Hilarious

Make sure you aren't eating or drinking when you read this, unless your prepared to clean your monitor.

Evidence That The Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Was A Very Small Victory.

Sad but not unexpected news out of Cincinnati as the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down a Michigan partial-birth abortion ban. The case was brought to test the idea of broadening the definition of partial-birth abortion to include a common procedure used in the second trimester called Dilation and Evacuation (D & E) as opposed to the recently upheld federal ban on Dilation and Extraction (D&X).

For anyone not familiar with the technical definitions of these two procedures, here is a clinical definition taken from a document published by the Attorney General of Michigan regarding the Legal Birth Definition Act.

Dilation and Evacuation (D & E) Procedure:

As performed late in the second trimester, the abortion procedure commonly referred to as dilation and evacuation, or "D & E, " begins with dilation of a woman's cervix. Once sufficient dilation is achieved, the physician reaches into the woman's uterus with an instrument, grasps as extremity of the fetus, and pulls. when the fetus lodges in the cervix, the traction between the grasping instrument and the cervix causes dismemberment and eventual death, although death may occur prior to dismemberment. The process continues until the entire dead fetus has been removed, piece-by-piece, from the woman's uterus.

Dilation and Extraction (D&X) Procedure:

The physician initiates the D & X or partial birth abortion procedure by dilating a woman's cervix, but to a greater degree than in the traditional D & E procedure. Once the physician achieves sufficient dilation, the manner in which the abortion proceeds depends upon the presentation of the fetus. . . . In a breech extraction, the physician partially delivers the fetus through the mother's cervix up to a point that allows the physician to access the fetus's head, which is inside the mother, while stabilizing the fetus's body, which is outside the mother. Then, in order to collapse the fetus's skull, the physician forces a pair of scissors into the base of the skull, enlarges the opening and evacuates the contents with a suction catheter. the abortion concludes with the removal, in a single pass, of the fetus's intact, dead body. if the fetus presents head first, the doctor first collapses the fetus' exposed skull by breaching and compressing the head with the forceps' jaws, inserting a finger. . . ., or piercing the head with a sharp instrument, such as a tenaculum or a large-bore needle. The doctor then suctions out the fetus's skull contents, if necessary, and completes the delivery of the fetus from the mother's body, whole and intact, in a single pass.

I went to the trouble of posting these very detailed definitions to point out the absurdity of what we are arguing over in court. As you can plainly see by reading the definition, the major point of difference between the two is not how many weeks old the pregnancy is, but how the fetus is removed. In the D & E procedure it is stressed that the fetus is removed piece-by-piece, while in the D & X procedure great pains are taken to stress that the fetus is removed intact. I guess that don't count vacuuming the brain out as dismemberment.

Incrementalism is excruciating. Why are we drawing the line here? Our government is telling us one of these procedures is legal, and the other is not. Have they read these definitions? As a society we delude ourselves with the arcana of medical terminology to hide the fact that we are arguing over two ways to kill a baby. How can a thinking person not realize the clean and morally correct line is to define life as beginning at conception? Conceived persons would then have all the rights granted to people who are already born.

Of course, drawing the line at conception causes inconveniences for regular folk, as it is becoming common knowledge that the pill can act as an abortifacient. Can we not see how accepting contraception has led to this? It is indeed a slippery slope. The right thing to do is rarely the convenient thing.

Soccer Kid

This may be the funniest commercial I've ever seen.

HT - American Papist

Duncan Hunter For President

PowerLine has a good thread on their candidates forum about the man I will be supporting in the Republican presidential primary, Duncan Hunter. Representative Hunter is a rock ribbed conservative, pro-life across the board on all the issues. His core beliefs can be found here. Please do everything you can to support his efforts.

Wading Into Irrational Thoughts

I read Daily Kos almost everyday, although most of what I read there is so illogical I don't feel the need to comment. But this post needs to be addressed. The post is a reaction by planned parenthood to a story about a pharmacy in Great Falls, MT that has decided not to fill prescriptions for birth control. The owners, who are Catholic, made the decision and ran an ad in the local paper to inform their customers of their decision.

