Wednesday, June 10, 2009
"Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them."
This is from Feminists for Life which features an excellent page of quotes from early pioneers of the Women's Suffrage Movement.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Here's the link to the full post:
Here's one of my favorite quotes:
Science has important things to contribute to ethical reflection, but by itself it cannot resolve ethical questions. Science cannot tell us whether there are such things as dignity and rights, or whether all human beings or, for that matter, any human beings have them. Science cannot tell us whether slavery or segregation or rape or torture is right or wrong. It cannot tell us whether mentally retarded individuals or victims of senile dementia have the same fundamental dignity and right to life as the rest of us possess. It cannot tell us whether it is unjust to kill infants or mentally disabled people to harvest their vital organs to use in transplantation surgery. It cannot tell us whether it is wrong to kill blacks to save whites, or Jews to save gentiles, or human beings in early developmental stages to save those at later stages. Science can confirm that blacks, no less than whites, Jews, no less than gentiles, and embryos, fetuses, and infants, no less than adolescents and adults, are living individuals of the human species—human beings. The questions that then must be faced are ethical, not scientific: Do all human beings, or only some, possess inherent dignity? Do we truly hold that all human beings are "created equal"? Or do we deny the principle of human equality and hold that some human beings may be regarded and treated as superior and others inferior based on factors such as race, ethnicity, sex, religion, age, size, stage of development, or condition of dependency? As a nation, we are formally committed to the principle of human equality in fundamental rights—above all, the right to life. The history of our nation is, to a considerable extent, a history of our struggle to live up to what this principle demands. We have made great progress. Let us not turn our backs on it now.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
"A pro-life advocate sees abortion as a sin against God who infuses life at the moment of conception; a pro-choice advocate sees abortion as a decision to be made in accordance with the best scientific opinion as to when the beginning of life, as we know it, occurs. No conversation between them can ever get started because each of them starts from a different place and they could never agree as to what they were conversing about."
Prof. George responded with an essay, pointing out that one can defend the unborn without an appeal to religion. What scientific evidence tells us that at the moment of conception, a distinct, unique living being is created, with the full genetic code of a human being.
At the debate, Prof. Fish responded by saying, "Professor George is right, and he is right to correct me." Furthermore, Fish, who had been a staunch abortion rights advocate, admitted that science overwhelmingly favored the pro-life position, and condemned abortion rights advocates for ignoring such evidence.
The debate over abortion and stem cell research truly is one of science vs. ideology, except that it is actually the pro-aborts who rely on ideological arguments. Were the abortion debate to be decided by scientific evidence alone, the pro-life position would be vindicated, and an unborn child would be recognized as indistinguishable from any human person.
Here's a link to Prof. George's essay, in which he explains what science tells us about the being in the womb: http://catholiceducation.o
Here is an article about the debate by Chuck Colson: http://www.boundless.org/2
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Ephesians 6:19-20 Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.
Acts 4:29 Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness.
Philip P. Bliss:
“Dare to be a Daniel, Dare to stand alone! Dare to have a purpose firm! Dare to make it known!”
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The question this raises is, should public money be used for private school vouchers, including religious schools? Obama has repeatedly asserted that they should not, arguing that people shouldn't abandon the public schools just because they're failing their children. Of course, when it came to choosing a school for his own daughters, Obama wisely chose private education over the inferior public schools in both Chicago and Washington D.C. Though his anti-school-choice policies, Obama is denying low-income families the chance to make the same choice he did.
Vouchers are strongly supported by poor families, especially parents from minority groups. Citing evidence from a 2008 Education Next/Harvard PEPG survey, J. William Reed of The Washington Times wrote, “65 percent of African-Americans support private school vouchers for low-income students (14 percent opposed). Among Hispanics, 63 percent support vouchers for low-income children (16 percent opposed).”
The Supreme Court has ruled that all parents have a fundamental right to choose where their child is educated, whether they choose a public school, a private school, or a Christian school. However, many parents cannot afford to exercise this right. By killing the OPS, Democrats in Congress are doing indirectly what they are forbidden to do directly: denying parents the opportunity to choose a private school.
An amendment for the stimulus is being put forward by Republicans, which will remove the damaging provision. It's the last chance for OSP because Obama promises to sign the spending bill as soon as it's passed, regardless of the provision.
