Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘family’

The Fantasy of Women Warriors

Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Culture Shifts, Faith & Practice, Identity, Life issues, Relationships, Vocation, tagged , , , , , , , , , on May 21, 2011| 1 Comment »

Twisted feminism is foolish.  It puts civilization in harm’s way.

It is foolish to believe that a woman can have freedom only if her child is aborted.  It is foolish to believe that men and women are the same.  It is foolish to fantasize women warriors.

“The ancient tradition against the use of women in combat embodies the deepest wisdom of the human race.  It expresses the most basic imperatives of group survival: a nation or tribe that allows the loss of large numbers of its young women runs the risk of becoming permanently depopulated,” writes George Gilder in Men and Marriage.

“Beyond this general imperative is the related need of every society to insure that male physical strength and aggressiveness are not directed against women . . . All civilized societies train their men to protect and defend women.  When these restraints break down . . . the group tends to disintegrate completely and even to become extinct.”

What about the so-called successful use of women in today’s military?  It, writes Gilder, “depends on men overcoming their natural impulse to treat women differently and more considerately.  The consequence of this latest demand for equality would be nothing more or less than a move toward barbarism.”

I like George Gilder.  Again and again I return to “Men and Marriage” because, from a purely sociological and economic perspective, Gilder explains how the foolishness of women competing with men ravages family and destroys harmony.  If my sources are correct, Gilder became a Christian later in life.  (What God has created is naturally revealed unless our eyes are shut and minds are closed.)

“Women in combat” is one of the “hot button issues” discussed during a Titus 2 Retreat.   The topic stirs mixed feelings.  Some believe women don’t belong in combat because they don’t have the physical capacity to endure the rigorous standards of training or the hardships of war.  Some believe it’s a woman’s “right” to defend her country and that she can do so as well as a man.  Others note that “modern” warfare is more technological than “front-line.”

Generally speaking, there is significant difference between male and female bone and muscle structure.  This reality has undermined the rigors of basic training and is why Stephanie Gutmann titled her book A Kinder, Gentler Military.  Of course, the physical strength argument can be countered with examples of women who have developed body strength and can keep up with men.

There is also sexual attraction between men and women.  Putting men and women together for training and in combat creates an environment in which each are vulnerable to sexual misconduct and abuse.  But, this argument can be countered with the practice of self-control.

So, for me, the question isn’t, “Can women be in combat?”  The question is, “Should women be in combat?”  I enter this discussion from my vocation or role of “helper” (Hebrew: ezer).  That’s what God created woman to be.  I am a helper for man and, therefore, for all that man is called by God to do.  Will I help for good, or for harm?  Away from temptation, or into?  With focus on others, or self?  Nurture life, or put it at risk?

I pause to let you ponder.  But, there’s much more to consider… in another post.

Read Full Post »

Men & the Monogamy Molecule

Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Faith & Practice, Identity, Life issues, Relationships, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 18, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Maura and Nichole don’t know about oxytocin.  But, Matt doesn’t know about vasopressin.  Women are not the only ones who bond during sexual intimacy.

Vasopressin is the neurochemical responsible for the male brain response and synaptic change.  It plays a role in regulating blood pressure and, through its influence on kidney function, regulates fluid in the body.  In relationships, vasopressin works to bond a man to a woman and create attachment to his offspring.

Vasopressin is often referred to as the “monogamy molecule.”  Why?  Because it appears to be the primary cause of a man’s attachment to a woman with whom he shares close and intimate physical contact.  The God who creates and loves life has provided a way for the human race to survive.  This “monogamy molecule” is important not just to create a bond with a woman, but with the children that come from that bond.  In the healthy and selfless bond of husband and wife, children have a greater chance of being raised by two biological parents — both of whom are attached to those children.  Such attachment provides sons and daughters with an increased chance of better health and a more hopeful future.

If Matt is physically intimate with a woman — wisely or unwisely — he can bond with her.  If Matt is unwise in his choice, the bond may lead to a long-term, but unhealthy and destructive relationship.  Bonding may tie Matt to a woman who disrespects or abuses him.  It wouldn’t be unusual for Matt to keep going back to a woman who treats him poorly and, if asked, he wouldn’t know why he does it.  Simply put, vasopressin floods a man’s brain (just like oxytocin floods a woman’s brain) and produces a partial bond with every sexual partner.

