Blog

  • I Am Still Unsure About This Intrusion!

    I don’t know about all this attention to the quadruped interloper that invaded my home a week ago. But, so far, it mostly ignores me. Just to be sure, I’ll stay way back here in my cage, and occasionally flap my wing at it.

    hedwig 004

    Hedwig perching in her cage
    Photo © Chip Bennett, all rights reserved.

  • Greetings, Friends of My Human

    I will now be posting here as well. This post will be short, as it is keeping me from valuable napping time.

    millie 022

    It takes a lot of work to look this good.
    Photo © Chip Bennett, all rights reserved.

  • Cat Nap

    So much blogging has Millie all worn out:

    millie 038

    Guarding the window is such hard work. Er, I mean, blogging is such hard work…
    Photo © Chip Bennett, all rights reserved.

  • South Dakota Votes to Ban Abortion

    GOP Bloggers reports that the South Dakota house has voted 47-22 to ban abortion, with the sole exception being mortal danger to the mother:

    This is throwing down the gauntlet to the culture of death – this isn’t warm and fuzzy, this is stern defense of basic human morality. After a century of moral disintegration, finally a courageous deed in service of humanity’s true needs.

    Indeed.

    The pro-aborts are going absolutely psycho. This from How Bout This:

    And now, my PRO-CHOICE rant:

    Bring it on; this should be entertaining.

    So….how many are against abortion but for the death penalty?

    Ah yes, the old canard of the moral equivalence crowd. I’ll admit, I prefer erring on the side of life, even with the worst of our criminals. However, capital punishment at least has reasonable justification, given the heinousness of the action of those so condemned. Equating the execution of a murderer or other such convict with the murder of an innocent and defenseless unborn child is baseless and asinine.

    How many are against abortion but, in general, for pro-active military action?

    You mean, pro-active military action that frees 50 million people from the clutches of tyrannical dictators, who rape, pillage, and – yes – kill indiscriminately? You mean, pro-active military action that releases Kurds and other Iraqi political dissidents from the fear of mass extermination, death by shredder, and other horrors? Yes, I’m in favor.

    How many are against abortion but are also against the availability of contraceptives to teenagers?

    Why should an innocent, defenseless unborn human child die because of the inconvenience caused to a couple teenagers who exercise their freedom of choice by having sex? Since when, by the way, were contraceptives unavailable to teenagers? They seem to be hanging in the aisles of grocery stores, pharmacies, and gas stations all across the country. Teenagers’ money serves suitably as legal tender for the purchase of such contraception.

    How many are against abortion but choose never to adopt?

    How many abortion mills clinics or abortion advocates propogate adoption as an alternative to abortion? Couples in this country are waiting by the thousands to adopt. No shortage of demand for adoption exists; however, a million or so abortions annually severely inhibits the supply of babies to be adopted.

    It seems to me many people need to put their morals where their mouth is: adopt some unwanted kids, protest needless violence, and educate teenagers about the ways to avoid pregnancy (and STD’s, while we’re at it).

    The problem is not with pro-life advocates not putting our “morals where our mouths are”, but with pro-abortion advocates not encouraging people NOT to put other things where they don’t belong, unless they are willing to accept the consequences. Well over ninety percent of abortions in this country are purely for reasons of convenience. For the record, we do protest needless violence: the violence perpetrated against innocent, defenseless unborn humans.

    Next we have this gem from “confusionsetsin”:

    That didn’t take long did it? This is unbelievably immoral and blatantly unconstitutional. If you get raped in South Dakota and become pregnant, the South Dakota House wants to use the threat of criminal sanctions to force you to give birth. As the article notes, this is being done to force a legal challenge by pro-choice groups in hope that this goes all the way to the Supreme Court so they can re-hear the abortion case and issue a new ruling. Unfortunately, the idiots in South Dakota don’t realize that because this is not legal in any sense of the word that the lower courts will strike it down completely and will end up strengthening abortion rights in the country.

