With the changing of the calendar there are disagreements about if it is really a new decade.
What a silly disagreement.
Humans feel they control time. They can catagozie and contain it. However, as diverse as Humanity is, there are as many ways to contain time as there are civilazations.
I Celebrate three New Year’s. My actually new year is aligned with my pagan beliefs with the start of the year on Samhein, Halloween.
Then I recognize the Gregorian New Year, which most of the world, particularly the Western World, follow. Then, finally, I celebrate Chinese New Year. This is out of appreciation for Asian culture.
I once owned a Tibetan Buddhist Calendar. It being based on the moon as opposed to the sun. It was definitely different.
My friend in South Korea has two ages. One which is “western,” one which is based on her culture.
Not only are there calendar and time controls within different cultures, there are different views of time in various religions.
Growing up in the United Methodist Church we followed the Christian calendar (hint we are still in the Christmas Season until Epiphany). There are specific traditions and practices associated with certain times of the year in every religious practice.
And don’t even get me started on the different political calendars across the globe.
Sometimes this societal agree on the meaning of time is to our detriment. More and more people are having sleep problems and health issues because they are no longer in tune with their own physical, internal clock, their circadian rhythm.
It is worth remembering for all of the different views and beliefs on time, it is all fabricated by our brains. It is simply a way for our brains to catagozie and barely begin to understand our place in the Universe.
This Gregorian Year of 2020 I suggest we all take a step back and allow the Universe to speak to us, to reset our clocks to its time, instead of the chaos of societal time.
The first part of this series examined the horrible sacrifice of very young children and their futures that are a tragic consequence of the newly ascendant ‘trans-rights’ movement as a so-called civil rights cause. There are other, widely-spread societal consequences which threaten to remake western culture wholesale and send us careening toward oblivion.
There are three primary areas of concern within our society that are negatively affected by ‘trans-rights’ advocates in our time. These areas are all forms of the Leftmedia, the world of competitive sports, and the monolith of both primary and secondary public education.
Transgender Propaganda Reigns in Leftmedia
The gaggle of networks and media outlets which I have chosen to call the “Leftmedia,” has been aggressively promoting the ‘trans-rights’ social program as something good or, at the worst, simply benign. In order to accomplish their goals, the Leftmedia must engage in blatant propaganda hoping that what thinking people might still exist on the Left won’t notice or if they do notice won’t care.
The following video by Steve Crowder and company highlights the false narrative coming from the Left on this issue. Maher’s attempt to feign ignorance about the facts that Dennis Prager presents seems very weak at best.
Two critical facts were presented in the video are indisputable. One is that the newest claim by the transgender community that ‘men can have periods too’ is far from a fringe view in the Leftmedia!
Crowder names media outlets such as MTV, HuffPo, The London Telegraph, and even People magazine that have featured headlines claiming that ‘men get periods too!’ In fact, as he notes, the campaign of propaganda has been so influential that the “woke” among the retail sales crowd have been actively promoting the sales of tampons and feminine pads to ‘transitioning’ persons.
However, there is a bit of sleight-of-hand involved in all of this. The advertisement for the international tampon company in the video employs this tactic by featuring a woman who is trying to change into a man and her statement that for a time during her attempts to reverse nature, she was still menstruating as a woman does.
The trickery is twofold. First of all, she was a biologically normal woman who was experiencing normal cycles that apply only to the female of the species before she began the process.
Therefore, this does not apply to the case of the opposite, a man attempting to change into a woman. They didn’t have periods before they ‘identified’ as a woman, and they won’t have periods even after hormones and surgery.
However, and this is the second part of the deceptive propaganda, the advertisement carefully arranges the video sequence to conflate both types of ‘gender identity’ claims as basically the same. Moreover, this falsehood is enforced throughout various social media avenues such as Twitter or Facebook.
Transgenderism Is Destroying Women’s Sports
The transgender ‘athlete’ has made a definite impact on women’s sports in recent years. Men ‘identifying’ as women have been routinely dominating women’s competitions at the state, national, and international levels. As an article in “Human Events” online states,
The victory of New Zealander Laurel Hubbard is just the latest in a growing line of instances in which transgender women are claiming the top spot in women’s sporting events. The 41-year-old dominated the Pacific Games weightlifting competition this week, winning a gold medal for her efforts – and breaking women’s records in the process.
Despite the politically correct pronoun usage, the article argues against the practice of allowing biological males to compete against females if they ‘identify’ as a female. They note that recent scientific research supports the author’s arguments.
In a paper published in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics, researcher Lynley Anderson and her associates Alison Heather and Taryn Knox argued that capping testosterone levels, which has been proposed as a solution to maintaining a level playing field, just won’t cut it. …The researchers also argue that the advantages transgender women have over biologically female counterparts extends well beyond testosterone levels. Namely, they have denser and larger muscles, better muscle distribution, and higher lung capacities. Males even have an advantage when it comes to the amount of oxygen they can accumulate. All this lends to greater strength, agility, dexterity, stamina, and endurance.
A prime example of this is seen in a viral YouTube video with former Olympic women’s gymnastics champions Nastia Liukin and Shawn Johnson reacting to men doing women’s gymnastics.
In 2017, the state of Connecticut modified the rules of high school competition to allow biological males who ‘identify’ as females to compete in women’s athletics with no other requirements. Here is one result of the new policy that should convince any rational person this is not a good idea.
Connecticut’s 2017 rule change that allowed students to compete based on gender identity has terribly harmed women’s sports. A single male transgender student now holds 10 state records which previously belonged to 10 different girls.
What is worse, female athletes who rightly object to this practice are vilified and punished by ‘trans-rights’ activists. Tennis great Martina Navratilova, a fierce defender of LGBT rights was no exception to this.
In December, Navratilova tweeted: “You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women. There must be some standards and having a penis and competing as a woman would not fit that standard.” McKinnon was not pleased by this and began a tirade against Navratilova. In her Sunday Times essay, Navratilova describes this behavior as bullyish and argues that, while she feels able to take a stand, she worries that other women will be “cowed into silence or submission.”
McKinnon refers to Rachel Mckinnon, a “transgendered woman,” who recently won the Gold Medal at the World Indoor Women’s Cycling Championship. McKinnon had competed in cycling as a male until the age of 29.
In reward for her stand, Navratilova was thrown off the board of the LGBT advocacy group Athlete Ally. So much for tolerance and free speech by ‘trans-rights’ activists on the Left.
Transgender Dominance in Public Education is Dangerous
This is the most serious area of all for both the present and future of American and western society for as one goes, so goes the other. The forced progression of ‘trans-rights’ advocacy in public education is appalling and cause for grave concern.
