The young mother set her foot on the path of life. ‘Is
This the long way?’ she asked. And the guide said: ‘Yes, and the way is hard. 
And you will be old before you reach the end of it…. But
The end will be better than the beginning.’ 

But the young mother was happy, and she would not

Believe that anything could be better than these years. So she 

Played with her children, and gathered flowers for

Them along the way, and bathed them in the clear streams; and

The sun shone on them, and the young Mother cried,

‘Nothing will ever be lovelier than this.’ 

Then the night came, and the storm, and the path was

Dark, and the children shook with fear and cold, and the mother 

Drew them close and covered them with her mantle, and the children said, 

‘Mother, we are not afraid, for you are near, and no harm can come.’ 

And the morning came, and there was a hill ahead, and

The children climbed and grew weary, and the mother was weary. 

But at all times she said to the children,’ A little patience and we are there.’

So the children climbed, and when they reached the top

They said, ‘Mother, we would not have done it without you.’ 

And the mother, when she lay down at night looked up

At the stars and said, ‘This is a better day than the last, for my 

Children have learned fortitude in the face of hardness. Yesterday I gave them courage. 

Today, I ‘ve given them strength.’

And the next day came strange clouds which darkened

The earth, clouds of war and hate and evil, and the children groped 

And stumbled, and the mother said: ‘Look up. Li ft your eyes to th e light. 

‘ And the children looked and saw above the clouds 

An everlasting glory, and it guided them beyond the

Darkness. And that night the Mother said, 

‘This is the best day of all, for

I have shown my children God.’ 

And the days went on, and the weeks and the months and

The years, and the mother grew old and she was little and bent. 

But her children were tall and strong, and walked with 

Courage. And when the way was rough, they lifted her, 

For she was as lig ht as a feather; and at last they came to a hill,

And beyond they could see a shining road and golden gates flung wide. And 

Mother said, ‘I have reached the end of my journey.. And now I know the end 

Is better than the beginning, for my children can

Walk alone, and their children after them.’ 

nd the children said, ‘You will always walk with us, 

Mother, even when you have gone through the gates.’

And they stood and watched her as she went on alone, and the gates

Closed after her. And they said: ‘We cannot see her But she is with us stil l. A Mother like ours is more than a memory. She 

Is a living presence……..’

Your Mother is always with you… She’s the whisper 

Of the leaves as you walk down the street; she’s the smell of bleach

In your freshly laundered socks; she’s the cool hand

On your brow when you’re not well. Your Mother lives 

Inside your laughter. And she’s crystallized in every tear drop. 

She’s the place you came from, your first home; and

she’s the map you fol low with every s tep you take. She’s your first loveAnd your first heartbreak, and nothing on earth can 

Separate you.

Not time, not space… Not even death!

MAY WE NEVER TAKE OUR MOTHERS FOR GRANTED….

Well that was the fastest contest I have ever held…we have a winner…Ignorant Redneck is the winner of the May Contest…he identified the quote as coming from Dante and correctly stating that the “ROSE” is referring to Mary.

IR I have emailed you…need some info from you to send your prize out!

Congratulations!  

What the heck is going on with the government of this country?? Major Cyclone hits and major devastation occurs…outside countries have supplies, water, food medicine etc. that they want to donate but they are not allowed into the country! WHY???

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080509/D90IE0RO1.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-river-of-death-825404.html?r=RSS

I am thinking of doing a new contest…something quick and easy

So what would you rather have as a prize…

one of these…  http://www.etsy.com/search_results_shop.php?search_type=user_shop_ttt_id_5626770&search_query=altered+pendant

or one of these…http://www.etsy.com/search_results_shop.php?search_query=photography&search_type=user_shop_ttt_id_5626770&order=&page=2

As soon as I get an idea of what people would like to recieve as a prize I will post the contest

UPDATE…

NEW CONTEST…http://wifeandmomoftwo.wordpress.com/may-contest/

“Far too many Catholic bishops and priests– perhaps even a majority– are doing a lousy job of shepherding their flocks and saving souls.”  Judie Brown

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58188

I guess these guys never heard that the saying….”Respect the dead”…

The Kingwood teenager’s story of decapitating a corpse and using the head to smoke marijuana was so outlandish that at first Houston Police Department senior officer Jim Adkins did not believe it.

Yet, Kevin Wade Jones Jr., 17, appeared almost indifferent as he relayed the bizarre description of his and two friends’ activities at a Humble area graveyard, Adkins said.

“I just doubted it because it’s very morbid, and I couldn’t see anybody doing something like this,” Adkins said Thursday.

Not until police went to the home of another Kingwood teen, 17-year-old Matthew Richard Gonzalez, did the officer believe the tale.

“He regurgitated in his plate of food when I asked him about it,” Adkins said. “So I knew there was some truth to the story.”

Now, Jones, Gonzalez and a juvenile whose name has not been released are each charged with abuse of a corpse, a misdemeanor offense. All three were arrested Wednesday night.

Police are also searching for a fourth suspect wanted for questioning.

Houston police believe the teens disturbed the grave of an 11-year-old boy who died in 1921. The child was buried at an unmarked cemetery believed to be reserved for black veterans and their families, Adkins said.

Under the law, a person can be charged with abuse of a corpse simply by vandalizing, damaging or treating a gravesite offensively — even if the human remains buried there are not touched, Adkins said.

The child’s skull has not been found. If recovered later, however, such a discovery will not change the charges filed against the three suspects, Adkins said.

The teens first came to police’s attention during a vehicle burglary investigation. While being questioned by police, Jones revealed the morbid tale of desecrating the gravesite a month or two months ago, which Adkins believes was a diversionary tactic intended to distract police from the vehicle break-in.

Jones claimed he and his friends used shovels to dig up the body and removed the corpse’s head with a garden tool, Adkins said. Jones also revealed he and the other two boys took the severed head to the juvenile’s home, where they used the skull as a “bong” device to smoke marijuana, the officer said.

Police made three separate trips to the heavily wooded, snake-infested graveyard near the Eastex Freeway feeder road and FM 1960 before finding the disturbed grave several days ago.

“The grave was uncovered, and the headstone had been thrown off the grave and broken,” Adkins said. “The dirt was piled out of it in large piles.”

Because the grave is flooded with murky water from recent heavy rains, police have been unable to determine if the child’s casket is still in the ground. Adkins said he used a 5-foot stick to poke around in the muddy water, but could not feel anything.

All three teens gave written and verbal confessions admitting they tried to dig up a body over a two-day period, Adkins said. But the boys told conflicting stories about whether they actually severed the head — so police aren’t sure if that gruesome task really happened.

Even so, Houston police are working closely with Humble police to try and find any surviving relatives of the child whose grave was disturbed.

“The ultimate goal will be to put this body back to rest,” Adkins said.

Little is known about the graveyard. The Humble Bicentennial Museum could not confirm that the graveyard was reserved for black veterans, but Adkins said he observed “many, many headstones” for black soldiers killed during World War I and World War II.

 

All three boys, who are home-schooled, have also been charged in connection with the vehicle break-in. Jones and the juvenile are charged with credit card abuse, while Gonzalez was charged with misdemeanor theft between $50 and $500. Gonzalez pleaded guilty to that charge.

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5764886.html

Well it would seem that basic hygiene is lacking in China..

Hand, Foot and Mouth diesase is on the rise among the children…for those of you that DONT know HFMD is spread through contact with fecal (that would be Sh*t for us laymen) matter!

