Category Maybe It’s Just Me, But…

General ramblings of an easily amused mind.

What are the Girl Scouts Supporting?

Ed 4 Comments

A disturbing news item was recently published by the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) about the activities of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS). It would appear that WAGGGS worked in cooperation with the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) to distribute a brochure entitled “Healthy, Happy and Hot” at a “no-adults-welcome panel” during a United Nations week-long event (the annual Commission on the Status of Women).

So, what’s so disturbing? Well, firstly, here’s a sample from the brochure quoted from the C-FAM article (click here to read the brochure for yourself; click here to read the C-FAM article):

The brochure claims, “Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse… But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!” The brochure goes on to encourage young people to “Improve your sex life by getting to know your own body. Play with yourself! Masturbation is a great way to find out more about your body and what you find sexually stimulating. Mix things up by using different kinds of touch from very soft to hard. Talk about or act out your fantasies. Talk dirty to them.”

Secondly, although the brochure is targeted at young people with HIV, the problem I have with this is that WAGGGS and IPPF are encouraging sexual immorality and promiscuity around the world via the United Nations. Not only that, but you need to remember what these organizations also consider to be a part of “women’s reproductive rights”–abortion-on-demand. I wrote about that last year in my post entitled Exporting Death.

Thirdly, there’s a slap against pro-lifers from the IPPF brochure:

Some healthcare workers and service providers think that young people or people living with HIV should not have sex. They may let their personal opinions get in the way of providing good information and services. Remember that you have sexual and reproductive rights.

Well, that just makes sense as Planned Parenthood in the US is the largest abortion provider, accounting for approximately 305,300 abortions in 2007 (click here to see their annual report, go to page 9). That’s 25 percent of the estimated 1.2 million abortions performed in the US every year.

The question to ask is this: what is the relationship between  WAGGGS  and your local Girl Scout troop that sells you cookies? The Girl Scouts of the USA has been a full member of WAGGGS since 1928 and are supportive of the policies and positions of WAGGGS (click here to see the member status of GSUSA).

And before I could even get this post written, another related item of interest flashed before my eyes. The Susan B Anthony List blog comments on a UN report entitled “Power, Voice, and Rights: A Turning Point for Gender Equality in Asia and the Pacific.” Here are two interesting excerpts from that report as quoted in the SuzyB blog (click here for the entire blog):

“Females cannot take survival for granted,” the report says on page 42. “Asia has the highest male-female sex ratio at birth in the world, with sex-selective abortion and infanticide [emphasis mine] leaving approximately 96 million missing women in seven countries. In most regions, women comprise 51% of the population, but only 49% in Asia-Pacific.”

While the world average for the life expectancy of women is 1.06 years longer than that of men, Asia’s ratio of female-to-male life expectancy is below this average. “This discrepancy stems from a lifetime of gender discrimination, starting from the deliberate abortion of female fetuses [emphasis mine].”

I think it’s curious that the UN is decrying sex-selective abortions in Asia when it was the UN who helped China set up its one-child policy (click here to read Forced Abortion in China). Their own ideologies are contradictory when, on the one hand, they protest sex-selective abortion in Asia and yet, on the other hand, actively support and work with organizations like Planned Parenthood, one of whose main goals is the promotion of abortion-on-demand.

Maybe it’s just me, but…shouldn’t organizations that purport to help girls develop their self-image stop supporting programs that destroy the self-images of girls, and ultimately result in a world-wide cultural view that objectifies girls and women?

How do we turn a blind eye to an organization that might be helping our daughters in our own backyard, but is destroying our values and hurting “all daughters” on a global scale?

[Updated 12 Mar 2010, 1331 EDT]

My Apologies

Ed

Gentle Reader,

I wanted to apologize for not writing more often. The past year (2009) has been one of those years that I wish could be erased from my memory. This year (2010) has not been much better (so far).

Through personal trials and tribulations, my thoughts have often wandered to you, gentle reader, and if you were still with me. I hope you are because there is so much going on in the battle for human life that the problems of one man and his wife pale in comparison.

So, if you are still with me, I promise to be with you more often and to help show you some of the thoughts and ideas that are swirling around about human life in our society and culture today.

Respectfully yours, Ed

News the Public Needs to Know

Ed

The Washington Post published two articles this week that bolsters the pro-life side of the argument in two areas: abstinence and end-of-life issues.

The first article appeared on Tuesday, February 2, 2010 regarding a recently published study on abstinence-only education programs. Researchers conducted a study between 2001-2004 that had four groups of children involved. Here’s an excerpt from the Washington Post article (click here to read the entire article):

Students were randomly assigned to go through one of the following: an eight-hour curriculum that encouraged them to delay having sex; an eight-hour program focused on teaching safe sex; an eight- or 12-hour program that did both; or an eight-hour program focused on teaching them other ways to be healthy, such as eating well and exercising. The abstinence-only portion involved a series of sessions in which instructors talked to students in small groups about their views about abstinence and their knowledge of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. They also conducted role-playing exercises and brainstorming sessions designed to correct misconceptions about sex and sexually transmitted diseases, encourage abstinence and offer ways to resist pressure to have sex.

