UPDATE

It appears I was wrong in my understanding that estrogen acts in an abortifacient manner if ovulation has already occurred. I do not fully understand the medical science behind all this, and I tried to read the article I was referred to, but I did not find it easy to comprehend. I will quote from the discussion on Facebook, and link to the article in question.

Dr. Paul didn’t say progesterone, he said estrogen. According to my research, an estrogen shot tends to inhibit ovulation and fertilization, but doesn’t seem to have any affect on implantation of an already fertilized egg. It would basically have the same effect as a woman breastfeeding an infant, although presumably would not be as strong given a single shot. Some have mistakenly assumed he was speaking about a treatment that would inhibit implantation, or even worse, would cause the shedding of an implanted embryo, but those assumptions just aren’t factually correct. Those may actually be effects of a regimen of low dosage birth control pills with estrogen and progesterone, but that’s not how the estrogen shot works. (This is particularly ironic in light of recent revelations of candidates who have cheerfully voted to fund PP dispensing birth control under Title X … )

Here is a link that discusses some of the science, from a Christian perspective: Hormone Contraceptives Controversies and Clarifications

Dr. Paul didn’t handle the interview well, but I don’t believe he said anything inconsistent with a true pro-life position.

So my position is further strengthened if this is true so I’m glad of that. But I am sorry that I in any way contributed to what appears to be myth.

Original article follows unaltered…

I’ve been wanting to write about this since it first started blowing up a couple weeks ago, but I haven’t had the time. I don’t technically have the time this morning, but I’m going to write about it anyway because I need to. I need to get my thoughts out there on this. I need to get it off my chest

Please be aware that this topic can be sensitive. I’ll be talking about some things quite frankly so please, if you are a minor reading this post, I highly encourage you to ask your parents to read this first and let you know whether it is appropriate for you to read about this subject. I will try to keep it clean certainly, but this topic over which allegations are being presented against Ron Paul includes rape, abortion etc. So please be advised.

So with that necessary disclaimer out of the way, let’s get started.

What’s the problem?

It all starts with this video (at least that seems to be what has instigated the current trend of dropping support for Ron Paul like a hot potato). I have set the video to start at the specific time code of the views in question.

The gist of this is that Ron Paul would give a shot of estrogen to a women who comes in to an emergency room and who has just been legitimately raped. She would obviously not like for this to result in a pregnancy. She wants to know what can be done. Ron Paul says a shot of estrogen would do the trick.

The problem seems to revolve around the idea that estrogen can cause a fertilized ovum (otherwise known to Christians as a baby!) to fail to implant on the wall of the uterus. This results of course in a very early miscarriage. The idea is that to purposely cause this is not a pro-life position.

Of course I’ve seen other views espoused on this issue too. Such as that all sexual intercourse should be able to result in a pregnancy and that even in the case of rape you should not try to prevent pregnancy. This is usually in line with the view that all forms of birth control, whether abortifacient or not, are wicked and evil.

Advancements in medicine

As anyone who knows me might guess, I think the issue is much more complex and nuanced than either of those two views allow. Consider this; we have made enormous strides and advancements in the last 100 years or so (give or take) in medical science, technology, knowledge, technique, etc. I do not have a problem with this, I see this as part of the dominion mandate. I am not espousing at all the idea that our dominion over this area of life is not good or that we should go back to the dark ages of leeches and bloodletting. But I do want to point out that we wrestle with ideas and concepts that no other generation has had to before. And we have a problem as well that many of the men and women in the field of medicine are not Godly at all but wicked and evil. They do not see medicine as an area of taking dominion as prescribed by a biblical dominion mandate. Rather they see our advancements as evidence that we are in the place of God. That we may make decisions on life and death, that we may kill babies. There are lots of ethical and moral dilemmas to consider, but this seems to cause the most uproar among Christians, and I would even say rightly so. We should protect life, no matter the age, no matter the status, inside or outside the womb.

The beginning of life

Let me state for the record here and now, I firmly believe life begins at conception. Not at implantation, not when cell division occurs, but when a sperm fertilizes an ovum. This places me firmly in the perhaps stereotypical evangelical pro-life camp. But, Ron Paul has stated in the video above that he also believes unequivocally that life begins at conception. Further, in his book Abortion and Liberty, Ron Paul had this to say:

To permit abortion at one day of gestation justifies it at two days; if it’s permitted one day before three months, it’s justified one day after three months; if it is permitted at one day before ‘viability,’ a nebulous term that has no meaning, it is justified at any time. Allowing abortion at six months gestation minus one day precludes an argument against abortion two days later. Attempting such an argument is a legal joke, a medical impossibility, and a moral hoax. Just as a pregnancy of one week cannot be put aside as “insignificant,” claiming it is only a ‘touch’ of pregnancy, abortion, regardless of the reason, cannot be downplayed as only a limited and qualified disregard for human life. Disrespect for life and liberty, once planted, grows rapidly.

