Matthew 22:37-39. It's the least I can do!

December 11th, Kempsville Rec Center Theater, volunteers to help serve cake and hand out groceries to the Christmas program participants and their families. Bill and I will be inviting our youth to take part in serving that night. If you might be interested in helping on this night (or on future outreaches,) message me! This is with Reaching Our Communities (ROC/Sidewalk Celebration) a local organization that's mission statement is to "empower underprivileged young people through programs and services in such a way that they are motivated to break molds of poverty and to rise to be leaders in their families, neighborhoods, communities and world." http://reachingourcommunities.com/

Political Fashion

Okay, Sarah Palin for Vice Presential pick - but her glasses, in demand as a hot new fashion accessory? Definitely didn't see that one coming!

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/fashion/272941/sarah-palin-s-glasses-are-style-hit.html

What's Wrong With This Picture? Just Do the Right Thing!

Late last week at work, I realized that we go through a LOT of paper and found out that since we were a small company, no one had yet thought about implementing a recycling plan, or at least moved on it.  So I decided to begin a recycling station by my desk.  In four days, we accumulated about 30 lbs. of recyclables.  I called the nearest recycling center (located a few buildings away from us, on the same street) asking if I could just haul the small hill over myself...

"Hmm... oh, well, I'm so sorry, but we can only accept it if you have an account with us."

"Well, I just want to drop off a small stack of recyclable items, and since we're right down the road, I'll just bring it over there myself."  

"Riiight.  Well, unfortunately, I don't see your company's name in the system, so we won't be able to accept your items."

"..."

"Oh, okay, you all don't actually do any recycling on the site, you all just do the pick up?"

"Oh, no no, we actually do recycling here onsite."

"..."

"Ok.  I just want to do the right thing and drop these off somewhere for recycling before my boss decides to put it in the garbage."

"Awwwwe, right, I understand, but unfortunately unless we establish an account with you, we won't be able to take it."

"Hm.  Okay, thanks."

So I brought it all home so that I can recycle in my own bin.  

Pain Throws Your Heart to the Ground, Love Turns the Whole Thing Around.

My heart is heavy right now.  I don't ever remember feeling this heavy about ... the state of humanity.  I broke down at work earlier today, thankfully I was only one of two people in the office, so it was easy for me to hide my face.  

WHO are we to demand first in line service by "don't you know who I am" tones because some blades of grass in my lawn are losing life and turning brown?  As long as my interests are served in the time that I feel they should be served, then you won't meet my nasty side.  "This IS an EMERGENCY.  My GRASS is DYING."  Emergency?!?  There are people starving and dying all over the world; children are being exploited, aborted and abused.  THIS, my friend, is THE emergency.  

WHO do we think we are?  That we can let a woman collapse in an emergency room, right before our eyes, and leave her there to convulse and struggling to hold on to her life - with no one holding on to her?  We sit and pretend that nothing is happening just to try and "mind our own business" until it is too late.  So, we accomplished our minding of our own business after her last heart beat.  

OUR time is too precious to have to THINK ahead to the consequences of leaving our babies in vehicles that become like high heat ovens - which we would never dare to think of sitting in ourselves for more than 20 seconds.

WHO are we, church, to place limits on God and completely abandon the thought that any revival could be legitimate because of the outrageous ways in which people were healed?  Absolutely, we can't always quickly believe what is presented to us (as we learn that we must test the spirits in 1 John 4:1-7.)  But please, we need to find the truth of it by the very Truth of Scripture and by the Spirit which guides us into truth.  All throughout scripture, God healed.  Jesus had a healing ministry!  The apostles were used in healing.  Their handkerchiefs, aprons and shadows were used.  I'm reminded of John 9, when Jesus spit in the dirt, made mud for the blind man's eyes unto healing.  Jesus not only physically healed, but he rebuked and set people free from demons.  Even then, the scripture mentions that not every sign was even recorded in the book!  