Men, like women, can become addicted to the “rush” of sexual intimacy.  But, being sexually intimate with many women places at risk the vital ability to develop a healthy, long-term attachment to one woman.  Studies show that the brain can “mold and gel” so that, in time, it begins accepting that particular sexual pattern as normal.  Such a pattern, however, “seems to interfere with the development of the neurological circuits  necessary for the long-term relationships that for most people result in stable marriages and family development.  The pattern of changing sex partners therefore seems to damage their ability to bond in a committed relationship.”  (p. 43 of Hooked by Joe S. McIlhaney, Jr., M.D., and Freda McKissic Bush, M.D.)

“The inability to bond after multiple sexual encounters,” writes Drs. McIlhaney and McKissic Bush, “is almost like tape that loses its stickiness after being applied and removed multiple times.”

Matt’s brain is the most powerful sexual organ in his body.  But, in keeping with God’s design, the brain needs to be used, molded and adapted in the right ways — for life — or, with wrong behavior, parts of it will wither and die.  Perhaps, for this reason, God’s Word says in Deuteronomy 30:19-20:

I set before you life and death, blessing and curse.  Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying His voice and holding fast to Him . . .”

Shame on adults who tempt Matt.  Who open the gates to adventures in sex, but fail to explain his “monogamy molecule.”  Who keep from Matt God’s Word for life.  Who ignore the lesson of the sticky tape.

Read Full Post »

The Pill, Men & Women

Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Culture Shifts, Identity, Relationships, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 11, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Is this life after The Pill?

Shirley Wang is the author of “The Tricky Chemistry of Attraction — Taking Birth-Control Pills May Mask the Signals That Draw the Sexes Together, Research Shows.”  (Wall Street Journal)

Rush Limbaugh’s program of May 10, 2011, featured “The Tricky Chemistry of Attraction.”  My husband happened to be listening.  I thank him for catching this… and sharing it with me.  Whatever  you may think of Rush Limbaugh, research is research.  The thing is, some of it gets shared… some of it stays hidden.  This research helps make sense of many choices, behaviors, and lifestyles that I’ve been watching or aware of as a post-pill woman.

“Much of the attraction between the sexes is chemistry.”  Not hard to swallow, eh?  Let’s continue.  “New studies suggest that when women use hormonal contraceptives, such as birth-control pills, it disrupts some of these chemical signals, affecting their attractiveness to men and women’s own preferences for romantic partners . . . Evolutionary psychologists and biologists have long been interested in factors that lead to people’s choice of mates.”

The article goes on.  “One influential study in the 1990s, dubbed the T-shirt study, asked women about their attraction to members of the opposite sex by smelling the men’s T-shirts.  The findings showed that humans, like many other animals, transmit and recognize information pertinent to sexual attraction through chemical odors knows as pheromones.”

Continuing, “The study also showed that women seemed to prefer the scents of men whose immune systems were most different from the women’s own immune system genes known as MHC . . . the family of genes permit a person’s body to recognize which bacteria are foreign invaders and to provide protection from those bugs.  Evolutionarily, scientists believe, children should be healthier if their parents’ MHC genes vary, because the offspring will be protected from more pathogens.  More than 92 million prescriptions for hormonal contraceptives, including pills, patches and injections, were filled last year in the U.S., according to data-tracker IMS Health.  Researchers say their aim isn’t to scare or stop women from taking hormonal contraceptives.  ‘We just want to know what we’re doing’ by taking the pill, says Alexandra Alvergne, a researcher in biological anthropology at University College London in the U.K.  ‘If there is a risk it affects our romantic life and the health status of our children, we want to know.’ ”

Wang, in her article, explains that, “Both men’s and women’s preferences in mates shift when a woman is ovulating” (most often day 14 of her cycle) . . . “Some studies have tracked women’s responses to photos of different men, while other studies have interviewed women about their feelings for men over several weeks.  Among the conclusions: When women are ovulating, then tend to be drawn to men with greater facial symmetry and more signals of masculinity, such as muscle tone, a more masculine voice and dominant behaviors . . . The women also seemed to be particularly attuned to MHC-gene diversity.  From an evolutionary perspective, these signals are supposed to indicate that men are more fertile and have better genes to confer to offspring.”  (Limbaugh comments here: “All of this happens in a split second.  It’s not something that’s calculated . . . but it does dictate behavior and choices . . . .”)