This insidious movement is requiring access to K-12 public students to present a biologically false and unhealthy premise as a required part of the curriculum. Children as young as five years old are to be indoctrinated into advocacy for transgenderism and, as noted in part one of this series, potentially turned into sacrifices for mentally disturbed adults.
Moreover, these policies in public education force young children and teens of different biological sexes together in potentially hazardous situations, especially for young girls. One prominent example of such forcing comes from the Fairfax, County, Virginia school district, just south of Washington D.C.
The new policy holds that boys who self-identify as female can use the girls’ shower facilities, locker rooms, and bathrooms, and it was voted in without any time for public debate and adopted within weeks.
The article is from 2018 and the author notes the policy passed in 2015 and faced harsh criticism from parents when it was announced. The policy was apparently put on indefinite hold as the action to draft regulations for it has been tabled until further notice.
One of the obvious factors the Leftist advocates don’t want to mention is that this is far more than simply teaching something in a classroom. It has dangerous real-life effects on children at vulnerable stages of their sexual development and could be traumatized or worse by seeing a male ‘identifying’ as a female in the locker room environment, as evidenced by a recent incident in Pennsylvania.
Attorneys for a female Pennsylvania high school student filed a federal complaint last week alleging her privacy was violated and that she was subjected to sexual harassment when a transgender student was using the same locker room, WNEP-TV reported. …Lawyers for the student posted a video online describing what they say happened. The unnamed female student appears in the clip and said “while I was putting on my pants I heard a man’s voice, so I turned around, and he’s standing there on the opposite aisle looking at me. I glanced down and could tell that he was wearing women’s underwear and what was underneath it.” She added: “When I knew that a man was looking at me, I felt very violated and very scared — especially looking at me while I’m getting dressed.”
The school district stood behind its policy but did not offer any further comments. However, some of the criticism this young lady received on social media was disgustingly brutal.
Some observers commenting on the Facebook page for the Law Office of Andrew H. Shaw, which is handling the case, also sided with the complaining female student, others were decidedly against her and her attorneys:
…“Sounds like your client is the one who is guilty of voyeurism. WTF is she doing checking out other people’s genitals? Shameful ambulance chasers.” …“The student called the trans student a ‘man.’ I think we all know where this hate is coming from. From her parents. Using ‘man’ is scary! Transphobia is bigotry.” …“F*** you transphobes.”
As nasty and idiotic as these statements may be, they manifest and reveal much about the attitudes from Leftist ‘trans-rights’ activists. For instance, the second comment says that the girl’s reactions are full of “hate,” and accuses her of being “transphobic” and therefore bigoted.
A phobia is an irrational fear. This student had a perfectly reasonable trepidation about a man being in the women’s locker room while she is dressing. Moreover, who is actually phobic when they state that “using [the word] ‘man’ is scary!”?
As far as being hateful goes, the third comment should dispel any illusions as to which side of this argument is projecting hate. Another reminder that the Left is always projecting their behavior to accuse their adversaries.
These things are the result of faculty lounge nonsense in higher education swiftly becoming mainstream. “Gender Study” departments in universities across the land have been teaching ‘Gender Identity’ theory as gospel for years especially since 2013 when the DSM-V changed the designation of people suffering from this mental illness from Gender Identity Disorder to Gender Dysphoria.
This movement was also given support by former President Barack Obama in 2016, through addition to current Title IX anti-discrimination law. This served to give a Presidential ‘seal of approval’ to ‘trans-rights’ advocacy and education in public schools across the land.
The Obama administration is sending out an edict today [5/13/2016] to every school district in the country, insisting they open bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers to all children, regardless of sex, or risk federal discrimination lawsuits and yanked federal funds. Schools must treat children as transgender and thus entitled to open facilities access as soon as parents say they are, not after a medical diagnosis or birth certificate change.
The goal of such an accelerated pace to inject ‘gender identity’ teaching is apparent. The Left’s ‘trans-rights’ advocates wish to normalize their disturbing practice by “reproducing” the only way they can, through recruiting children to expand their population.
The many risks to society posed by the ‘trans-rights’ movement threaten the basic fabric of civilization. Moreover, the battleground of this gender ‘identity’ war includes even more intrusive edicts than Obama’s 2016 pronouncement from various legal venues in America today.
Part three of this series will examine that phenomenon of the incremental establishment of legal status upon the transgender ‘community,’ at local, state and national levels in America, as well as why the “T” should be dropped from the LGBT acronym.
Why do you boast of evil, O mighty man? The steadfast love of God endures all the day. Your tongue plots destruction, like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit. You love evil more than good, and lying more than speaking what is right. Selah Psalm 52:1-3 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
Featured and Top Image courtesy of Penn State’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Sangudo’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of torbakhopper’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of melissa.meister’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
July 20, 2019, is the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing on the moon. Neil Armstrong was the first to tread on the moon’s surface and he and co-pilot ‘Buzz’ Aldrin’s initial act was to plant the American flag into the moon’s soil, stand at attention and salute it.
Americans who were alive at the time look back at that moment with nostalgic pride in our nation and how we rose to the challenge of President John F. Kennedy in 1961.
The challenge was put forth and America got behind what was called the “Space Race” which focused on beating the Russians to the moon. Unfortunately, President Kennedy did not live to see the culmination of his challenge as he was assassinated two years later in Dallas, Texas.
How is that breathtaking unprecedented historical achievement viewed today as compared to when it took place a half-century later? Let’s look at how this epic adventure was received in 1969.
[Almost] Worldwide Adulation for America
Most of the world was in awe of how America had accomplished what many considered impossible. Congratulations and glowing headlines were seen around the globe.
The whole world was excited and sent congratulations, including the Soviet Union which had been beaten there.
However, the leaders of the Soviet Union also responded denying that they were even trying to get to the moon! That claim was proved to be a lie twenty years later.
But have you heard the one about how the moon race was itself a hoax, because the Soviet Union was never trying to get to the moon in the first place? Or at least, that’s what the Soviets claimed to cover up their unsuccessful lunar-landing program. It was a lie that held fast until 1989, when a group of American aerospace engineers went to Moscow and finally saw the Soviets’ failed lunar-landing craft for themselves.
Yet, even though the world acknowledged the fact that Americans had done this, they were somewhat hesitant to call it an ‘American’ achievement. Moreover, America was also hesitant to make that claim wholeheartedly even then.
As proof of that attitude, here are the words that were etched on a plaque left on the moon by the Apollo 11 astronauts.
HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON
JULY, 1969 A.D.
WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND
While the gist of that statement would be approved by the vast majority of Americans and non-Americans today, it is certain that many segments of society would not approve of the wording. Today’s modern ‘progressives’ would object to the use of the words “men” and “mankind” as well as the designation “A.D.” for the year.