Acts 19 talks about the many signs and wonders which the apostles performed and that many many more men and women were added to their number.  We need to see the PURPOSE of TRUE healing and signs and wonders of God - supernatural - to testify to the Word, to point to the Father, for salvation (John 14:11-14, 20:30-31, Hebrews 2:2-4.)  In John 14, Jesus says we will be doing these wonders that He did, and even greater than these - can we even imagine?  Verse 13, Jesus says, And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.  That's the end of it.  It is all for the Glory of the Father.  If your true hearts desire is that many would see and fear and put their trust in God, then why are so many, even especially in the church so easily put off by the possibility of signs and wonders happening today??  

It has become more and more painful for me to think about our society, our generation... the importance that our culture is placing on SELF.  Our own happiness and gain is the most important thing, and to the world, this is truth and this is good.  Obey your thirst. How selfish.  I am so selfish.  I am so scared of becoming like the Pharisee.  A haughty, outward appearance of justice and keeping the law.  But forgetting the Father's heart... to seek and to save the Lost.  To set the captives free.  To share food with the hungry, to provide shelter for the poor.  To clothe the naked, to stop oppression and break every yoke.  Not to condemn healing because it is done at an off time, in a weird manner.  Forget the fact that this healing opened his eyes and revealed the Truth of  a loving and compassionate Lord, Friend, Brother, Savior  and transformed his life forever.  We pray for revival and immediately, without going back to the Word, chalk it up to a circus, or a cult when uncomfortable, not so natural things are happening.  So then what?  What would you consider a revival in our land?

Lord Help us.  Bring your Truth.  What can I do?  Lead us by the Spirit of Truth.  Open our eyes.  Break our hearts.  Bring us to pray.  Travailing in prayer.  Above all else, may you be glorified.  Jesus, let your name be lifted up.  Use us to change lives Lord.  Not for anything else but to point to You.  You are the Truth the Life.  I so need you Lord.  Break my selfishness.  Fill me with compassion.  Increase my faith.  My hope is in You!

Psalm 130

Out of the depths I cry to you, O Lord

O Lord, hear my voice.

Let your ears be attentive

to my cry for mercy.

If you, O Lord, kept a record of sins,

O Lord, who could stand?

But with you there is forgiveness;

therefore you are feared.

I wait for the Lord, my soul waits,

and in his word I put my hope.

My soul waits for the Lord

more than watchmen wait for the morning,

more than watchmen wait for the morning.

O Israel, put your hope in the Lord,

for with the Lord is unfailing love

and with him is full redemption.

He himself will redeem Israel

from all their sins.

Dreams in Technicolor.

A long time dream of mine has been to finally be able to acquire a Macbook Pro. I never thought I would ever need to append to this dream ... until I found this: www.colorwarepc.com.

Basically, you can send in any of your favorite tech gadgets, from ipods and Blackberrys to your Nintendo Wii to have them color customized (for a 'small' fee, small meaning $450.) When you go to the website, use the search at the top to play with your gadget and the 30+ colors in their design studio. It is AMAZING. Pricey, but AMAZING. And fun to dream with.  If I wanted to, I could send in my iMac!  Not sure if I want to change it's current, oh so gorgeous aluminum face, though.

I would like one, please? Amen.

Benjamin Franklin and My Response

A comment on my previous blog, re: Chuck Colson's article bringing the truth to the myths (some outright lies) about Ben Stein's upcoming movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

You Said (in italics):


Arianne,

Don't believe everything Chuck Colson says

The Claim
“Intelligent design was being suppressed in a systematic and ruthless fashion” (Ben Stein, Expelled).

The Facts
Intelligent design has not produced any research to suppress. When prominent ID proponent Michael Behe was asked about his research, and why “you don’t do those tests?” he responded, “I myself would prefer to spend time in what I would consider to be more fruitful endeavors.” If even proponents of ID do not think it is a fruitful enterprise, why should the scientific community take any interest in it?

I saw the trial transcript where he is quoted to say he would prefer to spend his time in what he would consider more fruitful endeavors. You have to take into consideration what he said prior to that answer that he would think that someone who thought an idea was incorrect (ie. ID) would be motivated to try and falsify the idea... and then the rest of his answer, that, "hypothesis of design is tested in a way that is different from a Darwinian hypotheses. The test has to be specific to the hypothesis itself, and as I have argued, an inductive hypothesis is argued or is supported by induction, by example after example of things we see that fit this induction."