Wang’s article continues, “Women tend to exhibit subtle cues when they are ovulating, and men tend to find them more attractive at this time.  ‘Women try to look more attractive, perhaps by wearing tighter or more revealing clothing,’ says Martie Haselton, a communications and psychology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.  Research on this includes studies in which photos that showed women’s clothing choices at different times of the month were shown to groups of judges.  Women also emit chemical signals that they are fertile; researchers have measured various body odors, says Dr. Haselton.  Such natural preferences get wiped out when the woman is on hormonal birth control, research has shown.”

But, “Women on the pill no longer experience a greater desire for traditionally masculine men during ovulation.  Their preference for partners who carry different immunities than they do also disappears.  And men no longer exhibit shifting interest for women based on their menstrual cycle, perhaps because those cues signaling ovulation are no longer present, scientists say.”

Also, “There is accumulating evidence indicating men react differently to women when they are on birth control.  A 2004 study in the journal on Behavioral Ecology used the T-shirt study.  But instead put the shirts on 81 women.  A panel of 31 men, smelling the T-shirts, experienced the greatest attraction for the non-pill-using women when they were ovulating.  Twelve women on the panel didn’t detect any difference.”  (Limbaugh comments: “Basically, if this is true, the natural selection process of a woman wanting a traditionally masculine guy when she’s ovulating goes out the window.  Nothing to do with sexual orientation here.  But this, for example, could give rise to this whole notion of the metrosexual [a man who likes to shop, is in tune with fashion and appearance], if this is true.  That’s why if all of this is true, then it changes everything we know about our lives since when the pill became profligate in 1970.)

Take it… or leave it.  Limbaugh concludes, “It’s fascinating.  Now, you couple all this with the obvious role changes that militant feminism brought on, and it could explain a lot about general unhappiness, confusion, who’s supposed to be what that both sexes seem to exhibit.”

And, finally, another thought on the impact of hormonal birth control and how it affects women and men: “When the pill was approved for use in the U.S. in 1960,” said Limbaugh, “the divorce rate was less than 10%.  Over the two decades that followed, divorce rates climbed to over 20%.  So maybe it’s harder to stick it out in a marriage if the power of attraction wanes, and if the attraction wanes because the chemicals aren’t there that make it possible, well, that would explain a lot, too.”

Fascinating, don’t you think?

Men… women… not the same.  Dare we say created to be different, yet attracted to one another as part of the design… for a purpose.  Life.  Generations to come.  Hmmm.

But, what happens when we tamper with the design?

Read Full Post »

After Abortion: How to Respond

Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Culture Shifts, Faith & Practice, Life issues, Relationships, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 9, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Some say, “How could a woman end the life of her child?”  This statement is not intended to be cruel, but it is heard as a  judgment.

Others, hoping to be less judgmental, say, “I would never have have an abortion myself, but I believe every woman should have the right to choose.”  This statement sounds compassionate, but to the woman who has had the abortion, it sounds like a comparison: “Abortion is wrong and because I am a good person I wouldn’t do such a terrible thing, but women not capable of doing the right thing should have a choice.”

Both statements are condeming.  Neither offer hope before or after an abortion.

There is a third response.  Trying to imitate Jesus.  Jesus understands why people like you and me sin.  He came to live among us —  to feel our frustration, fears, and sorrow.  He placed Himself in the midst of a messy world.  Jesus loved us so much that He willingly took on our disgrace, our burden, our sin.  Only by living under His Cross am I able to see those hurt by sin (including my own) in a new way.

