Friday, March 06, 2009

Hither and thither — 3/6/09

My oh my, do I have bounteous buckets of eclectic goodness for you today!

Let's launch:
  • Obama: Bush handled Iraq war correctly. Okay, you note no quotation-marks. 0-bama didn't say that in so many words. That would take honesty and humility. But that's the upshot.
  • I have a new goal. It's inspired by Rush Limbaugh's very good day. President Obama's Designated Idiot Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, said on Tuesday that Limbaugh "doubled down on what he said in January in wishing and hoping for economic failure in this country." Of course anyone who can rub two live neurons together knows that's a lie. Limbaugh wants no such thing. He wants economic success for all Americans, and so necessarily he wants Obama's war on productivity and freedom to fail. Which sparks my goal: I want the Obama administration to start arguing with me in its public statements. (Hey... I can dream, can't I?)
  • Obama administration to reverse Hippocratic oath? Instead of "You must do no harm," the 0-vision would appear to be, "You must do harm."
  • One senator said that he would not only defy such a policy, he would go to jail rather than comply. Now, I want the big-talkers who say there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the parties, who say pro-life Christians (which should be a hendiadys) can equally support either party, to tell me: to which party do you think that senator belongs? Come on, take a wild guess. Democrat? Republican? Which? (Answer: duh.)
  • While we're talking about senators, though by way of starkest contrast.... Remind me: was there a time when being a knight meant something in England? I mean, something good?
  • Real science has no philosophy, is strictly materialistic, doesn't mention Darwin, takes no responsibility for social impact of its claims, and opposes academic freedom. What... didn't I read this right?
  • Oh, btw. Global warming? A card-carrying scientist just told Congress it's bunk. Well, a whole lot of card-carrying scientists say it's bunk. His actual words were that it is "propaganda, masquerading as science." Again, many say the same. The MSM just doesn't like telling you.
  • The Vatican: brilliant, as always. They still think the Bible is wrong about how to be saved; now they think it's wrong about creation, too. So Luther, Calvin, Knox, Owen, Spurgeon, you, me = bad! Darwin, however = good! So, what's that bring the count to, in RCC terms? The Bible is wrong about theology, anthropology, bibliology, soteriology, ecclesiology, hamartiology... good thing we have the RC magisterium to straighten all that out for us!
  • Smarter than God Update. Mosaic legislation had no jails. Zero. Closest was the city of refuge, for unintentional homicides. America? One in thirty-one adults is in jail. Why? Therapeutic-mania and over-regulation. The same day you and five friends are locked up for relieving yourselves on a protected weed, a murderer walks free. We do not treat people as morally-responsible human beings created in the image of God, but as wards of the state in need of therapy, or of being caged like animals. Matters would change dramatically if laws were trimmed, murderers were executed, and restitution were enforced on the rest.
  • In related news, Arizona's Sheriff Joe Arpaio is famous for making jail time (gasp!) unpleasant. he was recently rewarding with a protest by some unhinged folks. Illegals hate him, so he's a racist.
  • Didn't I ever post my idea to appoint myself spokesman for all white people, issue a statement that all white people who commit crimes and murders should be penalized and executed, respectively — and then, after that announcement, I would immediately resign? If so, I can't find the post, though I've searched.
  • Relatedly? What do you think of this? I'll admit to uncertainty. I do not love the idea of giving poor, vulnerable kids to adoption by the insane, alcoholics, homosexuals, porn-addicts, child-molestors, drug-addicts or the like... but what should legislation be? What legal guidelines should there be in place?
  • Square circles in California. As you all know, practitioners of one particular form of sexual perversion are trying to force acceptance and create rights, at any cost. When they failed at the ballot box, they promised and began to seek an unprecedented (in my memory) course of vengeance and intimidation on voters they'd failed to cow into submission, including the ominous posting of a map that gives the name, address, and donation-amount for all who dared to support Proposition 8. Will they threaten violence against the California Supreme Court as well, I wonder? Their case in attempting to re-thwart the will of the people reportedly isn't going well. Unfortunately, the court seems reluctant to void the "black is white" pieces of paper some now hold.
  • What now of the rights of those who won't be forced to call what those poor souls do "marriage"? And what is the road forward? The activists who embrace this particular perversion won't rest until they force it down everyone's throat. And look behind them. They're just the first in line. Who — or what — is next?
  • New Zealand unveils its secret weapon. Would have worked on me. At any age.
  • Legomaniacs will find this site a lot of fun. Warning to parents: before you direct your kids to the Brick Testament, look it over. Their intent, I think, is not reverent. Some of the images are inappropriate, to say the least.
  • Headline of the Week? First candidate: Extremely Rare Bird Photographed for First Time - Then Eaten. (The subtitle wasn't — but should have been — "Locals say 'Tastes like chicken.'")
  • Extraordinarily unpleasant public service announcement: thanks (?) to a faithful reader who wishes to remain anonymous. I do recommend that you mute the sound, or your brains may dissolve entirely.
  • I love the concept of this Sacred Sandwich parody: the Letters to the Editor that Christianity Today would get if it published Galatians. I may revisit. The problems are twofold: (1) They don't catch the lofty, indignant, self-righteous air of injury and victimhood such letters radiate (hard to parody self-parodies); and (2) CT would never publish Galatians.
  • Now this is funny. But I had to think for a second.
  • Okay, there definitely should be a law against this. Japanese Giant Hornet.