Of course, I expect planned parenthood to disagree with this move, but the lengths to which they distort simple facts have to be pointed out.

Here is the first quote that got my attention:

"the maternal death rate has fallen more than 60 percent since 1965, when the Supreme Court constitutionally protected the use of birth control in the United States. And if that isn't enough, the infant death rate has declined by more than 70 percent. Birth control is basic health care for women. Not only does it save lives, it helps women and their families prevent poverty and plan their futures. It is mind-boggling to me that women in this country are still denied the right to choose when and whether to have a child."

Pop quiz.

The number of rapes committed and ice cream cones sold go up in a city during the months of June, July, and August. How should the city go about solving it's crime problem?

If planned parenthood were in charge, they would outlaw ice cream, since it's obviously causing the increase in rape. They make the common statistical error of assuming correlation proves causation. The fact that maternal and infant death rates have fallen since 1965 is not proof that birth control saves lives, and they make no mention of the pill's effects on cancer rates, STD contraction, and birth defects (of course babies with birth defects can be aborted).

But that's not all, the post continues:

"In the town of Great Falls, Montana, it would leave me with fewer choices and greater barriers to deciding when and whether I want to have children."

Newsflash! As Natural Family Planning teaches, there are only three one hundred percent effective ways of avoiding pregnancy. Male castration, removal of the ovaries, and abstinence. The choice is always ours as to whether or not we have children, but sex comes with the responsibility of raising any children that God blesses us with.

Finally the post engages the standard planned parenthood practice of extrapolating an extreme medical case to rationalize the pill for everyone, by telling the story of an infertile woman taking the pill for medical reasons not being able to get her prescription filled at this particular pharmacy. Let's forget the fact that this is a free country and she can take her prescription across the street to another pharmacy, or order it online, there are very few medical conditions that absolutely require the use of the pill as treatment.

I Have Nothing To Add To This

Simply a brilliant analysis.

HT - Curt Jester

Get Married And Call Me In The Morning.

A Reuters story out today reports on a study done at The Ohio State University in Columbus, OH that found marriage is a benefit to mood.

"Researchers found that the participants who married within the five-year period scored an average of about 3.5 points less on the depression test than those who remained single."

So God knows what he is doing after all. I think he told us this a long time ago with all that "It isn't good for man to be alone stuff" Study after study concludes what most of us already know, giving yourself to another in marriage is beneficial to you. Married people live longer, are healthier, and are more financially secure, but it still gets a bad rap in the secular world.

Photo provided by - hosiawak

Why The Pill is an Abortifacient

The Intellectual Foundation of Catholocism

Jimmy Akin has a great post on an interview with Frank Beckwith at the National Catholic Register. In the interview he discusses the intellectual foundation of the faith and the misrepresentation of Catholic teaching by protestants and evangelicals.

I think GK Chesterton said this, although I could be wrong so please correct me if I am. Of course I'm paraphrasing from memory:

"There are many people who hate what they think is the Catholic Church, but few who actually hate the Church"

Organist Fired for Selling for Pure Romance

I would like to applaud the priest in this story. It is not easy to do the right thing. People always perceive the actions of the church as discriminatory. The priest did not say this woman had to quite her job selling sex toys. He simply said it was inconsistent with Catholic teaching, and that she would have to choose whether to continue her duties with the Church or Pure Romance, but she could not do both. It was her choice. She exercised her free will, and the Church did not interfere.

The tone of the story is slightly derogatory to the Church and the priest involved. The priest doesn't even condemn all of the products Pure Romance sells. He says some of the products are inconsistent with church teaching, and he's right. He handled it in a very restrained and loving way. Why do people constantly want the Church to bend to their ideas? One of the things that is great about the Catholic Church is the consistency of the teachings. I can understand acting out of ignorance, and sinning because of the human condition. However, once you are aware of the teaching, to act willfully and consistently in opposition to it is to choose not to be Catholic.

That's up to the individual, but don't ask the Church to change teaching just so you can remain Catholic and continue sinful behavior.