Days on which we celebrate life are meant to be happy days, but for many they are not.  In the heart of nearly every post-abortive woman is an empty place that is forever expectant and waitiing.  Although she may have believed the lie that there was no room, a cry of sorrow echoes in the room that was always there… waiting.

We cannot go back to erase years of legalized abortion nor the effect on women, men, children, and society.  Mothers who once believed there was no room in their life for a baby now mourn the child whose heart beat so close under their own.  Fathers who once believed there was no room in their life for a baby are now angry at themselves for failing to protect their son or daugher.  Grandparents who once believed there was no room in their lives for a baby now dream of grandchildren that would have filled the rooms of their homes with laughter.

Sometimes, when I am holding my grandsons, my thoughts turn to Mary.  She approached me after I was finished speaking to a group of women.  She asked for my address and phone number.  In the letters and conversations that followed, she confessed two abortions.  “There has been so much pain in my heart,” Mary wrote.  “I could understand how God could forgive a murderer, but not someone who has killed their own child.”

This pain and the belief that she had committed the sin “too big to be forgiven” held Mary captive.  But, “the reason I want to tell you my story,” Mary continued, “is to thank you.  If, years earlier, I had heard the words of compassion and forgiveness that I heard from you, I would not have had a second abortion.  I would have been reconciled to God and turned my life around a lot earlier instead of wallowing in the muck of sin and accusation.”

“Marys” are everywhere… and they are waiting.  They are silently waiting for a word of hope.  Their broken hearts long to be healed.  God has given to me — to you — His Word to speak in love.  To be sure, the Word of Truth presses hard on the source of pain.  The psalmist (Psalm 32:3-5) writes:

When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long.  For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer.  Then I acknowledged my sin to You, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,’ and You forgave the iniquity of my sin.”

There is hope for women and men who have been pierced by abortion’s blade.  It is Jesus.  In Jesus, all who confess their sin are cleansed and forgiven (1 Timothy 1:15).  In Jesus, the captive is set free (Galatians 5:1).

(The thoughts of this post are available in a
brochure form upon request from Word of Hope or LFL.)

Read Full Post »

Mother’s Day & Abortion

Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Faith & Practice, Life issues, Relationships, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 9, 2011| 1 Comment »

Yesterday was not a day of celebration for those wounded by abortion.  Mother’s Day is a difficult day for the women who have an abortion in their past, for men unable to save a child from abortion, and for grandparents.  Mother’s Day, for many people, is a reminder of lost lives and denied relationships.

Abortion continues to be a heated debate in this country, but for millions of American women and for the men, grandparents, siblings, and friends in the lives of those women, abortion is  not a debate — it is a loss.  It is the loss of a son, a daughter, a grandchild.  That’s because motherhood and fatherhood — yes, grandparenthood, too — begin at conception.

Many of us know someone who has lost a child through miscarriage.  We grieve with them, offer the peace of Christ, and entrust their precious little one to God.  But abortion is a secret pain.  It is a dagger of guilt.  It is a loss that is carried deep inside and alone.

The great loss of life should pierce the heart of every one of us.  The numbers are staggering.  More than 3,000 women have an abortion every day.  These women are in our families, congregations, and circles of friends.  They are Christians who worship with us and go to Bible study with us.  I know some of these women.  At least 25 of my friends, relatives, or acquaintances have had abortions.  Seventeen of them are Lutheran.  Three are the wives of Lutheran pastors.  At least three have had more than one abortion.

Abortion has created a new mission field for the church.  There is a need to enter this mission field — but first, we must understand that we will almost certainly encounter denial, anger, self-hatred, distrust, grief, remorse, and the nature, but perhaps deeply buried, desire for reconciliation with the Giver of Life.

For those in denial, I pray my message can gently convict.  For those already convicted, I pray my message will offer hope and my behavior be welcoming.  I pray my arms remain open with the merciful love of Jesus who reconciles us all with God.

When I became a grandmother for the first time, I realized that holding my grandson was surprisingly different from holding my own two sons.  Each gaze upon the child of my child is a generational moment.  The room of my heart excitedly received my first grandchild.  The room of my life rearranged itself.

