An "aha!" moment

I learned something very important last night: In order to feel comforted by someone, you have to allow yourself to be comforted.

This is particularly important in marriage. I'm still a newly wed so I'm sure most people figured this one out long ago, but it just hit me last night.

I was having a blah day yesterday. I couldn't tell you what exactly was wrong, I was just feeling off. So I went about sulking all day, making occasional snide remarks at poor Oliver who was doing his best to console me. I wasn't absorbing any of his kindness because he wasn't doing it the way I wanted him to.(Yeah, I know not my proudest moment) So we lay down in bed and I say something along the lines of "It's ok honey, I'm just going to go to sleep...I don't want to burden you" as if my sulking hadn't been burdening him all day. Then I rolled over and felt sorry for myself.

A few moments later I thought that maybe I'd feel better if he held me a bit. So I asked him to and he willingly obliged. I wasn't satisfied with this, however, because I felt like he should be holding me "better"(are you sick from my selfishness yet?). Then he started to talk to me to build me up a bit. Generally, this is the point I lay there and wish he would just shut up and rub my shoulders or something. Instead I listened to what he was saying and how sincere he was and realized that he was comforting me in the exact way I needed, I just wasn't allowing it to affect me because it wasn't what I wanted.

So I let myself be comforted by his words and his strength, and at the end of it I actually did feel better. Much better in fact, than I would have from a back rub. All this time I've been walking around thinking "If only he could just do it this way, I'd be all better" My attitude was preventing me from finding real fulfilment in his way. I had built up my ideal comfort so much that I ignored his heartfelt attempts.

So that's my marriage epiphany for today "If to feel better you need to be comforted, you have to allow yourself to receive comfort. Otherwise you'll just be bitter"

I really love this story

I just found this story over at the Daily Mail and I really want to share it with everyone.

Her children's jokes are bringing a woman out of a coma

I really love this story.

To my anon. commenter: On Koko and Capacity

Sorry, for some reason the new blogger wont let me post in my comment section. I moved the discussion on personhood and capacity to this post. I'm just going to post my rebuttal to the Koko argument here.

Koko had to the capacity to communicate at a low level, she did not have the capacity to communicate at a level anywhere near that of a human.
The five year old is simply at a stage of development working towards the fulfilment of its capacity. Unlike Koko, the five year old is nowhere near "maxed out".

My point was that the "maxed out" expression of capacity of Koko was on the same level as a child in early development. The difference is, the child has much more inherent capacity than the monkey.

Perhaps I should define capacity just so there isn't any confusion on what I mean.
The definition I am using is "Innate potential for growth, development, or accomplishment; faculty. "

Of course lower animals have an innate potential for growth, but they do not possesses the innate characteristics which enable them as species to affect change at a rate anywhere near our own.

Of course, personhood is an arbitrary distinction even when looked at in levels of capacity.
However, capacity is more inclusive than function and includes all memebers of our species.
The most direct way of assigning personhood is to assign it to all that are a member of the species homo sapien. However, this begs the question "what's so special about humans?". I believe that addressing capacity answers the question on a basic level.

Thankful

Since it's Thanksgiving I'd like to make a list of all the things I'm thankful for.

* I am beyond thankful for Jesus taking my sins and accepting me into His count.

* I am thankful for my wonderful husband, and for the fact that God used him to lead me to salvation.

* I am thankful for my beautiful son. He is the light of my life and I am so thankful that God has allowed me to be his mother.

* I am thankful for my mother for giving me life, and for my grandparents for supporting her and helping raise me.

* I am thankful for the relationship that is beginning with my father.

* I am thankful for my wonderful parents in law.

* I am thankful for our wonderful house.

* I am thankful for our car, even though it's breaking down.

*I am thankful that God provided for this, and that Oliver's bonus will come right when we really need it.

*I am thankful for the passion God gave me to help save his children.

*I am thankful for my friends for their encouragement.

*I am thankful that this blog has opened up new avenues for me and allowed me to meet new friends.

* I am thankful for the trials God has brought me through because they made me who I am.

* I am thankful for our wonderful Church family.

*I am thankful for the health of my family.

