Related Posts Widget for Blogs by LinkWithin
Showing posts with label Pro-life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pro-life. Show all posts

Friday, 19 November 2010

Pro-lifers You Can Make a Difference Now!

Whilst I find the whole concept of using an internet poll to decide whether to have an abortion abhorrent, I feel I must urge everyone possible to vote for this baby to live:

http://www.birthornot.com/

You will need to copy and paste the link as I don't want a live link which would track back here.

I'm tempted to write more but since I am extremely angry I shall restrain myself - I think the site speaks for itself.

Thursday, 27 May 2010

What To Say To Someone Who Has Had An Abortion?

One of my oldest friends defriended me on Facebook.

Why?

Because I support the Paper Baby Campaign.

First she sent me a message saying:
"Have you actually spoke to women who have had to make the devastating decision to interrupt a pregnancy to save a terminally ill baby for further suffering. Well I guess not? This campaign is absolutely shocking. I hope you are enjoying being at home with your healthy child, judging other women who have had to make a heartbreaking decision."
Obviously it takes time to give a proper response to something like that but I replied with the following:

Dear Xxx,

I will write a longer reply later but I wanted to write a brief reply so that you know I am not ignoring you. From what you wrote I can only assume that the scenario you described is your own. If that is the case, I feel sadness that you were placed in a position where you felt that this was your only option and I pray that God will heal the scars of the associated trauma you must have endured.

I do not judge anyone - I leave that to God and I know that abortion frequently harms the mothers physically and or mentally too. Only 1% of abortions in the UK are performed because of a risk that the child would be handicapped - the remaining almost 200 000 are for social reasons.

I will write you a more detailed reply within the next week.

Susan.

Unfortunately it seems I know absolutely nothing and what I said would have made no difference at all. I received a reply and was defriended and blocked. Since I have been given no opportunity to reply I am going to post the final message here along with my own responses. (NB Obviously if I had been able to reply directly to my friend I would have taken more time to word things nicely than I have here and have avoided being antagonistic at all.)

I am not going to go on anymore. You have no understanding of the depth of this issue or any idea of the range of outcomes of prognosis of such babies.

Oh. So I haven't spent countless hours reading about abortion, the methods used and the reasons for abortions. I haven't read the Bible where God the creator tells us that human life is sacred and should not be destroyed. I haven't read the stories of people who chose not to abort even when their child would not survive. I haven't read about children who were born with nothing wrong with them even though they weren't even supposed to reach full term.

I am not talking about babies with a "risk of handicap" I am talking about conditions such as Tripolody or anacephely [sic] (no brain) (there are many others) where the chance of your baby being born alive are zero.

When I spoke of the "risk" of "handicap" I was referring to ground E of the Abortion Act 1967 which allows for abortion on grounds of the baby having "such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped".

I didn't know what "Tripolody" is and Google brings up very few results. I did find this though:
So the name of what the defect was Tripolody .. Very rare they say every woman has a one percent chance of that happing in every pregnancy.. They said how it happened is 2 sperm got into one egg and it didn't split properly.. Which now kinda makes since considering now that I know my progesterone has been so low.. Progesterone is what helps with the development of that process.. Anyways They gave me three choices...1) have an abortion 2) get induced and have him early or 0 I can Die.... So needless to say I was beside myself.. I chose to get induced because I don't believe in abortion for my self, and I knew he would never even take a breath and I didn't want to die eiether... He was born (stillborn) on March 20th, 2003 61/2 inch.. long and 3 ounces.... To me he was perfect, he didn't seem to have anything wrong with him.... He was Beautiful.... Anyways let me change the subject for a moment cause I could gom on and on about my Jacob...
Anencephaly on the other hand I have heard of. Last year I followed the blog of a mother of a baby with anencephaly. Baby Faith lived outside of the womb for three months.
"I named her Faith Hope. I cherished every moment of the pregnancy and even had a baby shower! I savoured every kick and turn she made inside my growing belly. For five months we hoped and prayed. Then to everyone's surprise, I was blessed with 3 months and 4 days with Faith before she went to Heaven. She was the sweetest little girl... so beautiful and so full of life. I feel so privileged to be her mother.