 Hand, foot and mouth disease is a common childhood illness that spreads through contact with saliva, feces, fluid secreted from blisters or mucus from the nose and throat. There is no vaccine or specific treatment, but most children typically recover quickly. It is unrelated to the foot and mouth disease that affects livestock.

I dont know how common it is…I mean my kids never got it…but then they always wash their hands after using the Loo …or as my younger son says “I use soap mommy!”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080507/ap_on_he_me/china_child_virus

300-pound inmate complains Ark. jail doesn’t feed him well

An inmate awaiting trial on a murder charge is suing the county, complaining he has lost more than 100 pounds because of the jailhouse menu.

Broderick Lloyd Laswell says he isn’t happy that he’s down to 308 pounds after eight months in the Benton County jail. He has filed a federal lawsuit complaining the jail doesn’t provide inmates with enough food.

According to the suit, Laswell weighed 413 pounds when he was jailed in September. Police say he and a co-defendant fatally beat and stabbed a man, then set his home on fire.

“On several occasions I have started to do some exercising and my vision went blurry and I felt like I was going to pass out,” Laswell wrote in his complaint. “About an hour after each meal my stomach starts to hurt and growl. I feel hungry again.”

But Laswell then goes on to complain that he undertakes little vigorous activity.

“If we are in a small pod all day (and) do next to nothing for physical exercise, we should not lose weight,” the suit says. “The only reason we lost weight in here is because we are literally being starved to death.”

The suit also asks that the county be ordered to serve hot meals. The jail has served only cold food for years.

The meals, provided through Aramark Correctional Institution Services, average 3,000 calories a day, jail Capt. Hunter Petray told The Morning News of northwest Arkansas for a story Saturday.

A typical Western diet consists of 2,000 to 3,000 calories a day.

Laswell’s suit was filed without a lawyer in U.S. District Court in Fayetteville.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080427/ap_on_fe_st/odd_jail_diet

Thanks to Cygnus for tagging me So here goes…

These are the rules: 

1. When tagged place the name and URL on your blog. 
2. Post rules on your blog. 
3. Write 7 non-important things/habit/quirks about yourself. 
4. Name 7 of your favorite blogs. 

Ok we have covered the rules….so on to the answers….

1. I smoke cigarettes.

2. Can’t function without my pot of “Joe”

3. Hate being called Ma’am

4. I used to run Cross-Country and still have my High School varsity letter.

5. I have read all of Agatha Christie’s books

6. I can speak/read three languages, one of which is dead

7. I have sarcastic sense of humor.

– http://reneckcatholic.blogspot.com/

– http://cygsphere.blogspot.com/

– http://paramedicgoldengirl.blogspot.com/

–http://www.joyfulmomathome.blogspot.com/

–http://catholic-caveman.blogspot.com/

–http://pewlady.blogspot.com/

–http://johnmalloysdb.blogspot.com/

Oprah has always bothered me, could this be the reason why??

When I’m an old lady, I’ll live with each kid,
And bring so much happiness…just as they did.
I want to pay back all the joy they’ve provided.
Returning each deed! Oh, they’ll be so excited!
(When I’m an old lady and live with my kids)

I’ll write on the wall with reds, whites and blues,
And I’ll bounce on the furniture…wearing my shoes.
I’ll drink from the carton and then leave it out.
I’ll stuff all the toilets and oh, how they’ll shout!
(When I’m an old lady and live with my kids)

When they’re on the phone and just out of reach,
I’ll get into things like sugar and bleach.
Oh, they’ll snap their fingers and then shake their head,
(When I’m an old lady and live with my kids)

When they cook dinner and call me to eat,
I’ll not eat my green beans or salad or meat,
I’ll gag on my okra, spill milk on the table,
And when they get angry…I’ll run…if I’m able!
(When I’m an old lady and live with my kids)

I’ll sit close to the TV, through the channels I’ll click,
I’ll cross both eyes just to see if they stick.
I’ll take off my socks and throw one away,
And play in the mud ’til the end of the day!
(When I’m an old lady and live with my kids)

And later in bed, I’ll lay back and sigh,
I’ll thank God in prayer and then close my eyes.
My kids will look down with a smile slowly creeping,
And say with a groan, ‘She’s so sweet when she’s sleeping!’

Amazing that woman pop these pills and have no idea that they could be killing/aborting their unborn children!

 

“The Pill” is the popular term for more than forty different commercially available oral contraceptives. In medicine, they are commonly referred to as BCPs (birth control pills) or OCs (oral contraceptives). They are also called “Combination Pills,” because they contain a combination of estrogen and progestin.

The Pill is used by about fourteen million American women each year. Across the globe it is used by about sixty million. The question of whether it causes abortions has direct bearing on untold millions of Christians, many of them prolife, who use and recommend it. For those who believe God is the Creator of each person and the giver and taker of human life, this is a question with profound moral implications.

In 1991, while researching the original edition of ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments, I heard someone suggest that birth control pills can cause abortions. This was brand new to me; in all my years as a pastor and a prolifer, I had never heard it before. I was immediately skeptical.

My vested interests were strong in that Nanci and I used the Pill in the early years of our marriage, as did many of our prolife friends. Why not? We believed it simply prevented conception. We never suspected it had any potential for abortion. No one told us this was even a possibility. I confess I never read the fine print of the Pill’s package insert, nor am I sure I would have understood it even if I had.

In fourteen years as a pastor I did considerable premarital counseling, I always warned couples against the IUD because I’d read it could cause early abortions. I typically recommended young couples use the Pill because of its relative ease and effectiveness.

At the time I was researching ProLife Answers, I found only one person who could point me toward any documentation that connected the Pill and abortion. She told me of just one primary source that supported this belief and I found only one other. Still, these two sources were sufficient to compel me to include this warning in the book:

Some forms of contraception, specifically the intrauterine device (IUD), Norplant, and certain low-dose oral contraceptives, often do not prevent conception but prevent implantation of an already fertilized ovum. The result is an early abortion, the killing of an already conceived individual. Tragically, many women are not told this by their physicians, and therefore do not make an informed choice about which contraceptive to use.” [1]

As it turns out, I made a critical error. At the time, I incorrectly believed that “low-dose” birth control pills were the exception, not the rule. I thought most people who took the Pill were in no danger of having abortions. What I’ve found in more recent research is that since 1988 virtually all oral contraceptives used in America are low-dose, that is, they contain much lower levels of estrogen than the earlier birth control pills.

The standard amount of estrogen in the birth control pills of the 1960s and early ’70s was 150 micrograms.

The use of estrogen-containing formulations with less than 50 micrograms of estrogen steadily increased to 75 percent of all prescriptions in the United States in 1987. In the same year, only 3 percent of the prescriptions were for formulations that contained more than 50 micrograms of estrogen. Because these higher-dose estrogen formulations have a greater incidence of adverse effects without greater efficacy, they are no longer marketed in the United States. [2]

After the Pill had been on the market fifteen years, many serious negative side effects of estrogen had been clearly proven. These included blurred vision, nausea, cramping, irregular menstrual bleeding, headaches, increased incidence of breast cancer, strokes, and heart attacks, some of which led to fatalities. [3]

In response to these concerns, beginning in the mid-seventies, manufacturers of the Pill steadily decreased the content of estrogen and progestin in their products. The average dosage of estrogen in the Pill declined from 150 micrograms in 1960 to 35 micrograms in 1988. These facts are directly stated in an advertisement by the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals and Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation in Hippocrates magazine. [4]

Pharmacists for Life confirms: “As of October 1988, the newer lower dosage birth control pills are the only type available in the U.S., by mutual agreement of the Food and Drug Administration and the three major Pill manufacturers.” [5]

What is now considered a “high dose” of estrogen is 50 micrograms, which is in fact a very low dose in comparison to the 150 micrograms once standard for the Pill. The “low-dose” pills of today are mostly 20–

35 micrograms. As far as I can tell, there are no birth control pills available today that have more than 50 micrograms of estrogen. An M.D. wrote to inform me that she had researched many pills by name and could confirm my findings. If such pills exist at all, they are certainly rare.