*I am thankful that God has been so wonderful in his providence for his children.

*I am thankful that God has opened my eyes to inequities and has put passion in my heart to right them.

* I am thankful that I live in a country where I am free to worship.

*I am thankful for the growth I have undergone this past year.

*I am thankful to know that I still have a long way to go.

Praise God

We got Holden's test results back and all of his blood work was normal. I'm counting that as good news even though we still don't have an answer about his ears.

Just wanted to make a quick post about that!

Prayer request: Really Bad Day.

Today has been a really, really bad day. I'm surprisingly calm about it but I think that it is because I'm in major denial.

First, on Oliver's way to work at 2 in the morning, our car, which we've spent about 300 dollars on in the past week, decided to up and die. Going 60 miles an hour down the freeway. We used our next to last tow with our motor club to get it back to the house.

Because of this, Oliver had to get someone to come get him from work, and also had to arrange some way for us to get to Holden's doctor appt. Thankfully we found a friend who could help in that regard.

Now Holden's Appt. Really Really bad news. Holden has had Aural Hematomas(though I just found out that's what they're called) that have come and gone for the past month. They started out very small and I thought that his ear was just a bit red and didn't think much about it. Then a couple of days ago he got one that covered the entire upper half of his ear. It looked like a giant blood blister.

I looked around online and found that such a condition was caused by trauma to the ear. I could find no other cause. Now this makes NO sense. I mean, there is no way that anyone is hurting him, he's in my care 24 hours a day. The only thing that I could think of was that he was somehow doing it to himself (he's a headbanger).

Well I went to the doctor and he immediately questioned who came into contact with Holden. I told him only Oliver, my niece and nephew, and myself. He asked me if I noticed the blisters more often when my niece and nephew are around. I hadn't. He told me to "think hard" and then instructed me to strip Holden naked while he went out of the room. Of course I was freaking out at this point, because I honestly have NO CLUE where these things were coming from and I was feeling very much accused.

So the doctor comes back in, examines Holden and determines that he has no other signs of abuse. (Thank God he hasn't bumped into anything recently). Again, he questions me about my niece and nephew and instructs me to watch them to see if they are doing something. He then tells me that "Someone is hurting this child".

After all this he tells me he wants to run some blood work to rule out any blood diseases. He told me that there was a possibility that there was a tumor but the fact that they come and go and that they are bilateral makes him question that conclusion.

So right now we're praying that it isn't a blood disorder and that there is some sort of logical explanation for all this. Any ideas? Anyone?

Oh and also, the lady at Quest was mean to my baby. She left the tie on his arm for very very close to two minutes while she fished around for someone to help hold him down. That's not only inconsiderate, but also dangerous. I was very disappointed with my experience with them.

So after all of this(like this day could get any worse) I needed to get to the SSA to talk to them about Holden's SSI benefits. Basically, his benefits check was lost this month and I have spent the entire month trying to rectify the situation, only to be told a million different things that weren't true. Apparently the SSA has very poor procedures for this type of thing.

Anyways, I get down to the SSA office with Holden in tow. He was felling very bad(and who can blame him?) and was a bit fussy. I talk to the same lady I had spoken to on the 3rd (the date that I was insured everything would be immediately rectified) and she directed me to some higher up.

The higher up was a horrific man who I believe lives to see people suffer. He came to get me and told me that they had no record of me ever contacting their office. Apparently every single person I spoke with (and it was at least 6 different people) failed to file a report of our conversation. I was flabbergasted, but managed to come up with a few names and places. Plus, I told him that the woman who registered me was the same who spoke to me on the 3rd. I told him that I thought she would remember me because we had a conversation about Holden's name. Her grandson was named Holden, and we agreed that it was unusual. I know that it's a bit of a stretch, but I figured saying that would be enough to jog her memory. His response? "We see alot of people, I'm not going to bother her with that!"

So I'm sitting here, trying to comfort by sick child, trying not to break down, and I'm dealing with this man who is indirectly accusing me of trying to rob the government, and Holden starts lightly tapping the man's desk with his foot. Rhythmic movements comfort him, so I was letting him do it. I am not exaggerating when I say he was barely touching it. The man reaches across the table and tells me I need to "keep my child in line".