I created this blog 10 weeks before my daughter was born. The posts are very personal, emotional, brutally honest, and at times ungraceful... but it is my hope that by sharing our story, God will be glorified for all He has done for us. I also hope that this blog will reach other moms out there who are facing the same prenatal diagnosis that I did.


The doctors said that Faith's condition (anencephaly) was "incompatible with life," that she would likely not survive for more than a few seconds or minutes after birth, and that she would never achieve consciousness. They didn't understand how she was thriving for all those weeks... how she was smiling, cooing, crying, eating, breathing on her own, avoiding infection, and responding to her surroundings.

"For man this is impossible; with God all things are possible.
""
The Story of Baby Faith Hope is one I recommend everyone read.

Certainly a child with anencephaly isn't going to live a long life outside the womb even if they make it that far but to say they have zero chance of being born alive is inaccurate. Whilst I appreciate that Doctors have to be careful of raising false hopes in desperate parents, it sounds like there is some amount of misinformation regarding prognosis which then has an influence on the decision to abort. Whilst I believe abortion is wrong anyway, it makes it even worse when people are choosing to do it on the basis of false information.

Choosing to abort on the basis that the baby will die anyway is essentially euthanasia of the unborn. I believe all human life both born and unborn should be protected and therefore cannot support the euthanasia of anyone regardless of whether they are already born.

The first message mentioned abortion as a means to "save a terminally ill baby from further suffering". I recently read "Human Sentience Before Birth" (A Report by the Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience). The general consensus seems to be that around 12-25 weeks gestation the unborn baby can start to feel pain to some degree. However this is with regard to an outside stimulus being introduced. Can a disability cause pain and suffering to an unborn child? Clearly once they are born this is likely but before birth it is not something I would wish to make a judgement on. However, just as those who have already been born can be given palliative care, so the same care should be extended to the unborn rather than euthanizing them.

The trauma to the mother is immense. And the trauma is not through the interuption of pregnancy but through the loss of a child. With such grave sitations there is no good outcome and there is no right answer. Carrying a child that will die at any point in the womb is absoultely traumatic for the mother also. I know women who have done both -some who have waited for the baby to die and some who have interrupted pregnancy. All have the same outcome -terrible grief and loss for the families.

Yes it is traumatic and the loss of a child is never easy. Abortion does not make that loss any easier. But there are right answers. They are in God's word. (But just because I believe myself to be right on this issue does not mean I think I am better than anyone else - I am still a sinner. A forgiven sinner but still a sinner.) I literally cannot begin to imagine how it must feel to be in such a situation. I have to fight back tears just trying to imagine being in that place and I would never presume to know how it feels. However, just because it such an emotionally traumatic event does not and cannot justify deliberate ending of human life.

The outcome is never a good one. Carrying a baby who will die with everyone asking when you are due and asking how you are preparing for the birth is devastating. Also carrying such a baby can cause harm to the mother as the baby is not well.

If a "good outcome" is a healthy child then yes, the outcome is never good. Here I will again quote Myah (Baby Faith's Mother) as she has more right to comment and does so far more ably than I can:
I miss my baby so much... It's hard to believe that it's been less than six months since the Lord called Faithy home. It seems like it's been so, so long since I last held her. It is hard, but I am so thankful for the 53 weeks that she spent here on earth. That's right, 53 weeks: 40 weeks in my belly and 13 in my arms. One year and seven days. What a blessing! It went by so fast --too fast. God knows I would do it all over again if I could.
With regard to carrying the baby to term I refer to Myah's post "Carrying to Term".

And your comment about abortions harming the mother with regards to terminations for medical reasons is compeltely inaccurate. The process is the same as the normal risks of delivery.

The comment I made was "I do not judge anyone - I leave that to God and I know that abortion frequently harms the mothers physically and or mentally too." I did not refer specifically to abortions for "medical reasons" but to abortions in general. I was also unaware that having a disabled baby provides protection against the mental and physical harm from abortion that those mothers who abort healthy babies frequently endure. The following is the result of an abortion - I don't think a delivery would have had the same effect:
Another moment brought to you by abortion...

