and the source is referenced: http://FreedomKeys.com/whatfor.htm .

Prudence becomes Perverted

2008-09-09T21:46:00.000-07:00

by Carl V. Bibeau

How far have we already come down the wrong road? I would say at least 35 years. There is no room left to barter for more time. Our own prelates have rightly convicted all of us in the complicity of allowing abortion-on-demand to continue unabated. Now, once again, another opportunity to choose good rather than evil is upon us in this election year. But rather than challenging good people to seek out the good candidate, some of the same "leaders" are saying we have no choice but to limit evil, by choosing the lesser evil, rather than seek out the good. They say it is "impossible" for anyone other than a Republican or Democrat to be elected President. Therefore, they conspire to allegedly "help" The Faithful to choose the lesser evil by providing them with a voter's guide that compares the "choices," while portraying only two candidates as available. By doing so, they are complicit in supplying advertising spin verbatim, which has been compiled by partisan hacks. Even though evidence is ample that the "lesser evil" abides with an evil considered non-negotiable by Christians, they allow this candidate to present himself with a Culture of Life label. They say that the time to have started promoting a good candidate has long passed. We would have to start now to prepare for the next opportunity. The complicit grant themselves another extension. A culture, used to avoiding the consequences of their actions, think they are righteous and "prudent" in seeking this "extension."

Just as we could never be justified for Salvation on our own merit, we deserve no such extension. We deserve to be judged as a nation for our complicity in abortion-on-demand. We actually deserve the candidate who is the greater evil. But, our so-called moral "leaders" are trying to coerce The Faithful into supporting the lesser evil, by guilt-ing them. The perverse logic claims that if the greater evil comes to power, The Faithful who voted for the good will be partly to blame. Since when is Prudence a slut? Since now, apparently.

Much like an accused murderer, who knows he's guilty, chooses to employ every measure available to him to delay, or even avoid, the deserved consequences, the souls who buy into the escape offered by these leaders, seek to deny responsibility. They lie to themselves. They are seduced by their defense counsel into playing the system, instead of facing the music for their actions.

Just as Christ gave those who choose him freely, payment for their debt of sin, God gives us a truly righteous alternative in a candidate for this election. We are given one last chance, if we indeed have any faith left. Whether or not a vote for this candidate becomes a "protest vote" is entirely dependent on how many still have faith. It's true. If enough of The Faithful decide to select the lesser evil, and only a portion select the good, we will have the judgment (which we deserve) of the greater evil upon us. But if there is enough faith, The Faithful can bring about the election of the good. It's quite poetic.

Thou wouldst save us, if we choose the good. Thy Will be done!

permission granted to reprint or disseminate electronically in its entirety
with credit of authorship, and link to http://laying-the-groove.blogspot.com

Ornaments of Grace: I Am NO Political Activist...

2008-08-19T22:15:00.000-07:00

Ornaments of Grace: I Am NO Political Activist...

2008-08-03T22:47:00.000-07:00

If nobody votes for a person because they don't have a chance, then they are always going to be right.

Does it really matter though, if the person has a chance? Shouldn't you do the right thing regardless of the outcome? I'm not saying that you should only vote for Chuck Baldwin and if you don't you'll be wrong. But the way you vote shouldn't be determined by if you think a person will win or not. It should be determined by if that person stands for what you believe in.

Anyway, God is in control of the outcome. He knows who is going to be president. If Obama wins, God will still be in control.

Here is a good article about voting for someone who doesn't have a chance.

http://heartofhannah.blogspot.com/2008/07/lesser-of-two-evils.html

The Lesser of Two Evils

2008-08-03T21:53:00.000-07:00

On Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils
Many people insist that everyone left of center should vote for Democrats rather than for third party candidates in order to keep Republicans from winning, and then they appear surprised as the Democrats move further to the right. But continuing to vote for Democrats as long as they are perceptibly less bad than the Republicans is precisely the thing that causes them to keep moving to the right, since they pick up center and right votes (and increased corporate funding) but don't lose many left votes.

The fallacy in the lesser-of-two-evils argument is the assumption that a vote has an impact only in the election in which it is cast, when in fact a vote has more of an impact AFTER the election. When politicians get elected, most of them don't behave so as to serve the people who just voted for them (that's over); instead they behave so as to attract votes in the NEXT election, using votes cast earlier as a guide to where the votes are. While your vote will rarely decide the outcome of an election, it will always have this later influence regardless of who wins. The only way to pull the candidates who do win leftward is to vote for people to their left.

Another post-election effect of voting for third parties is that it influences more people to decide that doing so is worthwhile, once they see that other voters are increasingly crossing over. As long as most everyone continues voting for the two major (corporate) party candidates, the potential winners in each race will continue to be two very similar candidates indefinitely (primarily serving corporations and their owners).

Besides, voting for somebody that you actually like is the way this thing is supposed to work, right?

From:
http://www.bapd.org/twoevils.html

The logic is the same for the right side of politics.

Chuck Baldwin for President

2008-07-22T17:41:00.001-07:00

Vote For Chuck Baldwin!

2008-07-22T15:08:00.000-07:00

"Which is more important in elections--winning, or standing firm for principle?"

Don't vote for either McCain or Obama. Vote for someone better, like Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.
http://baldwin08. com/
http://www. constitutionparty. com/

You do not have to choose between the lesser of two evils and you will not be wasting your vote.

http://www. constitutionparty. com/news. php?aid=106
http://www. constitutionpartyofwa. com/articles/article_cb_voting_for_lessor. html

Expelled

2008-04-22T17:56:00.000-07:00

I went and saw this movie today.