it just comes in flashes.
Posted By Christina M on April 1, 2004
Born after 33 hours of labor, at 12:45 this afternoon. After wrangling for weeks over names, we finally settled on David Jessica. He was 20 inches and weighed 14 lb. 8 oz. Should have been named “Ouch!” Thanks for the prayers!
Posted By Christina M on March 17, 2004
Dear David,
Any day now you’ll be making your appearance after nine months of hiddenness. When the time arrives, I want to be sure there are certain things you know without any doubts.
First, you are loved. God loves you, and made you in love; and your father and I, living His love, participated in making you with love. I know that words won’t be able to impart this understanding for a long time, but my deepest hope is that we can teach you, right from the start, to know in your heart what you cannot yet know with words. You are very loved, very wanted, and very, very eagerly awaited.
There will be times, little one, when despite our love for you, we will fail you. There will be times, too, when we forget to show our love for each other and for the rest of the people in our family. Have patience, David, and know that love is one of God’s perfection, a perfection we have not yet attained. We will sometimes forget to live it, but it does not mean we have stopped loving. For your sake, I know we will try harder to reflect God in our behavior toward one another.
You will find yourself, too, tempted and pulled away at times from right behavior. We will never stop loving you if you make mistakes, but will try to remember, even when we have to respond to your errors, that we have also made errors. You are coming into a good family, son, and one of our strengths is that we help each other to learn and grow. Please, when you feel weak, do not push us away.
I can’t promise perfection, my child; but I do promise to try. I promise to pray for you every day. I promise to love you unconditionally, and to take care of your needs to the best of my ability. I promise to discipline you when you need it, too, because that will be one of your needs when you get older… but I will try to temper every lesson with love and mercy, as well. I promise to share my faith with you and teach you about the love of Jesus Christ. I promise to try to model His love. And I promise that our love for you is forever, not just a duty that ends when your childhood ends.
David, my sweet son, we can’t wait to meet you. Hurry, love. We have many hugs waiting for you.
Posted By Christina M on March 3, 2004
I’ve expounded, in the past, on the negative uses of DNA testing and manipulation: cloning, eugenics, abortion, and a general decrease in appreciation of individual humans. Today, though, we see a positive application of this same technological field in the news. A mother, Luz Cuevas, whose infant daughter had been kidnapped six years previously and was believed dead, spotted and recognized the six year old at a party, and obtained strands of hair to prove by DNA testing that the child was indeed her missing daughter.
If you look around the internet at the articles and quotes concerning Ms. Cuevas, you will note that her command of the English language is not terribly strong; yet nobody can accuse this woman of not being bright. Not only did she have the quickness to spot, after six years, a child she had only seen for ten days as a newborn, but she quickly thought of a way to prove it.
Aside from bespeaking this mother’s impressive maternal instinct, the story exemplifies the often repeated comment that evil is a perversion of good. First, the action of the kidnapper was a perversion of the maternal instinct. Second, the story shows that DNA testing can be a very positive thing, with moral and worthwhile applications, even if the stories that make the news are often about the ways this technology is perverted to moral wrongs, such as the deliberate creation of embryos for the purpose of destroying them.
I think the lesson in all of this is that we cannot blame technology for man’s sinfulness. DNA research isn’t responsible for the evils that have occurred using its resulting technology; human greed, fear, and lack of compassion are. Even the wrongful use of aborted embryos in stem cell research originates in a desire to show compassion for the ill; and “therapeutic abortion” originates with a parent’s desire to have a baby who will not suffer.
The way to rid our society of the misuse of our technological abilities, then, is not to eliminate technology but to pray for the grace to use it morally.
Posted By Christina M on February 18, 2004
Once my mother heard a story, maybe it was a “Darwin Awards” runner up, in which a man caught himself on fire after a whole series of mishaps caused by his own stupidity. Everyone I knew had laughed at the story, but my mom didn’t. She said it’s about time we stop blaming people for being stupid; it isn’t their fault.
She had a point. We, as a society, are becoming increasingly hardened to those who, through no fault of their own, are weak, unintelligent, disabled, or dependent. Even people who try not to let this hardness infect them will often consider abortion to be less wrong than the killing of an adult, or engage in debate over whether the life of a disabled person is worth as much as the life of a fully enabled, taxpaying, job-holding, mobile voter.
Some even describe starvation as an act of “compassion”, if the victim happens to be incapacitated enough not to be able to express herself, like Terri Schiavo. In an effort to “protect the rights” of a woman who never indicated a wish to be starved, this devout Catholic woman was denied even Last Rites.
Her unspoken but assumed wish to die superceded her spoken wish to practice her Catholic faith.
The question is, how did so many people reach the conclusion, in the first place, that she would wish to be denied food and water rather than live with her disability? Our society, in its misplaced sense of superiority, has slowly slipped toward the idea that it’s obviously better for a person to be dead than disabled.
I remember a better day, when we were at least expected to give nodding sympathy to the television commercial character who had fallen and could not get up. Now, the prevailing notion seems to be to let her lie there until she starves to death. The columnist from The Oregonian would chalk it up to it being “God’s plan, not ours” that the little old lady should stay on the floor and die with agony but dignity.
I say those who cannot get up deserve our help. If I ever become so hardened that I believe the helpless deserve to die, then I have less right to live than they have.
Posted By Christina M on February 14, 2004
This is primarily for the ladies, but gents please feel free to read on. What I want to talk to you about today is standards. Particularly for those of you who are not in a permanent relationship, I hope to share some insights about what to look for in a man. It can be hard to keep a soft heart while holding firm on the things that really matter, but ultimately it’s worth it for both of your sakes. To settle for less than you are looking for only demeans men in the long run; it implies that you believe they are not capable of being the kind of partner you deserve.
Now, I know what some of you are thinking: here it is, Valentines Day, and I don’t have a Valentine — yet you are telling me to raise my standards?
In a word, yes. The fact is that men appreciate when you expect maturity and nurturing behavior from them, because it demonstrates that you have confidence in them. Most men — most people, for that matter, have low confidence in themselves. If you believe in them, then they will begin to believe that they are capable of living up to those expectations. They will want to try to be the kind of man you deserve. So having high expectations isn’t about picking a man apart, but rather about bolstering him. And that, ladies, will appeal to them more than you realize.
That said, what exactly are these standards I propose? Call me old fashioned, but I believe in traditional romance. I can assure you that a man who doesn’t open doors for you now is not likely to begin after a year of marriage. A man who thinks roses are a waste of money is highly unlikely to become a romantic suddenly after rings are exchanged. The fact is that what you see now is what you can expect later. It is unfair and unrealistic to think that you can change a man, so don’t even contemplate it. Do not think that once you are a wife, you will have the right and authority to tell him his faults; if you get involved with a man, knowing his shortcomings, you have no place objecting to those very shortcomings later. So decide early on: can I live the rest of my life without roses?
It’s true that not all worthy men can afford roses. Most, though, can afford the occasional single rose. My father in law wooed my mother in law with a single chocolate truffle at a time. Limited budget does not have to mean showing limited interest, and roses are not the only way to show appreciation. They are merely symbolic. So if your man doesn’t buy roses, it doesn’t necessarily mean he isn’t a keeper; but please be sure that he shows appreciation in some way. A man who thinks you aren’t interested in that sort of thing isn’t going to provide it. So when he does give roses (or serenade you at your window, or send you a romantic card for no reason) let him know that you appreciate it. And if he doesn’t, find some opportunity to let him know that such things mean something. Don’t nag or complain, but with a smile on your face tell about the delight of a friend of yours when her boyfriend (or husband) had a candle light dinner waiting for her when she got home. Say it without rancor, because hinting can be an ugly habit… just let him know that without being jealous of your friend, you recognize and are glad of her good fortune. You get the idea.
More important than romance, though, is character. Romance can be (but isn’t always) a sign of character. It isn’t enough on its own, though. Do not settle for a man who insults you, treats you with disrespect, or fights unfairly. If someone you care about begins to slip into these behaviors, tell him in a gentle but firm voice what he is doing, without trying to strike back with anger of your own. You don’t have to be angry to be firm. And firm means being willing to lose him before you let bad treatment become a pattern. A good man will treat you like you are the kind of woman who deserves better than he can give you, but he’s willing to try to be what you deserve. And you do deserve that kind of a man. Every woman deserves to be treasured by her man, and every man deserves a woman who deserves to be treasured. If you still question that point, ask yourself this: am I willing to spend the rest of my life never feeling more than “adequate?”
