Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Why I'm not worth your time

I am not worth your time...
... No...
... Seriously...
... I'm not!

Now, before you protest, just hear me out. 

I may look like a really nice person who has it all together and will always be an awesome friend. I may seem like I'm super loyal and will always stick with you. Yeah... nope...

Honestly, I am super duper selfish. Most of the time, all I care about is me. 

I'm not on Facebook to help you. I'm on Facebook to feel good about myself. 99% of the time, I scroll right past your statuses about how you're hurting or need help to find some dumb 50 second video about dogs "talking". 

I'm not a good listener. The whole time you're talking about your issues, my mind is wandering to what outfit I'm going to wear tomorrow, why in the world I ordered that coffee, or how I can help you fix your problems cuz... well... I'm just that smart. 

Loyal? HA! I spend most of my days wishing I had better friends when there are friends galore to choose from right in front of me. I leave people who have only slightly disappointed me in the dust to pursue the new "shiny" friend who may meet up to my ridiculously high standard of impossible perfection. 

It's not like I actually take the time to keep up on everyone's lives... The only thing I'm "up on" is the newest trend on Pinterest. 

I am NOT worth your time. I will fail you. I will hurt you. I will disappoint you. No, I don't do those things on purpose... but I'm such a screw-up that being friends with me means these things will happen. Ask the people close to me. They're the ones I've hurt the most. They KNOW I am no worth it.

No, this is not a pity party where I am seeking validation in a crazy not-so-veiled attempt to receive compliments. Yes, I do have a point.

When we really look at ourselves... are any of us worth anyone's time? I mean, come on. Don't tell me you've never hurt anyone, or acted selfishly. We all have. And who's to say you won't again?

No one... not one of us... is worthy of love from someone else. And yet... people still do. Why?

Maybe because it's not about worth. Maybe it's not about what we do right or what we do wrong or how many times we've hurt someone. Maybe... it's about something more.

One could argue many different things for that "something more". Me? I love because He first loved me. Me: the worst of all sinners and hopeless beyond belief... and yet He loved me enough to die for me. Not because of anything I had done, but simply because He loved me. 

Please! If you hear anything, hear this! I broke His heart. I stomped on His love, spit in His face, walked away from Him so many times I was, by anyone else's standards, beyond forgiveness. It was my hate and selfishness that nailed Him to that Cross and caused Him to die. It was my treachery and foolishness that seperated Him from His Father for the first time since the Creation of the world. And... yet... He still loved me. He still forgave me. And... He did the same for you who believe on His name. 

Why do I bring up this "old story". Because I see many Christians today posting and liking pictures or statuses similar to the picture at the beginning of this article. One day, one of Jesus' Apostles was particularly frustrated with someone, as we would put it: "pissed off". And he asked Jesus, "How many times do I have to forgive someone?... 7 times" Jesus said, "70 times 7." meaning not 490 times, but unconditionally. Then, Jesus told this story: 

 “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.  And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made.  So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’  And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.  But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’  So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’  He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt.  When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.  And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’  And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt.  So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” -Matthew 18:21-35

Jesus' followers couldn't have realized at the time the full implications of His words. But, later, when Jesus died on that Cross to forgive them and us all... the ultimate debt was paid. And if you, who believe on His name, aren't willing to forgive your brother... well, Jesus laid out that ultimatum in the last two sentences.

This unforgiving judgmental attitude is the very attitude that drives people away from the Church, away from Jesus. 

"I'm holier than you." 

"I forgave you too many times already" 

"You're just not worth it."

What would have happened to us if Jesus had said such things? Thankfully, He didn't. He has promised forgiveness unconditionally to us through the Cross.

That is what real friendship looks like. 

May we all desire and learn to be more like Him.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Sacrificing our children on the altar: The American Molech: Part 2: Vaccinations

This paper has been difficult, as getting straight and honest answers from the government has never been easy. Unfortunately, some of the information I would need to make this airtight is not available to the general public, so this isn't going to be some wonderful smack-down paper you can turn to anytime someone tries to ridicule or condemn you for exercising your God-given responsibility and right to decide what is best for your kids.

That being said, I will share what I have discovered:

1. The CDC is not to be trusted.

I may sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I went into this giving them the benefit of the doubt as I assumed most Americans would like to be able to do and was sorely disappointed. They do have numbers and stats reported that have been cross-checked and examined and hold up to what actually is the case. These I will be using. But, there are other cases in which the numbers are not available, or where the CDC has directly lied. As evidenced in my last paper 1, the CDC said that no studies have ever been done that connect breast cancer with abortion, yet anyone with internet can find dozens and from credible sources that medical schools and books recite frequently. I am not going to go so far as to say they're in for the money and they're killing off Americans for profit, as some anti-vaxxers do as that is a great accusation that warrants proof and fact, which I do not have. I may have my suspicions, but I honestly think that's a whole other issue and so I didn't delve into it.