I wanted to rip into him about how he'd treat his child after finding out that he may have a life threatening condition, but I held my tongue. The man eventually went to another higher up and snidely informed me that the money would be direct deposit in two to three days. I asked him if there was anything more I needed to do and he just glared at me.

I understand that from his point of view there was no documentation, and I am thankful that he found a solution(though not the solution I was promised) but it was so hurtful that he refused to even acknowledge any of my attempts to explain the situation. I left the office in tears.

So my prayer requests for today:

1) Pray that my son does not have any sort of disease and that there is a rational explanation for his condition.

2) That our car can be revived without too much financial burden to ourselves. Thankfully this comes near Oliver's Christmas bonus so I pray that will cover the costs.

3) That this issue with SSI is rectified and that there are no other issues that arise.

4) Just a general prayer for our family because we are all under alot of stress.

God Bless.

On personhood

I started a debate on personhood over at Christina's blog ( here in the comment section). Because of issues with Haloscan, and also because I figured it would make a good topic for discussion here, I've decided to post my argument for personhood here. If you've read my posts in Christina's blog, this is mostly the same thing I said there, but with a bit of clarification in the realm of capacity.

Personhood.

Central to the abortion debate (though some claim that it is inconsequential due to the overwhelming right of Bodily Domain) is the concept of personhood. What makes a "person"? Who qualifies as a person? Is it what we can do or what we are?

My view of personhood is that humans at the youngest stages are indeed persons. This is because they are members of our species and thus have the capacity to affect change. We gain our personhood not because of the achievements of one (for alone we would never be able to access our capacity-see Feral children) but because we posses the capacity to unite as a species in a way that is far superior to any other animal.

Together we can create language, which seasons our view of the world and enables higher thought. Together we can defend ourselves from the elements in ways that would be impossible if we never experienced socialization. Unlike other animals, humans do not have the physical defenses to fight of predators, we do however have the capacity to learn from our community how to use our advanced mind to overcome this.

In light of the fact that our own ability to access our capacity is based on a group, what makes us "persons" can not be the actual achievement of the capacity. It must then be the capacity itself that gives us our humanity. Although some members of our group may never be able to fully reach the highest potential of humanity, (because of mental retardation, physical handicaps, whatever) they are equally human because they posses the innate capacity that sets all humans apart from all lower species.

Because this capacity is innate, it is with us from the very earliest moment of our existence. Since the earliest of blastocysts posses this capacity they must be members of our "group" and thus must be "people".

We're such nerds.

Oliver and I are quite possibly the nerdiest people on the planet. We took this picture because we were trying to get a good couple shot. I tend to close my eyes in pictures, so we were both trying to "open wide" for the camera. We look like two little albino deer in headlights.

Republished a couple of my old arguments

I republished a couple of my old arguments to allow a bit of my "logical" side to be showcased. My plan is to republish about two a day of my philosophical rants and perhaps write a few more.

Republish: Fetus to have more rights than mother?

Fetus to have more rights than mother?

I have posted something similar to this before, but I thought I'd post again because I was questioned on the issue. Essentially, yes the fetus would have the right to infringe on the mother's rights in the same way a child or mentally retarded person would. This does not place the child above the mother, but rather takes into account that it can not take care of itself and thus has the right to not be neglected.

This right is extended to any person under the age of 18. The mother would be required to give nutrients and housing just as she is required to nourish and house her born child. The fact that in order to not neglect her child the woman must house it inside her body is inconsequential.

The right to not be neglected supersedes many rights of parents such as right to privacy and right to autonomy. There is not level of rights; they are all equal and equally protected. Thus there is no qualitative difference between giving up right to privacy and giving up right to bodily domain. I can not remove my child from my house and allow him to freeze, nor then would I be able to remove my child from my womb and allow him to die.

Until you prove that bodily domain is somehow more a right than any other right, I will not agree that a mother can remove her child and allow him to die simply for enacting its right to not be neglected.

In regards to McFall V. Shimp: The case is centered on a man whose body has failed him. He is asking that his cousin give him something that has "gone out" so to speak in his body. His cousin is under no obligation to provide him replacement parts. Similarly, a mother is under no obligation to provide a kidney for her son if his happens to fail.