This puppy gets to be three inches long, and has a stinger that is a quarter-inch long. Its venom is particularly nasty, and can be fatal. As many as forty people a year die from its sting. The Japanese get their revenge by deep-frying these bad boys and eating them. Personally, I see it as a good reason not to move to Japan.
  • Now, we all know that Barack Obama is not the first black president. That distinction belongs to Bill Clinton. Toni Morrison told us so. However, with equal validity and soundness of reasoning, we are now told that Obama is our first Muslim president. (h-t Aaron, from this meta.)
  • In other news...or, whatever:


53 comments:

NoLongerBlind said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
NoLongerBlind said...

Wow, I just don't understand.

I happen to like Spanish Musak!

Maybe it's because my mind has already dissolved to the point where I'm numb to the effect.....

CR said...

DJP: One senator said that he would not only defy such a policy, he would go to jail rather than comply. Now, I want the big-talkers who say there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the parties, who say pro-life Christians (which should be a hendiadys) can equally support either party, to tell me: to which party do you think that senator belongs? Come on, take a wild guess. Democrat? Republican? Which? (Answer: duh.)

Conservative party. Oh, wait, you mean someone from a political party that has a chance of being elected and has been elected...

DJP said...

CR shoots, he scores, the crowd goes wild.

CR said...

Here's what I don't understand about the California supremes. By it's very nature, a constitutional amendment is retroactive. When slavery was abolished, it was retroactive. If, and I say if, granted it looks promising, but I don't know, if the supremes uphold Prop 8, it is retroactive, and it only is a depraved mind that says it is not the case.

Shinar Squirrel said...

First - That BUG is just WRONG!!!!!!

On Prob 8, I'm still trying to figure out how a change in the constitution can possible be UNconstitutional? That has to be the height of deconstructionist (non)thinking!

The Squirrel

trogdor said...

The rare bird being recorded then eaten reminds me of this blurb from the Onion yesterday. Warning: a naughty word.

The Galatians parody was brilliant, although you are right, there's just no way to fake the whiny indignation of the perpetually offended.

DJP said...

Absolutely right, Trogdor.

I made a comment on a meta over at Blog Mablog, and was set on by two practitioners of the "The First To Be Offended Wins" school of (non-)discourse. They were so barkingly furious that I wouldn't play that game, and that I resolutely maintained that I'd kind of like to discuss my actual point, not my right to (exist and) make that point.

CR said...

Shinar Squirrel: On Prob 8, I'm still trying
On Prob 8, I'm still trying to figure out how a change in the constitution can possible be UNconstitutional? That has to be the height of deconstructionist (non)thinking!


You've asked a really good question, and here's why I'm not totally or 100% completely confident on what the supreme court is going to do. Our state constitution makes a distinction between constitutional amendments and constitutional revisions. In CA, a constitutional revision constitutes a substantial change to the entire constitution. So, e.g., let's say the voters passed an iniative amending our state constitution giving the Governor, the legislature and state judges, lifetime terms in office. This would be considered a substantial change to our state constitution and would require legislature approval, and not merely a voter approved iniative amending the constitution.

