Abortion holocaust anniversary: 50 million dead

By Krista Kafer (krista555@msn.com) On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court struck down most state laws protecting unborn children in the notorious Roe vs. Wade decision. Thirty-four years and 50 million lives later, there seems to be no end in sight for this American holocaust. New “uses” for unborn children as scientific guinea pigs does not bode well; as Eli Whitney’s cotton gin accelerated the demand for slaves, new “uses” for unborn children will likely increase the death toll. Although legislative victories have reduced the incidence of abortion since the late 1990’s, new technology could unleash the demand for human life.

Recent articles foretell a dark road ahead of science used to create and exploit human life. A chilling January Economist article described how scientists are using cloning technology to create human embryos and fusing them with cells from other species. Less macabre but more tragic, a U.S. News and Weekly Report article heralds pre-implantation testing on in vitro embryos to “weed out” those with genetic diseases. Such tests, however, are “increasingly… being used for choices that are less clearly beneficial to the child” such as sex selection,” the article states. The implication here is that death is a benefit to a disabled child but not one for simply being a girl or a boy.

Another January article in U.S. News said that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are now recommending that all pregnant women receive screening to check for Down syndrome in the first trimester “allowing plenty of adjustment time… or an opportunity for an early abortion.” Again, the use of science to “weed out” disabled children is heralded as a good thing. While the magazine may quibble with less noble reasons to snuff out a life, the distinction is quite arbitrary. Whether a child dies because of her gender, disability, or the timing of her conception, she joins the yearly million casualties of choice.

Killing embryos to further an agenda

By Krista Kafer (krista555@msn.com) Two days after the scientific community heralded the benefits of stem cells taken from amniotic fluid, the US House of Representatives passed Rep. Diana Degette’s bill (again) to use taxpayer funds to kill unborn children for their stem cells, a practice that has yet to produce any benefits.

For the record, the human body creates stem cells from conception to death. These cells are special in that they can become other types of cells like muscle cells or a brain cells. In adults, stem cells are present in the blood, bone marrow, skin, brain, liver, pancreas, fat, and hair follicle. They are also present in the placenta, umbilical cord, and amniotic fluid. Stem cells can be harmlessly culled from these sources to be used in medical experiments to treat diseases such as diabetes and spinal cord injuries.

In November of last year, the Rocky Mountain News reported Swiss scientists had grown human heart valves using stem cells from amniotic fluid. Another article on the same page lauded the use of adult stem cells in mitigating muscular dystrophy in dogs. The dogs were able to walk and jump after being injected with adult stem cells. On January 9, the RMN reported American researchers had discovered amniotic stem cells “have many of the key benefits of embryonic stem cells while avoiding thorny ethical issues.”

The “thorny ethical issue” is that the process of extracting embryonic stem cells kills the donor. That embryonic stem cells cause tumors and other complications in recipients is certainly a drawback. The lack of success in curing or mitigating diseases is another, but the main opposition to using taxpayer funds for embryonic stem cell research is that it kills unborn children. While it is legal to kill children from conception until birth and to sell their bodies or tissues including their stem cells (it is also perfectly legal to donate funds to these endeavors), we, the opposition, do not want to be complicit in the death of innocents by virtue of our tax dollars.

We support non-lethal adult, amniotic, placental, and umbilical cord stem cell research which incidentally is the research with the track record of success. Embryonic stem cell research has so little promise that it cannot attract sufficient private investment. So why, two days after yet another scientific breakthrough regarding non-lethal stem cell research, did the House of Representatives vote to use taxpayer dollars for that which is ineffective and opposed by millions of Americans? Do they not read the papers? Do they not talk with scientists or investors?

Perhaps it is not a question of ignorance. Perhaps it is a question of agenda. To back away from embryonic stem cell research is to admit that there might be something wrong with killing one human being to benefit another. To back away affirms the humanity of the child, an admission unacceptable to the abortion interests that profit in its absence. While the success of non-lethal stem cell therapies gives politicians a perfect out to change their votes, the stakes are too high to permit what may seem like a change of heart.

Secular complacence replays ancient script

By Dave Petteys (dpetteys@comcast.net) At a recent cocktail party I talked to a person who believed that secularism was “mankind outgrowing religion: getting beyond it.” He also implied that this was a good thing, in that “religion was the cause of wars." But is this the correct perspective? Or is our generation merely a disobedient one that is “doing evil in the sight of the Lord”? Certainly Old Testament Scripture is filled with the sad litany of disobedient generations that went on for much longer than our brief 200 years.