    “Unbelievably immoral”? Protecting the life of unborn humans is “immoral” to this moonbat. “Blatantly unconstitutional”? Please, O sage of constitutional wisdom, show me where abortion is addressed in the U.S. Constitution? Please, great protector of constitutional knowledge, can you explain the Tenth Amendment with respect to abortion? Again, well over ninety percent of abortions are purely for reasons of convenience. Even so, the developing human child is not at fault for incidents of rape or incest. Punish the criminal; don’t victimize the innocent.

    And this ever-popular means of fear-mongering, brought to us by kristeljohns:

    Anyone wanna place bets on whether or not I’ll end up treating women who have been injured or rendered infertile due to botched back-alley abortions in my future career in the field of OB/GYN?

    I wouldn’t worry your pretty little liberal skull about that one; from this one sentence, odds are you’re too stupid to make it through medical school. Good start on the field of medical moonbattery, though.

    These are children, not a choice. baby aborted in second trimester

    God bless you, South Dakota!

  • OYB February 11

    Today´s reading:
    OT: Exodus 32-33
    NT: Matthew 26:69-75, Matthew 27:1-14
    Ps: Psalm 33:1-11
    Pr: Proverbs 8:33-36

    Today´s notable verses:

    The tablets were the work of God; the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets.

    Exodus 32:16 (NIV)

    What a unique and miraculous blessing to the Israelites: the very Word of God, inscribed by God Himself! Thw points come to mind: first, that the Israelites squandered such a precious gift by inciting the anger of Moses and provoking him to throw down the tablets in his rage. Second, that even this precious gift was but a pale reflection of God’s later work:

    You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

    II Corinthians 2:3 (NIV)

    God has made each one of us more precious than those stone tablets, since He Himself ascended and shattered Himself on the Cross for our sake, and has engraved His Spirit on our hearts, and in so doing has given us His perfect Law and made it so integral to our lives that our very lives are now identified in it, and in it alone.

    The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.

    Exodus 33:11 (NIV)

    I once heard a teaching concerning Joshua in this verse, that his later accomplishments originated, in part, in this verse. He was with Moses in the tent of meeting, and he stayed. He sought the same intimacy with the Lord that Moses had. He stayed in the place of meeting with the Lord. He longed for the presence and glory of the Lord.

    The One Year Bible Blog asks:

    Comments from you & Question of the Day – The Golden Calf readings… Are we so different from the Israelites? Do we make our own versions of “golden calves” today? Do we have idols that we worship? Money? Career? Popularity? Relationships? Addictions? Our Intelligence? Technology? Do these idols stand in the way of our worship of God? Do they stand in the way of our relationship with God? Do these idols defile us?

    What amazes me about this incident is that the Israelites turned to Aaron for guidance, and he failed them miserably; yet God still ordained Aaron to be His High Priest – another example of God, in His grace, using people for His purposes despite (and through) their failures.

    I think the real sin here was the Israelites’ lack of faith, and their willingness to put their trust in something so obviously man-made, while the Presence of the Lord yet remained on the mountain with Moses. Perhaps their actions resulted from taking their eyes off of the mountain, looking to the desert and wilderness, rather than staying focused on God’s Presence?

    And we are still the same today. Our faith still falters. We still put our trust in all those things mentioned, especially when we take our eyes off of our Lord. And just as Peter, walking on water, began to sink when he took his eyes off of Jesus, so too do we begin to become overwhelmed by the world when we take our eyes off of Him.

  • Say It Ain’t So, Jim!

    Hat tip: Arch City Chronicle. Also, Jamie Allman discussed this article this afternoon on 97.1 FM Talk while filling in on the Dave Glover Show. He mentioned an email I sent him regarding some of these issues.

    The Post-Dispatch reports Senator Talent’s capitulation on banning embryonic stem cell research in Missouri, and, as usual when reporting on stem cell research, gets the story completely wrong.