If NASA was so concerned that the “planet earth” be recognized as humanity’s home, why was it decided to plant an American flag on the moon? How did that decision come about?
Why Did We Decide to Plant the American Flag?
When the “space race” of the 1960s was in full swing the world saw it as a contest between two superpowers, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. However, officials in charge at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] originally planned not to display the American flag.
Many thought this should be understood as an ‘international’ mission, and that planting an American flag would be akin to claiming the moon as an American possession, especially in light of an international space treaty we had signed onto in 1967. Therefore some asked for many flags of various nations to be included or suggested perhaps a world peace flag be designed, while some thought it should be a United Nations flag set on the moon.
Apollo 1 crew in training
Others pointed out that not only had Americans executed the moon landing and carried out the Apollo program alone, but American lives were also lost in the process and American taxpayers had footed the entire bill.
Not to be forgotten are the three Americans who gave their lives in the pursuit of the dream of putting a man on the moon. Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger B. Chaffee perished in a tragic fire during the Apollo 1 mission, marking the first fatalities suffered by NASA…
For most those facts were more than enough justification for using an American flag and it was understood that,
Planting the American flag was not perceived as the USA claiming the Moon as their territory. No more than Amundsen planting the Norwegian flag at the South pole was a claim on the South Pole for Norway.
The argument was finally settled by Congress with threats to withhold funding for NASA, and a resolution after the fact to justify the decision to plant the American flag on the moon.
A House and Senate conference committee agreed on the final version of the bill on 4 November 1969 which included a provision that “the flag of the United States, and no other flag, shall be implanted or otherwise placed on the surface of the moon, or on the surface of any planet, by members of the crew of any spacecraft … as part of any mission … the funds for which are provided entirely by the Government of the United States.” The amendment, in deference to the Outer Space Treaty, concluded with the statement “this act is intended as a symbolic gesture of national pride in achievement and is not to be construed as a declaration of national appropriation by claim of sovereignty.”
Though the flag ‘controversy’ generated some heat, once Congress stepped in the dissenting voices were quiet. What might be the reactions in the present day about planting an American flag upon the moon?
A Modern-day Response to America’s Flag on the Moon
Astronaut Neil Armstrong
Readers may recall that in October of 2018, less than a year ago, a film entitled “The First Man,” was released based on the life of Neil Armstrong. It was directed by a French-Canadian man who decided to omit the planting of the flag in the film.
Many people were understandably upset about this gross omission. The movie came under severe criticism from the start because of this.
One might wonder why anyone would choose to leave out one of the most patriotic and iconic scenes ever in a film about the man who actually stuck the flag into the lunar landscape. Ryan Gosling, the actor who plays Armstrong in the flick, defended the omission to reporters at the Venice Film Festival.
“I think this was widely regarded in the end as a human achievement [and] that’s how we chose to view it,” Gosling told reporters at the film festival. “I also think Neil was extremely humble, as were many of these astronauts, and time and time again he deferred the focus from himself to the 400,000 people who made the mission possible.”
Gosling, who is also Canadian, and the director have the right to their opinion. They also have the right to make the film in any fashion they please even if certain parts are left out.
However, it is also my right, and anyone else’s right, to point out that purging critical facts from what purports to be a true story is not the right thing to do, even when you don’t like those facts. To not include the planting of the American flag on the moon in a film like this is also to distort history outright, and no one has the right to do that!
That someone outside of America didn’t want the flag scene included in their movie should not surprise anyone. Moreover, it wouldn’t be that surprising in this present political climate of the country if an American director had done the same.
The Left Hates the American Flag
It is certain that the Kapernicks and Rapinoes in this nation would applaud removing the American flag from the moon or from history altogether if they had their way. Heck, they couldn’t even handle the Betsy Ross flag on a pair of shoes!
I also do not doubt that certain Leftists in Congress, some of whom are running for President in 2020, would be in lock-step with them. How can I be so sure of this?
I am certain because of the non-outrage of the Left toward a despicable act which took place at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or I.C.E. detention facility in Aurora, Colorado. There on July 12, protestors went on facility grounds and took down the American flag, and raising the Mexican flag in its place!
Authorities in Colorado restored an American flag to its place Friday evening after protesters demonstrating outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility pulled down the star-spangled banner and flew the flag of Mexico in its place. The protesters also removed a “Blue Lives Matter” flag, honoring law enforcement, spray-painted it with the words “Abolish ICE,” then raised the flag upside-down, on a pole next to the Mexican flag, according to local media.
The Aurora Police did not attempt to stop this from happening. Why not?
Aurora Chief of Police Nick Metz said it was to protect safety of the large majority who were acting peacefully and the safety of officers. He added that his folks were ready to decisively engage if they witnessed assaultive behavior or damage to the building or surrounding property that could jeopardize its security or public safety.
So, let me get this straight. It was ok to damage and deface the property of the U.S. Government as long as it was the flag!?
Is it not an assault on national sovereignty when the American flag flying on American soil is replaced by the flag of another nation? Soldiers have faced death all over the globe spurred on by the Stars and Stripes and the Aurora police won’t risk confrontation with a group of unarmed protestors tearing it down! Seriously?
July 20, 1969, is indeed a day which should be recognized as a monumental achievement all around the globe. But we should not forget that without American effort, sacrifice, ingenuity and faith, there would be nothing to recognize or celebrate at all.
That was the impetus behind placing the American flag on the moon six times during the short time we sent astronauts to the moon. The program ended in 1972 with the Apollo 17 landing.
Eugene Cernan, commander of Apollo 17, still holds the distinction of being the last man to walk on the Moon, as no humans have visited the Moon since December 14, 1972.
The first, last and only human beings to walk on the moon were Americans. Each mission planted an American flag to mark their presence.
It all began 50 years ago, and both the event and the flag under which it happened deserve acknowledgment and respect. Moreover, I hope and pray we will also understand that the greatness of America need not be a thing of the past if we will both stand for Old Glory, and kneel only before our LORD.
But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. Romans 11:4-5 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
Lyrics from the hit song “Lola” by The Kinks. The tune was released on June 12, 1970.
Ray Davis has claimed that he was inspired to write “Lola” after Kinks manager Robert Wace spent a night in Paris dancing with a transgender woman.
Three of the four original band members, including the composer[s] of “Lola” reformed The Kinks in June of 2018. It would be interesting to know what they think of the current socio-political push for “transgender rights,” in Western society almost 50 years later.
This journal has chronicled the devastating and dangerous movement to enshrine “transgenderism” as a basic human right on several occasions. In the past few years, advocates of this reality-denying cult have begun to quietly manipulate the legal system to their ends, especially concerning what can only be called forced transitioning of young children.
However, before the gender ID enforcers could make meaningful legal strides, they believed they had to accomplish three things. First, left-wing academia had to be convinced to normalize ‘transgender rights’ as a health issue.
