7. July 2008 by Seth.

There are many responses we could give to the “acquired rights” argument in favor of legalized abortion mentioned in the previous post.

For example, if the right to life were a right which is to be acquired, there must be some moment of grandeur when this great honor is bestowed upon the individual.  While it is true that one cannot legally drive until one has passed the test, there is indeed a moment at the BMV when one is handed the long-desired driver’s license.

Similarly, when a teenager turns 18, she may apply for voting privileges and then—and only then—will she receive the voting card in the mail declaring her entry into the society of the electorate.

This could be extrapolated to the consumption of alcohol, to the portion of our society bearing the title of Bachelor of Arts, to the entrance of one into an elite club.  Yes, there is a period of learning and testing followed by admittance into the club.

However, there is a fundamental difference between these events and that of personhood.  The former is an issue of qualification and of privileges being added to one’s nature.  The second is a question of one’s very essence.  For example, children are born all across the world.  They are all human beings.  But, only a portion of them hold the title of Americans.  There are qualifications which must be met for them to hold this privilege.  Yet, regardless of their nationality, all babies are by definition human beings.

There cannot be a magical moment when one is given the title of personhood because that would mean one would actually change one’s own character.  Yes, a boy will become a man as he grows and have new responsibilities and privileges due to this.  But, does that mean in his boyhood he was not a male?  To suggest such would be nonsense.  He is now a more mature male, but the definition of his nature has not changed.

We may have a range of persons who are more and less mature in this world.  But we do not have a range of persons and non-persons in the human race.

A man cannot change his own essence.

Furthermore, we can know objectively whether or not a person may drive.  Thus, we must also be able to know objectively whether or not a person has the right to life.  Can the “acquired rights” group provide evidence of an objective moment at which one is granted the right of personhood?

No, they cannot.  This would mean there would actually be humans walking around our globe who are not persons, who have not yet been granted this privilege.  Have you ever met a human being who is not a person?  What is that like?  How does the individual behave?

Every human being—from the smallest zygote to the most elderly man—is by his nature a person.

Some argue that this is a question of gained respect.  The fetus has not gained the respect of her common man in the same way a Senator has.  Thus, we cannot be expected to honor the plea to life of the fetus, whereas we are obligated to do so for the Senator.

Imagine a society built upon this system.  Personhood and the right to life would exist on a sliding scale.  You may be a person and have the right to live, but there will always be someone who has garnered more respect and therefore has more of a right to life than you.  Thus, there is always someone who would be justified in killing you by virtue of the fact that he has more of a right to life than you.  If he were in need of a heart transplant and you were the only one with a viable organ, he would not only be justified in killing you to take your heart for himself, he would be doing the morally upright thing—by honoring the right to life of which he has more than you.

If personhood and the right to life were to exist on a sliding scale, this would create a society of higher and lower classes of persons, the former feeding upon the lower.

If, however, personhood were something one either has or does not have, then there must be some objective way to determine whether or not one has it.  If one argues that this is an “acquired right” then he must also provide objective evidence of the great moment when one receives this right.  However, all efforts to do so will end in vain because personhood is not an added privilege, it is the definition of what a human being is.

The argument that the right to life is an “acquired right” may sound like a new argument.  However, it is indeed simply a different facet of the old debate to determine the personhood of the preborn child.

There is indeed an objective way to determine whether or not an individual is a person.  And, the test is quite simple.  If the individual is human—regardless of size, level of development, environment or degree of dependency—the individual is a person.

And, that person has the right to life.

Posted in Social, Abortion | Print | 1 Comment »

30. June 2008 by Seth.

We have become quite familiar with many of the pro-abortion clichés being thrown around the discussion tables today.  For example, almost any abortion debate will include lines such as the following:

“Don’t tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body.”

“The fetus is not a person.”

“Don’t force your morality on me.”

“Who are you to judge?”

“The war kills, too.”