The US Constitution makes no such distinction between constitutional revisions and amendments. We've made substantial changes in our US Constitution by 2/3 vote of Congress and 3/4 state legislatures.

Now, the CA supremes ruled last summer saying that a gay marriage ban was unconstitutional saying that our constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" which extends to same sex couples saying that a gay marriage ban violates the equal protection clause of our state constitution.

Now, here's why I'm not a 100% confident on what the state supreme court is going to do. In their twisted thinking, they ruled last summer saying that a gay marriage ban violates our state constitution. So, technically speaking, a reversal of that gay marriage would constitute a revision to our constitution and legislature approval because any change to where the equal protection clause applies would be substantial. So, they would have to be twisted in their thinking again, and say, we really didn't mean that gay marriage is a fundamental right to marry and therefore requires no revision and therefore prop 8 stands.

The four justices who voted allowing gay marriage would essentially have to invalidate their previous ruling. It's possible they will do that. I mean, in their twisted thinking, if they see gay marriage as a fundamental right in our state constitution, what's to say, they don't twist their thinking again and contradict everything they say.

Either way, I'll be praying profusely that prop 8 will be upheld and I hope others will be praying also.

Shinar Squirrel said...

CR - Thank you for the info. None of the news stories I've seen have gone into any detail about that. I just keep reading these stories, and thinking, "Huh? That doesn't make any sense..." I figured the anti prop 8 forces would have some rational, but nobody ever articulated it for me. Thanks again, and I'm praying that Prob 8 will be upheld, 'cuz, as goes Kaleefornya goes the rest of us, sooner or later.

The Squirrel

Lisa Nunley said...

I like Coburn. He really would go to jail rather than give in.

The Prop 8 map is utterly disturbing. But then, privacy really is a myth.

Like this: "it appears to be safe to say that there is no such thing as a ‘new’ rat. (Unless one includes politicians)."

Anyone for some hornet sashimi or hornet juice?... pleh!
Sounds like the hornets in Deuteronomy 7:20.
National Geographic calls them the hornets from hell.

From the Sacred Sandwhich article you linked: "Can’t we just focus on our common commitment to Christ and furthering His kingdom, instead of tearing down fellow believers over petty doctrinal matters?"

{{{cringing}}}

Aaron said...

"I like Coburn. He really would go to jail rather than give in.

The Prop 8 map is utterly disturbing. But then, privacy really is a myth."

The rest of us better be prepared for this kind of stuff. If Francis Schaeffer's prognostication in How Should We then Live is correct then we should expect decreasing tolerance of anything Christian.

~Mark said...

Oh NO! You mean a human got fed at the cost of a bird's life! I'm gonna call my Senator! Oh wait, that's Arlen Specter. Nevermind.

Believe it or not I found one of those hornets in my backyard here in Pittsburgh. It sounded like a small bird making it's way through dead leaves at the center of a small Pine. I caught it and found it online 'cause I was so wierded out.

Heavy, truly important issues aside, I am so digging Electro Kitty.

Jay said...


The Prop 8 map is utterly disturbing. But then, privacy really is a myth.


I wonder if there's a difference between gays in California and those in the South, or even between older ones and younger ones.

I have several gay and lesbian friends, all college-aged, and I've asked them about this issue, and pretty much all of them are against the treatment that Prop 8 activists have endured in California (even though they disagree with Prop 8 themselves).

They also seem to not really care if "marriage" is granted either, so long as some sort of civil union package can be provided to give insurance, inheritance, and other benefits. Again, it might be both a regional and generational thing, but it's interesting to notice.

Julie said...

That hornet is going to give me nightmares. Yikes!

And, Trogdor, your "perpetually offended" reminds me of P.J. O'Rourke's "perpetually indignant".

Dan, you know, forget personal responsibility... it's your fault I'm wandering around the internet on a beautiful March morning!

Rachael Starke said...

Re: the map - while I know it's for nefarious purposed, I personally find it really encouraging that there are that many marriage supporters in SFO (We live and work just a little south of there).

And yes, Jay, for the record, the gay/liberal community here is waaaaay different. My kids' school commute takes us past several cars that were paint-bombed, and my husband and I have been called bigots and failed products of evolution, among other things, for our views.

It's funny - everyone jokes about Arkansas being such an inbred place, but ideological inbreeding is alive and well in the Bay Area.