    First, on the poor reporting:

    Following the lead-in, the article makes the following statement:

    Wading into a political minefield that has pitted abortion-rights opponents against some scientists and families struggling with debilitating diseases, Talent, R-Mo., said Friday there were “no prospects” for enacting the ban on human cloning—a bill he has co-sponsored for the last four years.

    The argument that this debate pits abortion-rights opponents against scientists and families struggling with debilitating diseases is both specious and sensational. It evokes the entirely unproven notion that embryonic stem cell research has shown at all any unique promise in therapeutic benefits in order to appeal to the emotional sensibilities of an otherwise-ignorant audience. (See this previous post for related links.) The inarguable reality is that, for those families struggling with debilitating diseases, the only real hope exists right now in adult stem cell research. While embryonic stem cell research has produced not one benefit, adult stem cell research has produced some sixty-five benefits (as of July 2005) for cancer, auto-immune diseases, cardiovascular and ocular problems, neural/degenerative illnesses and injuries, anemia and other blood conditions, metabolic disorders, and various wounds and injuries.

    Without this context, the uninformed reader is led to assume that without embryonic stem cell research, no hope exists for therapies or cures for such debilitating diseases. Without this context, such a reader is left ignorant even of the differentiation between adult and embryonic stem cell research. Without this context, the reader does not recognize that the ban only applies to embryonic stem cell research, preserving the efficacious adult stem cell research.

    Toward the end of the article, the following statement appears:

    In his speech Friday, Talent said the new form of stem cell research makes therapeutic cloning unnecessary.

    In that process, also known as or somatic cell nuclear transfer, the nucleus of an unfertilized egg is replaced with the nucleus of another cell from a human body. The egg is then stimulated to divide, as it would when fertilized by a sperm, and the early stem cells are harvested. Stem cells can mature into a variety of cells to form organs and other body parts.

    Now here’s a semantic argument I’ve not yet heard; likely, because Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) and therapeutic cloning are exactly the same thing. The two terms are interchangeable:

    Therapeutic cloning (also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, cell nuclear replacement, research cloning, and embryo cloning)…

    What is unclear from this simplified description is that what results from this process is a genetically complete human cell. Stem cells are extracted from the developing embryo (at this stage, referred to as a “blastocyst”), destroying the embryo in the process. Left to its own devices, it would develop into a fully formed human being. This point is indisputible. From Clone The Truth:

    SCNT is the same in both therapeutic and reproductive cloning. The only difference is whether the cloned embryo is implanted.

    Implantation differentiates between therapeutic and reproductive cloning – not the process that yields the embryo in question.

    It appears that the Post-Dispatch just got the story completely wrong. From the Kansas City Star, Talent is favoring not SCNT, but a technique known as “altered nuclear transfer” (ANT):

    Saying new scientific research may make it possible to create stem cells without cloning human embryos, Sen. Jim Talent on Friday withdrew as co-sponsor of a bill that would ban all human cloning and make it a crime for anyone to take part in the process.

    In a speech on the Senate floor, Talent said the alternative research made the bill unnecessary. The new research – called altered nuclear transfer – would provide common ground for people on all sides of the issue, he said.

    First, a brief description of ANT:

    Altered Nuclear Transfer uses the technology of NT but with a preemptive alteration that assures that no embrye is created. The somatic cell nucleus or the emucleated egg contents (cytoplasm) or both are first altered before the somatic cell nucleus is transferred into the egg. The alterations cause the somatic cell DNA to function in such a way that no embryo is generated, but pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) are produced.

    “…no embryo is generated, but pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) are produced” – a curious statement, that. In layman’s terms, ANT alters the two components prior to the nuclear transfer, such that the embryonic development is genetically altered to prevent the ability of the embryo to develop fully. The claim that the embryo is non-human is clearly untrue; it is simply a human embryo genetically altered to prevent its full development. Contrary to the claims that this method eliminates ethical concerns over SCNT, I find the method to be even more morally repugnant, as researchers assume even more God-like power over the embryo, choosing which will be allowed to develop, and which will not.