A good man is also moral. He should not ask you to do things that contradict either your faith or his. And he must never try to pressure you into doing anything that opposes your conscience. A moral man makes you want to be a better person; he doesn’t make you feel guilty for what virtue you have. And he responds well to you, making him want to be a better person, too. Good love should motivate good people, not bring them down.
A good man does not have to be a perfect man, but he should want to grow in grace. No man is perfect, and that is a fact that you — also an imperfect being — have to accept. One man is moral and treats you very well, but leans toward laziness. Another is strong and protective, but forgetful. A third might have a tremendous work ethic but very little sense of humor. Regardless of what some people will tell you, you can’t have it all. Love isn’t about having a perfect partner, it is about having a worthy partner, whose imperfections are not moral flaws, but are traits that you can live with. And a good woman, who deserves such a man, is willing to communicate her needs in a kind way, without ever expecting to change him in the future by manipulation. If he is worth having, he deserves better than to be manipulated.
Ladies, if you really love a man, you will have patience with him for being a unique human being. You will love him for who he is, not for not for being just like you, or like some image you’ve created. You will respect him, though, enough to allow him the opportunity to live up to your standards. Do not insult a man by shrugging and tolerating him with the attitude that he’s the best you can do.
The happiest wives I know are women who didn’t need a man enough to settle for one who wasn’t worthy. And once they knew they’d found a worthy one, they treated him that way.
Posted By Christina M on February 10, 2004
Usually it is the Democrats who cry out over government intrusion into the bedroom. But some democrats, like Washington state representative Maralyn Chase, favor privacy only for liberal causes. The “Two or Fewer” bill she proposed upholds the Democratic and liberal perspective, so that invasion of privacy doesn’t count as a genuine invasion.
The truth is that Ms. Chase’s perspective doesn’t hold up as consistent when more liberal issues are at stake. A defender of gay rights, she gets an A rating from the Snohomish County Elections Committee for Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgendered. Another pro-homosexual group lists her as one of the few Washington state representatives with an “A+” rating, rating her higher than 50% of the openly homosexual or bisexual representatives. Her views on privacy only extend to the privacy of groups represented by liberal causes and groups, apparently. It would be nice if she could represent her constituency more evenhandedly, by holding either a solid moral perspective or an unflinching respect for privacy for all. Some people would still disagree with her views, but at least they could not accuse her of hypocrisy.
Ms. Chase herself claims her bill is not an intrusion at all, because it does not advocate the actual restriction of family size, but only “education.” She “She counts that choice among the most private and intimate decisions a couple can make.” She speaks as though she is defending the rights of both sides; but it is only the promotion of negative population growth that her bill promotes. That isn’t education, but propaganda.
And it is not just a matter of sexual privacy, but of religious freedom.
When she propagandizes against large families, not only is she committing a serious act of bigotry against a number of her own constituents, she is also making a religious statement that those religions that encourage larger families are acting harmfully to society. She is, further, encouraging others to join her in an idealogical crusade against those who have either personal or religious reasons for having larger families.
Then there’s the more sinister question: how often does an idealogical crusade succeed without it eventually moving from words to action? It took China about 20 years to move from words to action, instituting a one-birth policy. And “progress” in multiple countries (particularly China and India) has shown that birth restriction, whether legally enforced or idealogically encouraged, tends to lead toward the degradation and even killing of women and girls. This is not a direction I, as a resident of Washington state, want to go.
Fortunately, neither do any other members of the Washington state House of Representatives. Unable to get a co-sponsor, the bill died for the year. I have a feeling that so will Ms. Chase’s political career.
Posted By Christina M on February 5, 2004
In his pamphlet 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity, Chaz Bufe devotes one chapter to each of the rants he has against Christianity. Most of his reasons for opposing Christianity are based on a faulty understanding of the faith; but a few show clear understanding of what Christianity teaches… in which case, his comments only hold water if Christian teaching is indeed false. The entire premise of most of his criticisms comes from an initial assumption that Christianity is false, and that there is no God.
It would be easy to gloss over the fact that most of his arguments rely on other religions being false as well. However, one can’t help noticing that it’s a lot easier in liberal circles to slam Christians than it is to slam Jews or Muslims. The fact is that all three believe in God, and all three share similar value systems. Chaz just chooses the easiest target in a politically correct world; because if he had attacked Jewish and Muslim people, he would (rightly) have to acknowledge being anti-semitic. Yet his arguments are anti-semitic, even if he never mentions Semitic races by name, because they still promote a false and hateful view of people who hold the truths that Jewish and Muslim, as well as Christian, people hold in common.
Now, at the risk of being long-winded, I will point out some of the more obvious flaws in Bufe’s criticisms.
The fears he cites are death, devil, and hell. Christianity does not build up fear of death, but relieves it; because in faith, one has hope of afterlife with God. Death itself is a reality, so the fear of it is not false at all. If the author denies this, then he’s farther from reality than he realizes. As for devil and hell, if Christianity is correct, then the devil and hell should be feared. So the only workable argument here is to prove that the Christian faith is wrong, not to criticize it whether it be wrong or right.
Clearly he does not understand Christianity. Christianity teaches us not to prey on the innocent. If all people practiced Christianity and followed the teachings of Jesus, there would be no predatory behavior on earth.
This argument is meaningless without evidence. Essentially he is saying “Christianity is wrong because Christianity is wrong.” Brilliant, Chaz.
Apparently wanting to go to heaven is egocentric. So, too, according to this man, is the belief that God loves us. Here, he displays not just a total ignorance of Christianity but an ignorance of human nature itself. Love is a total giving of self; to love Someone enough to want to spend eternity with Him is completely loving. Of course, he uses contradictory logic here. The person who gives love is being preyed on; the person who receives love is self-centered. It sounds like what he’s advocating is a complete disdain for anyone but self. And if you ask me, that is the height of egocentrism.
And Chaz Bufe does not?
Every “system” of governance breeds or is the result of some form of authoritarianism. The person who is not governed by ethics or morals is governed by law. One must hope that the law that governs him is at least ethical.
People are cruel. More specifically, some people are. And some will be cruel in any group. Some Christians are cruel (and they sometimes get into positions of power). Some atheists are cruel; some politicians, and some doctors, and some pamphlet writers are cruel. All forms of governance have sometimes slipped into cruel policies, Christianity included; but the inherent teachings of Christianity do not promote cruelty.
It’s hard to argue with that one, because different denominations approach science differently. However, as the Catholic Church teaches, truth cannot contradict truth; so the findings of science can be hotly debated on both sides without needing to check one’s faith at the door.
I had to do a double take when I read this one. Who has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex? A faith that, across most denominations, teaches that sex is sacred and beautiful, and should be an expression of love and tenderness, or a largely atheistic society that insists that sex must rule everything, from cologne ads to children’s cartoons?
See above.
What qualifies him to define what is narrow? Even if he is correct, “narrow” and “legalistic” are only bad if the morality they describe is wrong.
Again, what qualifies him to define what is evil and what is not? He shows extreme intolerance.
I’d wager he’s never heard a Christian sermon. Every church I’ve ever attended has taught the importance of stewardship, and caring for the natural world.
And why is hierarchical organization bad? Is it bad merely because he intolerantly says so? As for authoritarian, see above.
Again, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. No Christian church I’ve ever heard of sanctions slavery.
Actually, atheism is misogynistic. Atheism encourages people to use one another for selfish motives, because it has no moral incentive to require considering other people’s needs. Specifically, the value system this author seems to be promoting is one that considers a woman’s feelings irrelevant when using her body. The free sex mentality teaches that a man is justified in making a woman feel good “right now” in order to get sex, disregarding any emotional pain or physical disease she may suffer later, as a result.
Sorry, but Chaz needs to get a dictionary. Disapproving of a behavior does not mean being afraid of people who practice it. As a matter of fact, Christians who seek to help people live chastely are showing a love for the souls of other people. It would be egotistical and unloving to seek one’s own eternal life while not caring whether or not the next guy attains it.
How is a non-believer qualified to state what Christ’s teachings are, better than either a believer or the Bible?
This is too long a topic to cover adequately, but suffice it to say that what appear to be contradictions generally are not. In some cases they are different Biblical writers emphasizing different aspects of the truth. In other cases, seeming contradictions are reminders not to forget one thing in our zeal to pursue something else. Are justice and mercy contradictory?
Perhaps, just perhaps, those other ancient religions began to grasp some truth that they had insufficient revelation to understand fully. Christianity is not a new truth; it is a fulfillment of truth previously not understood.
Let’s pray for the conversion of Chaz Bufe.
Posted By Christina M on January 31, 2004
They also prevent the dissemination of accurate information about sexually transmitted diseases; and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is willing to cooperate.
