He's here! :D I have a few pictures of crappy skype quality, but first, funny story.
Yesterday I went to a bonfire party thing, and in the midst of munching on Funions and hot dogs I got a text. (This was around 10:00 PM.) Upon seeing that it was a picture, the only thought going through my head was 'who would sent me a picture this late?'
Unfortunately I can't get the picture off my phone. But it was of Lydiana holding a baby, with the caption 'Benjamin Isaac!' underneath it. I literally screamed and had to show everyone at the party the picture because I was so excited. :3
We skyped with everyone tonight for a while, and I got four pictures. They're of dubious quality, but they get the point across.
Baby Ben is VERY quiet and docile. He dozed or slept almost the entire time we skyped--this was only one of about 3 times that he even opened his eyes.
Wade had just knocked his head about 5 minutes before this, so there's a bruise forming above his right eye--poor kid. :/
Apparently he thinks Ben is a kitty, because he talks to him the way he talks to the neighbor's cat, and tends to pet his head. I'm not sure if he know what to think of him yet...I'm wondering how many days it'll take before he starts wondering when the baby will leave. XD
:D
Mom and I are going down in a couple of weeks for a week, mostly to see Ben and distract Wade. I'll get some 'real' pictures then, but for now these will have to do.
I have two videos I would like to share. The first one is a testimony by Dr. Anthony Levatino concerning the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803) that was given last week before a U.S. House subcommittee. This is not for the faint of heart or squeamish, as Dr. Levatino is a former abortionist and part of his testimony covers the 'suction dilation and evacuation method' (or suction D&E) for abortion. For a transcription of his testimony, visit this link.
The second video is an undercover video taken by a woman who went into a Planned Parenthood clinic to find out if they would encourage a sex-selection abortion.
I don't think it'd be spoiling anything to let you know that not only does the employee encourage a sex-selection abortion, she gives advice on what OB-GYNs to contact for abortions and how to get around the Medicaid loopholes (fraud, anyone?).
I'm sorry, but the more I see of this organization, the less I'm willing to buy that they're all about 'women's healthcare'. And the more that people try to tell me that this is a sign of 'liberation' and 'women's rights', the more I think that the 'right' to slaughter one's offspring should be taken away. Just sayin'.
Related, but on a side note: I have a quote from Dr. Levitano's testimony concerning the claim that abortions 'save women's lives'. Here it is in full.
"Before I close, I want to make a comment on the claims that I often
hear that we must keep abortion legal in order to save women’s lives, or
prevent grave physical health damage, in cases of acute conditions that
can and do arise in pregnancy. Albany Medical Center, where I worked
for over seven years, is a tertiary referral center that accepts
patients with life-threatening conditions related to or caused by
pregnancy. I personally treated hundreds of women with such conditions
in my tenure there. There are several conditions that can arise or
worsen, typically during the late second or third trimester of
pregnancy, that require immediate care. In many of those cases, ending
or “terminating” the pregnancy, if you prefer, can be life saving, but
“terminating a pregnancy” does not necessarily mean “abortion.” I
maintain that abortion is seldom if ever a useful intervention in these
cases.
Here is why: Before a Suction D&E procedure can be performed, the
cervix must first be sufficiently dilated. In my practice, this was
accomplished with serial placement of laminaria. Laminaria is a type of
sterilized seaweed that absorbs water over several hours and swells to
several times its original diameter. Multiple placements of several
laminaria at a time are absolutely required prior to attempting a
suction D&E. In the mid-second trimester, this requires
approximately 36 hours to accomplish. If one were to use the alternate
method defined in federal law as Partial-Birth Abortion (but now
generally banned), this process requires three days, as explained by Dr.
Martin Haskell in his 1992 paper that first described this type of
abortion.
In cases where a pregnancy places a woman in danger of death or grave
physical injury, a doctor more often than not doesn’t have 36 hours,
much less 72 hours, to resolve the problem. Let me illustrate with a
real-life case that I managed while at the Albany Medical Center. A
patient arrived one night at 28 weeks gestation with severe
pre-eclampsia or toxemia. Her blood pressure on admission was 220/160. A
normal blood pressure is approximately 120/80. This patient’s pregnancy
was a threat to her life and the life of her unborn child. She could
very well be minutes or hours away from a major stroke. This case was
managed successfully by rapidly stabilizing the patient’s blood pressure
and “terminating” her pregnancy by Cesarean section. She and her baby
did well. This is a typical case in the world of high-risk obstetrics.
In most such cases, any attempt to perform an abortion “to save the
mother’s life” would entail undue and dangerous delay in providing
appropriate, truly life-saving care. During my time at Albany Medical
Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating” pregnancies to
save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children
that I had to deliberately kill was zero."
Have you ever come across something that so filled with filth and vileness that you don't know exactly how to respond to it? Show of hands, anyone?
As mentioned in a previous blog post, I am unabashedly pro-life. There's not much else I can say to expound upon that without getting into the inherent injustice that masquerades as 'pro-choice'. So coming across a blog post that refers to abortion as a '...medical procedure that should be routine, like getting a filling at the dentist or getting a vaccination...' and tells women to be proud of their 'choice' understandably gets my ire up.
Am I the only one who sees something wrong with that mindset? Women have been having babies for thousands of years, with a very high success rate. When has it become admirable for women to willingly and happily sacrifice their children by admitting access to what should be the safest place in the world for a developing infant, and allowing someone to tear that infant apart? The mindset has become so 'me' centered that people think it's better for a woman to kill her child and 'save her own life', rather than actually be a mother and sacrifice her own life for that child.
Then there are people who think that abortion is a 'necessary evil', that a person can think it's wrong but they can't tell a woman who doesn't think it's wrong that it is. Following that train of thought, right and wrong become subjective. I could go around punching people in the face, and if they tell me 'that's wrong' and I say 'It's my choice, I don't think it's wrong', who are they to press their opinions of what's right and wrong upon me? (I wouldn't do that, I'm just using it as an example.)
And for those who think that one's right to swing their fist ends where the other guy's face begins (metaphorically speaking), abortion is a really lousy practice to use that argument against. The idea that something is wrong if it hurts someone else actually supports a pro-life POV, seeing as how in a typical abortion the child is either torn limb from limb or made to swallow/be bathed in a saline solution that causes horrific burns inside and out.
If that's not hurting someone else, I'm not sure what is. But back to the original blog post.
If a woman is ashamed of an abortion, that's a very natural reaction. The killing of an innocent being who hasn't even had the opportunity to draw a breath is horrific. Being proud and flaunting one's status as a 'liberated' woman at the expense of another's life, however, is a completely different story.
There is a short 33 minute film, made in the summer of 2011, that highlights the fact that America is in the middle of a holocaust. Around 3700 children are killed each day under the politically-correct label of 'choice'--it's public, legal, and the 'right' for women to opt to kill their unborn children through abortion is defended daily.
I find it interesting that we live in a country where, if a pregnant woman is killed, the murderer is charged with a double homicide; but if she opts to kill her child in the name of convenience, it's totally fine and she is encouraged to do so.
The rape/incest and health reasons arguments are misleading, because they count on the idea that the majority of abortions are performed on women who have become impregnated through violent means, or that they will die should they try to carry the baby to term (as in an ectopic pregnancy). The reality is that less than 1% of abortions are performed on victims of rape or incest, and less than 6% on women who are in health emergencies. A staggering 93% of abortions are for social reasons or convenience.
Another assumption concerning the rape argument is that a woman who has a child conceived in such circumstances will be constantly reminded of those circumstances and loathe their child as a result. I ask: should a baby be punished for the sins of his father? What is worse, rape or murder? Who are we to predict what kind of a person that child may be? It also assumes that the mother will be 'forced' to raise her child. There are millions of couples in the United States alone that are on waiting lists for adoption. It's interesting that having a 'choice' seems to be mean 'choice to have an abortion', rather than adoption.
I could continue for ages...this is a subject I'm more than a little passionate about. If you haven't seen 180 yet, I highly recommend it. Yes, it's 33 minutes long...but it's a well-spent half hour. Plus, if you haven't seen it you can't argue against it. :p