International Sex Trafficking Ring in Minnesota

Like I've been saying, this is happening almost daily now. Via Power Line comes this report of the indictment of 25 people involved in smuggling illegal immigrants to Minnesota who were then kept as slaves to work in the sex industry there. It seems most are more interested in the immigration aspect of this story, since the government in Minnesota has taken a laissez faire approach to immigration policy. Still, the more interesting thing to me is that there is enough demand, in Minnesota of all places, for an international sex trafficking ring to take root there.

Congratulations Father Chris Decker!

I wanted to take a moment to congratulate Fr. Chris Decker who was ordained over the weekend. If you don't know him, he is the host of The Catholic Underground, a podcast that is well worth your time. I've been listening to it for about six months now, and it is entertaining and enlightening. Here is the text of the homily given at the ordination mass.

New Study Finds Non-Contraceptive Sex Acts as an Antidepressant for Women

A new study outlined in Psychology Today claims that women who have sex without condoms gain an antidepressant effect. The author writes:

"Study author Gordon G. Gallup, Ph.D., a psychologist at the State University of New York in Albany, also found that women who routinely had intercourse without condoms became increasingly depressed as more time elapsed since their last sexual encounter. There was no such correlation for women whose partners regularly used condoms."

The study attributes this to chemicals in the semen. Reductionist science at work. To me it's just more proof that God's plan for sex and marriage has more benefits than we can imagine. Someday the science will catch up with what the church teaches.

HT - Instapundit

Things That Make You Go Hmmm.

Stories like this seem to show up in the news on an almost daily basis now. According to the article in the Cincinnati Enquirer:

"Rodney McMillen, 36, of Norwood, broke into a Fort Mitchell apartment armed with a knife and wearing only a thong, set up a video camera, then jumped on a sleeping woman and attempted to rape her."

There are a couple of things that are disturbing about this story. First of all, if you're not familiar with Northern Kentucky, Fort Mitchell is a fairly upscale suburban neighborhood. There are some working class areas, but it's not like this is taking place in an inner city ghetto, or an area of decline like some areas in Cincinnati itself. Although I do have to note, the man was not from Ft. Mitchell, he lived in Norwood, which is one of the declining areas in Cincinnati.

The second interesting fact is that he set up a video camera before he attempted the crime. This is how they caught him of course, after the victim fought him off. Is this guy just a candidate for the Darwin Awards or is there deeper reason behind his actions?

Of course, I am speculating on this story, but I would not be surprised if Mr. McMillen was heavy pornography user. I don't think anyone can seriously deny the link between heavy pornography use and the escalation of sex crimes around the world. Although I don't agree with her politics, One Angry Girl has some excellent resources on her site regarding this issue. Porn causes it's consumers to objectify women. It is like any other addiction in that the addict needs more and more graphic material to get his fix. This results in an escalation into more "perverse" forms of pornography and possibly to an attempt to act out in the real world.

The article claims Mr. McMillen is mentally ill, and he very well may be, but that condition would have just made the escalation that much faster in him. The fact that he showed up wearing a thong and was prepared to video tape the act suggests that he harbored a fantasy that this was just a game, and that his victim would willingly go along with the act. Possibly just putting up a modest attempt to fight him off, but engoying it all along. Not coincidentally, this is how some rape scenes are glofified in pornography. Why else would he think he would have time to retrieve a camera after he was finished, and escape wearing only a thong.

I don't believe pornography should be protected as free speech. It should be outlawed whenever possible. At some point our society has to distinguish between things that are intrinsically immoral, and things that can lead to immoral behavior but are not immoral in and of themselves. Alcohol, for instance, is not intrinsically immoral. If used in moderation it can be safely consumed and add enjoyment to many social activities. If abused it can have serious consequences, but so can many things if they are used in excess.

Pornography on the other hand is immoral in and of itself. Many will claim it can also be used in moderation, but this disregards the effects on the participants in the production. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials" (CCC 2354)

The bottom line is that pornography uses another human being as a means to our own end, in this case sexual pleasure, without regard to the effect it has on that person. Don't fool yourself, it has an effect. The internet is full of websites of people who used to be in the adult entertainment business who will attest to this fact. Not to mention the growing problem of human slavery, a lot of it dedicated to finding people to supply the sex industry. If your not familiar with this problem, here is an article I found in about ten seconds on google. One of thousands detailing this problem that is rarely discussed.