You Said:

Intelligent design is scientifically unproductive, and this perhaps explains why scientists like Guillermo Gonzalez and Michael Behe publish far fewer papers after they become attracted to intelligent design. Ultimately, intelligent design’s lack of success in science departments is the fault of the flawed and unscientific nature of intelligent design itself, not the result of bias in the scientific community.

First here are a couple of quotes by Darwin, himself.

1. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." - Origin of Species

2. "The case at present (problems presented by the fossil record) must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." - The Origin of Species

And here are two other interesting quotes, the first by Dawkins and the second by Francis Crick:

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."

I don't think the issue here is that ID is "scientifically unproductive", it seems rather, that the work in trying to prove it false is actually what comes up short. Darwin discusses his thoughts on the function of the human eye and of the structure of the peacock's feathers in his correspondence with Asa Gray 1960. I wonder, what if Darwin were still around today? He was imaginative and brilliant in his theories, but what would his final say be after "new" evidence for design, i.e. irreducible complexity? And if most of what would prove evolution is simply time to find the evidence for it... more than 120 years after Darwin, shouldn't we have more fossil evidence for all that is required for speciation? Do we now have more or less support for his evolutionary theories?

I don't think that saying that Behe and Guillermo not producing any more papers after being attracted to design is evidence for ID's "lack of success". Is it possible that the scrutiny and negative criticism (and not to mention the seeming consequences) from evolutionists has slowed down their further research or writings? And which ID proponent ever said that design was "unscientific"? Irreducible complexity, unscientific? I think that is super contrary!


You said:

The issue is not the suppression of ID, but the lack of warrant for its scientific claims. And ultimately, ID has an uphill struggle to demonstrate that it is, indeed, science.

I think that even within scientific circles, if we are honest, it is evolution that is lacking in it's scientific claims, and also is the one which should be having the uphill struggle to demonstrate its truth as science. "Punctuated Equilibrium" was offered by evolutionist Gould as somewhat of a band-aid for the lack of evidence in the fossil record. And of course well known icons of evolution which are introduced to kids in public schools as more truth than theory (I was one of those kids...) are all innacurate or outdated. The theory of "directed panspermia" was offered by Crick because of the evidence exposing spontaneous generation as implausible.


You Said:

The fundamental problem with intelligent design as science is that intelligent design claims cannot be tested. Scientific testing requires that there be some set of phenomena which are incompatible with your idea. No observation could possibly be incompatible with a claim that an “intelligent agent” (whom everyone recognizes as God) acted to, say, introduce information into a system. Untestable claims are not scientific claims. Regardless of their attractiveness as religious ideas (although many people of faith strongly reject intelligent design) intelligent design has not passed muster as science.


Physicist David Bohm referred to science as "the pursuit of truth, no matter where it leads."

"Science is the search for truth - it is not a game in which one tries to beat his opponent, to do harm to others. We need to have the spirit of science in international affairs, to make the conduct of international affairs the effort to find the right solution, the just solution of international problems, not the effort by each nation to get the better of other nations, to do harm to them when it is possible." -Linus Pauling, winner of two Nobel prizes.

"Science and lies cannot co-exist. You don't have a scientific lie, and you cannot lie scientifically. Science is basically the search of truth." Bruce Alberts, current President of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences.

If we were true and honestly wanting the good of the study of science for all man kind, then we would not be closed-minded to the possibility that intelligent design is real. Why fight so hard to keep that possibility locked out, and if the truth, shunned as evil and as a lie (refer to earlier quotes by Crick and Dawkins.) If the idea is mainly that evolutionists desire a life apart from a creator, and thus a lifestyle apart from any absolute truths, then let them be truthful and honest in saying so, rather than misleading children and this world by a crumbling theory, which I would venture to say that Darwin would have probably admitted himself.

Expelled Myths - Debunked

(From BreakPoint E-news letter.)

Myths about Expelled
Don't Believe Everything You Hear

April 11, 2008

If you have heard of the new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opening April 18, chances are you have heard all kinds of distortions and myths about it. So let me set the record straight about some of the most common myths.