Over the next two years, about 33 percent of the students who went through the abstinence program started having sex, compared with about 52 percent who were taught only safe sex. About 42 percent of the students who went through the comprehensive program started having sex, and about 47 percent of those who learned about other ways to be healthy did.

The abstinence program had no negative effects on condom use, which has been a major criticism of the abstinence approach.

The lead researcher made a statement that can be seen as almost reconciliatory towards pro-lifers who have fought for abstinence-only education programs.

“I think we’ve written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence,” said John B. Jemmott III, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who led the federally funded study. “Our study shows this could be one approach that could be used.”

The second article was published on Thursday, February 2, 2010. A study was conducted on 54 patients in a “vegetative state” to see if their minds were working or not. The study found that some of the patients could indeed hear, react, and respond to outside stimulation. Here is an excerpt (click here to read the entire article):

One by one, the men and women were placed inside advanced brain scanners as technicians gave them careful instructions: Imagine you are playing tennis. Imagine you are exploring your home, room by room. For most, the scanner showed nothing.

But, shockingly, for one, then another, and another, and yet two more, the scans flashed exactly like any healthy conscious person’s would. These patients, the images clearly indicated, were living silently in their bodies, their minds apparently active. One man could even flawlessly answer detailed yes-or-no questions about his life before his trauma by activating different parts of his brain.

“It was incredible,” said Adrian M. Owen, a neuroscientist at the Medical Research Council who led the groundbreaking research described in a paper published online Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine. “These are patients who are totally unable to perform functions with their bodies — even blink an eye or move an eyebrow — but yet are entirely conscious. It’s quite distressing, really, to realize this.” …

“This should change the way we think about these patients,” said Nicholas D. Schiff, an associate professor of neurology and neuroscience at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City. “I think it’s going to have very broad implications.” …

As many as 20,000 Americans are in a vegetative state, meaning they are alive and awake but without any apparent sense of awareness, and 100,000 to 300,000 are in a related condition known as a minimally conscious state, in which they exhibit impaired or intermittent awareness. It is unclear what proportion of these patients would be affected by the study’s findings.

The message of pro-life Americans remains the same: all life is precious and valuable regardless of its state of being. For decades Americans have witnessed our values hijacked by a culture that tells us over and over through the popular media that the value of human life, both born and pre-born, is based on what that life contributes or “brings to the table.” “They” set the measuring stick by which “they” determine that value, and “they” use science to bolster their argument for promoting death as a “kind” and “worthy” alternative to life. What will they say as science refutes one of the very yardsticks they use to determine whether it’s time to pull the plug on someone’s beloved family member? Who do you want advocating for your loved one if they end up in a state where they are calling out for your help and compassion but their voices are locked inside them and you cannot hear their cries?

LCMS and the 2010 March for Life

Ed 1 Comment

I participated in my 9th March for Life in Washington DC last week. It was a great day to be in the nation’s capital to show our legislators that we want them to pass laws that defend human life (or correct ones that don’t). After hearing from pro-life legislators from the Senate and the House, we also heard from priests and pastors of the Roman Catholic church, the Orthodox church, and Evangelical Christians.

According to the organizers, there were 200,000 marchers present in the District along with almost 75,000 “virtual” marchers on the Virtual March for Life website hosted by AUL Action (see article in the  Washington Times).

LCMS World Relief and Human Care had several staff members (including me) participating. We have posted our photos, articles, and interviews on the LCMS website in the LCMS 2010 March for Life Newsroom.

Forced Abortion in China

Ed

I’ve written before about abortion in China, but click here to read (or hear) today’s Chuck Colson Breakpoint message about the testimony of a Chinese woman who was forced to have an abortion.

Here is an excerpt from that message:

A Chinese woman called Wujian—not her real name—recently testified before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission about China’s brutal one-child policy. Four years ago, Wujian became pregnant with an “illegal” baby—one conceived without a birth permit.

In an effort to protect her child, Wujian hid in a shack in a remote area. She was lonely and frightened, but took pleasure in feeling her baby begin to move inside her.

But when family planning officials learned where she was, they broke into the house and dragged Wujian into a van. She was taken to a hospital, where she found dozens of other women who had just undergone forced abortions. Some were crying, some were screaming, and one was rolling around the floor in agony. They were, Wujian said, “just like pigs in the slaughterhouse.”

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the estimated number of abortions worldwide in 2003 (latest estimate available) was 41.6 million abortions. They estimate that, excluding China, the number of abortions was 26.4 million. That would mean an estimated 15.2 million abortions occurred in China during 2003. That is 37 percent of the entire world’s abortions; and apparently, many of them are forced upon the mothers.

Please read or listen to the message from Chuck Colson, then share it with everyone you know. This kind of brutality against women and babies in the womb must be stopped. Click here to read the entire message and links to how you can make your voice heard.