However, a pregnancy is a different situation all together. The fetus' body has not given out or failed. There is no need for replacement parts. The fetus is asking only for basic housing and nutrients that only the mother can provide. Taking away the womb is not akin to not giving a kidney, but rather taking away the shelter for a one year old because he is infringing on your privacy. Obviously, this type of neglect would not be tolerated, even though the child is obviously infringing on your rights.

I know I was a bit repetitive but I was trying to bring the argument around full circle. The general idea is this. Yes the fetus would have more rights than an adult in the same way that any child has more rights than an adult because of the issue of neglect. Giving a fetus personhood would put them on the same line as a child or mentally handicapped person. If an ape can gain this designation (as is trying to happen in Spain) I do not see why an unborn child can not.

Republish: Where do babies come from? Or I lost it on the river!

Where do babies come from? Or I lost it on the river!

It's a question we all asked at about 5 years old. The way our parent's explained it differed, but we can safely assume that by 12 we all knew that babies came about from sex.

So that's why I refuse to entertain the concept that a fetus is "raping it's mother" because she "did not consent to it being in her body". I have a news flash people: If you know that sex causes pregnancy, even if you take every step to not get pregnant, you are still consenting to pregnancy because it is the cost of the gamble.

Everyone knows that when you gamble you could very well lose your money. You go into a poker match with this knowledge. You lay down your bet, thinking you have a full- proof hand and lo and behold, you lose. Now you can not say "well I didn't consent to losing my money! I just consented to the act of gambling for other reasons!" and then proceed steal all the chips on the table. You went into the hand knowing that there was a high probability of losing your money, you lost your money despite your careful planning, and now you have to deal with it.

Now the crux of this argument comes in the fact that losing your money after losing a bet is NOT a punishment, but rather a foreseeable consequence of gambling. You gamble to feel good, make money, compulsion, get closer to the dealer, or whatever, but the "fun" of gambling takes into account the possibility of losing it all. It is your responsibility to uphold your end of the deal and relinquish your money.

When one consents to sex, she enters into a "bet" of sorts. The odds change depending on her contraceptives, but there is always the chance she will "lose it all" and become pregnant. To deny this is ludicrous, to maintain that this is a punishment is absurd. Sex is a gamble if you don't want a baby, if the cards fall against you you're responsible for the outcome. Even if you use every method of birth control known to man there's always a chance you'll "lose it on the river" and be stuck with the consequences. When was the last time you've seen someone refuse to pay up after losing a bet and walk away? Doing so would be a default on the "contract" of gambling, just as an abortion is a default on the "contract" of sex

Republish: The Bodily Integrity Argument is NO LONGER VALID!

I have recently gotten many choicers to agree that being a parent allows your children to infringe on some of your rights. Your child infringes on privacy, financial matters, even your ability to move around. All of this they say is fine because these rights somehow aren't as important as that magical right to Bodily Integrity.

Before I go further I would like to say that the right to bodily integrity is very important. Offenses against BI seem especially heinous(remember Saddam Hussein rolling in Kuwaiti citizens on gurneys, draining their blood, and injecting it into his troops?)However, like all rights, there are certain situations that require your rights to be temporarily held at stasis.

The pro-choicers seem to think that by giving birth you consent to parenting(funny, they don't think that having sex consents to pregnancy, but we don't expect them to be consistent). They say that unless you sign away your parental rights, you are in charge of the upbringing of your children. With this consent, you also consent to lose certain rights-such as privacy and autonomy-which is acceptable to the choicers because well it just is!

They claim however, that it is different from pregnancy because you are not required to use your body for your children, only your resources. They argue "why should unborn children be given more rights than born children?" Ignoring the fact that young born children are given more rights than older children and adults are given less rights still, let's look at their claim that raising a child CAN NOT infringe on bodily integrity.

They like to claim that bodily integrity is only he physical strain on your body. This conveniently makes it so that things such as quarantine are not an affront to BI because you are not having something actually done to your body, but rather do not have free movement.