Myth #1: Darwinists interviewed for this film were tricked into participating.

Not so. Each scientist interviewed for Expelled, on both sides of the evolution debate, knew who would do the interview and what it was for. Each of them signed a release, allowing the producers to use the footage of their interviews.

Myth #2: The film is anti-science.

Wrong again. Many distinguished scientists were interviewed for this film and given the chance to express their views. Just like their Darwinist counterparts, the advocates of intelligent design and their supporters who are interviewed are there to talk about science, not to dismiss it. These are people like Cambridge physicist John Polkinghorne; Oxford mathematician and philosopher John Lennox; journalist Pamela Winnick, who has received hate mail for covering the issue; and biologist Caroline Crocker, who was fired from George Mason University for discussing intelligent design in the classroom. Some of them are religious believers; some are not. But what they share is a commitment to science and the unfettered pursuit of truth. Expelled is not anti-science; it is anti-censorship.

Myth #3: Ben Stein, the actor and writer who hosts the movie, has lost his mind.

Bringing up this very issue in a conference call, Stein quipped that he probably has, "but it was a long time ago . . . probably sometime around 1958." Well, I have known Stein well for years, and he is as bright as a button and anything but out of his mind. On a serious note, Stein and his film's producers explained that the mud that people are flinging at him is just one small example of what happens to people who question Darwinian orthodoxy. The original idea for Expelled, said co-producer and software engineer Walt Ruloff, came to him when he was working on a project with a group of biotechnologists and learned "that there was a whole series of questions that could not be asked."

The prevailing ideology among many scientists—it turned out—he concluded, was keep your mouth shut, take the research money, and publish only the data that fits with "the party line." The issue that concerns Ruloff and the others behind Expelled is whether the scientific establishment in this country is going to allow genuine "freedom of inquiry," or simply shut up—and slander—those who do not toe the line.

Given all this, Ben Stein states, "As long as the cause is right, I'm happy to be in an uphill struggle."

Myth #4: Popular author and atheist, Richard Dawkins tells Ben Stein in this film that there could have been a designer of life on earth, but it would have had to have been "a higher intelligence" that had itself evolved "to a very high level . . . and seeded some form of life on this planet."

Well, actually . . . that one is not a myth. He really did say it—striking admission, though it is.

So, I urge you to go see Expelled when it opens at a theater near you. Believe me, in this case the truth really is stranger—and more compelling—than any fiction the film's detractors could possibly dream up.

Because You Love the Guy...

CRAZY! Is there any better "front-man" than Ben Stein to lead a project like this? Check out the trailers and lets go see the movie!

That's all for now...

Okay Everyone, Here We Go...

Only some of my initial thoughts.

I have been stirred up and inspired lately, thinking about Truth. Anything relating to the thought of it. What is truth? Is it relative? Is it absolute? Stuff like that. Moreover, I suppose I'm somewhat tackling the age old philosophical questions, to which many have answered with a variety of opinions or truth claims, or hypothesis. This is interesting because I have never been considered (nor have I ever considered myself) "intellectual" and as a matter of fact have never desired the study of Philosophy itself. Too much brain power and thinking, maybe? I already have my own set of values and what I consider Truth, so I feel like I'm safe. Why would I want to go back, and really explore why I believe what I believe and question if I really believe what I believe is really real? Ugh, just that last thought/sentence alone gave me a headache! It's like opening a gigantic can of worms. I'm more of a "study of communications" (spec. media) type of person, so I feel like I have a good handle on various world views, though I wouldn't be ready to explain them in detail if I needed to.

I think what has lit what has really become a flame in my soul about the topic of Truth was the experience of a dear friend of mine whom after a time of study and discipleship of the Bible decided that they could mix the non-compromising scriptures with external, seemingly "intellectual" truth claims. This decision of theirs caused me to look at both scripture and the "external" as a whole to make sure that everything "lined up". But in doing so, I realized that there are inconsistencies and of course should cause one to question the external truth claims and could possibly cause anyone to question the entire Truth of the Bible. (This all fueled by more Bible reading, messages from culture and the crazy recent opportunities to read some Francis Schaeffer and being asked to take part in "The Truth Project", more on these later!) So if it is an absolute truth that we are looking for, then I would cut out the external claims, or lies, and really it would be ridiculous to assume that truth is relative, because most claims to truth (ie. different religions, etc.) are exclusive, in and of itself! (More on that later...) I'm not saying that those who don't agree with a Biblical world view or won't accept Biblical answers are purposefully offering lies, I just know that if Philosophers, or even just every day people are looking for the Truth, then we all need to be cautious of what is being fed to our minds, through media, politically, academically, etc. We should test it and question it! And on the same note, I believe that the option for people to investigate and believe in answers which are found in the Bible is in danger, and this is obvious when we look to science books and hear quotes from highly respected scientists/mathematicians/philosophers that the theory of Evolution or Darwinism might as well be considered law. (More on that later.)

I have come to realize that my desire is to continually discover and further my personal Biblical world view, to somehow help the church understand what a world view is and to challenge myself and believers on if they really believe that what they believe is really real, and to push and promote Truth from scripture, and to somehow help expose loop holes and lies of popular truth claims found in our culture.

Again, I'm not a scholar nor a writer, so I hope I can express all my thoughts and burnings by blog. If I don't at least try, like Jeremiah said, "... then in my heart it becomes like a burning fire, shut up in my bones, and I am weary of holding it in, And I cannot endure it."

Livie the Fishy

Happy Friday!


Livie the Fishy


I promise more insightful blogs, soon.

MILK ... Does a Body Good??

I love me some milk. Ever since childhood I have been known to drink two full glasses of milk, back to back. I need milk when I eat super sweet cake, with any cookie and definitely to dunk my Oreo's. For the past couple of years though, I've noticed that within two hours of drinking just half of a glass of milk, my stomach becomes upset. I didn't even connect the two until I remembered that my sister, Elise, is lactose intolerant. Even when I realized that I could possibly have milk issues, I would deny it and just keep on drinking because... I love me some milk!

I have yet to consult our physician, but today I think I will concede and say that I think I am allergic to milk. I just finished a bowl of cereal (drowned in vitamin D milk) and it is not just an upset stomach or gas... I have a big headache, and I rarely get headaches. I felt like I almost had to lay down it was so bad.

Here's what I found on food allergies from www.science.com:

Question No. 19379 : I have heard of people having headache after drinking milk. Is this one of the symptoms of being allergy to milk? If so, can I know what is the substance that causes this allergy? The word "allergy" is often used loosely: people are said "to be allergic" to anything which does not agree with them. The true meaning of allergy (also called an antigen) is a condition in which a person's immune system regards a substance as a dangerous "invader" and responds to it by producting antibodies, which in their turn rise to some unpleasant reactions. For example, when a person experiences a noticeable upset subsequent to eating a particular food, they are said "to be allergic" to it. The upset is due to the fact that the substances of the food are not fully broken down by the enzymes in the digestive tract and are ingested into the bloodstream in a form to a greater or lesser extent poisonous to the body. Allergic symptoms include headache, fatigue, tremor, collapse, and manifestations in the intestinal, respiratory, cutaneous, hematologic, neurologic, urinary, and cardiovascular systems. Chocolate confections are a common cause of migraine, and normal food components - milk, wheat, barley, rye, oats, corn, eggs, peanuts, soya, almonds, cashews, oranges, and salmon - are all headache triggers. Dairy milk and related products (cheese, yogurt, cottage and cream cheese, buttermilk, butter, sodium caseinate and lactate) are the cause of 60% of food allergies. Milk contains more than sixty different proteins, at least thirty-one of which may induce allergic reactions in humans. Numerous studies report that one of the common areas of the body to be affected by milk allergy is the brain and central nervous system. This explains why such symptoms as fatigue, depression, and headache occur.

Depression occurs?? Ugh. I guess it's back to soy milk for me.

Funny Shorts

I want to make more movies like this.

And I shall.

Peace, Be Still

Praise the Lord, the noise is no longer.  Or at least this morning, I noticed that the noise sounded farther away, and seemed to go farther until it was no more!!  