This kind of thing isn't talked about in daily conversation. It isn't polite, but look it up, it's a real problem, and we have responsibility to speak out.

The day has finally arrived here in Northern Kentucky. The Creation Museum that has been under construction off of Interstate 275 in Petersburg is set to open on Monday. I have many reasons to want to comment on this, the least of which is the fact that the museum is literally 10 minutes from my Mom's house.

Over the last few years I've watched the building go up, seen the construction delays, and even debated Ken Ham, the leader of Answers in Genesis, via e-mail. That people believe in young earth creationism doesn't bother me as much as the fact that media folks use this kind of information to beat all Christians over the head, without bothering to research what each group really believes. We are all lumped together and targeted for ridicule as simpletons, or people who need faith as a crutch because we are too weak to face reality.

I don't think there is any better time to clarify the Catholic Church's position on evolution. I'm sure that is what prompted our local Diocesan newspaper, The Messenger, to print an article on creation and evolution by Fr. Ronald Ketteler, who is a professor of Theology at Thomas More College here in Kentucky. The article was titled, "Faith and science: A Catholic perspective on the issue of creation and evolution" Fr. Ketteler writes:

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms a central tenet of the Christian doctrine of creation: 'We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.' (CCC n. 295) Within that doctrinal perspective, contemporary Catholic teaching holds that there is no inherent conflict in principle between the science of evolutionary biology and the doctrine of creation"

English please! As Catholics we believe God is "Creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen", we do not claim to know exactly how he did it. Evolution certainly could have been a part of the process, and given the scientific evidence in it's favor, it probably was involved. Catholics do not share the 'Sola Scriptura' mentality, that everything in the bible is literally true. We read literally when the text calls for it, and we read figuratively when it is called for. We rely on the Church and sacred tradition to guide us in how to interpret texts that were written thousands of years ago.

Our basic understanding of Genesis is that it is a framework for how God created the world, but it is figurative, and very short on details. There are many good books on this, and it is beyond my scope to go into it here. This issue confuses many good Catholics, and they have a knee jerk reaction that evolution must be wrong. I propose that what they are reacting to is not biological evolution, but what has been called "Evolutionism".

Evolutionary biology is almost certainly true. Fr. Ketteler writes, "the well known observation of Pope John Paul II in his 1996 message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on evolution, namely, that 'new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.'"

Evolutionism, on the other hand is a dogma of secular humanism championed by people like Richard Dawkins. It basically takes the science of evolution and extends it into the philosophical and metaphysical realm. It is the age old problem of reductionism. Evolutionism proposes to take God out of the equation as a causal force by claiming evolution is unguided. The problem is, this cannot possibly be proven by science.

Fr. Ketteler continues in his article, "From this doctrinal standpoint, Catholic teaching criticizes those 'neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided' for such an ideology strays 'beyond what can be demonstrated by science.' (C&S n. 69)"

So, we can see that the science doesn't conflict at all with Catholic teaching, but the dogma of Evolutionism is in direct conflict, and even attempts to supplant God. Evolutionists hide behind the science, but are actually taking part in a philosophical debate, which is always a matter of faith. Neither position can be proven by science, because we are dealing with the spiritual, which cannot be observed by the senses. Thankfully, we as Catholics know that God has revealed himself to us so that we may understand.

On the other end of the spectrum, young earth creationists put God in a box. They claim to know exactly how God created everything, and if even the science of evolution is true, it would destroy their faith as they know it. Personally, I don't think God would purposefully deceive us. If the earth was only 6,000 years old, why would he make it appear 4 billion years old? I also think that God setting in motion and directing a process like evolution to eventually bring about a creature he would give a soul and teach about love, is far more amazing.