Today at around 3:08 PM in Florida, you would have found me pulled over on the side of the road with my face buried in my hands as I gasped for oxygen and very audibly sobbed, because my very challenging son, who was diagnosed with autism at 8 and who had just had yet another public episode, innocently asked me if I wished I would have aborted him.

I was not prepared for this question. It felt like the whole of my viscera had been pulled through my navel in one neat tug, and I started weeping inconsolably. Not because there was any truth to his statement, but because I killed his brother or sister, my first child, in a second trimester abortion.

I was crying, my startled four-year-old was crying, my son was confused...

This is where we are 12 years later.

Abortion is forever.
This was taken from The S.I.C.L.E. Cell.

Contrast this with the birth story of Gabriel - I know which experience I'd rather have if forced to choose one of them.

I couldn't give a detailed list of facts and figures with regard to the risks but offhand I know that abortion increases risk of breast cancer. A quick google of "post abortion syndrome" should suffice to show that many women suffer psychologically after having one.

I do not want any more replies. I will not be contacting you again.

Yes. Defriending and blocking me on Facebook has made that pretty clear. I could write a letter to you but would there be any point?

As a women this is one of the worst things to be faced with and these kind of campaignes are cruel and insensitve.

I agree that it is probably one of the worst things one can be faced with. As I say, I cannot begin to imagine what it must be like knowing that your unborn child will not survive very long after birth if they even survive that far in the first place. I appreciate that unlike the other 99% of mothers who have abortions the women in this situation are aborting a wanted baby and that they genuinely think they are doing what is best. This does not however remove the fact that abortion is wrong. My conscience does not allow me to sit back and say, "Okay I'll ignore the fact that 200 000 unborn babies are killed every year - the feelings of 2000 mothers per year are far more important than the lives of those babies." I do try to be sensitive to those who may have had abortions but ultimately destruction of human life is more important than hurting somebody's feelings. It is not cruel to oppose abortion or to voice that opposition. It would be cruel and insensitive to show you (or indeed anybody who hasn't consented) pictures of aborted babies or to describe to you some of the methods used in abortions but I do not do that.

And until people are faced with such a situation they never know what they would do.

You are right - I do not know what I would do in that situation. However right and wrong are not defined by what I do. I hope I am never faced with such a situation but even if I were in that situation and chose abortion, that would not make it right. It would illustrate how much of a sinner I am and how much I need God's grace and mercy. But abortion would still be wrong.

My actions do not define right and wrong.

God does.

So the question still remains: What to say to someone who has had an abortion?

Thursday, 6 May 2010

Election Day: Pro Life Candidates

Today is election day. Here in the UK elections happen a lot more quickly than they appear to in the United States. So much so that if you are a lazy blogger you don't get around to blogging about it until election day.

Since the last government allowed creation of "saviour siblings", allowed the creation of animal-human hybrid embryos, expanded embryonic stem cell research, removed the requirement to consider the need for a father in relation to IVF treatment, introduced gay marriage, introduced "Equality" laws which discriminate Christians in favour of people who disagree with them and attempted to apply the Badman report I thought it wise to find out the views of my candidates on these issues.

For me the most critical issue is that of human life. Discrimination against people for their beliefs or restriction of home-education just doesn't fall under the same category as destruction of life. It was also the issue I least expected any candidates to agree with me on.

I contacted five of my six candidates and four replied. (I live in the safest labour seat in the country so the Labour candidate knows she doesn't actually need to do anything to get in.) Three of my candidates are pro life! I actually had a choice of three candidates. And since I know who will win, I don't need to do a tactical vote for a candidate I don't like to stop a worse one from getting in.

Here are some selected quotes from the replies I received:

Candidate A:
Yes, all human life born and unborn should be protected.


Candidate B:
I believe all babies have the right to life. I would be in favour of a reduction in abortion limit. As a practicing doctor I have a history of not taking part in any abortion - so my stance should already be clear.

Candidate C:
I am pro-life and would support a reduction to the current abortion limit (ideally 12 weeks in all but the most serious of cases). I am particularly concerned that abortion is being used as a form of contraception without people fully understanding the full implication of what they are doing, both to the unborn child but also mentally to themselves.