It's 65 degrees in my house... because it's 31 degrees outside.  I don't like having to go out when it's freezing, especially if I have to bundle Olivia up.  I need to get my transcripts from Bryant & Stratton.  I'll be at an orientation for Substitute teaching on March 11th.  I'm super excited about that!  

I also need to come up with an idea for Olivia's birthday, the 21st of March.  I just checked the calendar, and it's on a Friday... sweet!  I was thinking something like, the zoo with a Safari theme.  Or something super simple at home with family and friends.  Or maybe Chuck E. Cheese?  She loves that place, but probably not more than Bill and me.  

More later.  

Spaceships?

For the past two days, I've been hearing this crazy, deep, bass-like noise from somewhere or some neighborhood behind our house.  It didn't annoy me at first, probably because I didn't notice it.  When I began to notice it yesterday, I figured it would end soon.  It lasted all afternoon until about 5 pm.  

Strange morning, it's 11:16 am.  I woke up late this morning to Jehova's Witnesses at the door.  As I got out of the bed, I noticed the crazy noise from outside of the house.  "It sounds like an ..... orb," I said out loud.  That really is the best way that I can describe it.  It's such a low frequency, and it pulsates.  It's literally shaking the walls of my house and my head.  What IS that noise??  Then after the Jehova's Witnesses left, I turned on my mac to look some stuff up, and my power went out.  

The only logical explanation, is either a diesel engine is parked right behind my neighbor's house and won't stop the engine... or there is a new commercial building going up nearby.  

Make it stop.  

Have a nice day.

Follow Up on MF Ad

In reply to my asking if they've already picked someone for the ad...

We did find someone for the design contest...your was rad though but we found another.

Better to be rad than..... bad?

Baby, Baby

Upon Olivia's 23rd month of life, I decided last night that I would do a thorough inventory of all the stuff that she has.  Her room and all her stuff that she's acquired over the past 23 months of her life is driving me CRAZY.  It's my fault... we have so many friends and a loving church network, I didn't see all the gifts and hand-me-downs coming.  HELLO.  Her clothes!!  Literally mountains of clothes!  I put all her clothes into three piles. 

 

1)  Keepers, still fit (even out of season.)

2)  Store for next baby girl.

3)  Give it away, now.

The Give it away now pile is enormous.  Goodwill is going to have a baby hay-day when we bring our stuff up there.  A lot of the give away pile is brand new, too!  She has so many clothes that I couldn't even get to all of them.  She also didn't wear some of them because she was either too small or now, too big for the season specific clothing.  Or I was just particular about the style.  

In light of all this, I'm also trying to find her a cute birthday outfit.  In the process, I've found a new children's clothing brand, a bit on the expensive side, that I will be checking for sales on their website or finding deals on e-bay.  Maybe other moms out there are already savvy to Tea Collection.  The styles here are definitely one of a kind, not your average "Carters" clothing.  I like a lot of Carters style, but you'll see what I mean.  I just don't get how some people put their adorable chillens in some stuff.  I'm not so much talking about the newborns, I mean more toddler age.  

 

   

CUUUUUUUTE!

An Interesting Read re. Pro Life

The American Holocaust

"Every person has the right to choose. It's unfair to restrict a woman's choice by prohibiting abortion." So say the prochoice advocates. So says a generation that has grown up immersed in an ocean of abortion-rights thinking. In a society controlled by bumper-sticker slogans, what can be said in response to the fact that opposition to abortion is routinely framed as opposition to "a woman's right to choose"? When I present the prolife position on college campuses, I often begin by saying: 

"I've been introduced as being anti-abortion, but I want to make clear that I'm really prochoice. I believe a person has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body. It's none of our business what choices she makes. We have no right to impose our morals on others. Whether I like someone's choices or not is irrelevant. She should have the freedom to make her own choices." 