King Josiah in 2 Kings was an example of a “faithful” generation. But even his piety was not enough to save Judah, “because of all the provocations with which Manasseh (Josiah’s grandfather) had provoked him”, (2 Kings 23:26). The strongest provocation was Manasseh’s sacrificing children to Moloch. But is our practice of “lifestyle abortion” anything less egregious? King Manasseh sacrificed probably tens of thousands: we have sacrificed tens of millions! Do we really believe there will be no accountability?

Western Civilization faces a renewed struggle with Islam, a continuation of a 1000 year religious war that’s gone on since the year 634. But the secularists believe that since they profess no faith the struggle doesn’t apply to them. In the eyes of the secularists, a religious war is archaic and too absurd for words in the 21st Century. Not only do the secularists refuse to recognize the danger, they also actively oppose measures for our defense, placing us in grave jeopardy. The secularists concentrate instead on pushing a warped sense of "civil rights," such as homosexual scout masters, and severing our society from its Judeo-Christian heritage.

The prophet Isaiah had the same trouble with a smug and self-satisfied Jerusalem just prior to its destruction in 587 BC. They believed that with God in their Temple they were invulnerable. Isaiah found the people would "Keep listening but do not comprehend: keep looking, but do not understand" (Isaiah 6:9).

Do we not hear the same talk of our “invulnerability” and the same complacence? Will our fate be any different from Jerusalem’s?

Manger lacked inaugural pomp

By Krista Kafer (krista555@msn.com) “Ritter’s inaugural week jampacked” the Rocky Mountain News’ headline exclaimed a few days ago. The week for Gov.-elect Bill Ritter is to begin on the 9th of January with the swearing-in ceremony. Two days later, the new governor will be honored at an inaugural dinner followed by a concert featuring his favorite country music star. Next the governor will be whisked away on a train tour of the Front Range ending in Pueblo where a spaghetti dinner awaits him at the Pueblo Union Depot. The inaugural committee is busy sending invitations to dignitaries, Members of Congress, other elected officials, and civic leaders. The cost of the events is expected to top out at $750,000.

What if the plans were different? Imagine if instead of Denver and the Front Range, the new leader chose to go to La Junta on the plains. Rather than invite prominent officials, civic leaders, campaign funders, and other distinguished individuals, he invited the night cleaning crew from the nearby Wal-Mart and some unknowns from out of the country. And what if instead of surrounding himself with flashing cameras and cheering supporters, he chose a bunch of pack animals. Then rather than take the stage as a man in his prime attired in a suit and tie, he entered as a tiny infant swaddled in scraps of cloth.

Why would he do that? Leaders announce their arrival with power and grandeur not weakness and austerity. Yet, 2000 years ago, when God came down to walk among men He chose the company of beasts of burden, the working poor, and foreigners – those outside the circle of power. What does that say about this ultimate leader of men, Jesus of Nazareth, that he chose them to be his honored guests?

I am reminded of a passage in the Old Testament where the prophet Elijah weary and despondent listens for God’s message.

“Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.” 1Kings 11-13

In the whisper Elijah heard God.

An image stirs in my mind rough-hewn and earthy, a hard contrast with the glitz of inaugural events I’ve attended. I am listening to the hooves of donkeys scraping at the hay, the praises of shepherds huddled in the doorway, and the cries of an infant in the arms of a new mother. Here God’s message begins in a whisper audible among common sounds.

Like Elijah, I am weary and the message resonates in a deep place. It is a comfort to me that while I expect to find God in the great and triumphant, He often prefers to speak in humble places. Outside of the circle of power, among animals, the poor, and foreigners, He entered his kingdom. He is truly with us.

Merry Christmas.

The House of Christmas

By G. K. Chesterton There fared a mother driven forth Out of an inn to roam; In the place where she was homeless All men are at home. The crazy stable close at hand, With shaking timber and shifting sand, Grew a stronger thing to abide and stand Than the square stones of Rome.

For men are homesick in their homes, And strangers under the sun, And they lay on their heads in a foreign land Whenever the day is done. Here we have battle and blazing eyes, And chance and honour and high surprise, But our homes are under miraculous skies Where the yule tale was begun.

A Child in a foul stable, Where the beasts feed and foam; Only where He was homeless Are you and I at home; We have hands that fashion and heads that know, But our hearts we lost - how long ago! In a place no chart nor ship can show Under the sky's dome.

This world is wild as an old wives' tale, And strange the plain things are, The earth is enough and the air is enough For our wonder and our war; But our rest is as far as the fire-drake swings And our peace is put in impossible things Where clashed and thundered unthinkable wings Round an incredible star.

To an open house in the evening Home shall men come, To an older place than Eden And a taller town than Rome. To the end of the way of the wandering star, To the things that cannot be and that are, To the place where God was homeless And all men are at home.