I think this easily shows Ron Paul’s position on the matter. Ron Paul is pro-life.

What’s Paul saying in the video then?

The gist of it is, I think, this. How can one regulate the use of estrogen? Do we regulate that a woman can’t have a shot of estrogen under these certain circumstances but can in any other? Do we outlaw estrogen? Further complicated, a pregnancy can’t be confirmed at this stage. I daresay women have done things that caused a very early abortion without realizing it. This is the approach I see Ron Paul taking.

To me the medically challenging part is this: As far as my understanding goes, the large dose of estrogen will cause a thickening of mucus that would prevent the egg from being released (ovulation). It also causes mucus thickening in the uterine walls. This could have one of two effects.

1. If estrogen is administered immediately after sexual intercourse and before ovulation has occurred, it will prevent ovulation. If ovulation does not occur, the sperm will find no egg, and fertilization (conception) will not take place.

2. If estrogen is administered after ovulation, the thickened mucus on the uterine wall will have the abortifacient result of preventing implantation.

This is why Ron Paul says this is a moral choice and not one the state should be involved in regulating. And I agree it’s a tricky issue. I also admit to not having a clear cut answer. Though I disagree with his personally stated choice of saying he would administer the estrogen presumably without finding out more about the woman’s current state in her cycle, I do not know personally whether we should have state intervention that would prevent this. As I stated previously, on what basis would we propose such regulation? And it’s complicated by the fact that women can and do chart their cycles in such a way as to know whether they have ovulated or not, whether they are close to ovulation etc. My wife does this. She, along with our midwife, has been able to predict with a high degree of accuracy the due date of each of our three children based on when she ovulated from her charting. In the case where a woman was legitimately raped, was charting and knows that she has not yet ovulated but is close, would a shot of estrogen to prevent ovulation from occurring be morally wrong?

You see what I mean by this issue being nuanced and complex? It’s not cut and dry. I personally believe we should always err on the side of life. If there’s even the slightest doubt, then I would preserve what I believed may be the life inside the rape victims body. This is a stance that many find hard to stomach, and I know I have not been faced with this circumstance personally. But I believe that were my wife (or in the future my daughter) to be raped, God forbid such a thing would happen, but if it were to happen, and a life were to be conceived because of such a circumstance, then it would be our duty, my duty, to preserve and care for this life.

What does this mean for my voting conscience?

Ron Paul has stated on many occasions that as president, he would only support legislation that defined life as beginning at conception. He makes absolutely no exceptions. And his record over the many years he has served proves his pro-life position beyond a shadow of any doubt. He is the most pro-life candidate we have seen in a very long, long time.

After much consideration, this has not impacted my voting decision at all. I still support Ron Paul for president. I believe that when considering all the possibilities and weighing all things carefully, it is the best possible choice I could make. It is the best possible choice any Christian could make for president. Upon reflecting on this issue, I have determined that absolutely nothing has changed.

One more thing

I want to put out this final thought. I think perhaps those of us who bleed conservatism when pricked, who are as far to the right of the conventional American “conservative” as the east is from the west, those of us who for years and years and years have been on the outside looking in because the so called conservatives in this country were just less liberal but still so, are so very used to being in the minority and on the outside that we are unconsciously uncomfortable with having a candidate get anywhere close to mainstream. Ron Paul’s surge in popularity has scared us and so our subconscious minds began looking for something wrong. And when this popped up, I think many jumped on it (again, unconsciously). It was like, “Ah HAH!, I knew it! We just can’t support those main stream candidates. They’re all the same.” This is a defeatist mentality, and one I suggest we dump immediately! Ron Paul probably isn’t even going to win this, so what do you think would happen if we actually advanced a candidate into a position where he would actually win? Let’s loose this defeatist attitude, and I mean right now!

Yep, pretty much.

→ Anti-Komen Backlash is Disgusting

This is pretty good. You should go read the whole thing, but here are my favorite parts:

If either of the two should be wary of politicizing its decision-making process, it should be PP, no? And yet Komen is getting hammered for a practical organizational decision (for the zillionth time: PP does not provide mammography) while pro-choice auxiliaries are gleefully fomenting the rage.