A lot is made of Human Rights, but very little is made of the right to life of the unborn child.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

...I have real sympathy for people and their families in this situation. However, I would be extremely uncomfortable for any relaxation of the law to all assisted suicide in the UK as this could lead to pressure being brought on the old, sick and vulnerable to end their lives.


Candidate D seemed to view the law as a means of "harm reduction" and does not see any need to change the law. But since his party wants to abolish all church schools I wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

I intend to let the candidate I voted for know that I voted for him and also that one of the key reasons was his pro-life stance. I will also write to the new MP once she is elected to express my concern that she will not attend to concerns raised by constituents since she did not reply when she was supposedly campaigning.

If you feel so inclined, please pray that good people will be elected throughout our land and that the new government will improve the law on pro-life issues.

Also, if you are in the UK, please consider writing to the new Prime Minister as part of the Paper Baby Campaign.

Wednesday, 14 October 2009

A clump of cells?

A lot of "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion" people seem to justify abortion on the basis that the "foetus" is "just a clump of cells".

Even at eight weeks this "clump of cells" doesn't look very "clump of cell"-like to me.

Ten weeks: does it look like a clump of cells to you?

At sixteen weeks this looks like a baby to me.

At 18 weeks, this unborn baby would still be a potential victim of abortion for another six weeks.

I wonder, if women considering abortion were shown these pictures, how many would still choose it?

"I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."

Psalm 139:14-16



Thursday, 30 July 2009

Anti-child culture?

Two things recently have made me think about how anti-child our culture is.

The first was not long after we had moved house. Little Girl and I had a picnic in the front garden. She had finished and was "exploring" in the still wild bits while I was still finishing my lunch. Quite a lot of people walk past our house and a man who lives up the road stopped and started talking to Little Girl. (I had to reply for her because she tends to be shy with strangers.) You could tell that he liked children and I would have thought it a bit weird if it wasn't for the fact that he was obviously foreign (he said later on that he was German).

Later on I was pondering about this and two thoughts struck me:
1) It is generally expected in our culture that only women should be interested in children and not men(unless they are their own children).
2) The European countries which I would think of as places where everyone likes children (such as Italy and Spain) are predominantly Catholic countries. (I'll talk about the significance of this later.)

The second thing which got me thinking was a discussion about children on a forum I frequent. The person who started the thread doesn't want children. She and her boyfriend have planned their life based on never having children but she was getting all stressed because he'd recently said that he wasn't absolutely 100% sure he never ever wanted children. Having children would apparently mess up all the plans they had for the future. Now the really interesting bit was her feelings about children which came out as the discussion went on. This is what she said:

"The kids that I have been around seem to be having fun with their parents- I don't know enough about kids to judge it.

My experiences of these kids, however, is that I can't stand them being around. I hate the thought of them being incontinent. I hate it when they touch me with their dirty hands. I can't stand their incessant babbling about rubbish. The sound of them crying or laughing goes through me like nails on a blackboard. I hate all of the adults at a social event have to be really aware of their behaviour (e.g. I went to a BBQ on Saturday and had to try and hold loads of stuff (which seriously impeeded (sic) my eating and drinking capabilities) that I would otherwise have left on the floor because someone decided to bring their kid along and I didn't want my stuff to be broken or eaten by it). I hate the way they put your stuff in their dribbly gobs."

Along with hating pretty much all characteristics of children in general, she hates the fact that if someone brings their child to a social event you need to be careful what you leave lying around.

Now can you imagine your average Italian saying something like that?

If people have large families and have their children over a long period of time (which your average person in a Catholic country would do) then there are always children around. You will always have either younger siblings or your own children or nieces and nephews. (Or if you were from a small family for whatever reason you would have friends with little brothers and sisters etc.) If you are used to children being around all the time you are less likely to suddenly think that they are a nuisance that stop you from doing things how you would prefer.

In contrast if everyone has only one, two or three children fairly close together then most people will be used to a life which doesn't include young children. (I appreciate that some people with few or even no children have not done so by choice but I am talking about what is the norm i.e. what the majority in our culture chooses to do.) People will talk about a small age gap being good because you "get it over with" more quickly. As if raising children is something to be "got through". Some people even claim that to choose to have a child is unethical (How many children in Africa could be fed/clothed for the cost of your child? How much of the world's resources will your child use? We are already overpopulated as it is.) but God tells us to ""Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth"

I wonder what attitudes to children were like before contraception was widely available?