A New and Dangerous ‘Diagnosis’
The crucial turning point which empowered the transgender movement and helped launch it into the ‘mainstream’ of culture happened not quite six years ago. It came in a publication that most don’t know about, the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the DSM.
published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). In the United States, the DSM serves as the principal authority for psychiatric diagnoses. Treatment recommendations, as well as payment by health care providers, are often determined by DSM classifications, so the appearance of a new version has significant practical importance.
Until 2013, the fourth edition of the DSM was in effect. The DSM-IV classified those who believed they were ‘assigned’ the ‘wrong’ gender as suffering from Gender Identity Disorder.
As a “disorder,” it was a mental illness. Today, due to political and cultural pressure, the DSM-V calls this condition Gender Dysphoria. Such a classification is not considered a mental illness. Rather it is considered a kind of psychological discomfort and confusion. This is how mental illness can be masked as a difficult, but “normal,” reality.
The necessity of lessening the severity of what is a delusional disorder is evident. In this way, the Leftist ‘science’ community could grant ‘scientific’ credence to the notion that transgender ‘rights’ advocates represent a group of people being ‘victimized’ by the predominant culture.
Which leads to the second step to be completed for the transgender ‘rights’ advocates to be successful. That is the step of playing the victim card.
Playing the ‘Victim’ Card
In the culture war, the victim ‘card’ is the favorite choice of the Left. This card has been successfully played numerous times in the past.
The pattern of play is similar in each case. First, a group must be identified which could be characterized as ‘victims’ of some terrible abuse.
Next, the group must be canvassed somehow to isolate individuals within it who could be used to showcase their ‘victimhood’ publically. It has become all too familiar to see such an individual or even a small group in front of the cameras and microphones speaking about their tragic ‘victimization’ at the hands of evil people who are also not-so-coincidentally conservative.
This strategy accomplishes two things. It demonizes the evil conservative ‘oppressors’ while garnering pity and synthetic ‘outrage’ on behalf of the perceived ‘victim.’
Whether or not the offense against this poor ‘victim’ is true is irrelevant to the Left. There are many examples both recent and decades-old of this phenomenon.
Most recently there is the example of the hoax hate-crime orchestrated by Jussie Smollett in Chicago. The purpose here was to demonize Trump supporters while increasing Smollett’s value as a Leftist extremist and thus enriching him as an actor.
The fact that this was carried out so carelessly almost immediately revealed it was a hoax. But for the Leftmedia, that was only a slight inconvenience as they immediately labeled it a “hate crime,” with a little apology when they were proved wrong.
Smollett himself is facing some very serious charges that could result in severe punishment from the courts. He is facing 16 felony counts in Chicago as of today.
However, the penalties which are inflicted upon children in the transgender ‘rights’ cause are far more severe than Smollett’s because of the lifelong damage that could ultimately result. It is indeed tragic that children, some whose ages register in the single digits will become the true victims of adult manipulation, in the name of illusionary rights.
It is also tragic that adult transgenders cannot see their own delusion. A delusion so pervasive that it warps biological reality, and causes its adherents to lash out with tyrannical demands for all of society.
Turning Tragedy into Tyranny
It is unequivocally a tragedy that for the sake of creating a phantom human ‘right’ people will not only mutilate themselves, via having body parts cut off and others sowed on, but will insist that others change their own lives to accommodate the delusion. Those who desire to live in reality are now expected to alter their speech, i.e. no unapproved pronouns allowed.
Moreover, society as a whole must now deny the exclusiveness of male and female bathrooms, lockers or dressing rooms in public areas and schools, according to trans-activists. This insanity is seeking the force of law to turn a tragic condition into a normal one.
The Leftmedia, whether on social media outlets or through the airwaves, engages in the third step which is pushing the narrative. A narrative that is dangerous to adults, and extremely dangerous for children.
Thus, the Leftmedia is less likely to report about the enabling of pedophiles through the transgender ‘rights’ movement. However, there are cases of adult male predators ‘identifying’ as female and accosting young girls in public bathrooms.
In Scotland, an 18-year-old male who identifies as a woman was given a slap on the wrist by authorities earlier this month after assaulting a 10-year-old girl in the restroom. According to The Courier, the suspect, who goes by the name Katie Dolatowski, sexually assaulted the unidentified little girl in a supermarket restroom on March 4, 2018, reportedly grabbing “the terrified youngster by the face, shov[ing] her into the cubicle and order[ing] her to remove her trousers.”
The penalty for this individual should have been some lengthy prison sentence. Instead, he was
banned from having contact with children and given community service and electronic tagging.
How can the parents of this child be assured this predator will not strike again under the guise of identifying as a female? How has the legal system not only in Scotland but in many other countries turned to favor the transgender agenda?
The short answer to that last question is twofold. One reason is the cultural acceptance of transgenderism for adults, as seen especially in the instance of Caitlyn [formerly Bruce] Jenner’s relatively recent popularity.
Secondly, trans-activists have been ‘teaching’ and promoting their cause as ‘experts’ both in the medical community and at legal conferences in various states. These disturbed ‘health’ professionals have also gained the support of the American Academy of Pediatricians in a recent statement affirming ‘transitioning’ for children.
Dr. James Cantor explained in his detailed analysis of the AAP policy statement, “almost all clinics and professional associations in the world use what’s called the watchful waiting approach to helping GD children, [but] the AAP statement rejected that consensus, endorsing only gender affirmation.”
Trans-Activists Are Targeting Children
It is alarming is that trans-activists are pushing their sex-change agenda on pre-pubescent children and threatening the parents if they object. Their pernicious influence has reached even the level of state government in South Dakota.
[Last month] the Health and Human Services committee of the South Dakota House killed a bill that would have protected the right of parents to refuse to consent to medical or psychological treatment for a child suffering from gender dysphoria if the treatment “would induce, confirm, or promote the child’s belief that the child’s sex or gender identity is different from the child’s sex presented at birth.”
This is tyranny at a level so fierce that it promotes children not just acting against their parents’ wishes, but advocates punishing the parents with the force of law if they object. In South Dakota’s case, this means that children would not be afforded counseling unless that counseling affirmed the “child’s belief” they were somehow trapped in the wrong biological sex.
There are also some in America specifically targeting children as young as 4 years old. This tactic began to surface about 3 years ago in custody battles during divorce proceedings.
Dr. Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American College of Pediatricians. …“…first began hearing from distraught parents in this situation in 2016 and in 2017, I heard from seven families in as many different states in this situation. In all but one case the child was a 15 year-old girl who never had any sexual identity confusion prior to her parent’s divorce,” Cretella said. “The other case involved 4-year-old triplet boys whose mother desperately wanted a girl. The mother was a psychologist herself and had cross-dressed one of the boys for two years, insisting that it was his idea. In each of the seven cases the guardian ad litems and judges removed the right to medical consent and/or custody from the parent who objected to transition with puberty blockers and hormones.”
Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are not well-studied and thus the harmful side effects are also not well-known. The physical damage of these potent and potentially dangerous drugs was not considered by the judges or the mother in this case.
The state of California has decided to tyrannically bypass the concern of parents and the judgment of the courts. This was accomplished by passing an insidious law affirming transgendered treatment for children as young as 12 in foster care without the caregiver’s knowledge.
[In California] you only need to be 12 years old to privately seek and consent to treatment for gender transitioning.
However, California decided to go even further by also requiring the taxpayers to foot the bill for this absurdity, whether they like it or not. In one section the new law states,
All children in foster care, as well as former foster youth up to 26 years of age, are entitled to Medi-Cal coverage without cost share or income or resource limits. The Medi-Cal program provides transition-related health care services when those services are determined to be medically necessary.
As has been chronicled in this journal and in many others, such ‘transition-related’ treatments, I will not call this ‘health care,’ are never necessary for children. Many studies have shown that 75-95% of children and adolescents lose these feelings of gender confusion when they become adults.
Once a person is an adult, the choice to poison and mutilate themselves because they deny reality is their own individual, if unwise, choice. That is, provided that choice does not make unreasonable demands on others to also deny biological reality with their speech and with public accommodations.
However, there is no right of choice allowing adults to manipulate children who have not yet matured mentally into life-altering and dangerous gender “affirming” actions. Nor should the law uphold and force such tyrannical nonsense upon society while endangering children in the process.
See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 18:10 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
Today, my blog explains controversies and theories, ignited by one of my readers. Please allow me to clarify I am not an astronomer, scientist, or a qualified professional of the world’s atmosphere; so, I wish only to suggest comments based on biblical evidence. My wife and I spent the better portion of this week doing extensive research on all the topics. We base our conclusions on Bible verses, and that which God spoke is the correct answer for Christians. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, and we encourage you to say them freely at the bottom of our Blogging 2 Believers video, this website, or by email.
reader’s question was, “What is your stance on biblical cosmology?”
I never heard of biblical cosmology until the reader raised the question last
week. The basic meaning is to describe and explain the creation of the universe
based on scriptural evidence; in particular, from the book of Genesis. At first
glance, I found biblical cosmology very intriguing and thought-provoking. My
first instinct is to describe every detail of this theory, but my blog would be
ten pages long. So allow me to write just a summation.
did not exist before 500 B.C., just mythology. As time passed, though, many
scholars of the Bible, such as the Three Wise Men, composed passages about the
stars, earth, and cosmic events. They were famous astronomers of their time who
analyzed the universe consisted of a flat disc-shaped earth floating on water,
heaven above, with an underworld below the earth.
God wrote the opening Book of Genesis describing the creation of His world
called earth. Cosmology attempts to decipher the meaning behind each of His
words. For example, on day one, Genesis 1:1, God wrote, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This
seems simple enough, but biblical cosmology analyzes why the word heaven is in
a plural form. Are they saying there must be more than one heaven or perhaps
many layers of stars? In either case, God didn’t create the stars, moon, and
sun until day four.
ANCIENT GREEK COSMOLOGY
cosmology continues they review the 3rd century B.C. theory of the ancient
Greeks who alleged the universe was eternal. The world didn’t begin from
nothing alluding to the fact many gods created it. The problem with this belief
was most of these theories conceptualized the gods who existed then were
neither transcendent nor capable of creation. Unlike our God who is always and
forever, not biological, these gods had lifespans, living and dying. This was unquestionably
inconsistent with the Bible.
the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from
everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psalm 90:2).
PLATO’S COSMOLOGY IN 400 B.C.
Greek philosopher, Plato, believed the world just came into existence. Along
with the earth “just being,” water, fire, and air came into existence as a
mathematical equation by a Higher source. So, God used a calculator to create
on Genesis 1, God simply used His creative powers to make the earth, which by
the way, was originally a body of water.
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the
deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (Genesis
you will observe in the picture below, Dante had some strange features to the
formation of the earth. His most peculiar was naming different types of
purgatory. Each of his spheres was one of nine heavens. A soul was mounted to
Paradise and hell was placed the farthest from God’s light. The Mount of
Purgatory was placed on the underside of the world, and he believed
it consisted of
water. He implied sin came as orderly progress.
Bible never mentions Purgatory. In fact, Jesus claimed there are only two
options after this life. He bases the choice of heaven or hell on us following
His words on earth.
if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)
if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into
the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:15)
COSMOLOGY OF THE BIG BANG THEORY
1859, Charles Darwin introduced, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection” publication, better known as the theory of evolution. Let me begin
by saying scientists have never proven this model a fact and is instead
ridicules in nature. Darwin’s concept is based on the universe beginning in a
state of pure randomness. As time moves on, it produces natural processes or
evolving organisms over long periods of time.
again I ask, how can something come from nothing? It takes blind faith to
believe it, don’t you think? Scientists can’t explain how life started by
natural processes alone nor is there any evidence to prove it. When we speak of
man evolving from an ape, mutations of species are very harmful; in humans, the
medical field classifies them as birth defects. Examples today of this is
Down’s Syndrome and Sickle Cell Anemia. Scientists have never discovered fossil
records to prove species are evolving to higher levels. So, how can the theory
of evolution be possible if it cannot explain the origin of life?
the formation of the world, the Big Bang Theory alleges some twenty billion
years ago all matter was packed into a microscopic egg or an atom’s basic
particles. It assumes some earlier universe exploded and collapsed upon itself
forming matter. But, where did these particles come from initially – there had
to be a creator? This theory also believes the sun and stars developed long
before the earth. Apparently, the Big Bang cannot go back to the very beginning
of time and space.
strongly suggest a Christian cannot believe in evolution, and God too, for the
concept is against everything written in the Bible.
created man and woman since the beginning of time:
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that [h]moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:27-28)
records of the Lord’s ancestry goes back to Adam, God’s first creation. This
dates humans back to only a few thousand years before Christ. Though time
varied from our current twenty-four-hours a day, I surely cannot justify the
humanity being twenty billion years old. There are some two thousand years
spanning today back to Jesus Christ and another two thousand years back to
Abraham. There are only twenty generations between Abraham and Adam. How do
scientists explain the earth being twenty billion years old?
the sun and stars were formed after the earth:
I say more about the Big Bang theory?
answer the reader’s question above, my stance on biblical cosmology is I am a
man blessed with the ability to write God’s messages. The Lord’s words are
written in the Bible for everyone to read, comprehend, and follow. It is not open
to interpretation. Today’s society is filled with atheists, and they are the
people who attach themselves to such conspiracy theories. If we have to
question the Bible, there is no faith. I believe God created the world with His
mysterious power–one which science will never explain. Cosmology, as a whole,
is against everything the Bible teaches us:
when your eyes are lifted up to heaven, and you see the sun and the moon and
the stars, all the army of heaven, do not let yourselves be moved to give them
worship, or become the servants of what the Lord has given equally to all
peoples under heaven.
me clarify this Bible passage more by saying God doesn’t want us to stop
learning about His world, but it is not acceptable to draw conclusions and
influence others of such non-factual knowledge. The point is the origins of
life, and the universe is outside the parameters of man’s conception. Cosmology
is interesting but based on very few facts; therefore it can’t be classified as
a legitimate science.
Christian, I hope to discover, one day, all of God’s mysteries of the universe.
Until then, I choose to remain in faith that the Bible is accurate in God’s divine
inspiration. We must live by faith, not
by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). My beloved readers, it is up to you –
cosmology or God?
There has been a meteoric rise in the acceptance of transgenderism as a human right. It has garnered enough support from the Left that to question transgenderism is to be ‘transphobic’ and disqualified from the discussion.
The tragic fact is transgenderism is worse than unscientific. It produces substantial harm to individuals and the general public. The Left has adopted this to further a cultural narrative, regardless of the tragic consequences.
A Man Becomes a Woman and a Dragon
There is actually a man who ‘transitioned’ to appear female and went on to ‘transition’ to appear as if he were a dragon. This man’s name is Eva Tiamat.
He is featured in an article from the left-wing publication, “Vice.” The author also has ‘transitioned’ from male to the appearance of a female.
The author spent a day with the dragon lady and came away impressed. Eva revealed that he had been abandoned and brutalized as a child and young adult.
Eva had also fathered a child and recently contracted HIV. He decided to attempt becoming a ‘she,’ but found that didn’t ease his trauma.
So, he chose to attempt to become other than human.
Tiamat has undergone extreme body modification to become a dragon. Her ears and nostrils have been removed, her eyes are stained green, and she is covered in implanted horns and tattooed scales. Tiamat no longer looks human.
I have seen a photo of Eva Tiamat and there is one thing the interviewer got right, he no longer looks human. Worse, this is becoming mainstream and has been elevated to the status of legally protected human rights.
Transgender ‘Rights’ Are Becoming Legal Rights
The ‘transgender rights movement’ has gained widespread acceptance in popular culture. In fact, it is now routinely claimed that transgenderism is a basic human right.
Transgenderism rocketed to social popularity with the ‘transition’ of Bruce Jenner from a male to appearing as the ‘female’ Caitlyn Jenner. He appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine’s, July 2015, issue.
Jenner accepts ESPY award
He was also celebrated on ESPN’s Espy Awardslater in 2015. Since then he has greatly enhanced the cultural status of the transgender movement.
Another key to cultural acceptance has been the rapid affirmation by social media on the internet. Perhaps the most infamous has been the 56 new gender categories offered by Facebook in recent years.
More alarming is the swift enshrinement of transgenderism as a legal right. This has been a trend first seen in Europe at the beginning of the 21st century.
On several occasions dating back to 1986 (Rees v UK), the European Court of Human Rights declined to get involved, but this changed in 2002 when the court held that there was a legal right to transgenderism that nation states had to recognise (Goodwin v UK).
Since then, nations in Europe, South America and recently Canada have joined the legalization train. Full legalization of transgender ‘rights’ began in Argentina.
Argentina broke ground in 2012 with a law that is considered the gold standard for legal gender recognition: anyone over the age of 18 can choose their gender identity, undergo gender reassignment, and revise official documents without any prior judicial or medical approval, and children can do so with the consent of their legal representatives or through summary proceedings before a judge.
CT Gov signs pro-transgender rights bill
There are more than 20 nations with such laws that allow legal recognition of anyone who claims to be a transsexual, even if there has been no surgical alteration. The United States has seen this movement gain legal approval in various states, beginning with Oregon.
…the state of Oregon is now giving out ID at birth with an ‘x’ in addition to a mark for ‘boy’ or ‘girl.’ It is called a non-binary identification. In other words, biological reality can be ignored by the parents and the government.
Transgenderism Is Unscientific and Delusional
Until the year 2013, it was understood that a person who wanted to attempt changing from one sex to another was mentally ill.
The Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, is the “bible” for psychiatric diagnosis. In the pre-2013 DSM-IV, anyone “identifying” as other than their biological gender had Gender Identity Disorder. As a disorder, it was a mental illness.
The current designation in the newest DSM classifies this sexual identity crisis as Gender Dysphoria. Thus is insanity normalized to start a new human rights movement.
As a disorder, it was diagnosed that those asserting they were ‘trapped in the wrong sex’ were ill. Why? Because it meant denying a basic reality of existence.
Biology tells us that sexual identity is determined at the start of gestation in the womb. We are simply male or female at the genetic level, and that doesn’t change.
DNA doesn’t lie and isn’t malleable. You are what you are and it is delusional to believe otherwise.
Of course, we didn’t need science to tell us who was who a thousand years before science was formalized. We haven’t required genetics to determine what sex our child is since humanity came to be.
Yet today it is risky to enlighten transgender proponents about reality. As those who have publically dared to do so can attest, it quickly invites the wrath of the Left.
However, it is far riskier not to assert reality for that submits substance to the whim of emotion and feeling. That factor makes transgenderism very dangerous to a free society.
Transgenderism Is Dangerous to Free Society
One of the nations named above, Canada, has begun to experience significant resistance to its law favoring transgenderism. It requires referring to a transgendered person by the gender pronoun of their choice.
This resistance has come primarily from one man, Jordan Peterson. He resists this law because it requires him to use “gender-neutral” pronouns when referring to transgendered people.
Dr. Peterson is a clinical psychologist and a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, Ontario. He is a bestselling author and has become an internet sensation accumulating 1.4 million subscribers to his YouTube channel.
Peterson’s argument centers on the issue of free speech. He believes the Canadian legislation is a case of government suppressing speech it doesn’t agree with.
Canada’s new gender-neutral language requirement is spreading to their southern neighbor, the United States. Peterson has a warning for America concerning this.
If you are wondering, reasonably, why any of this might be relevant to Americans, you might note that legislation very similar to Bill C-16 has already been passed in New York City. Authorities there now fine citizens up to $250,000 for the novel crime of “mis-gendering” — referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice (including newly constructed words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co).
The ‘trans’ agenda seeks to legislate liberty away, beginning with free speech. This is patently lethal to a free society.
In public education, the Obama regime sought to normalize this by removing the distinction between the sexes in bathrooms and locker rooms. Some businesses, most famously Target stores, have embraced this with public bathrooms.
Incidents of pre-surgical males claiming the transgender mantle invading women’s and girls public bathrooms have occurred. Their claim is really all that is needed and we are to be certain that none of these are waiting to prey on children.
But we don’t have to envision that scenario. So-called authorities in the field are already using transgenderism to devastate little children.
Transgenderism Is Destructive to Children
The most disturbing aspect of the transgender movement is the targeting of children. This has now invaded our public education system at the level of grade school.
Grade school indoctrination is but the first step. As pre-pubescent children accept the ‘gender fluidity’ fairy tale, they become naturally curious.
The curiosity of these toddlers is encouraged toward transgender expression by the teachers and school administrators. Inevitably, as they grow a portion of those children will mimic what seems to please the adults in charge.
Transgender proponents wait for this moment and are prepared to exploit it. The next step is encouraging whatever children are curious and assuring them they are indeed transgender and should begin the process of ‘transitioning.’
Then shameless adults move the child toward ‘modifying’ their bodies to become the opposite sex. There are at least 45 clinics that specialize in transitioning pre-teen children through puberty.
The clinics function both as specialists in the physical procedure and as cells to recruit likely candidates among the children and their parents. Author Ryan T. Anderson gives a description of this horrifying truth.
Inside the clinic parents are presented with a Trans for Tots regime where one size fits all. A three–year–old that just finished toddling, but is sexually wise beyond his years will begin “social transitioning.” The child gets a new name, new gender and starts playing for a new team as he lives as the opposite sex. As the child approaches puberty… the child is given a drug cocktail for life that blocks the onset of puberty and as Anderson terms it, “traps the child in a prepubescent body.” …Then as early as the freshman year of high school the process of producing the right body begins. Puberty blockers are traded for hormone treatment. As the 18th birthday approaches — earlier for some particularly zealous surgeons — surgical reassignment is possible. Although the new euphemism for this is irreversible body vandalism is “gender affirmation surgery.”
The drugs administered to these children have not been well-studied and evaluated for probable harmful effects that will result. The side-effects of puberty blockers are almost wholly unknown, and it is worth noting that these are not drugs tested and approved by the FDA.
There Is No Turning Back for the Children
By the time the drugs are administered, it is too late to back out. Deceitful physician advocates assure the faint-hearted that these blockers are reversible.
The truth is these doctors don’t know what will happen if the child stops taking these drugs. However, that fact doesn’t even slow down the tragic process.
Nor has the process stood still. For example, to bolster the false claims of a ‘safe’ gender ‘reassignment,’ doctors in the U.S. are performing medically unnecessary double mastectomies on teen girls. Moreover, American tax dollars are paying for these actions under the rubric of scientific study.
The National Institutes of Health granted multiple millions of dollars for a very slanted and flawed study of the effects of puberty blockers by one Dr. Johanna Olson of Children’ Hospital of Los Angeles. She decided to go further in this experiment.
Olson decided to see how dysphoric girls felt about mastectomies. Referring to “chest dysphoria” and “chest reconstruction,” apparently avoiding the word “breast” because it connotes the stubborn biological reality of being female …Olson had 68 surgically diminished girls fill out her “novel” scale (which she acknowledged could be bogus) between one and five years after their surgery. Thirty-three of these girls were under 18 at the time of surgery. Two were only 13 years old, and five were only 14.
Olson claimed that almost none of these girls regretted their mastectomies. However, since they were all interviewed only five years or less afterward, long-term regret and harm were disregarded.
Moreover, a cardinal rule of scientific studies is that a control group must be part of such research. Without a control group, a study will only reveal one side of the equation and give a manipulated result.
Olson did not use a control group in the studies on puberty blockers or the effects of slicing off female breasts. This is unscientific and any results garnered from it are false and harmful and potentially destructive to all children in America and around the globe.
This Tragic Evil Can Be Combatted
Just when activist pseudo-science seems to have the upper hand, new research has brought additional ammunition against this tragic agenda. Researcher Lisa Littman has identified a phenomenon named “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria,” in a 2018 scientific study.
The research was concerned with a rapid increase in numbers of teens and young adults who were identifying as transgender without any history of such desires. There were even groups of people declaring trans-status together.
The conclusion? ROGD seems to occur more because of “social and peer contagion,” than some early gender confusion.
…the American Psychological Association’s Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology admits that prior to the widespread promotion of transition affirmation, 75 to 95 percent of pre-pubertal children who were distressed by their biological sex eventually outgrew that distress.
This reveals it is far likelier a child who is gender-confused is experiencing a temporary condition. If left to natural processes of growth, the normal behavior will return.
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27 [NASB]
Sources: New American Standard Bible, The Lockman Foundation, 1997
Featured and Top Image courtesy of David Jackmanson’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Disney ABC Television’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Dannel Malloy’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Tjook’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Gage Skidmore’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 5 courtesy of ThoseGuys119’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 6 courtesy of Ted Eytan’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 7 courtesy of Patrick Denker’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 8 courtesy of Sarah Barrow’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
I begin with an apology to my readers. I had planned to present the case against the radical environmentalism of the Left in this article. That is still coming so stay tuned.
However, the desperate attempts by Democrats to stop the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court suggested a change in the order. The vehemence of this opposition has an explanation that is part of the leftist war on science.
The Left fears that Kavanaugh will tip the court against legalized abortion. This drives the hysteria displayed by their minions and politicians.
In that hysteria, the Left pushes against the science of human reproduction and basic biology. They deny facts showing the humanity of the unborn for their devotion to ‘choice.’
The Left’s Utter Devotion to ‘Choice’
The Left is maniacally devoted to the concept of being “pro-choice” on abortion. It is the main motivating factor in the determined, if clownish and disgusting, efforts to stop the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.
Some could dispute that observation by saying that hatred of President Donald Trump is the real energizer of the Left. After all, Trump has been a large focus of leftist hatred since his nomination as a presidential candidate.
However, it should be noted that Kavanaugh is not the first Supreme Court nominee to be so fervently opposed. Both Robert Bork and current Justice Clarence Thomas are prominent examples of leftist character assassination attempts.
The case of Bork ended with his nomination failing to be confirmed and a new popular leftist term, being “Borked” came to notoriety. Justice Thomas survived the false allegations of sexual misconduct to make it to the Court.
However, in all of these cases, a common denominator is a perceived threat to the hallowed ideal of the ‘right to choose’ abortion. The tactics may differ a bit from time to time, but that factor is consistent.
This complete and utter devotion to abortion on demand is based on a false claim. It is the claim that equality among the sexes means that women must be free of bearing children they had not planned or chosen to bear.
Thus pregnancy by the ‘right to choose,’ can be halted per the mother’s wish up to and including the delivery. Since legalization, there have been Supreme Court decisions which upheld it yet also allowed individual states to place some restrictions on abortion practices.
Despite these, there remain places where the child can be killed at nine months old if the mother wishes or consents. As long as the delivery is not fully completed, the federal law allows it, and the taxpayer is on the hook for the cost.
The False ‘Science’ of Roe v. Wade
In 1973 the Supreme Court decided the case of “Roe v. Wade” which effectively legalized abortion in all 50 states and at any time of pregnancy. This was easily the worst decision since the infamous 1857 “Dred Scott” case which enshrined a right to own slaves as property.
Dred Scott was later overturned. However, it helped fuel a bloodbath known as the Civil War costing over 600,000 lives before its work was done. Roe itself is not simply ‘bad’ law, it is fantasy law, a made-up tale with no basis in the Constitution.
It was much more a decision of idealistic commitment than it was of interpreting the Constitution. Shamefully, a hundred times more deaths have resulted from Roe than from Dred Scott and the Civil War. Worse, Roe is still in effect 45 years later.
There is a part of the decision which bears scrutiny for scientific purposes. Within the maze that is the actual text of Roe, is this statement.
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
The portion which begs attention is the claim that those in the medical community cannot come to a consensus “at this point in the development of man’s knowledge” about the unborn as a human life.
The accuracy of that claim was suspect even in 1973. With the passing of time, more biological knowledge has made the claim obsolete.
The philosophical and theological views on abortion have been partially addressed in previous TIL Journal pieces. A more thorough treatment will follow in future articles.
The late Dr. Jerome Lejeune was a world-renowned geneticist in the late 20th century. He was the discoverer of the genetic cause of Down Syndrome.
Moreover, he was insistent that the child in the womb was a living human being from the point of conception onward. He despised the fact that some have used his discovery to urge abortion of Down Syndrome babies.
Scientifically, Human Life Begins at Conception
In the years following Roe Dr. Lejeune was called to testify before congressional committees concerning ‘pro-choice’ versus ‘pro-life’ legislation.
In one unusual instance, he was asked to aid in a 1989 divorce proceeding in Tennessee. The question put forth was whether embryos frozen for implantation later should be adjudicated as property or under the rubric of child custody.
…if I can say a word as a geneticist, I would say: An early human being inside this suspended time… cannot be the property of anybody because it’s the only one in the world to have the property of building himself. And I would say that science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man.”
The argument in favor of humanity at conception has only gained plausibility with the continued progress of medical science since 1973. The advent of imaging technology has allowed viewing of the entire human gestation process.
In this particular ultrasound video, the baby is seen moving at just over 8 weeks old
This technology has confirmed that the person in the womb is not ‘potential life,’ as pro-choicers claim, but that it is human and alive as a separate being in the womb.
However, little attention is paid to the consequences of denying this fact. Make no mistake, such denial only produces more evil consequences based on a belief that is both wrong and immoral.
The Baby at ‘War’ with the Mother
One of the consequences of the ‘pro-choice’ philosophy is that the mother should not view the baby within as her blessed offspring. Rather the child should be thought of much like a parasitical invader of the woman’s body.
The woman, it is said, is justified in viewing the baby as waging biological ‘war’ on their bodies. Their self-defense is to respond by declaring war against the invader with abortion.
In their view, any attempt to restrict the use of abortion is also viewed as an act of war. The language used by the Left clearly establishes this.
screen capture from 2013
This is another case of denying the scientific knowledge of reproduction. Biology testifies that gestation is not an invasion of the female body by a parasite. For one thing, a parasite never feeds on its own species. The host is always a separate species.
Moreover, gestation is natural to reproduction for all mammalian species. Science does not view pregnancy as a parasitical condition in a female chimpanzee. There is no legitimate biological reason to do so for human beings either.
Yet, academic feminism does not accept the science. Here is an excerpt from one such academic found in Harvard magazine.
Eileen McDonagh, a visiting scholar at Radcliffe College’s Murray Research Center, seeks to rewrite the “feminine” self-sacrificing language of pregnancy and replace it with “masculine” terms of self-defense in an effort both to strengthen a woman’s right to abortion and to win universal government funding for the procedure. In her new book, Breaking the Abortion Deadlock (Oxford), McDonagh argues that doctors who perform abortions should be paid by taxpayers to stop unwanted fetuses from “kidnapping” women’s bodies, just as the government pays police officers to prevent rapists from invading the bodies of women.
Per this feminist scholars’ suggestion, this twisted view is carried to the point that it should be legally recognized and paid for regardless of anyone else’s views. In fact, this is actually played out via Planned Parenthood which taxpayers fund with hundreds of millions of dollars whether the taxpayer likes it or not.
Yes, the conditions of receiving that amount of funding include the promise that PP will not use those funds for abortion. But money is fungible and funds allocated for one project easily get moved to other priorities in large organizations.
The Push for Infanticide
When scientific facts are denied the consequences which result can be terribly destructive. The tens of millions of aborted children and devastated mothers since Roe have shown that.
Yet the evil continues to grow and foster acceptance of the grossest immoralities. It has even begun to produce a nightmarish scenario where the killing of childrenafter birth is advocated and sometimes carried out.
If it is true that abortion is justified because of the child in the womb’s dependency, the same logic would allow the disposal of a child out of the womb until a certain age… People like Princeton ethicist Peter Singer use this to propose a waiting period of 30 days before considering a baby a human person.
“In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot.”
Be assured that Singer is not the only person who has promoted this. Moreover, he is not the only academic to push for the infanticide particularly of the disabled.
I have written previously on the subject of killing the disabled, unborn and born, and the movement in Europe to spread the heinous practice. However, the disabled infant is only a stepping stone for infanticide supporters.
The prize these medical ‘ethicists’ seek is the legalization and normalization of infanticide worldwide. Their arguments for this boil down to a couple of plainly understood reasons.
One reason employs utilitarianism to justify such killing. The same reasoning that relegates the baby in the womb to non-personhood, is applied to the infant after birth.
For example, according to influential medical publications, infants should not be regarded as human persons because they lack the qualifications to perceive life. Since the infant is not self-aware, for instance, he or she is not really a human person, and killing the born infant is acceptable.
The second reason involves economic concerns. It is extremely expensive to care for the disabled, and that cost grows as the disabled person grows. This rationale has been applied in many countries in Europe who actively seek to legalize some form of infanticide.
For whoever finds me [wisdom] finds life and obtains favor from the LORD, but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death.” Proverbs 8:35-36 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
Featured and Top Image courtesy of thecrazyfilmgirl’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Angela’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Matt Wade’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of furiousjethro’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Antonio Pavon’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License