The good news - there's a Sovereign Grace Ministries church plant coming to downtown SFO later this summer. They'll need a lot of prayer, and some heavy security, but I'm praying God uses them to bring revival to a really dark place.

And I'm not a cat person, but yep, Electro Kitty is awesome.

Aaron said...

Jay:

IMHO, CA is where the frontline. I look at it like cancer. In its initial stages there are no noticeable effects. But in it latter stages the problems are severe. These people in CA aren't interested in "marriage" per se, but the total breakdown of the moral values that look at homosexuality as abnormal or worse.

Here in Houston, there was a guy who owns a landscaping service. He was asked to provide a quote only later to find out that it was a gay couple. He politely refused to do business with them and recommended another firm. This guy and his family were viciously attacked (through blogs and such). Fortunately there are no "human rights" councils here in Houston or I'm certain he would have lost his business. As it turns out his business went through the roof as Christians sought out his services.

In any case, If I ever had reason to doubt the literal nature of the story of Sodom, I wouldn't have reason now. People become quite vicious when you get in the way of their evil desires.

Joshua Cookingham said...

I know what's coming next Dan. My argument for years has been, "Okay, say we approve Homosexuality. Next the Man-Boy love association steps up and demands their right to happiness."

The response is typically, "Oh, well it's not the same thing."

To which I reply, "You can't say that, because we hetero's said the same thing about Gay marriage, and you cried foul."

1. In other news, That Hornet is INDEED way too big, although I still love Japan(mostly for their anime)

2. That sign reminds me of me and my friend, we'd probably do something similar.

3. Coburn is amazing.

4. Manilow would make anyone run in fear. Did I ever tell you my dad once got cut in line at a restaurant by Tony Bennet, and then sang "I left my table in San Fransisco" until the waiter sat him down? Unrelated, but Manilow reminded me!

Keep up the good work!

Jay said...

Aaron: Well, I think I would have politely boycotted the man in Houston's services as well. I support a business' right to do business with whom they wish or not, but if he does landscaping for any non-Christian person (and I'm sure he does), then not doing business with a gay person is simply wrong and bigoted.

And thus, he wouldn't get my support either. In fact, if I had known about that event at the time, I probably would have blogged against it. My expression of disagreement hopefully wouldn't have been a "vicious attack," though I probably would have called the man immature and in need of gay friends to know and love (instead of ban).

Simply put, I'm all for people speaking out and saying whatever they want to say about each other, provided it's legal and doesn't step on another person's right to live their life as they see fit. I'm a libertarian in that sense (and probably also in a political one).

You see, I really do believe that any two individuals of consenting age who want to set up an arrangement should be allowed to do so, and it would be beneficial to the state to make those arrangements rather easy to come by rather than have people resort to lawyers and pay thousands of dollars to make them. So I'm for civil unions of some type or another.

And, not surprisingly, since I acknowledge the fact that most people (yes, even gay ones) don't really want more than to set up security for themselves and their loved ones, I find that my gay and lesbian friends are more likely to tolerate my views on traditional sexuality. I do think that the two things are very related.

After all (and this is something both sides of any debate to consider), it's hard to get people to listen if you're holding a gun to their head.

~Mark said...

I support a business' right to do business with whom they wish or not, but if he does landscaping for any non-Christian person (and I'm sure he does), then not doing business with a gay person is simply wrong and bigoted.

And thus, he wouldn't get my support either.


So then you really don't support a business' right to do or not do business as they please. If you did you'd let him do as he pleased.

I personally don't support anybody's right to do whatever they want because nobody really has that right.

Jay said...

So then you really don't support a business' right to do or not do business as they please. If you did you'd let him do as he pleased.

Wrong. It's like me not watching a movie that promotes violence or nudity. I support the rights of the filmmakers to make that movie but they won't get a dime from me. The distinction, I think, is pretty simple.

Libbie said...

I have sympathy with Jay's position here - choosing to boycott a business because you didn't agree with something they did isn't the same as attempting to legally co-erce them into doing it, it's just free market economics, isn't it?

Libbie said...

*reads comment back and isn't sure she made sense*

Jay said...

It made sense to me, Libbe.

And also, I forgot to comment on the Obama-mobile animation, so here it is:

LOL!

Julie said...

Regarding the culture of death -

"According to the release, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has even stated officially that every obstetrician is expected to participate in abortions -- either through procedure or referral." from the link...