However, have you ever heard someone say that the preborn child does indeed deserve respect and yet in the same breath argue the child has not yet acquired the right to live?

Those who argue this view draw upon other examples of what it means to be a person in our society.  They note that the toddler cannot drive, vote or drink alcohol because they have not yet “acquired the rights” to do so.

Someone who holds to this view may also comment that we receive the amount of respect in the world that we deserve.  A man who has labored his entire life for the good of his fellow man may receive great respect, whereas the fetus who has done very little will not be remembered and honored if he is to die prematurely.

Is this a new argument?  Or is this merely a twist to the same old debate we’ve been hearing for some time?

What do you think?  How would you respond if faced with this argument?

Posted in Social, Abortion | Print | 1 Comment »

31. March 2008 by Seth.

Recent events in the Hoosier state have given the Underground opportunities to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to stand up for the approximately 3,500 babies who die each day to the knife of inconvenience.

When former Pres. Bill Clinton was in town, the Underground lined the sidewalks of the Grand Wayne Center.  When Sen. Hillary Clinton arrived to push her campaign for the presidency, we were there again—holding signs, sharing truth with those who’d engage us.

Interestingly, though, one trend soon became the norm.  Our signs bore a simple message: Abortion Kills Children.  However, this was, curiously, the only message people did not draw from our signs.

Time and time again, the pro-abortion crowd judged us as war-aficionados and Bush-lovers.  They challenged our right to be present.  They accused us of forcing morality upon them.

They did everything they could think of—except challenge the simple message we wanted to share.

Indeed, those who actually chose to challenge our assertion that each abortion ends the life of a child were very few in number.  Instead, they ignored the letters on our signs and reworded our message to fit their own desired ends.

“Christians don’t judge,” one woman shouted to me.  I engaged her assertion out of respect.  However, in making this claim, not only was she judging me—and thereby contradicting herself because she told me she was a Christian—but she was also avoiding the simple, clear content of “Abortion Kills Children.”  Who were we judging with this message?  Did our signs read “Women Who Abort Are Murderers?”  No. 

I didn’t even have “Klopfer is a Murderer” on my sign—though it would have been tempting, and true.

This woman, like the others in the crowds we’ve met, clearly did not wish to engage the three simple words of our message.

“Bush murders, too!” others exclaimed.  Oddly, though, not a single one of our signs included the word “Bush.”

“More have died in the war than to abortion!” was also heard from the crowd.  Not only is this clearly false—we just recently were told in the media that we’ve reached 4,000 American deaths in the Iraqi war, which is barely more than the number of children killed each day in the abortion industry—but also, again, it has nothing to do with the simple message of “Abortion Kills Children.”

Others simply wrote us off with comments such as, “AKC stands for American Kennel Club.”

Still others spouted off baffling responses such as, “Well, at least they weren’t soldiers.”

Clearly, the effort to speak out against abortion has today been equated to a vote for Bush and an amen to the Iraqi war.

Nevermind the fact that in our midst was at least one woman who has lost relatives in the war.  Nevermind the fact that a polling of all of we prolife demonstrators would have yielded very different views upon the war.

Nevermind these details because, after all, what the crowd truly wanted to do, apparently, was to judge and force their morality upon us.

Ironic, isn’t it?

Posted in News, Social, Politics, Abortion | Print | 4 Comments »

19. February 2008 by Seth.

The “cultural competency” bill has been amended!

Discussions among Sen. Teresa Lubbers, Sen. Greg Walker (a name several of you may recognize), AFA of Indiana Executive Director Micah Clark, and others have produced some favorable amendments to the bill detailed in our previous post.

 1. The amendment no longer reads “any licensed teacher.”  Rather, it pertains only to public schools.  Furthermore, references to “diversity training” have been removed.

2. A very positive amendment: language was added which would require public high schools to teach about fetal development as part of their health classes.

As you might guess, Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates are not thrilled by the potential ramifications of Amendment #2.  The next step for the bill is to pass through the conference committee, where it will either continue onward or die due to disagreement by the committee over the amendments.