…

Imagine I volunteered to run a cub scout troop, and for years, when the annual soapbox derby came near, I knew I could count on Joe’s Deli as good for a hundred dollar donation. If one year Old Man Joe decided he didn’t want to donate any more — because he didn’t like the design of our racer, or because he thought his hundred bucks was better spent on a little league team, or because he disapproved of the scouts’ stance on gays — what on earth would justify me going on public access TV to grill Old Man Joe on why he hates kids? What would justify me hacking the Joe’s Deli web site or maliciously editing Old Man Joe’s Wikipedia page? What would justify me goading a handful of my city councilman into standing up at the next town meeting and publicly calling on Old Man Joe to reinstate his donation?

Nothing. Nothing would justify that. Nothing at all.

→ Komen reverses decision

…and I didn’t even have a chance to talk about the initial decision to end support of Planned Parenthood.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure on Friday apologized and reversed its decision to end funding grants to Planned Parenthood.

And so Komen continues to support death and destruction.

In Washington, 26 U.S. senators - all Democrats except for independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont - signed a letter calling on Komen to reconsider its decision.

Despicable!

This is excellent!

I debated writing this… I’m going to get some push back on this for sure (or at least I’m fairly certain. Or perhaps people will read this, shake their heads in disgust and move on).

So there’s this picture of a quote from Stephen Colbert (above) going around “The Facebook” and it goes like this:

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.

Now, before I go any further, understand this; I am in no way opposed to helping the poor and needy. I am in no way suggesting that we despise the poor and oppressed. Indeed, as Christians, it is our duty to help the poor and needy as Stephen Colbert indicates.

What I am going to push against is the implied notion that this help must necessarily be done by means of the government. Again note that I feel this is implied in the statement. But it is not explicitly stated. Since it is not explicitly state, I could be getting the wrong implication.

However, the point I am going to make stands regardless.

This is the argument I hear from folks who want to perpetuate government welfare programs (for instance). That as a Christian Nation, we have a duty to help the poor, so therefore we must have welfare, government healthcare, free education (provided by the government) etc. etc.

If I were to say something like what Colbert said, I would rephrase the first part to this:

“If we are going to be a Christian nation, but the people of this nation are not characterized by their generosity to the poor…”

You can see from my rephrasing where I might be going with this. There are three spheres of authority that are biblically delineated. Those are:

1. Family
2. Church
3. Civil

There is of course some overlap of all three, but the idea that civil government would be involved in charity is misplaced in my judgement. Helping the poor and needy, the widows and the orphans falls into two of the three spheres of authority: Family and Church. For the civil government to care for the needy would necessitate (as we see today) that they derive those resources from those under it’s jurisdiction. For the government is not a producer of resources, but must therefore acquire those resources by taking them from someone. This is known by another name: Socialism. It is nothing more than wealth redistribution.

Government is there for the enforcement of civil law and for defense of the land. That (along with a couple of other very limited things) is the job of the civil government according to a Biblical worldview.

The real problem we have in this nation is that the Church, and her members (families) have abdicated the God given calling to exercise care for the poor, for the widow and orphan. We have allowed our civil government to take over this duty that belongs only to us and it is wrong. But it’s a vicious cycle. That the government does this makes it hard for us to do that which we have been called.

Because it is a circular problem, it is very hard to break, but break it we must in order to get our nation back into a biblical framework.

→ Sen. Rand Paul detained by TSA

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s press secretary Moira Bagley tweeted on Monday that Transportation Security Administration officials were detaining her boss in Nashville, Tenn.

I feel so much safer now knowing this hardened criminal was captured and detained before he could do any real damage.

Oh, wait…

From the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 6:

“They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

→ She’s still campaigning for SOPA

I’ll be joining Ralph Bristol on Supertalk 99.7 WTN at 6:35am Central Time to talk about the need to stop foreign-based online piracy.

I was saddened to see Marsha Blackburn is still campaigning for SOPA. This is of course the big day of protest. And Marsha chooses to continue campaigning for this reprehensible legislation.

I am reminded of what Mark Twain said:

Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.

I think Marsha Blackburn is at that point…

→ Jeffress wrong on Ron Paul and John Jay

Robert Jeffress was correct when called Momonism a cult, but he could not be more misguided in some of his latest comments.

I a piece run by Fox News, influential pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, TX, is telling evangelicals to be patient in the GOP primaries—not terrible advice in itself. His general reason is admirable: that we should not “abandon principles for pragmatism.” Indeed. But his applications and interpretations of that reason for Iowa and New Hampshire border on libel.

I don’t think that I was under the delusion that someone with the eschatological views that Jeffress holds would endorse Ron Paul, but I’m linking just in case any else did.

Jeffress blithely talks about Dr. Paul’s neo-Nazi ties, which is getting a bit old, and has frankly been debunked already.

I posted this on Facebook, and I’m also posting it here. So if something appears to be in the context of Facebook, that’s why.

I’m writing this over my lunch break, because of some things that have happened on Facebook over the last several weeks.

In the last few months, it seems I have acquired quite a few new Facebook friends, many whom I do not know. That’s fine. The more the merrier. But I think there’s some things you should know about me, because sometimes there seems to be some confusion.

The idea of writing this sounded far less self important when I thought of it. However, hopefully without sound too self important, allow me to go into a few things you can expect to see from me. Read if you’re interested. If not, that’s fine too. If you’re like me, you’re really busy and don’t have time to read every long winded thing on Facebook.

So here we go, a few things you should know about me:

1. I am without apology and without compromise, first a foremost a Christian. This means I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. I acknowledge my sinfulness, inherited through the sin of Adam (original sin), and my need of a Savior. God sent His Son to redeem His people, of whom, because of His grace, I can count myself among. This motivates and drives everything I do. I desire to advance the Lordship of Christ in any capacity He has called me. Christ is King!

   This is first for a reason. It is because I identify myself with Christ’s Church, and many churches that I count to be part of The Universal Church may not hold to the specific doctrines or political views I do. Yet I still count them as brothers and sisters.

2. I am Reformed Presbyterian in my Theological understanding. This means among other things that I believe in what is commonly called the Doctrines of Grace (or sometimes Calvinism). I believe in the Total Depravity of Man, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement (that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross accomplished all that it was intended to. Sometimes referred to as the efficacy of the atonement), Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints. Though not all Reformed Presbyterians are, I am Post Millennial in my understanding of eschatology. This means I believe Christ is ruling and reigning right now. He is King!

   I subscribe to The Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Westminster Standards and Confession of Faith.

   I hold to, as does the Church where I am a member, Liturgical, Covenant Renewal Worship. And as a Presbyterian, I believe that the New Covenant is not only for adults, but for the families, the Children of believers. And just as in the Old Covenant where the children were given the sign and seal of the covenant in circumcision, so too do New Covenant children receive the sign and seal of our Christian faith; that of baptism. And, this is important in how we understand our Worship. We do not whisk our children away from us as soon as we enter the door of the church, to be off and worshipping apart from us. We believe that Children should worship along side us, as members of the congregation.

   And one points leads into another…

3. I am a strong advocate for Christian education. My preferred method is homeschooling, but the primary goal is Christian education and parental responsibility over a child’s education which should not be abdicated. I do not believe this must be homeschooling, but that I believe is the best way.

   But primarily, Christian parents are to raise their covenant children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Christian children do not “belong” to the parent, nor do they belong to the evil one. They belong to Christ. They are not enemies of the gospel, they are Christ’s disciples. Christian parents are to realize that the children entrusted to them are not their own but Christ’s. We are to take heed to follow the instructions of the Bible when it comes to raising our children. We are to be faithful to teach them correct and sound doctrine, in short we are responsible for every aspect of our children’s training. We do not have the authority to abdicate and hand that off to someone else. Not to the Church, not to government schools, but we bear the weight and responsibility entirely.

4. Politically, I am very conservative. And at this time, I am strongly “campaigning” you might say for Ron Paul. In fact, you will find at the moment, because I am so passionate about this, that most of my Facebook statues, updates, posts, whatever you want to call them, have to do with Ron Paul. It’s a phase I’m going through (because I believe it is very important right now), and I’ll become slightly less annoying on this topic after the elections (probably).

   Some other political points you will often see me making, and that I believe strongly:

   I do not believe it is the responsibility of government to feed the poor, to hand out welfare checks, to meddle in our affairs for our safety. It is the Church’s responsibility to care for the poor, the fatherless, the widows. That the Church has largely abdicated her responsibilities has led to the disastrous situation we are faced with today.

   I believe we should seek to elect Godly, Christian men to office in our country on every level of government.

   I support shrinking the size and scope of the federal government.

   I believe we should return to a constitutional and Biblical monetary system. The system we have now is based on fiat currency which is unjust and unbiblical (a.k.a. unjust weights and measures; Lev 19:36; Prov 16:11).

   I believe we should only engage in Biblical, and constitutional wars.

   I support state’s rights.

   I desire to return our nation to a Biblical and constitutional foreign policy.

   However, though I am very passionate on political subjects, none should make the mistake that my faith is in politics; who wins, who looses. God is in control whoever wins and looses. He has already written the history of the future. Nothing surprises him or catches him off guard. My faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ.

And now, if you cared to read this, you know a little bit more about me and what to expect.