If you are interested in further reading on this subject, I highly recommend Ken Millers book Finding Darwin's God. For a quick taste of his ideas, review his website here.

Why Isn't The Church More Inclusive?

Yesterday I was listening to the Busted Halo Cast, and was intrigued by something that happened during their "Word on the Street" segment. They went out and asked people what they thought about the future of the Church, and what they would like to see from the Church. The theme that seemed to resonate throughout the answers was that the Catholic Church needed to be more inclusive or it would decline in the future.

I don't know about you, but when I read inclusive, I think tolerant. But as someone once said, "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without conviction." What people want is for the Church to approve of their behavior. They want the Church to tell them it's OK to have sex outside of marriage, contraception isn't really wrong, we're old fashioned and out of touch.

It is not the role of the Church to adapt to the culture, it is supposed to preach the truth. If someone doesn't agree, they are not Catholic. Remember Henry VIII, at least he realized he wasn't Catholic anymore. Perhaps they should try this church described at the Cafeteria is Closed. It's Catholic like, but without all the rules. Please stop pestering my Church to change. I like it the way it is.

I guess what really bothered me was that the gentlemen doing the podcast didn't even mention this. It was kind of glossed over for fear of offending anyone. I agree that we should have respect for all human beings, and love them, regardless of their behavior, but that does not mean we should not tell them what we believe for fear of offending them.

The Torture Debate

Mark Shea of Catholic And Enjoying It often posts about his opposition to interrogation procedures approved by the Bush administration for terrorist suspects. I tend to agree with him. We claim the right to go to war using the just war doctrine or a secular variant of the same, but if we don't use moral tactics to fight the way, are we really any better than our enemy?

This Smoking Gun article details some of the Al-Qaeda torture tactics from a recently recovered manual. The manual was found in a raid in Iraq along with Al-Qaeda prisoners. Be careful clicking the link, there are graphic images. This is what we must not become.

The New Birth Control Pill

You may have heard of the new birth control pill that promises to keep women from having their period indefinitely. I don't have the energy to go on a(nother) diatribe about why contraception is immoral, but this post with a suggested warning label for the new pill sums up my position nicely.

Six Pack Abs Update

I'm several days into my new diet and workout plan and unexpected things are happening. The workouts are intense and the long recovery seems to be doing it's job. I've made significant gains in strength in less than a week after being at about the same level for a couple of months. I "look" thinner already, and I can already see a line in my stomach. Much to my surprise when I got on the scale this evening, I gained four pounds! Not the result I was looking for.

I have to conclude that this is gained muscle mass due to my thinner look. I'm going to keep at it despite the result and see what happens in a week or two. At that point I'll decide if this is getting me to my goal.

Pope Warns Politicians Who Back Abortion

Alright! I'm glad to Pope decided to speak up about this publicly. You may support abortion rights and consider yourself a Christian. You may believe in God, you may be an otherwise decent person, but you are not Catholic. This is one of my biggest gripes with people I talk to about being Catholic. They complain that the Church isn't inclusive enough. There is no debate on this one. We believe abortion is intrinsically evil. If you don't, you aren't Catholic. Case closed.

My favorite version of this is my various acquaintances who don't like the Catholic church because they weren't allowed to get married in the Church. The argument goes something like this:

"Well, they wanted me to get my first marriage annulled. That's like saying the five years I spent with her meant nothing. Like we were never married."

Well duh! That's exactly what's being said. It's very simple. Either you were never validly married and were living in a state of mortal sin, or you were validly married and are not free to remarry if your wife is still alive. We believe marriage is a sacrament that joins two people together forever. If you don't believe that, OK, but don't asked to be married in our church and impugn our beliefs.

Sorry for the rant, but this situation has come up more times than I care to count. My favorite comment of all time though was when a Protestant friend told me,

"You don't really think that cracker is the body of Christ do you? If we thought Jesus was really in Communion we would crawl to church on our knees."

I guess he's never been to a Catholic church with kneelers, or seen the procession of the faithful up the stairs to a Church in Mount Adams during Holy Week. We believe, and we do get on our knees.

If you don't believe, please don't go around telling everyone your Catholic.