Not only was I wrong in thinking low-dose contraceptives were the exception rather than the rule, I didn’t realize there was considerable documented medical information linking birth control pills and abortion. The evidence was there, I just didn’t probe deeply enough to find it. Still more evidence has surfaced in subsequent years. I have presented this evidence in detail in my 88-page book Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? I will now summarize that research.

The Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR)

The Physician’s Desk Reference is the most frequently used reference book by physicians in America. The PDR, as it’s often called, lists and explains the effects, benefits, and risks of every medical product that can be legally prescribed. The Food and Drug Administration requires that each manufacturer provide accurate information on its products, based on scientific research and laboratory tests. This information is included in the PDR.

As you read the following, keep in mind that the term “implantation,” by definition, always involves an already conceived human being. Therefore, any agent which serves to prevent implantation functions as an abortifacient.

This is the PDR’s product information for Ortho-Cept, as listed by Ortho, one of the largest manufacturers of the Pill:

Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation. [6]

The FDA-required research information on the birth control pills Ortho-Cyclen and Ortho Tri-Cyclen also state that they cause “changes in…the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).” [7]

Notice that these changes in the endometrium, and their reduction in the likelihood of implantation, are not stated by the manufacturer as speculative or theoretical effects, but as actual ones. They consider this such a well-established fact that it requires no statement of qualification.

Similarly, as I document in my book, Syntex and Wyeth, the other two major pill-manufacturers, say essentially the same thing about their oral contraceptives. (I also relate in the book the results of my phone calls to each of these manufacturers to discuss this issue.)

 

The inserts packaged with birth control pills are condensed versions of longer research papers detailing the Pill’s effects, mechanisms, and risks. Near the end, the insert typically says something like the following, which is taken directly from the Desogen pill insert:

If you want more information about birth control pills, ask your doctor, clinic or pharmacist. They have a more technical leaflet called the Professional Labeling, which you may wish to read. The Professional Labeling is also published in a book entitled Physician’s Desk Reference, available in many bookstores and public libraries.

Of the half dozen birth control pill package inserts I’ve read, only one included the information about the Pill’s abortive mechanism. This was a package insert dated July 12, 1994, found in the oral contraceptive Demulen, manufactured by Searle. Yet this abortive mechanism was referred to in all cases in the FDA-required manufacturer’s Professional Labeling, as documented in The Physician’s Desk Reference.

In summary, according to multiple references throughout The Physician’s Desk Reference, which articulate the research findings of all the birth control pill manufacturers, there are not one but three mechanisms of birth control pills:
  1. inhibiting ovulation (the primary mechanism),
  2. thickening the cervical mucus, thereby making it more difficult for sperm to travel to the egg, and
  3. thinning and shriveling the lining of the uterus to the point that it is unable or less able to facilitate the implantation of the newly fertilized egg.

The first two mechanisms are contraceptive. The third is abortive.

When a woman taking the Pill discovers she is pregnant (according to The Physician’s Desk Reference’s efficacy rate tables, this is 3 percent of pill-takers each year), it means that all three of these mechanisms have failed. The third mechanism sometimes fails in its role as backup, just as the first and second mechanisms sometimes fail. Each and every time the third mechanism succeeds, however, it causes an abortion.

Medical Journals and Textbooks

The Pill alters epithelial and stromal integrins, which appear to be related to endometrial receptivity. These integrins are considered markers of normal fertility. Significantly, they are conspicuously absent in patients with various conditions associated with infertility and in women taking the Pill. Since normal implantation involves a precise synchronization of the zygote’s development with the endometrium’s window of maximum receptivity, the absence of these integrins logically indicates a higher failure rate of implantation for Pill-takers. According to Dr. Stephen G. Somkuti and his research colleagues, “These data suggest that the morphological changes observed in the endometrium of OC users have functional significance and provide evidence that reduced endometrial receptivity does indeed contribute to the contraceptive efficacy of OCs.” [8]

In another research journal article, Drs. Chowdhury, Joshi and associates state, “The data suggests that though missing of the low-dose combination pills may result in ‘escape’ ovulation in some women, however, the pharmacological effects of pills on the endometrium and cervical mucus may continue to provide them contraceptive protection.” [9]

Note in some of these citations “contraceptive” is used of an agent which in fact prevents the implantation of an already conceived child. Those who believe each human life begins at conception would see this function not as a contraceptive, but an abortifacient.

In a study of oral contraceptives published in a major medical journal, Dr. G. Virginia Upton, Regional Director of Clinical Research for Wyeth, one of the major birth control pill manufacturers, says, “The graded increments in LNg in the triphasic OC serve to maximize contraceptive protection by increasing the viscosity of the cervical mucus (cervical barrier), by suppressing ovarian progesterone output, and by causing endometrial changes that will not support implantation.” [10]

Drug Facts and Comparisons says this about birth control pills in its 1997 edition:
Combination OCs inhibit ovulation by suppressing the gonadotropins, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and lutenizing hormone (LH). Additionally, alterations in the genital tract, including cervical mucus (which inhibits sperm penetration) and the endometrium (which reduces the likelihood of implantation), may contribute to contraceptive effectiveness. An independent clinical pharmaceutical reference also contains this assertion. [11]

Reproductive endocrinologists have demonstrated that Pill-induced changes cause the endometrium to appear “hostile” or “poorly receptive” to implantation. [12] Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) reveals that the endometrial lining of Pill users is consistently thinner than that of nonusers [13] -up to 58 percent thinner. [14] Recent and fairly sophisticated ultrasound studies [15] have all concluded that endometrial thickness is related to the “functional receptivity” of the endometrium. Others have shown that when the lining of the uterus becomes too thin, implantation of the pre-born child (called the blastocyst or pre-embryo at this stage) does not occur. [16]

The minimal endometrial thickness required to maintain a pregnancy ranges from 5 to 13mm, [17] whereas the average endometrial thickness in women on the Pill is only 1.1 mm. [18] These data lend credence to the FDA-approved statement that “changes in the endometrium reduce the likelihood of implantation” [19]

Dr. Kristine Severyn says:

The third effect of combined oral contraceptives is to alter the endometrium in such a way that implantation of the fertilized egg (new life) is made more difficult, if not impossible. In effect, the endometrium becomes atrophic and unable to support implantation of the fertilized egg…. The alteration of the endometrium, making it hostile to implantation by the fertilized egg, provides a backup abortifacient method to prevent pregnancy. [20]

Researchers have repeatedly and consistently pointed out this abortifacient effect of the Pill. To date, no published studies have refuted these findings.