One of the more subtle parts of this problem is participating through referral.

It's hard to find an OB/GYN who not only won't DO abortions, but who will take a stand by not just referring the patient on to a colleague who will.

Dan Odom said...

I am living in shear horror thinking the Japanese Giant Hornet will find its way over here. Thanks Dan for effectively giving me something to worry about!

SolaMommy said...

Jay:Well, I think I would have politely boycotted the man in Houston's services as well. I support a business' right to do business with whom they wish or not, but if he does landscaping for any non-Christian person (and I'm sure he does), then not doing business with a gay person is simply wrong and bigoted.

What about not doing business with a registered sex offender? Or someone who produces porn? Would that be wrong and bigoted?

Jay said...

As a Christian, I think it would be. It's not like by doing someone's lawn you're condoning their lifestyle. Especially in the case of the registered sex offender, who is someone who has done his/her time and should be offered second chances by the community (within reason, of course).

I mean, we're supposed to serve our neighbors and show them the love of Christ without asking for anything in return anyway. Here you have a Christian being paid to a serve and maybe even have a chance to spread the Gospel to his clients, and refusing.

I mean, here's the thing. If he only landscaped for Christians who he felt lived up to his standard of morality, that's fine. But if he landscaped for other non-Christians but saw the gay person as the one sinner who he couldn't serve, then yes, I'm calling him a bigot.

I know first-hand the kind of damage that can be done by the attitude that someone homosexuality is "the worst sin." So I'm not going to support someone who spreads that kind of damage.

threegirldad said...

Julie:
That hornet is going to give me nightmares. Yikes!

I offer up this bit of, umm, poetic justice, as a possible antidote.

Of course, when the video ends, you should nod your head dutifully and murmur, "Isn't evolution wonderful???"

SolaMommy said...

I think the difference with homosexuality is that while it's not the "worst sin," it is a sin that is flaunted in an OPEN-rebellion-against-God kind of way.

I think it's plausible that he could have turned them down based on the fact that they own the property together, as a "couple," and he would effectively be beautifying the outside of their "love shack." If he feels convicted about that, I'm not going to judge him.

I rather doubt he did it out of hatred.

Julie said...

TGD,

I'm not sure which is scarier!

Still, isn't God detail-oriented?! The honey-bees can withstand 118F and the hornet, only 115F. So they roast him. (Uh, yeah, just how many trial-and-error evolutionary sequences would that take to evolve? Duh.)

Sweet dreams...

Jay said...

I think the difference with homosexuality is that while it's not the "worst sin," it is a sin that is flaunted in an OPEN-rebellion-against-God kind of way.

So would be a bachelor who took home a different female lover every weekend, or a Hindu couple, or an unwed straight couple who were living together. I don't know if he would turn those down as well, but if he wouldn't my opinion of him still stands.

And even if he would, I still think that is quite the missed opportunity to use one's career to help one forge relationships with non-believers.

Mesa Mike said...

Would someone please quote the section or sections of the California Constitution that defines the distinction between "amending" and "revising" the state constitution?

I can't find any, other than it seems that "amending" is what the people do with through the voter initiative process, and "revising" is what the legislature does.

Gilbert said...

Speaking of stirring up a hornet's nest:

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/fail-owned-disease-fail1.jpg

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/fail-owned-satan-fail.jpg

Aaron said...

just a FYI: my comment about the landscaper wasn't meant to generate a debate about whether the landscaper was in the right, but just to illustrate that the homosexual movement can be most violent. wjen I said the attacks were "vicious", I should have been more specific. Many homosexuals threatened to sodomize his children, rape his wife, kill his family, and do many other horrible things.

HSAT, I vehemently disagree with Jay.

Aaron said...

Julie:

Re: the referrals. I've always wondered how mcuh OBGYNS have to do with abortion, at least on a regular basis. I mean do women who want abortions go to a normal OBGYN rather than proceeding to the local planned parenthood?

I also find it ironic that doctors are taking this tact. Would they treat other procedures in the same way? Physicians turn down requests by patients all the time for cosmetic surgeries, and other procedures (that aren't cosmetic) that they don't think is in the best interest of their patient.