    ANT still performs a nuclear transfer; this process is, by definition, cloning. Regardless of how the components are genetically altered, the resultant clone still develops enough to produce human embryonic stem cells. Only a human embryo can produce human embryonic stem cells.

    Now, on to Senator Talent:

    From the article:

    In a surprise turnabout, Sen. Jim Talent withdrew his support Friday for a controversial ban on human cloning and offered what he said was a compromise proposal that would heal the deep divide over stem cell research.

    Talent said his alternative proposal, which he is still developing, would fund a newly emerging technology that avoids the most dicey element of the debate — the destruction of human embryos that occurs in traditional stem cell research.

    But even as Talent outlined his new position on Fridays — saying he’d spent a year researching the issue — the Missouri senator still declined to take a position on a state initiative petition that has made the stem cell debate so hot at home.

    Mr. Talent, with all due respect, if you have “researched the issue” for an entire year, surely you wouldn’t make the mistake of trying to differentiate between any form of nuclear transfer and therapeutic cloning. Surely you would know that no such “emerging technology” exists that would avoid the destruction of human embryos. From one of your staunchest supporters, know that you will have a great deal of explaining to do, and will have an extremely difficult time trying to justify this move.

    Senator Talent, your argument fails on two points:

    First, if ANT, as its proponents claim, is not cloning, and does not produce a human embryo, then it is not inconsistent with a proposed ban on human cloning. Passing such a ban – either federally, or in Missouri – would not prevent research that neither clones human DNA nor produces human embryos.

    Second, if ANT is a form of human cloning, and does produce human embryos, then all the same ethical and moral questions remain. It is not then a “compromise” acceptable to both sides of the controversy, as you claim:

    “There’s a sense on both sides of the controversy that if you propose something that concedes something to the other side, you give up something yourself,” Talent said. “It is going to become increasingly clear that the way for both sides to get what they want is to compromise.”

    Senator Talent, with respect to the destruction of human embryos, we have no intention of compromising on the sanctity of every life, no matter at what point in its development. We have no intention of conceding even a single human life.

    Consistent with the Clone the Truth campaign, I am committed to ensuring that the truth about adult and embryonic stem cell and related research is made known. I am likewise committed to ensuring that this deceptively worded and ill-advised ballot initiative is defeated.

    UPDATE:
    Clone the Truth references this post, and calls ANT a “Trojan Horse.”

    UPDATE II:
    ProLifeBlogs is now running with this story, as well, linking also to Secondhand Smoke, who in turn references Ramesh Ponnuru in NRO.

  • After Work Nap

    Millie decided that we should take a nap when I got home from work today. She made her wishes known by planting herself on me:

    millie 025

    All your human are belong to me.
    Photo © Chip Bennett, all rights reserved.

  • OYB February 10

    Today´s reading:
    OT: Exodus 30:11-38, Exodus 31:1-18
    NT: Matthew 26:47-68
    Ps: Psalm 32
    Pr: Proverbs 8:27-32

    Today´s notable verse:

    Then I acknowledged my sin to you
    and did not cover up my iniquity.
    I said, “I will confess
    my transgressions to the LORD “—
    and you forgave
    the guilt of my sin.
    Selah

    Psalm 32:5 (NIV)

    What a relief it is to confess our sins to our Lord! When we keep our sin to ourselves, the weight of it is heavy upon us (verse 4); but when we confess it, the burden is lifted – often, tangibly so.

    The One Year Bible Blog asks:

    Comments from you & Question of the Day – Psalm 32 is a powerful Psalm on confession and forgiveness. How do you confess your sins these days? Do you confess them verbally to someone else – a pastor / minister / priest / mentor / friend / accountability partner? Why do you confess them verbally? Do you confess your sins to God in prayer? After confessing your sins verbally or in prayer do you feel any different? Do you think confession is relevant? Do you think confession is a spiritual discipline?