I'm normally greeted by surprised looks and audible affirmation, including smiles, nods, and even applause. I have used the sacred buzzwords of the prochoice movement: rights, freedom, and choice. I have sounded tolerant, open-minded, and fair. Then, having won over my audience, without warning I say this: 

"Yes, I'm prochoice. That's why I believe every man has the right to rape a woman if that is his choice. After all, it's his body, and neither you nor I have the right to tell him what to do with it. He's free to choose, and it's none of our business what choices he makes. We have no right to impose our morals on him. Whether I like his choices or not is irrelevant. He should have the freedom to make his own choices." 

When I see the shocked expressions, I ask what they're upset about. Aren't they prochoice? What's wrong with my logic? I ask them to show me the fallacy of the "it's his body and he can choose what he wants" argument. "But it's not just about the man's body. There's another body involved in a rape - the woman's!" 

"Oh," I finally say. "I see. So, what you're saying is, it's not always right to be prochoice. It's wrong to be prochoice when the choice involved seriously hurts another person." They nod their agreement. I respond, "So what you're saying is, if I can show you that abortion hurts another person, in fact kills another person, you would no longer be prochoice about abortion. Is that right?" 

I then go on to show them the compelling scientific proof that the great majority of abortions stop beating hearts and measurable brainwaves, and every abortion (including early chemical abortions) kills a genetically unique member of the human race. Of all the smoke and mirrors involved in prochoice rhetoric, perhaps the biggest and most important obstacle we can get around is the myth that it is inherently virtuous to be prochoice. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sometimes being prochoice is downright reprehensible. 

All laws impose a moral viewpoint and restrict the individual's behavior. This is true of laws against drunk driving and child abuse. Laws against false advertising restrict a businessman's right to free speech. Laws against discrimination infringe on the freedom of choice of those who would treat minorities unfairly. When others' rights are at stake - and particularly when their very lives are at stake - any decent society can and must restrict the individual's freedom of choice. 

The idea of "freedom to choose" is too vague for meaningful discussion. We must always ask, "Freedom to choose what?" It is absurd to defend a specific choice merely on the basis that it is a choice. Yet if you read the literature and listen to the talk shows, you know that this is constantly done by prochoice activists. "The right to choose" is a magic slogan that seems to make all choices equally legitimate. 

All of us are in favor of free choice when it comes to where people live, what kind of car they drive, and a thousand matters of personal preference that harm no one else. We are also prochoice in matters of religion, politics, and lifestyle, even when people choose beliefs and behavior we don't agree with. But most of us - including those who always talk about a "woman's right to choose" - are decidedly not prochoice when it comes to murder, rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, and child abuse. 

When we oppose the right to choose rape or child abuse, we aren't opposing a right; we're opposing a wrong. And we're not narrow-minded and bigoted for doing so. We're just decent people concerned for the rights of the innocent. To be prochoice about someone's right to kill is to be anti-choice about someone else's right to live. Whenever we hear the term prochoice, we must ask the all-important question, "What choice are we talking about?" Given the facts about abortion, the question really becomes, "Do you think people should have the right to choose to kill innocent children if it's more convenient for them or if that's what they want to do?" 

People who are prochoice about abortion are decidedly anti-choice about other issues with less at stake. After I spoke at a public high school on the prolife position, the prochoice instructor took me to the faculty lounge for lunch. He pointed to a table where four teachers were smoking and said, "Fortunately, this is the last week smoking will be allowed in here. We've finally gotten the district to make the teachers' lounge nonsmoking." Good naturedly I said, "I see you're not really prochoice." With a surprised look he explained, "But cigarette smoke hurts other people." I said, "So does abortion." 

Many people who are prochoice about abortion support laws requiring people to wear seat belts. They are anti-choice about seat belts because seat belts save lives. When lives are at stake, "freedom to choose" is legitimately restricted by society. Both smokers and nonsmokers have rights over their bodies. But we recognize that the smoker's right to smoke ends at the moment it violates the nonsmoker's right to be healthy. Nonsmokers should not be subject to unhealthy fumes without their consent. Children should not be subject to dismemberment and death without their consent. 

The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising his rights. How to deal with a pregnancy is one among thousands of choices a woman will make in her lifetime. But if that choice is abortion, her child will never have the opportunity to make any choices of his own. A woman will have opportunity to exercise many legal rights. But if one of those is abortion, her child will never be able to exercise a single right. The unborn have been a glaring exception in the efforts of the modern human rights movement. 