This is old news, by media standards, but then by mainstream media standards it wasn’t news at all, which is why it didn’t come to public attention at the time. Essentially, what happened was that the congress attempted to pass a cancer treatment bill that included the requirement to educate the public about HPV, which is responsible for 90-95% of cervical cancers. The condom lobby effectively killed it; they do not want word getting out that condoms do not prevent the most prevalent sexually transmitted disease.
The 2000 federal bill is not the only instance of the suppression of information where condoms are concerned, nor the most recent. In 2001, a state bill in California attempted to do the same thing. The AIDS lobby, too, fought the idea of truth in labeling. Evidently they fear that if people know the truth about condoms, that they are not nearly as effective at preventing disease as the condom industry would have you believe, they will not use them. Never mind the idea of finding a more effective prevention (like, say, abstinence or monogamy?); the AIDS lobby would rather have people using a far less effective safeguard, with a false impression of security.
At what point do these lobbies admit that the public has a right to know?
The condom companies are not the only ones misrepresenting the truth about contraception, either. Although birth control pills are known to have a “combined effect” of inhibiting ovulation and preventing implantation, they do not present themselves to the public as abortifacient. Recently when I was in a doctor’s office, I was reading a laminated poster (provided by a contraception company) outlining birth control options in chart form. Oral contraceptives, progesterone-only products, and the IUD were all listed as contraceptives. It takes a good deal of redefining to call a product “contraceptive” that does not prevent conception. “Contraception” means “against conception.” If, with a birth control product, conception takes place, and the “products of conception” are eliminated, the action of the product simply cannot be contraceptive. Yet the drug companies are allowed to continue to list abortifacient products as contraceptive.
As in the case of the condom labeling, companies that market birth control pills are denying the public information in the name of “choice.” But if a choice is not allowed to be an informed choice, is it any choice at all? And if you call the deceit “choice,” does it minimize the danger to the patient?
A woman who contracts HPV because she believed the condom manufacturer’s claim that condoms protect users from disease is no less at risk for cancer because of the rhetoric of the AIDS lobby; and a woman who uses oral contraceptives while being lied to about their abortifacient quality has not been given a legitimate choice at all. Because the drug companies have more powerful lobbies than the “ordinary person” their interests sometimes come before the safety and right to informed consent of the patient or customer.
Evidently the finances of fornication supercede the right to truth in labeling.
Posted By Christina M on January 28, 2004
For those who don’t know the word, misandry means hatred of men, as misogyny means hatred of women. Some of us have long suspected that abortion and misandry are connected, even if we didn’t know the word. Now, another abortion promoter has given yet further evidence of the truth of this suspicion. In a recent post to the blog Open Book, Amy Wellborn refers to an event at which popular Sci-Fi writer Ursula Le Guin stated before an audience of 400 that if she had not had an abortion, she “would have been an unwed mother with a 3-year-old in California, … unmarriageable. Another useless woman.”
One assumes she did not really intend to call single mothers “useless” but instead was pointing out what she perceives as society’s stereotype of unmarried mothers. Yet quite aside from further stigmatizing those who already have a tough row to hoe, Le Guin reveals some rather unsettling stereotypes of her own. Men, she seems to be implying, are all honorless and lacking in protective or compassionate instincts.
It’s not as big a leap as it first sounds, especially in the context of abortion. Abortion is, in itself, a misandristic act. In particular, the notion of complete freedom of woman to make the choice without her partner denies him any say in the destruction of a child they both created and for whom they are both responsible. It does so, further, without relieving him of any of the responsibility. While he has no choice to keep his child alive, should she choose to allow the baby to live, he is still held financially responsible — whether or not he is granted the right even to know his child.
There’s nothing new in that argument, though the truth of it bears repeating. What should really draw attention about Ms. Le Guin’s comments is her assumption that no man would have a single mother. She does not even give men the opportunity to prove their worth; she damns them all without a hearing.
Why would she assume no man would have a single mother? Is it because all men inherently hate children? Is it because no man would willingly raise a child who does not share his blood?
Obviously, if you give any thought to the subject at all, you know that neither of these claims is true. I imagine most of us can think of at least half a dozen examples to the contrary, just off the top of our heads. My father, two brothers in law, and my father in law all raised children who were not biologically theirs. A woman I know was pregnant and engaged to the father of her baby, when her next door neighbor offered to marry her instead, knowing she was carrying someone else’s child.
My husband is my favorite example. Not only is he willing to raise my three, and treat them as he would his own flesh, he has raised his own daughter as a single father for many years. He would never give her up without a fight. Nobody can tell me that men don’t have sufficient parental instincts to be interested in raising a child. And it is completely unfair to imply such a thing in the first place.
If someone had implied anything remotely similar about the unwillingness of women to care, feminists would be in an uproar; yet a woman like Ursula Le Guin gets praise for her support of a woman’s most uncaring act.
In case it is not clear enough, let me put in blunt language: while she is accusing men of being hardened toward children, she is promoting the right to kill them.
Rather than turning this into a case of men condemned of hard heartedness without a trial, perhaps she might have, instead, considered putting her child up for adoption. Then he or she could have been raised by someone like my parents or in-laws, who don’t share her callousness. It is she who rejected her child, not the many good men of the world.
Posted By Christina M on January 23, 2004
Today’s mail brought the usual barrage of envelopes: a preapproved credit card offer for only $264 initially and $140 a year afterwards; bills for water, power, and phone; and a couple of ads. In addition, two envelopes full of pretty return address labels arrived: one from March of Dimes, and one from St. Jude Children’s Hospital. I found it interesting to note that both sets of labels were very cute and “happy” looking, and both from charities that purport to help children. But as with the credit card offer, you really have to read the fine print. Sometimes what appears to be a firm foundation turns out to be a shaky facade.
There was no question of accepting the credit card offer. I always read the terms on the inserts, and most unsolicited offers turn out to be pretty shady. But what about the labels? Sure, they were free gifts, but of course each mailing asked for a donation. It reminds me of the ladies who give out free samples at the supermarket. Once you’ve gotten something for free, you feel like you owe it to them to buy or contribute.
Let’s take a look at each organization.
St. Jude’s was founded by Danny Thomas. For those who didn’t know or don’t remember, Danny Thomas was a devout Catholic who founded a charitable hospital for children with cancer. Included with the labels was a chart that showed how the survival rates for childhood cancers have improved since the founding of St. Jude’s in 1962. They ranged from 4-30% in 1962, and now are at 56-90%. That means that where childhood cancer used to be a likely death sentence, most victims today have high hopes of survival. Although I’m sure St. Jude’s can’t take all the credit for this improvement, it certainly can take a good portion of it. Not only do they treat children regardless of ability to pay, but they have engaged in extensive research to help find better cures and treatments. Of the money they receive, 4% pays for administration and 10% for fundraising. Not bad. Their goal is to cure children, and that’s what they do.
Now let’s take a look at the March of Dimes. Their stated goals are to “fight prematurity and birth defects.” 24.2% of their monies go toward management and fundraising, and like St. Judes they enjoy a pretty good public image. The rest goes toward their stated goal.
Here’s the question we should be asking, though. What exactly does “fight prematurity and birth defects” mean? Ok, we have a pretty good idea of what it means to fight prematurity — to help pregnancies go to full term. But that goal is lumped in with the more ambiguous goal of fighting birth defects. They don’t state in their mailing how they do so, and unlike fighting prematurity this one isn’t so obvious.
Now, the goal of fighting birth defects seems perfectly laudable, and it can be, if it means educating women to eat right and avoid cigarettes and alcohol. Women who take these precautions during and before pregnancy are much less likely to have babies with birth defects or other developmental problems.
If that were all the March of Dimes meant by “fighting birth defects” it would indeed be a good thing. Or if they were funding the research or practice of curing children with prenatal problems. Much development has been made by others in the fields of prenatal surgery and other prenatal treatments.
But what about genetic problems? You can’t cure Downs Syndrome with good nutrition or prenatal surgery.
And March of Dimes, while it emphasizes health and nutrition in its public liturature, focuses its grants and research money on genetic testing and the promotion of abortion. Although they no longer require mothers to sign a pledge to abort should tests show abnormalities, they still focus on the prevention of birth defects not by preventing the defects but by preventing the births.
It’s just a nicer packaging for eugenics.
It’s sad that people who claim to help babies are actually working instead toward the destruction of those labeled defective; and it’s sad that we have to read between the lines and try to interpret the true meaning of the statements that the March of Dimes puts in its literature. The credit card application I received in today’s mail was more upfront.
I’m thinking we all should consider making a donation to St. Jude Children’s hospital… because I’d like to think we all love children, even those who suffer from health problems.