The Slippery Slope

Today we get news that a Massachusetts company called Advanced Cell Technology has had successful experiments using embyonic stem cells to repair eye damage in mice. I don't think I have to expound on my objection to this practice, but let's follow the logic of the embryonic stem cell proponents to it's conclusion. If we can arbitrarily destroy a human life to help another human, how do we draw the line? What's to stop companies like ATC from growing humans from the embryos and harvesting organs for transplant patients?

All that is stopping them is the technology. If you can destroy a life that is a week old embryo, or abort a seven week old fetus, where do you draw the line. Who gets to make the decision? This is a road we do not want to go down. Life begins at conception and every human being conceived is precious and should have the same rights and protections.

If you only watch and read main stream news, your probably suprised by this article. After all, President Bush prohibited all embryonic stem cell research didn't he? Nope, he only prohibited the use of federal funds for the research. Private companies can do whatever they want. We should urge our representatives to pass a law making it illegal to do research with embryonic stem cells. Force private industry to devolop cures with morally acceptable adult stem cells. They show more promise in early research anyway, why are we risking going down this path?

Geek to Freak!

I made a bet with a friend that I could have six-pack abs by June 22, 2007. He's giving me 10-1 odds on a $10 bet that I can't do it. This would be a monumental accomplishment since I've never had a six pack before (Even when I was a kid). I've had pretty good success so far just trying to lose weight (So far I've gone from 214 to 194), but it's time to get drastic. I'm going with the four week program outlined by Tim Ferris on his blog. My first workout will be Sunday afternoon after my wife and son leave for a two week vacation.

I will be making a couple of modifications. I won't eat nearly as many calories since I'm going more for fat loss than muscle gain. The real goal is to reduce my body fat percentage into the <10% range. Stay tuned to this blog for updates.

PS - Pick up Tim Ferriss' new book The 4-Hour Workweek. You won't regret it. It's got some very original material in it about the new economy and alternate work environments.

Jerusalem Post Article on "Jesus Tomb"

The link above is for a good article in the Jerusalem Post about the new "Jesus Tomb" documentary. The author quotes Amos Kloner, who reiterates his position that all this speculation is nonsense, and even addresses the missing ossuary that the documentary will claim is the "James son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus" ossuary. Interesting reading, but more evidence that this documentary is a sensationalized film intended for the fun and profit of the makers.

Strike That - Titanic Director Reruns Old Story

After doing some further investigating, I don't think there is any new information in the "Jesus Family Tomb" story. An excerpt I found from The Jesus Dynasty by James D. Tabor states,

Shortly before Easter in 1996 another dramatic story broke: "Jesus Family Tomb Discovered." It was reported that a tomb discovered back in 1980, but never brought to public attention, contained a significant cluster of names associated with the Jesus family including a Mary, a Joseph, a second Mary, a Jude son of Jesus, a Matthew, and most significantly, a Jesus son of Joseph. the London Sunday Times paraded the story in a full front-page feature article under the title "The Tomb That Dare Not Speak Its Name" on March 31.

The only new wrinkle I see is that now they claim to have DNA tests of two of the ossuaries from the tomb. All they can tell us though is that Jesus son of Joseph and Mary are not blood relatives. Hardly earth shattering new information. Of course, we'll have to wait and see the documentary to see if there are any other new claims.

Tabor also relates in his book that

"Amos Kloner, who subsequently published the official report on the Talpiot excavation, maintained that the 'possibility of it being Jesus' family [is] very close to zero.' Motti Neiger, spokesperson for the Israel Antiquities Authority, agreed 'that chances of these being the actual burials of the holy family are almost nil."

Why pursue an old story? Follow the money. James Cameron wants to get back in the limelight, and Tabor has conveniently timed the release of the paperback version of his book for one month after the documentary first airs. Not to mention the yearly attempt to discredit Christianity during the Easter season.

Titanic Director Debunks Christianity!!

James Cameron is releasing a documentary claiming to have found the tomb of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, their son Judah, just to name three. The tomb contains the remains of ten individuals. I don't have all the details yet, but a couple of things make me instantly suspicious.

1. Why would archaeologists release this information in the form of a documentary instead of in a scientific journal? I subscribe to Biblical Archeology Review and have not seen anything mentioning this. If there has been, please correct me.
2. They only mention five of the ten names in the article. All five were very common names in the era of the people in the tomb. Why haven't they mentioned the other five? My guess is that they probably don't fit the mold of it being Jesus' family.
3. They only tested the DNA of two bodies, those of "Jesus Son of Joseph" and "Mary known as the master". They determined these two people were not blood related. Since they were in the same tomb, they also concluded they must have been married. Why didn't they test the rest of the bodies? I would think they could have laid out the family relationships by doing this.

I haven't been able to dig deeply into this yet, these are just my gut reactions. I'll be doing more research in the coming days. I plan on investigating the website set up for the documentary. It can be found here.

If Only This Guy Had Access To Pornagraphy

I'm sure this guy wouldn't have committed this crime if had access to pornography. That's what many so called "progressive" minds would have you believe. I'd be willing to bet the farm that his porn collection rivals that of Larry Flint. Do you really think this man could have resisted his urge to abduct and assault an 11 year old girl while he was naked, if he just could have fulfilled his "needs" in the privacy of his own home. The more likely scenario is that the scenes he has seen in pornography conditioned his mind to think, if only for a while, that this was OK. He couldn't resist it. After all he is only an animal with urges and instincts. Why should he be held to a higher standard?

Of course, this is all just speculation on one individual case, but more and more studies show the link between pornography use and an increase in sexual crimes. One that I know of was published in 2002 in the journal Mind, Medicine, and Adolescence, by Dr. Claudio Violato, Dr. Elizabeth Oddone-Paolucci, and Dr. Mark Genuis. In it they studied 12,000 participants and concluded that exposure to pornography leads to increased risk for committing sexual offences.

There are many more studies that have shown the same link and several good anti porn websites. I will not link to them here, because many of them have content that may be objectionable to some, but if you don't have to search very hard to find them.

The Original Agenda of Planned Parenthood

My wife and I are enrolled in a program put on by Familia called The Splendor of Love. We meet once a month with a few other couples to discuss a book written by Fr. Walter Schu called, The Splendor of Love, John Paul II's Vision for Marriage and Family. This book is an explanation of John Paul II's Theology of The Body. Tonight, while reading the material for next month, it reminded me of some interesting information about Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, that always bears repeating for those who aren't aware of it.

Margaret Sanger was heavily involved in the eugenics movement in New York before the founding of Planned Parenthood, which was originally called the American Birth Control League. The basic philosophy of the eugenics movement is the improvement of the human race through the reproductive sciences. Sanger took this to extremes by declaring certain members of society genetically superior, and proposing to weed out the unfit with birth control. It is unnatural selection, where the elites decide who is fit for reproduction.

Fr. Schu includes one telling quote from a private letter Sanger wrote to Clarence Gamble dated October 19, 1939.

"The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Obviously, Sanger was no great champion of women's rights as she is ofter made out to be. She was firmly behind your right not to reproduce if you were poor, a minority, or otherwise what she determined was a burden to society. Judging from her words, she would not have supported your right to reproduce unless you were deemed fit. But who separates the fit from the unfit? Soon you are trampling all over basic human rights, to say nothing of moral law.

Fr. Schu includes many other damning quotes in his book. Most are taken from Sanger's 1922 book Pivot of Civilization. It would probably make for interesting reading if you could keep yourself from becoming ill in the process.

The question today is whether Planned Parenthood's agenda has really changed all that much over the years. They have more tools now to achieve their goals with abortion and the morning after pill to go along with birth control, but the main thrust is still an attack on the basic right to life.

Birth control is a gateway to abortion and euthanasia. Blinded by narcissism, advocates of these methods are attempting to play God. Soon they are happily skipping down the slippery slope, and making these decisions for others. For their own good of course, all the while selectively weeding out those segments of society they deem unfit. Seems like back door genocide to me! Pray that they don't deem you unfit.