    One of the difficult things about moving around somewhat frequently (twice since college graduation) is the formation of relationships sufficiently intimate to allow for accountability. I am just now getting to the point in some close relationships that I can count on one or two as accountability partners, one in particular. I think it wise to have two types of relationships: one peer relationship, and one mentor relationship. I am working on both. Since college, the majority of my confession has been to God alone, in prayer; but I think the principle confession to one another is extremely important:

    Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

    James 5:16 (NIV)

    However confession is made, I always “feel better” and am able to “move on” afterward. The reason is that, before confession, when we willfully withhold that confession, we open ourselves to worldly sorrow and guilt; but when we yield to the Spirit, and openly confess our sins, we are blessed with Godly sorrow:

    10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. 11 See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done.

    II Corinthians 7:10-11a

    Worldly sorrow – that to which we open ourselves by withholding the confession of our sin – brings death: Satan condemns us of the guilt of our sin, and the wages of sin is death. That death is spiritual death, or separation from God. The longer we withhold our confession, the longer we allow the Accuser to separate us from God by overwhelming us with the guilt and sorrow of our sin.

    But when we confess our sin to the Lord, we accept Christ’s atonement for our sin, and no longer bear the burden of its guilt, which Christ bore for us on the cross. Instead, that condemning guilt is replaced, through the Spirit, with a desire to right wrongs and to do right and to pursue Godliness and holiness. Praise God for His grace!

  • OYB February 9

    Today´s reading:
    OT: Exodus 29, Exodus 30:1-10
    NT: Matthew 26:14-46
    Ps: Psalm 31:19-24
    Pr: Proverbs 8:14-26

    Today´s notable verse:

    17 I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.

    18 With me are riches and honor, enduring wealth and prosperity.

    19 My fruit is better than fine gold; what I yield surpasses choice silver.

    20 I walk in the way of righteousness, along the paths of justice,

    21 bestowing wealth on those who love me and making their treasuries full.

    Proverbs 8:17-21 (NIV)

    Remember, this chapter refers to wisdom (also, as I pointed out yesterday, symbolic of and analogous to the Holy Spirit). Those who seek wisdom find it; James gives us the key:

    If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

    James 1:5 (NIV)

    When God gives us this wisdom, we grasp His perspective with respect to the true nature of riches, honor, wealth, and prosperity – and what a blessing that perspective is, because what the world offers for these things will always prove to be insufficient and empty compared to what God wants for us.

    The One Year Bible Blog asks:

    Comments from you & Question of the Day – Do our readings in Matthew today remind you of Communion / The Lord’s Supper at your church? Is this a positive remembrance for you? How important is Communion / The Lord’s Supper to you personally these days? Do you look forward to this remembrance at your church? Have you ever experienced Communion / The Lord’s Supper with others in settings outside of your normal worship experience? Maybe at a prayer gathering or outside or in other beautiful settings?

    Communion is not just important; it is vital to the life of the believer! Paul even ascribes tangible, physical consequences for partaking of communion improperly:

    27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

    I Corinthians 11:27-30

    Note, here, that Paul was admonishing the Corinthians for treating communion as just another meal, and were acting out of gluttony and selfishness – but the point is the same: they abused that which Christ ordained as sacred, and thereby ate and drank judgement upon themselves, in the form of sickness and even death.

    My church has communion every week, and I prefer churches that do so. However, I love opportunities to share in communion in settings outside of regular church services. I have taken communion with 60,000 men at a Promise Keepers convention, at a rest stop with a mission group during a mission trip, at a state park while camping – I’m sure there are others as well. What I love about these occasions is that the focus remains on communion – and the reason for and basis of communion: Christ – rather than the service during which it is taken.

  • Christian Carnival CVIII

    Today is Wednesday, so Christian Carnival CVII is up, hosted by Part-Time Pundit. This week’s theme: “the uncreative order of receipt.”