However, I came up with a quite plausible scenario covering a situation where Bodily Integrity is infringed upon, and whether you consent or not to this infringement, you have the obligation to the infringer to deliver it to safety.

I will start with the clearest argument and work from there-going in descending order of consent.

Say you are Michel Jackson. You decide that you wish to pick up your child and hang him over a balcony. At this moment you have made it so that your child is completely reliant on your body for his life. You must use your strength, your muscles, your nerve endings, your heart, your lungs-all of your body- to support this child. If you decide to remove your body from his, he will fall to his death and you will be guilty of murder. I suppose this would be akin to purposefully becoming pregnant, and then a few months later deciding to have an abortion.

Next, let's say that you are sitting with your child on your balcony. You are enjoying a lovely, but winding afternoon together. Suddenly, a gust of wind sweeps by, knocking you both to the side of the balcony. You catch your child as he dangles off the side of the building. You are again using all of your muscles and strength to keep the child from falling. You are again using all of your organs excessively to keep the child from falling. If you simply decide to withdraw your body from your child, he will fall to his death and you will be responsible for purposefully letting go. This would be akin to having protected sex, becoming pregnant, and aborting. You would be at the least negligent and at the most again murderous to pointedly decide to allow the child to fall because of your wish to remove him from your body.

Now it would be a different situation if he accidentally fell to his death. Though it could be argued you were negligent, most likely it happened for no foreseeable reason and you would not be held liable-this would be akin to a miscarriage.

The final scenario involves you being alone on the balcony. Suddenly someone comes to you and puts a baby in your arms. The baby is then reliant on your body for its life. If you simply decide to withdraw your body, the baby will fall from the balcony to his death. Though you had no part in creating the situation that led to the child coming into your care, here you are and you can not simply drop the child. You must find a safe place to put the child down or find an alternative caregiver. This scenario represents a rape, where though the woman has not consented in any way to the act that will create the child, she has become the caregiver of the child by default and may not simply allow the child to be removed and die.


For those who argue Mcfall Vs Shimp- that we can not be required to give our bodies to save another- surely the jurisdiction of this law would not cover my scenario. If you hang someone dangling over a cliff, thus causing them to become dependent on your body, you can not simply withdraw your body and allow them to die- doing so would be murder.

Call it like it is.

Yesterday Jacque gave me my very own fetal model. I named my him Paul. The picture to the left isn't actually him, but rather a similar creation. I couldn't scrounge up the batteries to take a picture of my little one.

There's something so powerful about holding these little ones in your hand. They exude the wonder of life. I found myself rubbing the tiny feet and running my finger down the tiny spine. I wanted to protect my "baby" and make sure he was warm and safe. Yes, I know it's illogical, but I couldn't help myself.

Then I looked down at the tiny arm and thought about the reality of abortion. It was all I could do to keep from breaking into tears. People, so many people, want to hurt real children. Real children's mothers make the decision to rip them apart.

...

I've avoided pro-choice sources today because I just couldn't deal with it. I couldn't deal with the wanton disregard for life. I couldn't deal with the bragging. For some reason I decided to go over to abortionclinicdays (not a link, I don't feel comfortable linking to that page). I was surprised and relieved at the lack of "WOOHOO WE WON!" posts, but that slight reprieve was short lived.

First I saw a post about the reasons women abort. It saddened me that the clinics saw what they offered as "help" when it was so clearly a band-aid on a hemorrhage. It strengthened my resolve to do everything possible to give women real help and real hope.

Then I saw something that made me cry out to God. Under the heading of spiritual recovery, I read of the practice of allowing women to set with their "pregnancy tissue" following the abortion. The practice is not my objection, but rather the spirit of the wording. The author goes so far as to say that a patient once asked to "have time alone after the abortion with the pregnancy."

Let that sink in for a second, the clinician has so removed the humanity of the just slaughtered child, that she has completely redefined reproductive physiology. No one is pregnant with a pregnancy. Women do, however, become pregnant with children. Abortion does not kill a pregnancy, it kills a child. There is no "pregnancy" left over in jar after an abortion, but there is a dead child.