During the campaign, Obama promised to go through the budget "line by line" and cut wasteful spending. Why hasn't he exercised this power yet? Why sign a bill which will deny two kids the opportunity to go to Sidwell Friends School when he could easily cross out the provision?
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
For Mira Wiegmann's Intro to Lit class, we read Tim O'Brien's short story, "The Things They Carried." I decided to illustrate the story with a sketch of an American soldier in Vietnam, burdened my the many objects he carries. Many of these were inspired by the story. I chose John Wayne for several reasons: first, he is awesome, second, he is identified with America's strength of spirit throughout history (he even made a film about Vietnam), and third, "John Wayne complex" was something we discussed in class. Real soldiers adopted Wayne's persona to cope with the stress of war. If you're familiar with the story, you'll recognize my inspiration for many of the unusual objects he carries. See how many you can spot!
Answer key: In addition to various weaponry, including the M-16, he carries socks, an illustrated New Testament, a comic book, a plastic jug, a bandage, a feathered tomahawk, a human thumb as a good luck charm, a sling shot as his last defense, and barely visible a water canteen on his left side
Monday, January 26, 2009
March to a Promised Land, is thorough, but a bit dull. However, I found this quote rather intriguing:
Until the middle of the twentieth century, relatively few blacks voted. Some blacks had voted in the segregated states for years without incident or protest . . . The Republican Party, seeking a way through the solid white Democratic wall in the South, had some success in the early to middle part of the century attracting blacks. But the political control in the South was not in the Republican camp at that time. It was a white Democratic South. (87)
Who knew? I have always heard the civil rights movement framed as progressive Democrats versus Republicans. Yet, without the support of Republicans, the Civil Rights act of 1964 would not have passed. "The opposition was led by Southern Democrats who had dominated Senate leadership for many years" (124). On what basis does the Democratic take sole credit for championing the civil rights movement in politics.
By the way, Alabama Governor George Wallace, famous for proclaiming "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" was a Democrat. I had never heard that about him before.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature ... If the next centennial does not find us a great nation...it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.
"The chief duty of government is to keep the peace and stand out of the sunshine of the people."
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
An old comic I wrote when it became clear that Barrack would overcome the Clinton machine.
Monday, January 19, 2009
These are Karl Marx's "10 Planks" or 10 steps that must be instituted in order to achieve communism. Some of them may surprise you:
Abolition of Property in Land and Application of all Rents of Land to Public Purpose.
A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax.
Abolition of All Rights of Inheritance.
Confiscation of the Property of All Emigrants and Rebels.
Centralization of Credit in the Hands of the State, by Means of a National Bank with State Capital and an Exclusive Monopoly.
Centralization of the Means of Communication and Transport in the Hands of the State.
Extension of Factories and Instruments of Production Owned by the State, the Bringing Into Cultivation of Waste Lands, and the Improvement of the Soil Generally in Accordance with a Common Plan.
Equal Liability of All to Labor. Establishment of Industrial Armies, Especially for Agriculture.
Combination of Agriculture with Manufacturing Industries; Gradual Abolition of the Distinction Between Town and Country by a More Equable Distribution of the Population over the Country.
Free Education for All Children in Public Schools.
Would it surprise you to learn that we in America can already check off a few items on this list? First, America already possesses a progressive, graduated income tax, and this year, a man who thinks it needs to be even more progressive, "As a matter of fairness," is coming into power. By bailing out corporations, the federal government has also gotten into the banking business, fulfilling step five. Bank of America, now, really is the bank of America.
Though Karl Marx may not have thought so, the most important step of all is 10. If you control the schools, you can control what the next generation will think. Karl Marx would not have supported school choice, voucher programs, or any form of private education, including home schooling.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Professor Robert P. Geroge of Princeton is a genius whose opinions on ethics and law are widely respected. When asked whether it is justifiable to use lethal force against those who perform abortions, he wrote this brief response. It is one of the most witty and brilliant pro-life arguments I have seen:
I am personally opposed to killing abortionists. However, inasmuch as my personal opposition to this practice is rooted in a sectarian (Catholic) religious belief in the sanctity of human life, I am unwilling to impose it on others who may, as a matter of conscience, take a different view. Of course, I am entirely in favor of policies aimed at removing the root causes of violence against abortionists. Indeed, I would go so far as to support mandatory one-week waiting periods, and even nonjudgmental counseling, for people who are contemplating the choice of killing an abortionist. I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessity-not a good, but a lesser evil. In short, I am moderately pro-choice.