I wonder if doctors could say "no" because the patient isn't insured. My insurance doesn't cover abortions (Except in the case of life threatening instances..which apparently covers D&Cs where the fetus is already deceased). Christian doctors may have to stop accepting certain insurance in order to prevent themselves from doing certain procedures.

After they nationalize healthcare, I suppose abortions will be the only procedure where you wont have to wait in line.

Mr Wizzard said...

That zoolander parody is just weird.

~Mark said...

"So then you really don't support a business' right to do or not do business as they please. If you did you'd let him do as he pleased.

Wrong. It's like me not watching a movie that promotes violence or nudity. I support the rights of the filmmakers to make that movie but they won't get a dime from me. The distinction, I think, is pretty simple."


~I think perhaps the use of the word "support" is what's throwing me. I don't support the rights of anyone to make something clearly harmful to others. I know that puts me in conflict with the "guaranteed freedoms" of the USA, which I love by the way, but that's ok.

It's like I don't respect false religions just because it's the free choice of the individual. I don't respect those religions in the least because they're sending people to Hell.

Yet I get confused or disgusted looks from many people who think I should respect other religions.

I don't, I just don't. I'm not gonna knock anybody over the head for choosing wrong (unless they chose to physically hurt someone in my presence) but I'm not gonna support their right to make that wrong choice when it causes damage to others.

I once knew a lady who would not rent even to unmarried couples much less homosexual pairings. What she did made a lot of people mad but it was for their good even if they didn't know it.

God gave us the ability to choose, but I'd be hard pressed to find him supporting our choices themselves when they're wrong.

Jay said...

Mark, I think you're ranting a bit. All I said was that I support the rights of individuals to choose how to run their businesses, even if I don't like those business practices myself. The same goes for the right to free expression, even if the things expressed turn my stomach.

Similarly, I support the right for someone to practice a false religion, which is not to say I'll respect a false religion, just the freedom to practice it.

Basically, the reason I support these things is because the freedom to practice a false religion is the same freedom to practice the True one, and the freedom to make bad business choices is the same freedom to make good ones, and the freedom to express horrid things is also the freedom to proclaim the Gospel.

At least, that's how it's supposed to be. We'll see after we're through with this administration.

Daryl said...

Nothing to add to the discussion, really, except to note that I think Jay's got it right.

Everyone who is not a believer is taking part in an ungodly lifestyle. Get used to it. Spread the gospel.

I once worked with a guy who wouldn't deal with a co-worker because she lived with her boyfriend. How is that different from Aaron's friend? In principle I'm not sure that it is.

And, as I think has been asked, would he refuse to provide services to a guy with his girlfriend? A guy who smokes dope? A guy who baptizes babies?

Slippery slope methinks.

Joshua Cookingham said...

Amen, Jay and Daryl.

Lest we forget, Jesus not only preached the Gospel to those with what we deem 'more excusable' sins, but also to those who were hypocrites(Niccodemous)
and Thieves(the man on the Cross).

~Mark said...

"Mark, I think you're ranting a bit. All I said was that I support the rights of individuals to choose how to run their businesses, even if I don't like those business practices myself. The same goes for the right to free expression, even if the things expressed turn my stomach."


~Actually I was just trying to express my point of view at length in order to avoid sounding like I was short-shrifting you in any way. I usually try to be very brief but then risk coming across wrong and I wanted to be clear.

Julie said...

Aaron,

I worked in an OB/GYN office, so my experience is only anecdotal, not a result of scientific study :0)

You’re right that a lot of pregnant women seeking abortion would probably go directly to Planned Parenthood or another abortion mill, rather than their doctor, but remember that not all towns have Abortion Clinics. At the time I was working (13 years ago… pre-motherhood), ours did not, but does now, so that may have changed the situation somewhat.

As far as insurance goes, in our state Medical Coupons routinely cover abortion. The Abortion Clinics are usually very helpful, in getting pregnant women onto Medical Assistance, and it is easier for pregnant women to qualify. I’m sure you caught the irony there.

And you’re also right, that doctors certainly can “just say no”, but there are often professional consequences. There is enormous pressure among the doctors to “conform”, and punishment for non-conformists. And for OB/GYNs, who are by definition women’s doctors, there is pressure to be “pro-woman” – which usually comes out as feminist.

Also, the doctors often see the other end of the abortion… when the women show up at the hospital with complications the Abortion Clinic won’t deal with. More common than you might think.