Dr. Walter Larimore is a Clinical Professor of Family Medicine who has written over 150 medical articles in a wide variety of journals. In two major medical journal articles, he has addressed the issue of the Pill’s capacity to cause early abortions. [21] In 2000 Dr. Larimore and I coauthored a chapter on this subject in The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality, Reproductive Technologies and the Family. [22] In the same chapter, four Christian physicians present their belief that the Pill does not result in early abortions. We respectfully suggest that their case is not based solidly on the medical evidence.

What Does This Mean?

As a woman’s menstrual cycle progresses, her endometrium gradually gets richer and thicker in preparation for the arrival and implantation of any newly conceived child. In a natural cycle, unimpeded by the Pill, the endometrium experiences an increase of blood vessels, which allow a greater blood supply to bring oxygen and nutrients to the child. There is also an increase in the endometrium’s stores of glycogen, a sugar that serves as a food source for the blastocyst (child) as soon as he or she implants.

The Pill keeps the woman’s body from creating the most hospitable environment for a child, resulting instead in an endometrium that is deficient in both food (glycogen) and oxygen. The child may die because he lacks this nutrition and oxygen.

Typically, the new person attempts to implant at six days after conception. If implantation is unsuccessful, the child is flushed out of the womb in a miscarriage. When the miscarriage is the result of an environment created by a foreign device or chemical, it is in fact an abortion. This is true even if the mother does not intend it, and is not aware of it happening.

Despite all the research, including much more presented in my full booklet, there are those who insist that these contentions are incorrect and should not be taken at face value by those concerned about early abortions. In the case of the Pill manufacturers, those who say their FDA-approved assertions are false should, in my opinion, prevail upon the FDA to change their statements, and not simply ask people to disregard them.

Confirming Evidence

When the Pill thins the endometrium, it seems self-evident a zygote attempting to implant has a smaller likelihood of survival. A woman taking the Pill puts any conceived child at greater risk of being aborted than if the Pill were not being taken.

Some argue that this evidence is indirect and theoretical. But we must ask, if this is a theory, how strong and credible is the theory? If the evidence is only indirect, how compelling is that indirect evidence? Once it was only a theory that plant life grows better in rich, fertile soil than in thin, eroded soil. But it was certainly a theory good farmers believed and acted on.

Some physicians have theorized that when ovulation occurs in Pill-takers, the subsequent hormone production “turns on” the endometrium, causing it to become receptive to implantation. [23] However, there is no direct evidence to support this theory, and there is at least some evidence against it. First, after a woman stops taking the Pill, it usually takes several cycles for her menstrual flow to increase to the volume of women who are not on the Pill. This suggests to most objective researchers that the endometrium is slow to recover from its Pill-induced thinning. [24] Second, the one study that has looked at women who have ovulated on the Pill showed that after ovulation the endometrium is not receptive to implantation. [25]

Intrauterine/Extrauterine Pregnancy Ratio

Another line of evidence of the Pill’s abortifacient effect is this: if the Pill has no post-fertilization effect, then reductions in the rate of intrauterine pregnancies in Pill-takers should be identical to the reduction in the rate of extrauterine (ectopic/tubal) pregnancies in Pill-takers. Therefore, an increased extrauterine/intrauterine pregnancy ratio would constitute evidence for an abortifacient effect.

Two medical studies allow review of this association. [26] Conducted at seven maternity hospitals in Paris, France, [27] and three in Sweden, [28] the studies evaluated 484 women with ectopic pregnancies and control groups of 389 women with normal pregnancies who were admitted to the hospital for delivery during the same time period. These studies were designed, in typical fashion for “case control” studies, to determine the risk factors for a particular condition (here, ectopic pregnancy) by comparing one group of individuals known to have the condition with another group of individuals not having the condition. Both of these studies showed an increase in the extrauterine/intrauterine pregnancy ratio for women taking the Pill. Researchers who have reviewed these studies have therefore suggested that “some protection against intrauterine pregnancy is provided via the Pill’s post-fertilization abortifacient effect.” [29]

What accounts for the Pill inhibiting intrauterine pregnancies at a disproportionately greater ratio than it inhibits extrauterine pregnancies? The most likely explanation is that while the Pill does nothing to prevent a newly conceived child from implanting in the wrong place (i.e., anywhere besides the endometrium), it may sometimes do something to prevent him from implanting in the right place (i.e., the endometrium).

Arguments Against the Pill Causing Abortion

I have received a number of letters from readers, one of them a physician, who say something like this: “My sister got pregnant while taking the Pill. This is proof that you are wrong in saying that the Pill causes abortions-obviously it couldn’t have, since she had her baby!”

Without a doubt, the Pill’s effects on the endometrium do not always make implantation impossible. I have never heard anyone claim that they do. To be an abortifacient does not require that something always cause an abortion, only that it sometimes does.

Whether it’s RU-486, Norplant, Depo-Provera, the morning after pill, the Mini-pill, or the Pill, there is no chemical that always causes an abortion. There are only those that do so never, sometimes, often, and usually.

Children who play on the freeway, climb on the roof, or are left alone by swimming pools don’t always die, but this does not prove these practices are safe and never result in fatalities. We would immediately see this inconsistency of anyone who argued in favor of leaving children alone by swimming pools because they know of cases where this has been done without harm to the children. The point that the Pill doesn’t always prevent implantation is certainly true, but has no bearing on the question of whether it sometimes prevents implantation, which the data clearly suggests.

People also often argue, “The blastocyst is perfectly capable of implanting in various ‘hostile’ sites, e.g., the fallopian tube, the ovary, the peritoneum.”

Their point is that the child sometimes implants in the wrong place. This is undeniably true. But again, the only relevant question is whether the Pill sometimes hinders the child’s ability to implant in the right place.

Imagine a farmer who has two places where he might plant seed. One is rich, brown soil that has been tilled, fertilized, and watered. The other is on hard, thin, dry, and rocky soil. If the farmer wants as much seed as possible to take hold and grow, where will he plant the seed? The answer is obvious––

on the fertile ground.

Now, you could say to the farmer that his preference for the rich, tilled, moist soil is based on theoretical assumptions because he has probably never seen a scientific study that proves this soil is more hospitable to seed than the thin, hard, dry soil. Likely, such a study has never been done. In other words, there is no absolute proof.

But the farmer would likely reply, based on years of observation, “I know good soil when I see it. Sure, I’ve seen some plants grow in the hard, thin soil too, but the chances of survival are much less there than in the good soil. Call it theoretical if you want to, but we all know it’s true!”

Some newly conceived children manage to survive temporarily in hostile places. But this in no way changes the obvious fact that many more children will survive in a richer, thicker, more hospitable endometrium than in a thinner, more inhospitable one.

(In other publications and in a much more detailed fashion, we have discussed these and other lines of evidence, with hundreds of citations of many scientific studies, as well as researchers and experts in numerous fields. We encourage interested readers to look more deeply into these studies and arguments. [30] )

Despite this evidence, some prolife physicians state that the likelihood of the Pill having an abortifacient effect is “infinitesimally low, or nonexistent.” [31] Though I would very much like to believe this, the scientific evidence does not permit me to do so.

Dr. Walt Larimore has told me that whenever he has presented this evidence to audiences of secular physicians, there has been little or no resistance to it. But when he has presented it to Christian physicians there has been substantial resistance. Since secular physicians do not care whether the Pill prevents implantation, they tend to be objective in interpreting the evidence. After all, they have little or nothing at stake either way. Christian physicians, however, very much do not want to believe the Pill causes early abortions. Therefore, I believe, they tend to resist the evidence. This is certainly understandable. Nonetheless, we should not permit what we want to believe to distract us from what the evidence indicates we should believe.

I have mentioned my own vested interests in the Pill that at first made me resist the evidence suggesting it could cause abortions. Dr. Larimore came to this issue with even greater vested interests in believing the best about the birth control pill, having prescribed it for years. When he researched it intensively over an eighteen-month period, in what he described to me as a “gut wrenching” process that involved sleepless nights, he came to the conclusion that in good conscience he could no longer prescribe hormonal contraceptives, including the Pill, the Minipill, Depo-Provera, and Norplant.

Statement by Twenty Prolife Physicians

Five months after the original printing of my booklet, in January 1998 a statement was issued opposing the idea that the Pill can cause abortions. According to a January 30, 1998, email sent me by one of its circulators, the statement “is a collaborative effort by several very active prolife OB-GYN specialists, and screened through about twenty additional OB-GYN specialists.”

The statement is titled “Birth Control Pills: Contraceptive or Abortifacient?” Those wishing to read it in its entirety, which I recommend, can find it at our web page, at www.epm.org/doctors.html. I have posted it there because while I disagree with its major premise and various statements in it, I believe it deserves a hearing.

The title is misleading, in that it implies there are only two possible ways to look at the Pill: always a contraceptive or always an abortifacient. In fact, I know of no one who believes it is always an abortifacient. There are only those who believe it is always a contraceptive and never an abortifacient, and those who believe it is usually a contraceptive and sometimes an abortifacient.

The paper opens with this statement:

Currently the claim that hormonal contraceptives [birth control pills, implants (Norplant), injectables (Depo-Provera)] include an abortifacient mechanism of action is being widely disseminated in the prolife community. This theory is emerging with the assumed status of “scientific fact,” and is causing significant confusion among both lay and medical prolife people. With this confusion in the ranks comes a significant weakening of both our credibility with the general public and our effectiveness against the tide of elective abortion.

The assertion that the presentation of research and medical opinions causes “confusion” is interesting. Does it cause confusion, or does it bring to light pertinent information in an already existing state of confusion? Would we be better off to uncritically embrace what we have always believed than to face evidence that may challenge it?

Is our credibility and effectiveness weakened through presenting evidence that indicates the Pill can cause abortions? Or is it simply our duty to discover and share the truth regardless of whether it is well-received by the general public or the Christian community?

The physicians’ statement’s major thesis is this: The idea that the Pill causes a hostile endometrium is a myth.

Over time, the descriptive term “hostile endometrium” progressed to be an unchallenged assumption, then to be quasi-scientific fact, and now, for some in the prolife community, to be a proof text. And all with no demonstrated scientific validation.

When I showed this to one professor of family medicine he replied, “This is an amazing claim.” What’s so amazing is it requires that every physician who has directly observed the dramatic Pill-induced changes in the endometrium, and every textbook that refers to these changes, has been wrong all along in believing what appears to be obvious: that when the zygote attaches itself to the endometrium its chances of survival are greater if what it attaches to is thick and rich in nutrients and oxygen than if it is not.

This is akin to announcing to a group of farmers that all these years they have been wrong to believe the myth that rich fertilized soil is more likely to foster and maintain plant life than thin eroded soil.

It could be argued that if anything may cause prolifers to lose credibility, at least with those familiar with what the Pill does to the endometrium, it is to claim the Pill does nothing to make implantation less likely.

The authors defend their position this way:

[The blastocyst] has an invasive nature, with the demonstrated ability to invade, find a blood supply, and successfully implant on various kinds of tissue, whether “hostile,” or even entirely “foreign” to its usual environment-decidualized (thinned) endometrium, tubal epithelium (lining), ovarian epithelium (covering), cervical epithelium (lining), even peritoneum (abdominal lining cells)…. The presumption that implantation of a blastocyst is thwarted by “hostile endometrium” is contradicted by the “pill pregnancies” we as physicians see.

This argument misses the point, since the question is not whether the zygote sometimes implants in the wrong place. Of course it does. The question, rather, is whether the newly conceived child’s chances of survival are greater when it implants in the right place (endometrium) that is thick and rich and full of nutrients than in one which lacks these qualities because of the Pill. To point out a blastocyst is capable of implanting in a fallopian tube or a thinned endometrium is akin to pointing to a seed that begins to grow on asphalt or springs up on the hard dry path. Yes, the seed is thereby shown to have an invasive nature. But surely no one believes its chances of survival are as great on asphalt as in cultivated fertilized soil.

According to the statement signed by the twenty physicians, “The entire ‘abortifacient’ presumption, therefore, depends on ‘hostile endometrium.’”

In fact, one need not embrace the term “hostile endometrium” to believe the Pill can cause abortions. It does not take a hostile or even an inhospitable endometrium to account for an increase in abortions. It only takes a less hospitable endometrium. Even if they feel “hostile” is an overstatement, can anyone seriously argue that the Pill-transformed endometrium is not less hospitable to implantation than the endometrium at its rich thick nutrient-laden peak in a normal cycle uninfluenced by the Pill?

One medical school professor told me that until reading this statement he had never heard, in his decades in the field, anyone deny the radical changes in the endometrium caused by the Pill and the obvious implications this has for reducing the likelihood of implantation. According to this physician, the fact that secular sources embrace this reality and only prolife Christians are now rejecting it (in light of the recent attention on the Pill’s connection to abortions) suggests they may be swayed by vested interests in the legitimacy of the Pill.

The paper states “there are no scientific studies that we are aware of which substantiate this presumption [that the diminished endometrium is less conducive to implantation].” But it doesn’t cite any studies, or other evidence, that suggest otherwise.

In fact, surprisingly, though this statement is five-pages long it contains not a single reference to any source that backs up any of its claims. If observation and common sense have led people in medicine to a particular conclusion over decades, should their conclusion be rejected out of hand without citing specific research indicating it to be incorrect?

On which side does the burden of proof fall-the one that claims the radically diminished endometrium inhibits implantation or the one that claims it doesn’t?

The most potentially significant point made in the paper is this:

The ectopic rate in the USA is about 1% of all pregnancies. Since an ectopic pregnancy involves a pre-implantation blastocyst, both the “on pill conception” and normal “non pill conception” ectopic rate should be the same-about l% (unaffected by whether the endometrium is “hostile” or “friendly.”) Ectopic pregnancies in women on hormonal contraception (except for the minipill) are practically unreported. This would suggest conception on these agents is quite rare. If there are millions of “on-pill conceptions” yearly, producing millions of abortions, (as some “BC pill is abortifacient” groups allege), we would expect to see a huge increase in ectopics in women on hormonal birth control. We don’t. Rather, as noted above, this is a rare occurrence.

The premise of this statement is right on target. It is exactly the premise proposed by Dr. Larimore, which I’ve already presented. While the statement’s premise is correct, its account of the data, unfortunately, is not. The studies pointed to by Dr. Larimore, cited earlier, clearly demonstrate the statement is incorrect when it claims ectopic pregnancies in women on hormonal contraception are “practically unreported” and “rare.”

In fact, “a huge increase in ectopics” is exactly what we do see-an increase that five major studies put between 70% and 1390%. Ironically, when we remove the statement’s incorrect data about the ectopic pregnancy rate and plug in the correct data, the statement supports the very thing it attempts to refute. It suggests the Pill may indeed cause early abortions, possibly a very large number of them.

Questions about This Problem

People raise many objections to the issues presented in this appendix, very few of which involve issues of evidential data or scientific fact. However, these objections deserve answers. These are some of the concerns I address in my booklet Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? [32]

“If this is true, why haven’t we been told before?”

“I don’t trust this evidence.”

“If we don’t know how often abortions happen, why shouldn’t we take the Pill?”

“Spontaneous miscarriages are common; early abortions aren’t that big a deal.”

“Taking the Pill means fewer children die in spontaneous abortions.”

“Without the Pill there would be more elective abortions.”

“Pill-takers don’t intend to have abortions.”

“Why not just use high estrogen pills?”
You can’t avoid every risk.”
“How can we practice birth control without the Pill?”
“I never knew this—

should I feel guilty?”
“We shouldn’t lay guilt on people by talking about this.”
“We shouldn’t tell people the Pill may cause abotions because they’ll be held accountable.”
“We’ve prayed about it and we feel right about using the Pill.”
“Prolifers will lose credibility if we oppose the Pill.”
“This puts Christian physicians in a very difficult position.”
“Are there any good alternatives to the Pill?”
Conclusion

The Pill is used by about fourteen million American women each year and sixty million women internationally. Thus, even an infinitesimally low portion (say one-hundredth of one percent) of 780 million Pill cycles per year globally could represent tens of thousands of unborn children lost to this form of chemical abortion annually. How many young lives have to be jeopardized for prolife believers to question the ethics of using the Pill? This is an issue with profound moral implications for those believing we are called to protect the lives of children.

[1] Randy Alcorn, Prolife Answers to ProChoice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers: Sisters, OR: 1992, 1994) 118.

[2] Danforth’s Obstetrics and Gynecology (Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1994, 7th edition), 626.

[3] Nine Van der Vange, “Ovarian Activity During Low Dose Oral Contraceptives,” published in Contemporary Obstetrics and Gynecology, edited by G. Chamberlain (London: Butterworths, 1988), 315-16.

[4] Hippocrates, May/June 1988, 35.

[5] Oral Contraceptives and IUDs: Birth Control or Abortifacients?, Pharmacists for Life, November 1989, 1.

[6] Physicians’ Desk Reference (Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics, 1998).

[7] The PDR, 1995, page 1782.

[8] Stephen G. Somkuti, et al., “The Effect of Oral Contraceptive Pills on Markers of Endometrial Receptivity,” Fertility and Sterility, Volume 65, #3, March 1996, 488.

[9] “Escape Ovulation In Women Due To The Missing Of Low Dose Combination Oral Contraceptive Pills,” Contraception, September 1980; 241.

[10] G. Virginia Upton, “The Phasic Approach to Oral Contraception,” The International Journal of Fertility, volume 28, 1988, 129.

[11] Kastrup, EK, ed. Drug Facts and Comparisons, Annual Edition (St. Louis: Facts and Comparisons, 1997).

[12] . Abdalla HI, Brooks AA, Johnson MR, Kirkland A, Thomas A, Studd JW. “Endometrial Thickness: A Predictor Of Implantation In Ovum Recipients?” Human Reprod 1994;9:363-365.

[13] Bartoli JM, Moulin G, Delannoy L, Chagnaud C, Kasbarian M. “The Normal Uterus On Magnetic Resonance Imaging And Variations Associated With The Hormonal State.” Surg Radiol Anat 1991;13:213-20; Demas BE, Hricak H, Jaffe RB. “Uterine MR Imaging: Effects Of Hormonal Stimulation.” Radiology 1986;159:123-6; McCarthy S, Tauber C, Gore J. “Female Pelvic Anatomy: MR Assessment Of Variations During The Menstrual Cycle And With Use Of Oral Contraceptives.” Radiology 1986; 160: 119-23.

[14] Brown HK, Stoll BS, Nicosia SV, Fiorica JV, Hambley PS, Clarke LP, Silbiger ML. “Uterine Junctional Zone: Correlation Between Histologic Findings And MR Imaging.” Radiology 1991;179:409-413.

[15] Abdalla, et al., “Endometrial thickness”; Dickey RP, Olar TT, Taylor SN, Curole DN, Matulich EM. “Relationship Of Endometrial Thickness And Pattern To Fecundity In Ovulation Induction Cycles: Effect Of Clomiphene Citrate Alone And With Human Menopausal Gonadotropin.” Fertil Steril 1993;59:756-60; Gonen Y, Casper RF, Jacobson W, Blankier J. “Endometrial Thickness And Growth During Ovarian Stimulation: A Possible Predictor Of Implantation In In-Vitro Fertilization.” Fertil Steril 1989;52:446-50; Schwartz LB, Chiu AS, Courtney M, Krey L, Schmidt-Sarosi C. “The Embryo Versus Endometrium Controversy Revisited As It Relates To Predicting Pregnancy Outcome In In-Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer Cycles.” Hum Reprod 1997;12:45-50; Shoham Z, et al. “Is It Possible To Run A Successful Ovulation Induction Program Based Solely On Ultrasound Monitoring: The Importance Of Endometrial Measurements.” Fertil Steril 1991;56:836-841; Noyes N, Liu HC, Sultan K, Schattman G, Rosenwaks Z. “Endometrial Thickness Appears To Be A Significant Factor In Embryo Implantation In In-Vitro Fertilization.” Hum Reprod 1995;10:919-22; Vera JA, Arguello B, Crisosto CA. “Predictive Value Of Endometrial Pattern And Thickness In The Result Of In Vitro Fertilization And Embryo Transfer.” Rev Chil Obstet Gynecol 1995;60:195-8; Check JH, Nowroozi K, Choe J, Lurie D, Dietterich C. “The Effect Of Endometrial Thickness And Echo Pattern On In Vitro Fertilization Outcome In Donor Oocyte-Embryo Transfer Cycle.” Fertil Steril 1993;59:72-5; Oliveira JB, Baruffi RL, Mauri AL, Petersen CG, Borges MC, Franco JG Jr. “Endometrial Ultrasonography As A Predictor Of Pregnancy In An In-Vitro Fertilization Programme After Ovarian Stimulation And Gonadotrophin-Releasing Hormone And Gonadotrophins.” Hum Reprod 1997;12:2515-8; Bergh C, Hillensjo T, Nilsson L. “Sonographic Evaluation Of The Endometrium In In-Vitro Fertilization IVF Cycles. A Way To Predict Pregnancy?” Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1992;71:624-8.

[16] Abdalla HI, et al., “Endometrial thickness”; Dickey, et al., “Relationship Of Endometrial Thickness”; Gonen, et al., “Endometrial Thickness And Growth”; Oliveira, et al., “Endometrial Ultrasonography As A Predictor”; Bergh, et al., “Sonographic Evaluation Of The Endometrium”.

[17] The 5mm figure is from Glissant, A, de Mouzon, J, Frydman R. “Ultrasound Study Of The Endometrium During In Vitro Fertilization Cycles.” Fertil Steril 1985;44:786-90. The 13mm figure is from Rabinowitz R, Laufer N, Lewin A, Navot D, Bar I, Margalioth EJ, Schenker JJ. “The value of ultrasonographic endometrial measurement in the prediction of pregnancy following in vitro fertilization.” Fertil Steril 1986;45:824-8

[18] McCarthy, et al., “Female Pelvic Anatomy”.

[19] Physicians’ Desk Reference; Kastrup, Drug Facts.

[20] Kristine Severyn, “Abortifacient Drugs and Devices: Medical and Moral Dilemmas” Linacre Quarterly, August 1990, 55.

[21] Walter L. Larimore and Joseph Stanford, “Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and their Relation to Informed Consent.” Archives of Family Medicine 9 (February, 2000); Walter L. Larimore, “The Abortifacient Effect of the Birth Control Pill and the Principle of Double Effect,” Ethics and Medicine, January 2000.

[22] Walter L. Larimore and Randy Alcorn, “Using the Birth Control Pill is Ethically Unacceptable,” in John F. Kilner, Paige C. Cunningham and W. David Hager (eds), The Reproduction Revolution (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 179-191.

[23] Susan Crockett, Joseph L. DeCook, Donna Harrison, and Camilla Hersh, “Using Hormone Contraceptives Is a Decision Involving Science, Scripture, and Conscience,” in John F. Kilner, Paige C. Cunningham and W. David Hager (eds), The Reproduction Revolution (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 192-201.

[24] Stanford JB, Daly KD. “Menstrual And Mucus Cycle Characteristics In Women Discontinuing Oral Contraceptives (Abstract).” Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1995;9(4): A9.

[25] Chowdhury V, Joshi UM, Gopalkrishna K, Betrabet S, Mehta S, Saxena BN. “‘Escape’ Ovulation In Women Due To The Missing Of Low Dose Combination Oral Contraceptive Pills.” Contraception 1980;22(3):241-7.

[26] Thorburn J, Berntsson C, Philipson M, Lindbolm B. “Background Factors Of Ectopic Pregnancy. I. Frequency Distribution In A Case-Control Study.” Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1986;23:321-331 (the original data was reevaluated by: Mol, et al., “Contraception and the Risk”); Coste J, Job-Spira N, Fernandez H, Papiernik E, Spira A. “Risk Factors For Ectopic Pregnancy: A Case-Control Study In France, With Special Focus On Infectious Factors.” Am J Epidemiol 1991;133:839-49.

[27] Coste, et al., “Risk Factors For Ectopic Pregnancy”.

[28] Thorburn, et al., “Background Factors Of Ectopic Pregnancy”.

[29] Larimore and Stanford JB. “Postfertilization Effects”; Thorburn et al., “Background Factors”; (the original data was reevaluated by: Mol BWJ, Ankum WM, Bossuyt PMM, Van der Veen F. “Contraception And The Risk Of Ectopic Pregnancy: A Meta Analysis.” Contraception 1995;52:337-341); Mol, et al., “Contraception and the Risk”.

[30] . Alcorn, “Does The Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?”; Larimore WL, Stanford JB. “Postfertilization Effects Of Oral Contraceptives And Their Relation To Informed Consent.” Larimore WL. “The Growing Debate about the Abortifacient Effect of the Birth Control Pill and the Principle of the Double Effect.” Ethics and Medicine: in review.

[31] DeCook JL, McIlhaney J, et al. Hormonal Contraceptives: Are they Abortifacients? (Sparta, MI: Frontlines Publishing, 1998).

[32] Randy Alcorn, Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? Fifth edition (Gresham, OR: Eternal Perspective Ministries), 50-73.

http://www.epm.org/articles/bcp5400.html

I caught this on the news last night…had to do a double take…this is just wrong…

Media Deception: “Miraculous” Pregnant “Man” is Really a Woman
Paving the way for the next wave in the battle against the family - an attack on gender itself

Commentary by John Connolly

BEND, Oregon, April 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The mainstream media pushed the story of Thomas Beatie this past week, billing the story as the ‘miraculous’ male pregnancy. Our readers may have been among the thousands of people across the country to notice the startling news headline that took the media by storm on April 1 (was this date a coincidence?), following Beatie’s appearance on the Oprah Winfrey show and an interview in People magazine.

If this story really were an instance of an unexplained pregnancy in a male, it might really be newsworthy. But the whole story is a giant deception by the media in order to forward the homosexual and transsexual agenda.

The fact of the matter is that “Thomas Beatie” is really Tracy Lagondino, a lesbian woman who underwent transsexual surgery that cut off her breasts, and who decided not to alter her reproductive organs.

The mainstream news media has decided to cover the story, universally referring to Beatie as a man, and proclaiming “her” pregnancy a miracle. Even the normally politically incorrect and reliable DrudgeReport has been consistently referring to Beatie as a “pregnant man”. Beatie has been able to grow a beard due to a testosterone regimen, adding to the deception of a male pregnancy.

What we need to understand is how this story fits into the sweeping agenda of the forces gathered to destroy the family.

Homosexual lobbyists have somehow succeeded in many nations in persuading or bullying governments into recognizing same-sex couples legally, one focus being securing the “right” to raise children for themselves.

At the same time schools are introducing mandatory programs to indoctrinate children with a homosexual understanding of families. Hence, it has become clear that the homosexual movement does not so much wish to do away with the concept of family, but rather to twist and warp it until it means something totally subjective.

“Thomas,” the ex-beauty queen, proudly said that being pregnant didn’t make her feel less of a man, and that the moral of her story is that “wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire, but a human desire.” Trouble is, men just do not and physically cannot bear children, no matter how much a few might desire to do so. Desire is not reality. 

As the attacks on traditional marriage begin to succeed, the next stage in the homosexual offensive is the attack on gender itself. The total mutability of gender and identity has begun, and stories like this one are forced down the throats of readers everywhere with the expectation that they will be gullible to believe that families are whatever two people want them to be. LifeSiteNews has reported a number of times in the past about attempts to deconstruct gender via the United Nations and in other forums (seehttp://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/mar/040323a.html)

And the proof is in the pudding. Hundreds of versions of the Beatie story have spawned across the internet and the world, even in such far-away places as New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, India and Thailand.

The UK press is all over the story, which even a week later is still in the top five most popular stories for the BBC. Beatie has become a miniature celebrity and poster-child-bearer for lesbian magazines. Dozens of YouTube videos have been uploaded, paying homage to the woman who is trying to convince the world that childbearing and family are things that transcend gender.

Even breastfeeding advocates, who should be showing outrage that a woman would give birth to a child denied breastfeeding because the child’s mother has cut off her own breasts, are strangely silent on the issue.

It’s not hard to tell that this whole movement is geared, as we have said, to deconstruct gender. The goal of the transsexual movement is “liberty,” a freedom to call oneself a woman or a man depending on his or her feelings or whims.

The homosexual movement has promoted the belief that persons with homosexual inclinations are all born that way and a growing proportion of the public is accepting the theory without bothering to investigate the evidence or lack of for the claim. The transsexual threat is more ambitious: it aims for acceptance of the fantasy that someone can be born a woman in the body of a man, or a man in the body of a woman, or a man can be a mother, or a woman can be a father.

Can the public be led to accept this as well? Again, without any compelling evidence to support such an extremely radical notion? Could it be, as we yesterday reported Peter Kreeft stating, “Antichrist is now winning, because he has convinced most people to bypass that simple word: reason. Most people today “feel;” they no longer “think.”‘

This preposterous story shows that now the transsexual movement is gaining prominence in the anti-family crusade. All readers need to be aware that the next phase in the transsexual advance involves wholesale deception and manipulation with the full cooperation of the mainstream media.