"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 19:14


Saturday, 25 April 2009

Vaccine - Abortion link revisited

I just wrote reply to a comment on my "Vaccines use cells from aborted babies" post and thought it was worth putting it in a post so that more people see it.

Thanks for your comment Carrie - I guess I wasn't clear as I was not saying that cells from aborted babies were in the vaccines just that they are used to make them. I guess a parallel would be that coal can be used to make electricity but there is not any coal in the electricity. For me the important point is that they were used in the first place.

Also although the rubella strain does come from *one* aborted baby, many were used. The rubella strain is called RA27/3. RA stands for rubella abortus (i.e. it was an aborted baby rather than a miscarried baby). 27 means this was the 27th aborted baby used and 3 means it was the third sample taken from this baby.

This means that although as you say the rubella strain came from one baby, many more were used in the overall process of production.


Sunday, 15 March 2009

My Web Wanderings (weekly)

  • tags: pro-life

    • When Marcela was diagnosed with anencephaly, still in the womb, her mother was given the option to abort the child. Her doctor, she says, "gave me a week to decide if I was going to continue with the pregnancy. I responded that it is not right to be so cruel as to kill that small and innocent child."
    • Myths about anencephaly abound, and if Brazil's recent decision on embryonic stem cell research is any indication, factual scientific errors about the condition could lead the justices of Brazil's Supreme Court to condemn thousands of unborn children to an untimely death.
    • Abortion advocates promote several fallacies about anencephaly. The first and most obvious error, similar to the previous one, is that anencephalic infants are not viable outside of the womb. However they can, and do, survive for weeks, months, even years after birth. What may be the longest-living anencephalic baby, "Baby K", lived two and a half years in the United States, dying in 1995.
    • Risks of misdiagnosis may seem "insignificant" to a doctor, but parents tend to have a different perspective. A case in point is that of Brandon Kramer, who was diagnosed with a brain defect while still developing in the womb. His parents, Becky Weatherall and her boyfriend Kriss Kramer were told that their son's brain was malformed and enlarged, and that fluid had collected in his skull (see recent LifeSite coverage at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022603.html).


      Doctors told the couple that their son would be deaf and blind, and was unlikely to survive long after birth. Although the pregnancy was at a late stage, they recommended an abortion, an idea that Weatherall and Kramer rejected.


      Contrary to the doctors' claims, the couple's child was born completely healthy, and normal.


      "I feel incredibly guilty thinking that I could have killed him," said Weatherall, "and then I find myself wondering how many other babies are killed who would have turned out to be completely healthy."


      It is difficult to know how many false diagnoses of anencephaly and other birth defects occur annually because a high percentage of such children are aborted, resulting in a mutilated corpse that is not examined after the procedure.

    • Approximately 95% of anencephalic babies are aborted before birth, according to the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University. This rate is similar for other birth defects. In northern California, for example, 95% of unborn children diagnosed with cystic fibrosis are aborted, according to the insurer Kaiser Permanente.
    • "Doctors will tell you that an anencephalic child can neither see nor hear, nor feel pain, that he or she is a vegetable," says Anencephaly-info, a website maintained by parents of anencephalic children (http://www.anencephalie-info.org/e/faq.php#14). "However, that does not match up with the experience of many families who have had an anencephalic child."


      "The brain is affected to varying degrees, according to the child; the brain tissue can reach different stages of development. Some children are able to swallow, eat, cry, hear, feel vibrations (loud sounds), react to touch and even to light. But most of all, they respond to our love: you don't need a complete brain to give and receive love - all you need is a heart!" the site's authors write.