The Doc I worked for viewed his office as a ministry, consequently he had a large population of patients that other OB/GYNs didn’t really want – young, unmarried, and often with a number of risk factors, from general adolescent stupidity to more serious health risks like tobacco, drug and alcohol addictions. He even (rarely) had patients who were escorted from the jail by deputies, and later hand-cuffed to their hospital beds after delivery, because of their “situations”.

Also, he was in practice for himself – he didn’t have any partners, and he delivered about 30 babies a month as well as doing surgeries, and seeing patients in the office. Do the math… that’s a lot of work. Doctors usually make arrangements to give each other “call coverage”, so they can occasionally get some time off, maybe sleep. But the other OB/GYNs in town shunned him. Also, because he accepted high-risk patients, his statistical outcomes weren’t as good as other doctors. More judgment.

But IMO, what it came down to was that he was a stench to them, because he was openly pro-life. They basically persecuted him until he finally closed up shop. I know he’s been on some medical mission trips, but don’t know what he’s doing now.

My concern is that with a president who is so vehemently pro-death, the pressure will become even greater. No "tolerance" for dissenting views.

Dan, sorry this was so long!

Rita Martinez said...

Obama administration to reverse Hippocratic oath? Instead of "You must do no harm," the 0-vision would appear to be, "You must do harm."
Just like in Canada, I hope his plans fail miserably...

Joshua Cookingham said...

In other news, my science professor also thinks global warming is bunk.

He's ranted about it many times, and I don't think he's conservative....he's certainly not a believer...

Aaron said...

FYI: The landscaper wasn't my friend. I only found out about it due to the local news.

I still vehemently disagree with most of your views on this subject. (just to make it plain). I also don't find it scriptural to treat one sin like another. Scripture is very clear that we are to have different consequences for more serious sins.

Julie: This is really bad news in any case. I had these arguments with "Christians" who told me they were voting for Obama. I told them he would reverse, singlehandely, all of the pro-life gains we made in the last decade. They just kept telling me that the President can't make abortion illegal.

I've often thought about what we could do about it, other than the usual. Christian medical school? Network of Christian OBGYNs?

Julie said...

Aaron,

I believe we need more strong Christians in every field. We need good writers, scientists, artists, grocers, computer whizzes, doctors, and so on, who are whole-heartedly following God.

And - as a consumer - to some extent, we 'vote' with our money. Which is to say, I used this doctor (aside from working for him) because of his pro-life stance. First, because Christians ought to 'do good' to each other (Gal 6:10). And second - think like a pregnant mom for a moment - a doctor who holds abortion as an option isn't fully committed to supporting the pregnancy. Kind of like a person who keeps divorce as an option isn't fully committed to working out difficulties in a marriage.

I see this as a particular problem with the trend Dan was linking to. As doctors are increasingly pressured out of the field for their pro-life views, we are left with... the others.

I challenge my friends to seek out and use pro-life doctors, whenever possible.

To that end, when that doctor was no longer practicing (and there wasn't another pro-life OB/GYN in town), I used a pro-life family physician during my last pregnancy.

Jay said...

Mark: I usually try to be very brief but then risk coming across wrong and I wanted to be clear.

I understand totally. Sorry for using the term "ranting." I'm prone to wordiness as well. Don't worry. :)

Aaron said...

Julie,

is there some way to know if they are pro-life without asking? Is there a organization?

Julie said...

I don't know of an organization. One way to find out would be checking with the local crisis pregnancy center. But I don't mind just asking. "Do you do abortions? And, if not, do you refer for them?"


My word verification is "coment"... so there's my comment. Weird.

SolaMommy said...

I got that dancing Democrat graphic in a forward this week with the caption, "WE GOT YOUR MONEY...GONNA SPEND YOUR MONEY...LA,LA,LA,LA... GONNA PRINT SOME MORE MONEY...GONNA SPEND MORE MONEY...LA, LA, LA"

:-)

REM said...

Brick Testament is poison in plastic. Not for the kidos at all. Makes you thankful in the beginning was the Word, not the picture.

~Mark said...

"Mark: I usually try to be very brief but then risk coming across wrong and I wanted to be clear.

I understand totally. Sorry for using the term "ranting." I'm prone to wordiness as well. Don't worry. :)"

~Cool, we're all good!