Often, when holding my first… then second, third, and fourth grandsons, I think of the thousands of other women of my generation whose arms will never hold a grandchild.  Their arms will never hold the child of their child.  That’s because when finding themselves “with child,” these women believed the lie: “make this one sacrifice and choose a better time to be a mother.”  Although the room of their hearts may have whispered a word of welcome, the room of their lives did not.

Because these women either did not hear or did not trust God’s promise, the world captured their every thought and desire.  Tossed in a tumultuous sea, these women reached toward “salvation” in the guise of a “quick and painless” abortion.

But the degrading act goes against all that is maternal and natural.  Sent away from the abortion clinic, women are abandoned to burdens of guilt, grief, and anger that threaten to pull them into cold and lonely darkness, away from the Giver of Life.

So, how do you and I respond?  Please read on to my next post . . .

Read Full Post »

Foolish Women

Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Culture Shifts, Faith & Practice, Identity, Life issues, Relationships, Vocation, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 20, 2011| Leave a Comment »

“The woman Folly is loud; she is seductive and knows nothing . . . she takes a seat on the highest places of the town” (Proverbs 9:13-14).

“The wisest of women builds her house, but folly with her own hands tears it down” (Proverbs 14:1).

These verses, inspired so long ago, describe the feminist movement of today.  As a  young wife and mom, I know some of my thinking was shaped by twisted feminism.  But, my eyes were opened by a variety of experiences: my own and those of other women who had taken me into their confidence.  Today, my eyes more easily see the vivid contrasts between the woman God created me to be and the woman deceived feminists think I should be.

My library contains the work of many women who’ve left the feminist movement because it was foolish.  I’ve listed a few recommendations below.   Be prepared not only for a courageous read, but to have some of  your own illusions shattered.

All of my reading tells me that the early suffragettes would find little in common with today’s feminists.  Women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony were pro-family (not anti-male) and were strongly opposed to abortion.  Compare them with the National Organization of Women (NOW), or the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), or Planned Parenthood (PP) whose women consider abortion their cornerstone.

Betty Friedan, author of The Feminist Mystique, never found joy: not as a girl, a daughter, a woman, a wife, or a mother.  Certainly she had choices, as we all do, but she chose to speak ill of everything womanly.  Rather than leave dysfunction behind and seek healthy mentors, she blamed society for woman’s woes.   She was “loud,” “seductive,” and “knew nothing” about the created beauty and purpose of women.  Knowing nothing, she “took a seat in the highest place of town” and led women of my mother’s and my generations into foolishness.  “It was easier for me,” Friedan wrote in her book, “to start the women’s movement than to change my own personal life.”

Folly — the woman captivated by modern feminism — has not built a house, but “with her own hands tears it down.”

Did the women who followed Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem find contentment?  Did they help women adjust attitudes away from “me” toward others?  Did they raise — or lower — the standard for women?  For men?  For children?   Did they help younger women find joy in their beautiful design or turn them against their created nature?  Did they soften or harden hearts?  Did their demand for an “equal playing field” produce victory — or defeat — for family and society?

All that I see (and that’s no exaggeration) tells me that the foolish women of the modern feminist movement opened the door to promiscuity and “friends with benefits,” girls less protected by boys and men, depression, increased vulnerability to STDs (how cruel not to tell young women that their very anatomy makes them more susceptible to sexual diseases), mothers turning hearts against their own children, an explosion of weary and lonely single moms, and no-fault divorce.

Had it with Folly?  Then, turn to Wisdom.  Wisdom is Jesus Christ.  Look up all the verses in Scripture that describe Wisdom.  The wisdom of Jesus Christ is life-changing.  Problem-solving.  Creative.  Hopeful.  Pregnant with promise.

Was feminism a mystique or a mistake?  (Read Diane Passno’s book Feminism: Mystique or Mistake?)

Who distorted what the early suffragettes believed?  (Read Christina Hoff Sommer’s book Who Stole Feminism?)