2. Vaccinations are not bullet-proof.

Even with both shots, measles vaccinations (for example) still are only 97% effective 2. I am aware that that is a high number, but saying that herd immunity will prevent outbreaks is false. Quebec had a severe epidemic run through the region despite the 99%  vaccination coverage, for example 3. The only way to truly prevent your child from having a disease is to never have the kid in the first place.

3. Vaccinations do have a potential for serious side-effects.

As is true with any medical treatment, side effects do arise occasionally from vaccinations. The CDC claims that the chances of receiving such from an individual vaccine is 1 in a million 4. Let's say that that seemingly astronomically high number is correct. The CDC recommends 123 vaccinations from birth to age 78 (avg. age of death in the US), most of which are the yearly flu shots. That takes the individual's chances up to 1 in 8130 over their lifetime of contracting a serious reaction. With 300,000,000 people in the United States, that takes the count up to 2,439,024 people who are currently alive who will contract such effects. Note: diarrhea and hives and things of the like are not counted as serious side effects, so are therefore not included in this count. Serious side effects include but are not limited to: death, autism, paralysis, and mental dysfunction.

4. Many vaccinations are for diseases that either no longer exist or are barely relevant.

Polio has been eradicated in the US since 1979
Diptheria hasn't caused any deaths or serious medical issues since 2003
Fewer than 10 deaths per year due to tetanus since 1994
Fewer than 21 deaths per year due to rubella since 1971
Fewer than 25 deaths per year due to mumps since 19685

No deaths from measles since 2003 6
Compare this to the fact that 3277 people die each year from accidental suffocation while in bed, and you realize how low these numbers really are. More people die from lightening (50) and contact with hot tap water (55) than have died from any of these diseases.

5. Claiming that is was vaccinations that got rid of disease is often false.


As you can see by this chart, the problem of measles had been pretty much solved before the vaccination took effect. In the 10 years prior to 1963, your chances of dying from measles after contracting the disease was 0.012375%. 8 Whereas a lot of things could be argued to contribute to this such as a jump in sanitary regulations and health education, the vaccine cannot scientifically be argued to have eradicated measles in the US.

5. Vaccinations do not necessarily make it safer for immuno-deficient kids.

The CDC and medical professionals recommend that immuno-deficient kids are kept away from both those with diseases and those who have been vaccinated for them, as residuals from the weaker strain used in vaccinations can cause contamination. Interestingly, that leaves only the non-vaccinated healthy children...

Conclusion: I could go on to state a lot more facts and stats I have found in my month or so of research, but I think these points are sufficient. My summary and conclusion from this is: 1) I'm glad I did my own research instead of just taking the government at it's word. 2) Diseases are unpreventable. 3)Possible side effects from vaccinations are preventable. 4). Me choosing to not vaccinate my child does not necessary increase the chances of anyone else getting the disease. 5) Every parent has to face the possibility of sickness for their child. I will not ask them to also face the possibility of severe side effects or even death, especially when doing so does not take away the possibility of sickness for my child. 6) I will not tolerate someone else asking me to sacrifice my child for the same reason and 7) I respect the choices of other parents as to their own children, as I believe it is their responsibility and right to make said choices. I don't deem it immoral to vaccinate, just to demand that another parent does. 

I am including this in the child sacrifice series because by asking another parent to vaccinate their child, you are asking them to sacrifice their child's well being for your's. You are asking them to put their child at the risk of death so that the possibility of your's, at the worst, dying as well may be decreased. Since when is that okay? Such is no better than the parents in the Old Testament who offered their children to a god who only might hear their petition for health and stability. 







Monday, March 2, 2015

Sacrificing our children on the altar: The American Molech: Part 1: Abortion

As most of you would expect, I am starting this series off with abortion. Abortion is an obvious way that we are sacrificing our children. In this post, I will be addressing the reasons people give for abortion, and why they are scientifically ludicrous. I will be citing all my sources in order to maintain transparency and credibility. I will also, out of personal conviction, be referring to the babies as such.

1. Baby vs. Body: Women will get abortions because they don't want their bodies to be "ruined". The problem with this is the strong tie between abortions and breast cancer. This argument could be better titled: Stretch Marks vs. Double Mastectomy. Science states:

“… 50% breast cancer risk increase by age 45 for women who have had an induced abortion. A 12% lifetime chance of developing breast cancer becomes an 18% lifetime chance. Among women with a family history of breast cancer (mother, grandmother, sister, or aunt), the increase in risk was 80%. If the woman had her abortion before she was18, the increase in risk was more than 100% (doubled!). If the woman had both risk factors (family history, and abortion before 18), the risk was incalculably high..”  -THE DALING STUDY (Janet R. Daling, Kathleen E. Malone, Lynda F. Voigt, Emily White, Noel S. Weiss, (1994) JNCI 86:1584-92l ).