  • tags: pro-life

    • When I was 19 weeks pregnant, I was told that my baby had no brain. This condition is known as "anencephaly." I was told that my baby was only alive because she was attached to me, but that she couldn't survive on her own. The doctor said that I could continue the pregnancy safely, but that my baby would die shortly after being born. Or I could choose to terminate the pregnancy then, which would mean being induced at 20 weeks and letting my baby die without ever seeing or holding her
    • Well, to some people this would be a difficult decision, but it wasn't for me. I knew there was nothing to gain by terminating the pregnancy and I already loved my daughter more than anyone else in the world. Even if she was unconscious like the doctors said and lived for only a few seconds or minutes --even if she was stillborn --it was worth it to me. And so we began our journey...
    • Today, as I type this, Faith is 20 days old. Apart from a sterile dressing on her head that needs to be changed once a day, Faith lives a completely normal life. She isn't suffering or sickly, like you would expect. With no tubes and no machines supporting her life, she continues to thrive. She functions at the same level as any "normal" baby.
    • I hope that by sharing our story, we can shed some light on this condition we call "anencephaly." It may seem like doom and gloom when you get this diagnosis, but there is hope and there is joy. I know that first hand. You can read all the text books and medical journals you want, but the truth is revealed in babies like Faith. This is real life, not a text book. When you see the pictures and watch the videos, you can't deny that this life is precious and worth protecting.

      Myah
      (Faith's mom)

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Saturday, 21 February 2009

If a twelve year old can get it...



... then why do so many people support abortion?


Sunday, 4 January 2009

My Web Wanderings (weekly)


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Sunday, 28 December 2008

My Web Wanderings (weekly)


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Sunday, 21 December 2008

My Web Wanderings (weekly)


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Sunday, 30 November 2008

My Web Wanderings (weekly)

  • tags: pro-life

    • The husband of the teenage girl who has become Britain's youngest mother of Siamese twins said she and the babies were doing well.
    • The husband of the teenage girl who has become Britain's youngest mother of Siamese twins said she and the babies were doing well.

      Laura Williams, 18, gave birth to conjoined girls, named Faith and Hope, by Caesarean section.

    • The couple, from Shrewsbury, had defied advice from doctors to abort the girls early in the pregnancy, which they described as the 'hardest decision of our lives.'

      Only about 5 per cent of conjoined twins survive the first 24 hours. But the girls' chances are thought to be good as they are joined at the front from navel to breastbone and do not share a heart.

  • tags: Reading

    • The optimal time to learn to read is when a child is one to three years old,
      because this is the time when their brains naturally do the most closely-
      related task: learning to under-stand speech and to talk themselves.
    • Nearly all children naturally learn to understand speech, and to speak themselves, between the ages of one and three years (although the foundations do indeed start from early infancy). This is an enormously complex task, yet you don’t really teach a child to talk. Instead, children learn to talk essentially on their own, so long as they are raised in an environment rich with speech and with social interaction. And children generally learn to talk with obvious delight, seemingly without effort and, often, with amazing speed. They don’t learn to talk through regimented lessons, instead they learn by listening to and interacting with their family and friends, by singing songs, and by playing games. Nearly every child does this successfully, in every culture around the world, and children have learned to talk like this throughout recorded history and, surely, before recorded history, too.
    • I believe that the reason some children read easily and early is because reading early makes learning to read easier.
      I know this sounds strange at first. Most people consider learning to read a fairly difficult task. Look at how many six-year-olds struggle with it! And since it is difficult for many six-year- olds, they assume that learning to read must be much more difficult, if not downright impossible, for a four-year-old—to say nothing of a two-year-old! But this superficially compelling logic is not valid for all tasks.
    • For example, nearly everyone now knows that learning a foreign language is much easier when you learn it at an earlier age. In fact, in general, the earlier the better. It is better to learn a foreign language early for the simple reason that early childhood is when our brains naturally are most receptive to language acquisition. It is a window of opportunity that, if missed, makes learning harder. You can learn a second language later, of course, but it is much more difficult to attain the fluency and accent that young children pick up with no trouble at all. Because of this, schools in this country have finally started to move foreign language instruction from the last few years of high school to much earlier in the curriculum, preferably all the way to kindergarten and even to preschool. Many people resisted this because, although everyone knows that children learn their own first language spontaneously and with ease in early childhood, they assumed that learning a second language would be somehow too confusing. The reality is, while there are occasional moments of confusion— moments when a child speaks a bit of Franglais or Spanglish—children generally deal with the additional complexity of a second language better when they are younger. Preschoolers, compared to older children and adults, are truly geniuses at learning languages.
    • The core insight of native reading is that this natural genius young children have for learning spoken languages can, if given the right environment, be easily extended to written language, too. If children learn in this more natural way, they not only read years earlier, they also gain an ease and familiarity with the written word that is achieved by older children, if at all, only after a much greater struggle. Native readers learn to read as a natural, effortless extension of learning to talk. And the best time to learn to read this way is the best time to learn to talk: before the age of three. Better yet, when children learn to read in this more natural way, not only do they learn easily, joyfully, and at an early age, but they then become truly native readers. They become deeply and effortlessly literate in a way that has lifelong benefits, just as native speakers of a language have an ease and fluency that can generally only be marveled at by those who learned too late.
    • Many people have heard of a case or two of a child who could fluently read by three. Indeed, throughout history there is ample evidence that children are certainly capable of reading that young. For example, by the age of three the great mathematician Gauss could not only read, he also knew enough mathematics to correct an error in his father’s payroll accounts! More recently, it has been reported that not only was the entertainment mogul Oprah Winfrey reading by the age of three, but that she was actually so fluent a reader that she started her career in public speaking at this same age, reading for her church congregation, to much applause and amazement.
    • fundamentally, speech and writing are just two different forms of the same language. The critical factor is to create the right environment where the natural miracle of language acquisition extends to the written word.
  • tags: Unit conversion