So, I call on all people, no matter where they stand on abortion, to call things like they are. When you perform an abortion, a child and some afterbirth are removed. I'll even give you a pass with "product of conception". "Pregnancy" does not accurately describe the child that you just killed.

Hope

As the '06 elections come to a close, I reflect a bit on legislation and morality. It looks as though the abortion ban will fail. It saddens me that it is even a question. When it comes down to it, I don't want to deal with things in the realm of legality. It seems such common sense to not kill your children, that legislature to the effect is overkill. Unfortunately the world doesn't see things that way.

I understand that situations are hard. I understand that pregnancy isn't a barrel of laughs. I get it, I really do. But we're talking about another person's life. A child.

So my hope for the world is that women can come to a place where children are no longer seen as the enemy. I pray that we can come to a place where a human life is not seen as a failure. I believe that we are cutting out such wonder from our world because of our view of children.

My prayer is that women of the world will turn away from abortion. I pray that we can be there to help them, to love them, and to inspire them. We must change eliminate the judgment rendered on young mothers, and alleviate the social pressure to abort.

Abortion laws would not matter if women refused to make the choice.

Carol Strayhorn is NOT pro-life!

I have had a lot of people find my blog by typing in something along the lines of "Is carol strayhorn prolife?". The answer is NO. She claims that she is "personally prolife" and that "human life is sacred" but she believes in "a woman's right to choose". She is very shady on this issue and is rarely straightforward when asked, but it is obvious that she will be a "pro-choice" governor.

The ONLY pro-life candidate in this election is Rick Perry.

Where to vote in Texas

You know the issues, you know the candidates...But do you know where to vote? Well www.votexas.org is here to help. Simply click on "Find your polling location" enter your drivers license or certificate number and it will show you your voting location and give you a map to find it.

There is also a list of candidates and a description of the type of poll at your location. You can even take our new system for a "test drive". Remember, our vote matters, our vote counts.

Vote Christian values, just because the MSM tells you you're staying home doesn't mean it's the truth!

Prayer and Fast

Jacque Posted about her fast in my comments, but I wanted to make sure everyone sees it so I'm reposting it here.

Want to join me in a fast? It'll be a short but intense one on Monday and till Tuesday until the polls close in California. The prayer focuses will be:

*California Prop. 85 (Parental Notification Law)

*South Dakota Ref. 6 (The Abortion Ban)

*Texas Gubernatorial Race for the victory of the only pro-life candidate, Rick Perry.

*Pro-life victories in all states

*Miss Charlotte Paige Wyatt.

Pain of miscarriage.

I don't talk often about the child I lost to miscarriage. I know that doing so makes people uncomfortable, and talking rarely makes me feel better about the loss. Today though, I've been thinking a lot about my "angel" so I thought I'd write a little down.

For those unfamiliar with my story, I'll give a brief summary. Shortly after discovering that I was pregnant, I began spotting. Worried I went to the hospital, and was told that I had a blighted ovum and would miscarry. After a series of inconclusive blood tests, they discovered that I was pregnant with twins, but one had indeed miscarried. Reabsorbed is how they explained it to me.

I left the hospital feeling rather conflicted, but put aside most of my pain to continue hope for my "viable" child. In fact, our lost child often got pushed aside as "Holden's twin". I hate that. I wish we had a name for our child, but we don't. Now I say "mommy's angel".

I feel like I mourn our child mostly through the achievements of Holden. When Holden took his first step, my mind raced to the thought that "our angel will never walk". When Holden said his first word, I bemoaned the voice I would never hear. I wonder if I will always frame the loss of life through the achievements of living? I suppose it is partly the curse of twins, but often I think it is because I am to afraid to face the pain directly.

I miss my child. The feeling is the same(though much stronger) as the loss I felt when Holden was in the hospital and I at home. I know that our angel is taken care of, that our angel is with God and has happiness that we can not even fathom. But still, I can't help but feel saddened that my child is not here.

My consolation lies in God. I know that it was His plan for my child to have such a short life. I know that I was blessed, even if the blessing was shorter than I would have liked. I really can't feel badly for my child. In heaven perfect love surrounds the soul. I am so thankful for the time I had, and so hopeful for time to come.

One day we will be together.