“…reported a statistically significant 90% increase in breast cancer risk by age 40 with a history of induced abortion… -THE HOWE STUDY (Howe et al(1989) Early Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk Among Women Under Age 40; Int J Epidemiol 18:300-4.)

“…we see that an 18 year old black woman who has an abortion, then has a baby 5 years later, has double the chance of getting breast cancer than if she had delivered the first ( at age 18) pregnancy. Same scenario for a Caucasian would show a 28% increase in risk…” - Gail Model for Breast Cancer Risk Analysis (Thorp, et al, (2002) LongTerm Physical and Psychological Health Consequences of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence, Vol 58, No 1, p 75,76, and table 8,9,10)

“…Fifty-eight out of 74 worldwide studies dating back to 1957 show that abortion increases a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer later in life. In studies done on women from the United States, 19 out of 24, show an increased risk of breast cancer associated with abortion…” - “Epidemiologic Studies: Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk,” Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, 2013

2. Baby vs. Fertility: Many women believe that, though now may not be the right time for a baby, they can always have one later when they are better prepared, some having an abortion only months before they start trying for children. The fault with this is the strong tie between abortion and infertility. Science state: 

“…symptoms related to cervical incompetence were found among 75% of women who undergo forced dilation for abortion …” - "Cervical Incompetence - Aetiology and Management," Medical Journal of Australia (December 29, 1993), Volume 60

“…the occurrence of either induced or spontaneous abortions (a.k.a. miscarriages) independently and significantly increased the risk of subsequent development of secondary infertility…” - Study done at Harvard from the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Feb 1993 issue

“…The risk of secondary infertility among women with at least one induced abortion is 3-4 time greater than that among non-aborted women…” - (British Journal of OB/GYN, August, 1976) 

“…Roughly 25% of the women who interrupt their first pregnancy have remained permanently childless…” - Dr. Bohumil Stipal, Czechoslovakia's Deputy Minister of Health

“…5-10% will become sterile (of women who abort)…” - Thomas Hilgers, MD, Induced Abortion, A documented Report (1976)

Additionally, there is the increased risk for death on the mother's part if she were to get pregnant again:  
More and more, health researchers are noting a dramatic rise in sterility, tubal pregnancies and placenta previa. Vanderbilt University Medical Center noted an increase in placenta previa, a condition in pregnancy where the placenta covers the opening of the womb. This can lead to great blood loss to the mother during labor. It can cause death of the mother and death of the baby. Doctors on staff looked into the increase of this condition and found its cause to be the increase of legal abortions. The study concluded that aborted women were 7-15 times more likely to get placenta previa in later pregnancies” - J.M. Barrett, et al, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology (December 1, l981), pp 669, 772. 

3. Baby vs. Wealth. Many women opt out on keeping their baby because of the price of raising a child. Despite the fact that doing so is nowhere near as expensive as many people make out, I will not be focusing on that. Rather, in light of my last section, the cost of assisted reproductive technology is way higher than that of raising that first child: 

“Average cost of an IUI cycle: $865; Median Cost: $350
Average Cost of an IVF cycle using fresh embryos (not including medications): $8,158; Median Cost: $7,500
Average additional cost of ICSI procedure:$1,544; Median Cost: $1,500
Average additional cost of PGD procedure: $3,550; Median Cost: $3,200
(Note: Medications for IVF are $3,000 $5,000 per fresh cycle on average.)”  - www.resolve.org (The National Infertility Association)

4. Baby vs. Quality of Life. Many women choose abortion because the baby's quality of life is predicted to be low due to medical issues. Why, I would ask, do you think the baby would rather be killed in a brutal way than be allowed to live with complications? Well, I guess we don't know the answer as we can't ask them. But... wait... we can. What about all the people who weren't aborted despite medical issues? Have any of them ever been asked if they would have rather been aborted?

In fact, Christopher Nolan, famed author and poet, answered this very question many years ago. In his thinly veiled autobiography, Under The Eye Of The Clock, Nolan writes in his unique style: 
"The future for babies like him never looked more promising, but now society frowns on giving spastic babies a right to life.Now they threatened to abort babies like him, to detect in advance their handicapped state, to burrow through the womb and label them for death, to baffle their mothers with fear of their coming, and yet, the spastic baby would ever be the soul which would never maim, kill, creed falsehood, or hate brotherhood. Why does society fear the crippled child, wondered Joseph out loud, and why does it hail the able-bodied child and crow over what may become in time potential executioner?"