Did our own mothers forget — or refuse — to tell us something?  (Read Danielle Crittenden’s book What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us)

Is modern feminism built on a lie?  (Read Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly’s new book The Flipside of Feminism)

Read Full Post »

Everyone Has Right to Marry (the opposite sex)

Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Citizenship, Culture Shifts, Faith & Practice, Relationships, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 15, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Three Iowa Supreme Court justices were ousted last November because the court re-defined marriage and allowed homosexuals the right to marry each other.  Months later, opinions are divided.  Some maintain that the supremes were acting exactly as they should: safeguarding the rights of an unpopular group from a discriminatory act.

Judge Richard Posner would dispute that.  Posner, a widely respected judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said in a public interview, “Nothing in the Constitution or its history suggests a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.  If there is such a right, it will have to be manufactured by the justices out of whole cloth.  The exercise of so freewheeling a judicial discretion in the face of adamantly opposed public opinion would be seriously undemocratic.  It would be a matter of us judges, us enlightened ones, forcing our sophisticated views on a deeply unwilling population.”

Put simply, when the law defines marriage as between one man and one woman, it does not prohibit any person practicing a homosexual lifestyle from marrying.  They would just have to marry in the same way that everyone else in society has to marry — namely, they would have to marry someone of the opposite sex.  This right is extended equally to all unmarried adults in the society.

When a person practicing a homosexual lifestyle claims they want to marry another person of the same sex, he or she is claiming a new right that had not previously been available to anyone in this society.  Such a right has been denied to everyone in the society prior to this time, so it is not discriminating against them to say that this kind of right is denied to them.

Let’s use another example.  A man wanting to marry his sister may claim he has the right that everyone else has: the right to marry.  But that’s an invalid argument.  The law prohibits such marriage.  When the law denies this man the right to marry his sister, it isn’t denying him anything that it doesn’t also deny everybody else as well.  In truth, this man is really claiming that he has the right to redefine marriage according to his own desires and preferences.  And he’s not just claiming a private right, but a right to redefine the institution of marriage for the whole of society.

There is so much more to be said, but let me offer one more thought.  Laws in any society have a teaching function.  The kinds of relationships that are approved by the law are more likely to be approved of and followed by the society as a whole.  People will reason, “This is according to the law, therefore it must be right.”  This happened with Roe vs. Wade: “Abortion is legal, therefore it must be right.”  50+ million babies in the U.S. died by the hand of abortionists since that court decision in 1973.

I am called to put my trust in the One who created the institution of marriage and who, therefore, defines it.  It is not for me — or anyone else — to tamper with what God has made.  Government, another institution created by God, is called upon to maintain the standard of what constitutes marriage.  Failing to do this results in societal chaos and great harm to children — the very ones marriage is designed to protect.

I was among those who voted not to retain three Iowa supreme court justices.  This wasn’t because I don’t consider all people — no matter their color, ethnicity, religion, or lifestyle choice — to be equally human under God.  Rather, it was my civic duty to say “no” to anyone’s “right” to redefine marriage, to remind judges that the law they make has a teaching function, and to act as someone accountable to the most Supreme Judge.

(SOURCE: Politics According to the Bible
by Wayne Grudem, Zondervan, pp 229-230)

Read Full Post »

Planned Parenthood: ‘Fess Up!

Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Culture Shifts, Life issues, Parenting & Education, Relationships, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 13, 2011| Leave a Comment »

My personal “tour guide” at Planned Parenthood was friendly.  I did not doubt that she genuinely believed she was part of an organization that wanted to help women.  However, two-thirds of the “tour” was was spent explaining where the client has her abortion and how long it takes her to recover before leaving by way of the side door.

So, Planned Parenthood: “Fess up!  You benefit from multiple private donors, yet you fight tooth and nail for my tax dollars.  Why is it so important that government fund and, thereby, endorse you?

My “tour” of Planned Parenthood was many years ago.  It — and countless conversations with women who left your clinics by the side door — influenced me to warn mothers and daughters away from your place of business.  I have read your brochures, become familiar with your recommended textbooks and classroom topics, studied your reports, and visited your web site for teens.  You do not view men, women, relationships, marriage, or family as God does.

So, come clean Planned Parenthood and “fess up!

If you’re all about women’s health care, why do you:

  • Teach the “art and science” of premarital sex to elementary, middle and high school children?
  • Encourage boys and girls to “test their sex savvy” and engage in interactive games such as “Jim Dandy and His Very Gay Day”?
  • Tell boys and girls that even though their parents may not understand, any sexual activity is “normal” as long as the two people involved “give” and “receive pleasure”?
  • Teach the “ABCDs of LGBT Dating” (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender)?
  • Help child predators by covering up illegal sexual activity, child abuse, and statutory rape?
  • Drive a wedge between parents and children?
  • Promote promiscuity and sexual disorders?  (Note: My conscience does not allow me to include quotes or paraphrases from Planned Parenthood publications and web sites.  I invite my readers to do their own research and have included sources.)
  • Mislead adolescents and teens with the idea of “safer sex”?
  • Perpetuate the lie that you are a “health care” organization when, in one year alone (2001), you dispensed 458,892 emergency contraception kits (“morning after pill”), performed 213,026 surgical abortions and 25,000 chemical abortions, but in your nearly 900 “health centers” saw only 15,618 clients for prenatal care (1 for every 13 abortion clients) and made only 1,951 adoption referrals (1 for every 109 abortion clients)?

“Fess up, Planned Parenthood!  If you’re all about women’s health care, why don’t you:

  • Show expectant moms the ultrasound of their baby?
  • Inform women that abortion may be legal, but it is not necessarily safe?
  • Applaud the work of caring pregnancy centers that affirm the physical, psychological, and spiritual wellness of girls and women before, during, and after pregnancy as well as to mothers grieving their aborted children — all without government assistance?  (In 1997, I co-founded one of these caring pregnancy centers in my community and continue to serve as a volunteer, mentor, and board president.)
  • Warn women about the connection between abortion and breast cancer?
  • Help build relationships between girls and their parents rather than circumventing parental notification laws?
  • Admit that you practice a form of eugenics even today by intentionally setting up your clinics in the more impoverished parts of town and, percentage-wise, aborting more black children than white children?
  • Admit that you actively lobby for abortion rights and pursue your own interests?  (In 2006, PP hired Cecile Richards [the daughter of Ann Richards, former governor of Texas] as president.  Her experience is not in health care at all, but in political action.  Her previous work as as a union organizer, as the founder of “Texas Freedom network” [formed to battle pro-life groups in Texas], as director of pro-choice projects for the Turner Foundation, and as founder and president of America Votes, a coalition of 32 of the biggest and richest unions and liberal interest groups in the country.)

Planned Parenthood, one of your own clinic directors has been quoted, saying, “If Planned Parenthood had no abortion, it would see its soul unravel.”  (Thomas Webber, former director of PP of Minnesota/South Dakota, The (St. Paul) Pioneer Press, July 27, 2000).

SOURCES: Teenwire.com, Planned Parenthood, Childpredators.com, Pro-Life Action Ministries, STOPP International, Life Dynamics, The Eliott Institute, Silent No More, Word of Hope, The Lighthouse, Ramah International, Lutherans For Life, and Concerned Women for America, Dr. Joe McIlhaney, Dr. Miriam Grossman, and Dr. Meg Meeker — for starters!

Read Full Post »

Won’t Be Praying for Christian Nation

Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Citizenship, Faith & Practice, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on April 8, 2011| 1 Comment »

May 5, 2011, is National Day of Prayer.   Many people of many faiths will be praying for many things.

I won’t be praying that God make this a Christian nation.  But, I will be praying that followers of Jesus Christ:

  • Turn their heads away from deceptive philosophy and deceit (Colossians 2:8)
  • Encourage one another and build one another up (1 Thessalonians 5:11)
  • Train for godliness (1 Timothy 4:7-10)
  • Set an example in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity (1 Thessalonias 4:12)
  • Build our houses on the Rock (Matthew 7:24-27)
  • Bring little children to Jesus (Mark 10:14)
  • Love the Lord our God and our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:30-31)

If we who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ ask Him to help us live in ways that bring Him the glory, this country will be a better place.  A safer place.  Institutions of marriage and family, health, law, education, church, and government will be influenced for “the people’s good.”   

Generations will know the mercies of God.

Read Full Post »

Evidence for “Not a Scientist”

Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Commentaries of others, Culture Shifts, Faith & Practice, Life issues, Relationships, Vocation, tagged , , , , , , , , , on April 6, 2011| 4 Comments »

Mr. “Not a Scientist” said he values substantive information, not vague claims or opinions.  To accomodate, I’m offering a few selected resources.

Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist who is a graduate of MIT, Harvard, and the University of Texas and has lectured at both Yale and harvard, reports some of the medical harm that is typically associated with male homosexual practice:

  • A twenty-five to thirty-year decrease in life expectancy
  • Chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease — infectious heptatitis
  • Inevitably fatal immune disease including associated cancers
  • Frequently fatal rectal cancer
  • Multiple bowel and other infectious diseases
  • A much higher than usual incidence of suicide

Satinover also points out a significant contrast in the sexual behaviors of heterosexual and homosexual persons.  Among heterosexuals, sexual faithfulness was relatively high: “90 percent of heterosexual women and more than 75 percent of heterosexual men have never engaged in extramarital sex.”  But among homosexual men the picture is far different:

  • A 1981 study revealed that only 2 percent of homosexuals were monogamous or semi-monogamous — generally defined as ten or fewer lifetime partners . . .
  • A 1978 study found that 43 percent of male homosexuals estimated having sex with five hundred or more different partners . . . Seventy-nine percent said that more than half of these partners were strangers.   (Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Satinover, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996)

Society should encourage and reward marriage between one man and one woman.  All societies need babies to survive, and Biblical marriage is the best environment for having babies.  Societies should encourage an institution that provides this best kind of environment for raising children.  A married man and woman raise and nurture children far better than any other human relationship or institution.  The benefits that husband and wife (father and mother) bring to their children are numerous.  Children who live with their own two traditionally-married parents:

  • Have significantly higher educational achievement. 
  • Are much more likely to enjoy a better economic standard in their adult lives and are much less likely to end up in poverty.
  • Have much better physical and emotional health.
  • Are far less likely to commit crimes, are less likely to engage in alcohol and substance abuse, and are more likely to live according to higher standards of integrity and moral principles.
  • Are less likely to experience physical abuse and more likely to live in homes that provide support, protection, and stability for them.

Children who live with their own two traditionally-married parents are more likely to establish stable families in the next generation.  Traditional marriage:

  • Provides a guarantee of lifelong companionship and care far better than any other human relationship or institution.
  • Leads to a higher economic standard and diminished likelihood of ending up in poverty for men and women.
  • Provides women with protection against domestic violence and abandonment far better than any other human relationship or institution.
  • Encourages men to socially beneficial pursuits far better than any other human relationship or institution.
  • Provides a healthy environment for sexual faithfulness (men and women have an innate instinct that values sexual faithfulness) far better than any other human relationship or institution.
  • Provides greater protection against sexually transmitted diseases than any other relationship or institution.
  • Honors the biological design of men’s and women’s bodies that argues that sexual intimacy is designed to be enjoyed between only one man and one woman.  (The above is documented by Wayne Grudem in Politics According to the Bible (Zondervan, 2010, pp 224-225). 

God created marriage between one man and one woman.  We cannot change the “fit” and still call it marriage.  Now, it is something else.  Marriage is the building block of any stable society.  Any society that wants to remain healthy and stable must have governments that encourage, protect, and reward marriage between one man and one woman.  In turn, marriage and family give back to society in immeasureable ways. 

There are countless resources for the curious.  I value the following:

Joseph Nicolosi, President of the National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality

Exodus International, a ministry for those leaving the muck and mire of homosexuality and starting new lives

Stand to Reason, apologetics for both Christian and non-Christian 

The Family Research Council (click on:  “Marriage and Human Sexuality”)

Focus on the Family

Unwanted Harvest by Mona Riley and Brad Sargent

A Strong Delusion: Confronting the”Gay Christian” Movement by Joe Dallas

The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today by Alan Sears and Craig Osten

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »