A Catholic college recently banned students from hanging a pro-life poster with the words “Unborn Lives Matter” on campus, claiming that the language could “provoke” other students.
The DePaul University College Republicans created the simple black and white poster to advertise their club meetings and recently submitted it to administrators for approval,according to the Daily Wire.
The poster design was passed all the way up to university President Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider who rejected it for being too similar to “Black Lives Matter” and linked the pro-life message to “bigotry that occurs under the cover of free speech.”
“Once again, DePaul University has shown its true colors,” club Vice President John Minster told The DailyWire. “Rather than standing up for the pro-life and free speech ethics this ‘Catholic’ university claims to uphold, administration has bent the knee to radical leftists, banning more speech despite the pro-life message.”
[…]Minster noted that the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, has described DePaul University as one of the worst schools for free speech in the U.S.
DePaul also has come under fire for going against Catholic values by promoting abortion. Last fall, a Cardinal Newman Society report found that DePaul and a number of other Catholic universities promoted or had connections to the abortion chain Planned Parenthood.
The head of a conservative student organization at DePaul University has been sanctioned by the university and could be expelled after he released the names of vandals who destroyed a pro-life flag display.
Kristopher Del Campo, the chairman of the Young Americans for Freedom chapter, was found guilty by the university on two counts – “Disorderly, Violent, Intimidating or Dangerous Behavior to Self or Others” and “Judicial Process Compliance.”
DePaul University did not return calls seeking comment.
Last January Del Campo and other pro-life students received permission from the university to erect a pro-life display featuring 500 flags. Vandals later destroyed the display – stuffing a number of the flags into trash cans.
The university’s public safety department launched an investigation and eventually identified 13 students who confessed to the crime. Those names were then released by the university to Del Campo.
On Feb. 5 the national Young Americans for Freedom organization posted the names of the vandals on their website. The posting generated negative comments directed at the vandals – and the university held Del Campo responsible.
Three days later, Del Campo was informed that he had violated DePaul’s Code of Student Responsibility. He was formally charged ten days later.
And of course, we have the case at Marquette University, where a professor was suspended for defending a student’s right to disagree with same-sex marriage. He could still lose his job over what he did.
Here is the report from the Oxford University website:
When does our heart first start to beat? Until now, researchers thought that the first time our heart muscle contracted to beat was at eight days after conception in mice, which equates to around day 21 of a human pregnancy.
Now, a team funded by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) at the University of Oxford has demonstrated earlier beating of the heart in mouse embryos which, if extrapolated to the human heart, suggests beating as early as 16 days after conception.
In the study, published in the journal eLife, researchers looked at the developing mouse heart and found that the muscle started to contract as soon as it formed the cardiac crescent – an early stage in heart development. In mice, this crescent forms 7.5 days after conception, which is equivalent to day 16 in the human embryo. Previously, it was thought that the heart started to contract a stage later, when the heart appears as a linear tube.
Here’s how they did it:
By adding fluorescent markers to calcium molecules within the mouse embryo, the team was able to see at exactly which point in time the calcium tells our heart muscle cells to contract and then become coordinated enough to produce a heartbeat.
The team also found that this initiation of beating was essential for the heart to develop properly at an early stage and that a protein called NCX1 plays a key role in the generation of the calcium signals needed to produce the beating action of the heart.
The heart is the first organ to form during pregnancy and is critical in providing oxygen and nutrients to the developing embryo. The process of heart development is highly conserved between mammalian species, meaning that these findings may add considerably to our understanding of how the human heart develops.
Abortion is another one of those issues where conservatives are determined to abide by what the progress of science reveals, while liberals are determined to block out what science reveals.
Here is a nice video that shows how unborn children develop in the womb:
From the moment of conception, a new set of human DNA is formed, different from the mother, different from the father. And already the little unborn child is in relationship with his or her mother. He or she is depending on her to honor her obligation to him or her, because it was she who chose to have sex, and who chose the man to have sex with, and who chose when in the relationship to have sex with him.
Those of us who are Christians have always believed that abortion was morally wrong, going write back to the beginning of the Christian faith.
Recently I came across a reading of the Didache. “The what?” you may ask. The Didache is a book written somewhere in the first or second century. For a long time it was up for consideration as Scripture. It was believed to be the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Eventually it was agreed that the book was an excellent book, but not inspired Scripture. So I was pleased to be able to download this admirable book containing good teachings from the early Church fathers.
The book seemed to be largely a lot of quotes from Scripture. You’ll learn the basic rules of Christianity — “First, you shall love God who made you; second, love your neighbor as yourself.” You’ll learn that “grave sins” are forbidden, like adultery, murder, fornication, and so on. (They specifically include pederasty in the list.) There are instructions regarding teachers, prophets, Christian assembly, and so on. Lots of the normal, good stuff. But, since this was written sometime prior to 200 AD, I was somewhat surprised at this instruction: “You shall not murder a child by abortion” (Didache, Ch 2).
Christians really would benefit from looking at the moral values of the early church. These days, we tend to decide what is right and wrong based on our feelings, including the feelings we have when other people like us or don’t like us. But deciding things based on your feelings was not real popular with the earliest Christians. They decided what to do based on what was morally right, and they always protected the weak rather than favoring the selfishness and hedonism of the strong.
One the reasons I could never be an atheist is that I would have to shut my eyes to science, and not let science provide me with the facts that undergird my reasoning about moral issues. Most of the atheists I know don’t care about science. They just want to do what makes them feel good, and they don’t care who else gets hurt.
Hillary Clinton’s pro-abortion running mate Tim Kaine will be a participant in tonight’s vice presidential debate. One question moderators should consider asking him that’s why he is co-sponsoring a radical bill that would overturn every single pro-life law Nationwide.
Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates are promoting the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act. It’s radical pro-abortion legislation that they are hoping to be able to get through Congress despite pro-life Republicans controlling both chambers currently.
LifeNews spoke with Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee about the legislation. He says it’s one of the most extreme pro-abortion pieces of legislation ever introduced in Congress. It’s so extreme that the typical pro-abortion members of the house and the Senate have co-sponsored the bill but so has Tim Kaine who claims to be a Catholic with a moderate position on abortion.
“This is the most extreme pro-abortion bill ever introduced in Congress. It would invalidate nearly all state laws that apply to abortion, including waiting periods and laws to protect the conscience rights of pro-life health care providers, and would require funding of abortion in most government health programs,” Johnson explained. “It would also render meaningless nearly all limits on late abortions. It would more accurately be titled the “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act.”
“Yet, 35 senators and 143 House members, all Democrats, have co-sponsored this radical bill — including vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine,” Johnson added.
Kaine has said he thinks women should be able to abort their babies and has added that he is going to “get comfortable with” Hillary Clinton’s push for free abortions paid for by American taxpayers.
We have enough trouble getting Christians to be pro-life without having high-profile pro-abortion people claiming to be Christian.
My position on this election is that people can vote for Trump-Pence if they want, as long as they admit Trump’s problems and don’t lie for him. But I am recommending that no one vote for Clinton-Kaine. These two do have a record of political action, and it is very much against the causes that I believe in, as a Christian and a conservative.
The UK Daily Mail reports on a 16-year-old girl who allegedly threw her newborn baby out a second story window.
A 16-year-old girl accused of throwing her newborn out of the window has been pictured in her mugshot.
Antonia Lopez, of Omaha, Nebraska, is being charged as an adult in the death of her daughter.
[…]Authorities believe Lopez went into labor on Friday, gave birth in her bedroom and threw her baby girl from the second floor of her apartment building.
Lopez then told her mother what had happened, according to authorities. Lopez’s mother found the baby in the grass, called 911 and gave the newborn CPR until paramedics arrived, police said.
[…]The baby had died by the time she was transported her to the hospital, paramedics said. She was then pronounced officially dead.
This is really sad. Have you ever thought about what it must be like for a little baby to be rejected by its own mother? And for the mother to not care about him, because she just wants to do what makes her happy, even though she made him? It’s horrible. Every baby should have a mother who welcomes him and takes care of his needs. Who else is there to take care of him, if not his own mother?
Amanda Prestigiacomo has a comment on this story at the Daily Wire, then I’ll say something that occurred to me.
The baby girl weighed only two pounds and was believed to be 27-28 weeks old at the time of her murder, according to the director of the neonatal intensive care unit at the Nebraska Medical Center, Dr. Ann Anderson-Berry. Murdering a baby inside a woman’s womb at this stage, called a third-trimester abortion, is legal in 12 states and the District of Columbia.
[…]Lopez was charged with murder: one count of felony child abuse resulting in death.
But all she really had to do was ask to have her baby murdered while she was still in her womb. This gruesome act is somehow interpreted as a “woman’s right to choose” on account of location of the baby at the time of the murder. Twelve different states—Iowa, Texas, Virginia, Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, West Virginia—and the District of Columbia, would have happily murdered the baby, injecting the baby with poison and ripping them apart limb-by-limb, with zero legal repercussions.
Third-trimester babies are completely viable to live outside of the womb and can feel pain.
As soon as I read this story, it made me think about the baby elephant who cried for 5 hours, because its mother tried to stomp it to death. Every time I think about that baby elephant, and it makes me cry. I don’t see how this story is any different, except it’s worse because it’s a person who was made in the image of God, and the people who tried the save the baby were not in time to save him.
OK, I have another point about this. When I looked at the selfies of this teen in the UK Daily Mail article, the first thing that occurred to me was that this teen was interested in having fun, feeling good, getting attention, etc. The fact that her father is never mentioned anywhere made me think that no one was around to teach her to be responsible and to put the needs of others above her own pursuit of happiness. She didn’t see the baby as more important than her own happiness, even though it she chose the man who impregnated her, and she chose to have sex with that man. The baby wasn’t to blame for anything, he just wants to have a mother like all the other babies do. She has a moral obligation to take care of what she chose to make. He needs her to take care of him. It’s his birthday, for God’s sake!
When you look at the Bible, you see Jesus divesting himself of power, and coming as a man to serve others – to look out for their needs. Paul says that this example should be imitated by followers of Jesus in Phillipians 2:
1 Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion,
2 make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.
3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;
4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
OK, so what’s more important? Avoiding obligations to others, or taking care of the needs of others? Yes, there is time for having fun and doing fun things. But Christians need to be alert to those around them. Whenever someone close is in need, they have to consider it a calling from God, and act to help the person in need. In the case of the pregnant teen, it was her baby. The baby was conceived as a result of the teen’s decision. It’s just like buying a pet in the pet store – you own it, and it has a natural claim on you to provide for and protect it. You made the decision to make it (or with pets, you made the decision to own it). We all understand that taking care of babies is not fun and thrills. It’s work. But for Christians at least, we ought to be trained to see the needs of others as acceptable to us. We can’t always be running away from expectations, responsibilities and obligations.
In fact, I would recommend to young people that they get used to having to care for others, and not getting their way all the time. With practice, you can actually get to the point where you don’t resent having to care for the needs of others. Now, I don’t think you should commit yourself to more than you can handle, and that might mean that you take fewer risks, so you have more time and resources to help others who may need you. Don’t stress your resources, in short. But the point is that we need to be alert to the fact that there is something in Christianity that praises self-denial, and self-sacrifice. This is more important in Christianity than having fun, having peer approval, doing “interesting” things so that other people will be impressed. Manage your life wisely so you can take on someone else’s problems if you need to. Don’t take risks that will create situations that you can’t handle. But if a situation occurs, take it as a task from God to live out your faith. We ought to be different. There ought to be a difference between us and them.
I wanted to post a lecture given by someone with experience counseling students about sexual health at a major university campus.
Here is the speaker’s bio:
Miriam Grossman, MD, has been a psychiatrist at UCLA Student Psychological Services for more than ten years and has worked with students for twenty years. She received her BA from Bryn Mawr College, her medical degree from New York University, and her psychiatric training through Cornell University Medical College. She is board certified in child, adolescent and adult psychiatry.
I found this lecture given by her to NZ Family First here:
Rather than try to summarize that lecture, I found a full transcript of a similar lecture that she delivered at the Heritage Foundation about what public schools teach young people about sex, and why. This is especially good for those who want to read rather than listen.
Here’s the abstract:
The principles of sexual health education are not based on the hard sciences. Sex education is animated by a specific vision of how society must change, and because of this, sex ed curricula omit critical biological truths and endorse high-risk behaviors. The priority for SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, and Advocates for Youth is not the health and well-being of young people. These federally funded organizations are fighting “repression” and “intolerance,” not herpes or syphilis. But when sexual freedom reigns, sexual health suffers. Our children are being taught that you can play with fire, and we are obligated to inform them of the risks they face and to teach them biological truths, even when they are politically incorrect.
And here’s a scary excerpt:
You’re all familiar with the epidemics of STIs, sexually transmitted infections, in this country, but there’s another one. It’s a man-made one. It’s an epidemic of ignorance, misinformation, and duplicity.
If you go to the medical library and browse through the journals, you will learn some amazing things, such as a girl’s cervix is more easily infected by sexually transmitted infections than a woman’s because it has yet to mature. Boys and men don’t have a corresponding area of vulnerability in their reproductive system. The neurobiology of teen girls is unique, and it makes a girl’s developing brain more vulnerable to stress, especially the stress of failed relationships.
You’d learn that the adolescent brain functions differently from an adult’s. The area responsible for reasoning, suppression of impulses, and weighing the pros and cons of one’s decisions is not fully developed. Furthermore, under conditions that are intense, novel, and stimulating, teens’ decisions are more likely to be shortsighted and driven by emotion. You would discover that oral sex is associated with cancer of the tonsils and throat. The human papilloma virus infects those areas just like it does the cervix.
You’d find loads of articles—in fact, entire books— about oxytocin, a hormone that tells the brain, “You’re with someone special now; time to turn caution off and trust on; time to create an emotional bond.” In both sexes, oxytocin is released during cuddling and kissing and sexual touching, but estrogen ramps up the effects of oxytocin, and testosterone dampens them.
[…]You’d learn also that the healthy vagina, due to its architecture and biology, is an unfriendly environment for HIV, while the rectum has cells that facilitate the entry of HIV directly into the lymphatic system. This and many, many more things have been known for years, but when you turn to sex ed curricula and, most disturbing, the Web sites that are suggested to young people and their parents, nothing: none of this information.
So there is a man-made epidemic of ignorance: ignorance of biological truths that should be central in any sex ed curriculum or parent education program. Awareness of these truths can save lives.
I put the responsibility for the epidemic of ignorance directly on those organizations that are at the helm of teaching sex education because, contrary to their claims and promises, their programs are not comprehensive; they are not science-based or medically accurate or up-to-date.
I’ll go even further: They are not about preventing disease. Sex ed is a social movement. Its goal is to change society. The primary goal of groups like SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, and Advocates for Youth is to promote sexual freedom and to rid society of its Judeo–Christian taboos and restrictions.
The rest of the lecture transcript contains specific examples of how sex educators put children at risk.
I read Dr. Grossman’s first book, and I bought her second book, and I really, really recommend these books to people who think that sex is harmless and that sex educators have no agenda that they are trying to push on children. I really can’t recommend these books more highly to parents who trust public schools to tell children the truth about important issues like sexuality. They have an agenda, and so you should be armed with the facts.