5. Baby vs. Unfortunate Circumstances. One of the case in which many would argue abortion is okay is in the case of rape or incest. Whereas I fail to see how this would better the situation... just look at this list of people who would not be here today if their mothers had made that choice: 

Jesse Jackson -- Presidential candidate, activist, and preacher 
Eartha Kitt (actress (Catwoman), singer (Santa Baby), author, activist) 
Frederick Douglass (abolitionist and author - Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass:  An American Slave
Ethel Waters (gospel singer, Academy Award winning actress and author -- His Eye is on the Sparrow
John Cox, Presidential candidate 
James Robison, tele-evangelist 
Layne Beachley, world champion surfer and author  (Beneath the Waves) 
Sherrie Eldridge, adoption author (20 Things Adopted Children Wish Their Adoptive Parents Knew ), speaker and adoption therapist   Pam Stenzel, international abstinence speaker and author (Nobody Told Me) 
Ryan Scott Bomberger, Emmy Award Winner, speaker, singer, songwriter,activist,
Julie Makimaa -- speaker, activist and co-author of Victims and Victors
Kelly Wright -- co-anchor of Fox's Fox and Friends Weekend 
Jenni Maas, activist and speaker from Human Life International
Laura Tedder, author and speaker (Trip Into A Miracle?)  
 Bill Connor, owner of Prairie Coach Trailways in Dell Rapids. He started “Angel Bus,” a nonprofit organization that provides luxury bus rides to terminally ill children who travel to the Mayo Clinic for treatment.  

6. Baby vs. Potential health risks. Here is where I am stepping out on thin ice, as most Christians would argue that abortion is okay if the life of the mother is at risk. I know that there are some situations of which I am unaware, and others I'm totally unprepared to talk about, but let's talk about the one most common type: ectopic pregnancy (where the baby is growing outside of the uterus). According to Mayo Clinic: "An ectopic pregnancy can't proceed normally. The fertilized egg can't survive, and the growing tissue might destroy various maternal structures". But, this is false. Very false.

1. The arguement is that abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. The risk is that of high blood-loss. But, there is another solution called autotransfusion. Autotransfusion involves siphoning the blood which has spilled into the abdominal cavity, running it through a filter and then pumping it back into the mother’s body.  In 2002, a worldwide study of 632 ruptured ectopic pregnancies treated with autotransfusion reported only a single instance of death. That’s a success rate of 99.84%.  ( D.O Selo-Ojemea, J.L Onwudea, U Onwudiegwu, "Autotransfusion for Ruptured Ectopic Pregnancy," International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 80(2): 103-110, DOI:10.1016/S0020-7292(02)00379-X) 

2. Based on a study done in Israel on women with ectopic pregnancies, the lowest possible survival rate of the women is 88% (J. R. Leiberman, D. Fraser, M. Mazor and M. Glezerman, “Maternal Mortality in Southern Israel,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 252(4): 203-207, DOI: 10.1007/BF02426359)

3. The actual survival rate is more likely to be 99.4% (Chang J, Elam-Evans LD, Berg CJ, et al. “Pregnancy-related mortality surveillance—United States 1991–1999,” MMWR Surveill Summ 2003; 52:1–8.)

4. A similar calculation for America produces a lowest possible minimum of 97.7% minimum (Chang J, Elam-Evans LD, Berg CJ, et al. “Pregnancy-related mortality surveillance—United States 1991–1999,” MMWR Surveill Summ 2003; 52:1–8.)

5. There's also the claim that the baby cannot survive.

“…316 ectopic pregnancies which resulted in live births between 1809 and 1935…” - Dr.’s Hellman and Simon

“…"found an ectopic gestation in the left tube," which was "enlarged to the size of a walnut... Knowing their anxiety for raising a child, I decided to try, at least, the only thing at hand -- to transplant the ectopic pregnancy. ... I carefully opened the tube and dissected the pregnancy out intact, being careful not to injure the sac in any way by keeping wide away and including part of the tube-wall. It came out very easily and was in size about equal to a large olive. It was at once placed within the cavity of the opened uterus... The tube was closed in like manner and left in place. The patient was watched carefully... for two weeks with no symptoms whatever. ... The pregnancy went on normally to full term and resulted in the natural birth of a fine boy, fully developed and without a scar, May 2, 1916…" - Transplantations of Ectopic Pregnancy from Fallopian Tube to Cavity of the Uterus, Dr. C. J. Wallace

And these were all pre-1940s... there are many cases of successful ectopic pregnancies. 

To sum all this up: abortion greatly increases risks of breast cancer and infertility, due to high infertility can cost thousands in the future, kills off those who would rather be alive despite their handicaps, kills off babies for no fault of their own and deprives the world of potential forward-thinkers in society, and kills off those who have a good chance at surviving but have been terminated due of lies put forward by the medical society.