According to the official Indiana Legislative website, Amendment #2 was accepted by the committee.

The Senate could vote on the bill as early as today.

It appears, therefore, that this bill could possibly have a silver lining for advocates of the sanctity of human life. 

There are still many questions surrounding HB 1107.  For example, what does it mean to be “culturally competent?”   There certainly are combating views on this point, and therefore it remains to be seen what impact this might have on Hoosier public school systems.  However, it appears from the bill’s current language that each school corporation would be able to define “cultural competency” for themselves, which seems appropriate.  Nevertheless, it would not be surprising if the Indiana Department of Education would write their own interpretation of the bill (assuming it passes the Senate vote and Governor Daniels would sign it) to become the standard for schools to follow. 

This remains a story to watch carefully.

The bill in its current language can be found below:

HB 1107: Cultural competency. Requires the department of education to develop standards for cultural competency teacher training. Requires school corporations to develop policies concerning cultural competency training for school staff as a part of school improvement plans. Requires each school corporation to include instruction regarding human fetal development in the school corporation’s high school health education curriculum.

Posted in Social, Politics, Abortion | Print | No Comments »

18. February 2008 by Seth.

Excitement from the potential impact of Indiana Senate bill 146 had barely begun to settle when a new bill started to fan the flames of debate across the Hoosier State.

IN House bill 1107, authored by Rep. Greg Porter and sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Teresa Lubbers would require “public and private accredited Christian schools and all licensed teachers in any setting including non-accredited private and home school settings to take pro-homosexual diversity training each year and to ‘measure’ their students’ ‘cultural competency’ on issues of diversity, culture and ideologies.” (American Family Association of Indiana: afain.net)

The range of debate prompted by such a piece of legislation is sweeping.

For example, who is to determine the view of homosexuality to be spoon-fed into the minds of Hoosier youth?

Also, how might this actually affect the homeschool community?  While the bill calls for even non-accredited private schools to follow the proposed “diversity training,” it appears this would only apply to licensed teachers.  Teacher certification is not required to educate ones children at home in Indiana.

Further, what is “cultural competency?”  Is it knowledge of contemporary American culture and its various fragmentations with an understanding (not acceptance) of social groups?  Or, is it false tolerance, by which one is forced to actually suppress ones own culture/ideologies and adopt those of another which are anathema to ones moral compass? 

Such an act would be tantamount to believers of orthodox Christianity holding hands with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons to sing “Kum Ba Ya.”  While we may all be pleading to some deity to “come by here,” only one is directing this call to the Triune God of Scripture, and therefore to sing such a song together would be to ignore the simple fact that each group strongly opposes the fundamental views of the other.

We can—and will—cooexist.  But, we must not suppress the Truth.

The American Family Association (AFA) of Indiana last week dispersed an alert following this bill’s passage through the House, prompting Hoosiers to begin contacting their senators.  The same day, Sen. Lubbers, sponsor of the bill, called AFA to discuss possible amendments.  According to Micah Clark, AFA of Indiana Executive Director, Sen. Lubbers is interested in addressing concerns from pro-family groups and even amending the bill to reflect this.

Could this be a sign of the Indiana Senate itself growing in “cultural competency” of Hoosiers strongly opposed to forced false tolerance?  Time will tell.

Updates are expected this week on HB 1107.  Stay tuned.

Sites to watch for news (along with the Underground blog, of course):

http://www.in.gov/legislative/

http://www.afain.net/

Posted in Social, Politics | Print | No Comments »

13. February 2008 by Seth.

Below you will find Dr. Cly’s testimony in full regarding the life threatening complications resulting from abortions performed in Fort Wayne.  The Senate passed the proposed legislation (SB 146).  It is currently awaiting a hearing in the House. 

Dr. Cly filed a medical licensing complaint with the Indiana Attorney General’s office the same day he testified.

This bill would require physicians performing abortions both to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and to notify the patient of the hospital location where she can receive follow-up care by the physician.  In addition, this bill would assure that women be given information concerning when a fetus feels pain, as well as that they be informed in writing at least 18 hours before an abortion about the following: the availability of adoptions, the option to have certain adoption-related expenses borne by the adoptive parents, physical risks to the woman in having an abortion, and that “an embryo formed by the fertilization of a human ovum by a human sperm immediately begins to divide and grow as human physical life.”

 - Seth

The ultrasound performed in the ER showed pieces of the baby were left inside and had become necrotic. I immediately had to perform a Dilation and Curettage to “finish the abortion” in order to save the patient from sepsis (a life threatening total blood stream infection) and to attempt to save her uterus so that she could preserve her fertility, as she was only 20 years old and wanted children in the future. Unfortunately, due to the pain and infection, she required a hysterectomy to fix her symptoms. She can not have any more children as a result of these complications. All of which could have been prevented with proper emergency on call coverage and quality oversight. This bill would correct that problem by requiring admission privileges and notification of the hospital where the patient can receive follow up care.

The second patient from my practice also had a termination performed prior to notifying our office. This is usually what happens, as patients many times are embarrassed to tell us they are considering a termination. This patient was unable to locate the physician who performed the procedure, as he does not have nighttime on call coverage and leaves no forwarding number to be reached. He is only in Fort Wayne on Thursdays from 9AM to 5PM, then he returns to his home state of Illinois. Without anywhere else to turn, the patient went to the ER and I was called since she had delivered a baby with our group in the past. This patient had severe abdominal pain and heavy vaginal bleeding. Again, pieces of the baby were seen on ultrasound from an incomplete termination. This patient was much more fortunate and didn’t lose her uterus and will be able to have children again.

These two patients are from my experience in the last couple of months. Unfortunately, my OB/Gyn colleagues in Fort Wayne and other parts of Indiana have reported similar occurrences. The problem is that there is no quality assurance system or “checks and balances” for terminations in the state of Indiana. Hospital privileges and notification to the patient of the hospital where the physician has privileges would immediately correct this patient safety issue.

As I mentioned, I have been the Quality Assurance Committee Chairman for the past 3 years at Dupont Hospital. Every hospital already has a Quality Assurance Committee. The committee reviews every single complication, surgical infection, and procedural complication that occurs. This system is completely done by physicians and it allows us to ensure that physicians are not harming patients because of substandard medical care or negligence. It also allows us to track complications and if necessary take educational or disciplinary action to protect our patients from harm.

If I perform a Dilation and Curettage for a miscarriage and pieces of the baby are left inside the patient. Within days I would have more than 10 physicians from a Quality Committee asking me to explain myself, what happened and why I performed substandard surgery on that patient. They would also track my complications and make sure it didn’t happen again. None of these checks and balances occur without admission privileges.

Any physician with admission privileges, anywhere in Indiana, has to have 2 emergency backup physicians listed who will provide emergency and nighttime call coverage should that physician be unavailable or out of town. This includes all physicians, because we all have to have to have admitting privileges to care for patients who have emergencies. Except - for the physicians performing terminations, they currently don’t have to worry about the quality of their care or being held accountable if their patients suffer severe complications.

In summary, as physicians, we are making life and death decisions about patients. These patients trust us with their lives. It is our duty to protect them and care for them in the best way possible. The current termination laws allow a few substandard physicians to place a group of women in Indiana in serious danger because the lack of proper quality assurance oversight. This abuse of the physician patient relationship and negligence toward the patient can not be allowed to continue. This bill will immediately ensure that all Indiana patients receive high quality, physician reviewed, proper medical care for elective terminations. I ask that you use your legislative authority to protect this group of Indiana women by passing this bill to require hospital admission privileges and notify the patient of the hospital where she can go to receive the prompt and proper medical care.

Posted in Social, Politics, Abortion | Print | 4 Comments »