SOURCE: lifesitenews

Very interesting read!  by Patrick Carr           The birth of Louise Brown, the first baby to be born as a result of in vitro fertilization, on 25th July, 1978, had the effect of silencing much of the debate which had raged over this procedure for years while it was being developed. [1]   To all appearances, those who had warned of the appalling consequences of tampering with the origin of human life had been proved wrong by the birth of this normal, healthy baby girl.  In the quarter century since then, assisted reproductive technology (ART) has grown to become a billion-dollar industry.  In the year 2000, over 35,000 births in the United States of America were the result of ART, representing a full 1% of all births.  Several recent studies, however, have contributed to a growing body of evidence indicating that the enthusiastic confidence inspired by the birth of Louise Brown was misplaced, and that children born as a result of the various forms of ART may be exposed to a significantly increased risk of suffering from major birth defects.            The increased risk of major birth defects, of course, applies only to those babies who survive to birth.  The number of live births represents only 25% of the embryos which are implanted in their mothers’ wombs using the various forms of ART.  The other 75% were “unsuccessful attempts”; in other words they died in the course of the treatment.  Even this rather poor success rate fails to take account of the many thousands of human embryos which are created every year in order to facilitate these procedures only to be frozen and left indefinitely in a state of suspended animation.  At the time of writing there are in excess of 400,000 embryos in this condition in the United States and the figure is rising.            I will attempt in this paper to summarize the various scientific studies that show that babies born as a result of ART suffer from a significantly heightened risk of being afflicted with major birth defects.  I will consider too the plight of those embryos which are ‘surplus to requirement’ as well as the broader perils to which all of the embryos involved are exposed.  I will then consider the question whether, in the light of the risks to the life and safety of the unborn child, it is morally justifiable to continue with these procedures.  This of course prescinds from the question whether generating human life outside the marital act is intrinsically evil, but those who fail to recognise its intrinsic evil may be persuaded to avoid these procedures by the evidence of the risks involved.            The first study [2], carried out in Western Australia, examined children born between 1993 and 1997 and sought to determine whether and to what extent birth defects were more common in children conceived by two methods of assisted reproductive technology – intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization – than in children conceived naturally.  The study was based on those birth defects which were diagnosed by one year of age and which are generally categorized as ‘major’ defects.            Hansen et al. acknowledge that previous studies have not generally suggested that there is an increased risk of major birth defects in children conceived using ART.  They point out, however, that much of this earlier research has been subject to various methodological problems such as inadequate sample size and a lack of suitable comparative data.  Their study was designed to avoid such problems.  Previous studies had also used different criteria to define major birth defects in ART births from the criteria used in the case of natural births.  This study takes a random sample of 4,000 naturally conceived births and compares it with the ART births in the same period and area (which numbered 1,138).  All births at twenty weeks gestation or later were included as were all pregnancies which were ended by abortion because of fetal abnormality.  Internationally recognized criteria were used to classify birth defects as major or minor.  The researchers took precautions to ensure that the results were not distorted by an over-reporting of the birth defects affecting ART births, which might result from the fact that these babies might be subject to more thorough surveillance for medical problems.            The study found that infants conceived with artificial reproductive technology were more likely to be delivered by Caesarean section, to have a low birth weight and to be born before term.  When multiple births were excluded this increased likelihood was of a significant order.  Of the infants conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection, 8.6% had a major birth defect diagnosed in their first year.  Of those conceived by in vitro fertilization the percentage was similar (9%).  Of those who were conceived naturally the incidence of major birth defects diagnosed in the first year was only 4.2%.  Overall, the study showed that infants conceived as a result of ART were more than twice as likely to have a major birth defect than naturally conceived infants.  Various different analyses of the data produced similar results.            Of the various birth defects diagnosed, those which showed the most marked increase in prevalence among infants conceived as a result of ART were musculo-skeletal disorders (three times more likely) and chromosomal defects (almost four times more likely).  Those conceived by in vitro fertilization were also found to have a significantly increased prevalence of cardio-vascular, uro-genital and other defects.  The infants conceived by ART were also found to be significantly more likely to have multiple major defects.  The overall conclusion of the study was that infants conceived with use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection or in vitro fertilization have twice as high a risk of a major birth defect as naturally conceived infants do.            The second study [3] to be considered examined the prevalence of low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with the use of ART.  This fact, which had been previously acknowledged, had generally been attributed to the greatly increased frequency of multiple births arising from the use of ART.  (It is standard practice to implant multiple embryos to increase the chance of a successful pregnancy.)  By 1997 the use of ART accounted for more than 40% of triplets born in the United States.  This American study by Schieve et al. sought to determine whether this was the only factor or whether other factors were relevant.  The study examined a very large sample of 42,463 infants born in 1996 and 1997 who were conceived by the use of ART and compared them with over 3.3 million infants born in the United States in 1997.  Previous studies on this question had been subject to certain problems which Schieve et al. sought to avoid.  These earlier studies had failed, for instance, to distinguish among singleton births between those who were conceived singly and those who had been conceived as part of multiple gestations which had subsequently been reduced either spontaneously or by direct abortion.  Other problems with previous studies were their limited sample sizes and their failure to consider whether the low birth weight was a direct result of the ART procedures or rather due to the underlying infertility problems which had led to the use of ART.            The study considered a multiplicity of factors which might account for low (less than or equal to 2.5 kilograms) and very low (less than 1.5 kilograms) birth weight, and subjected the data to appropriate analysis to allow for these factors.  Such factors included the age of the mother, whether she had previous children, the gestational age at delivery, the type of procedure employed (e.g. whether fresh or frozen embryos were used), and whether the underlying infertility problem was in the father or the mother.  In short, any factor which might reasonably be expected to affect the birth weight was considered and taken into account.  None of these factors explained the underlying increased risk of low or very low birth rate found in infants conceived as a result of ART.            The study reached the unavoidable conclusion that the increased risk of low or very low birth weight in singleton infants born at term seems to be directly related to the use of ART.  One of the specific factors suggested as a possible cause of low birth weight resulting from the use of ART is the use of human menopausal gonadotropin which “has been associated with increases in insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 1; this protein has been linked to intrauterine growth restriction.” [4].  Abnormal levels of other endometrial proteins and structural abnormalities in the placenta have also been found to result from the use of ART.  These may also be factors causing growth restriction.            The study found no significant increase in risk of low or very low birth weight in multiple births resulting from ART.  Multiple births even from natural conceptions have an increased risk.  It was rather in the case of singleton births that the increased risk seemed to be linked directly to the use of ART.  The researchers found that more than 3% of low birth weight infants and more than 4% of very low birth weight infants were conceived by the use of ART.  This is six times as high as would be expected on the basis of the frequency of the use of these technologies.  Most of this disparity is attributable to the higher incidence of multiple births.  Nevertheless it is in the increased incidence of low birth weight in singletons that the direct influence of the use of assisted reproductive technologies may be attributed.  In these cases the risk to infants conceived by use of such technologies was found to be 2.6 times that of other infants.  This is a significant increase in risk.            It is worth noting that low birth weight is not simply an inconsequential feature since such infants are at increased risk of disabilities, both short-term and long-term, including breathing difficulties, developmental problems, and even death.            Other studies have turned up similarly worrying findings.  In January of 2003 a report [5] was published which showed that Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS) was four to six times as prevalent among children who had been conceived as a result of ART as it was among those conceived naturally.  This syndrome can cause the tongue and internal organs to be abnormally large, causing high birth weight.  It also increases the risk of certain cancers including Wilm’s tumour, hepatoblastoma, and neuroblastoma.  The condition is caused by epigenetic changes – affecting the gene other than in the DNA sequence - causing abnormal genetic imprinting.  The same month a small-scale Dutch stud