Everyone is prochoice when it comes to the choices prior to pregnancy and after birth. Men and women are free to choose to abstain from sex or to use birth control or to do neither. But when a woman is pregnant, the choice she has made has produced a new human being. After a woman is pregnant, it's too late to choose whether or not she wishes to become a mother. She already is a mother. The only choice involved now is whether to deliver a live baby or to kill the child before birth. Once the baby is born, the woman is again free to choose: she can keep the child or give him up for adoption. The only choice prolifers oppose is the choice that takes an innocent life. 

Somehow the media and pro-abortion advocates have managed to take the attention off of abortion and put it on choice. This is why prolifers are routinely referred to as "anti-choice." Nearly all violations of human rights have been defended on the grounds of the right to choose. The slave-owners in this country a century and a half ago were prochoice. They said, "You don't have to own slaves if you don't want to, but don't tell us we can't choose to. It's our right." Those who wanted slaveholding to be illegal were accused of being anti-choice and anti-freedom, and of imposing their morality on others. 

The civil rights movement, like the abolitionist movement one hundred years earlier, vehemently opposed the exercise of personal rights that much of society defended. It was solidly anti-choice when it came to racial discrimination. Whites historically had a free choice to own slaves, and later to have segregated lunch counters if they so chose. But the civil rights movement fought to take away that free choice from them. Likewise, the women's movement fought to take away an employer's free choice to discriminate against women. 

Nearly every movement of oppression and exploitation - from slavery, to prostitution, to pornography, to drug dealing, to abortion - has labeled itself prochoice. Likewise, opposing movements offering compassion and deliverance have been labeled anti-choice by the exploiters. At least with prostitution, pornography, and drugs, the victim usually has some choice. In the case of abortion, the victim has no choice. 

The prochoice position always overlooks the victim's right to choose. The women don't choose rape. The blacks didn't choose slavery. The Jews didn't choose the ovens. And the babies don't choose abortion. 

**Thanks to Theresa Schnurbusch for sharing this with everyone, too.  I feel it's spot on.**

I'll Call it Art Now.

As with the movie Cloverfield, I'm beginning this blog with mixed emoticons, except this time about the name.  iKennon.  Cheesy or awesome?  I can't decide.  It just came to me as I was filling out the "create Blog" information.  It's the first I've heard of the mp3 player name spin-off, and I already know people are going to keep doing it.  Okay, it's the second I've heard of, after that one kid's TV show.  Whatever.  

I realized that I'm somewhat of a "late bloomer".  I guess that term is relative.  There were definitely areas of my life, such as the hatred of "girly" anything, that I grew out of later than most.  I'm pretty sure this was because I was raised with friends that were boys and all we wanted to do was play kick-ball or flag football in the cul-de-sac.  I was good at it then, and I enjoyed it!  All my clothing was a size and a half too big... and let's just say I looked rough more than I looked prim and proper.  I didn't have any boyfriends in high school, though there were many offers.  I didn't have my first "real" boyfriend until I was 20 (and this is the one I eventually married).  Some might say that it was due to my late "bloomage" but that would be incorrect.  There were a couple of boys that I liked then and the thought of being in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship deal seemed nice, but I simply made a conscious  decision not to get into one.  

This realization came out of, finally, my recent decision to become a Graphic Designer.  And I mean recent as in about three days ago.  I want to be a graphic designer when I grow up.  I am 27 years old!  Why am I just now realizing this??  

After graduating high school, I had zero direction.  I felt like there were several things that I was decent at and could really enjoy studying and become good.  So in the meantime, I decided to go for an AAS degree, Information Technology, at my dad's urgings.  "It's a good fall back" dad said and it's true!  You know, my dad suggested Graphic Design after high school for me.  Go figure.  So this first, and then I'll go on to film school.  With much prayer, I'm on a mission to find out what the best plan will be.  I'll be looking for info on financial aid, schools in nearby, etc.  I'm super excited!

This here is my recent art.  It was a very non-organized idea at a shot for a music and fashion magazine ad that I did overnight.  Not my favorite work, but fun.