  • tags: Education, Montessori

  • tags: pro-life

  • tags: pro-life

  • tags: pro-life

    • Laura Williams, 18, from Shrewsbury, Shropshire, defied medical advice to abort the girls early in her pregnancy, and will now give birth to Faith and Hope by caesarean section this week.
    • When Aled and Laura Williams arrived at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital they were understandably excited. About to have the first scan, 12 weeks into the pregnancy, they paid the requisite £10 for three photographs and duly waited for their appointment with the nurse.

      Two hours later, the couple sat in the hospital car park, Aled's face a ghastly shade of grey and Laura, beside him, still in shock and unable to stop crying.

      It was only then that they realised they didn't even have a picture . . . and why the doctors, in their supposed wisdom, had thought it better that way. For Aled and Laura had just been told they were expecting conjoined, or Siamese, twins.

    • The couple felt the doctor was blunt to the point of callousness.

      Laura recalls: 'He said I'd be better to get rid of them, that I would probably lose them by 14 weeks and if they lasted any longer it could cause all sorts of complications and I could end up having to have a hysterectomy.'

      He then told the couple to go home and think about it while the nurse returned the money for their scan pictures.

    • Aled says: 'We're just hoping for the best. If God wants the babies to be in this world it will happen. If not, that's what it's got to be.
    • 'Most people of her age want to go out drinking and having fun but Laura's always said she wanted children. And at the end of the day they're still our children no matter what the outcome.'
    • Laura says: 'No one can say we haven't tried. I'm just glad we have proved that first doctor wrong.

      'I bet there are a lot of people out there who have been in our position and have felt they had no choice. Whatever happens to us, we've proved that's not the case.'

    • The couple do not have the first, 12-week scan as the doctor advised an abortion and thought it would be upsetting to have a picture to remember their babies by.
  • tags: pro-life


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Wednesday, 5 December 2007

Vaccines use cells from aborted babies

I recently found out that some viral vaccines are made using cells from aborted babies. I've done a bit of research and this is some of the information I have found:

http://www.dgwsoft.co.uk/homepages/vaccines/alternatives.htm

http://www.lifecanada.org/html/science/Vaccines/ABriefHistoryofHumanDiploidCellStrains.pdf

http://www.vaccinetruth.org/fetal_tissue.htm

If you are in the UK then you can find information on which vaccines are currently used here:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Healthandsocialcaretopics/Greenbook/DH_4097254

It seems that currently the polio vaccine used in the UK uses monkey cells so it is only the MMR which is an issue. I was very relieved to find this out as Baby Girl had already had the polio vaccination before I found out. Obviously I can't help having not known but apart from the fact that we wouldn't have wanted to use it if it had been made using aborted baby's cells but it would have made our objections to the MMR a bit more difficult if we'd already had one.

If you have any more information about this issue, please do post in the comments.

  © Blogger template ProBlogger Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP