Does "Offensive" Equal "Inappropriate?" [Megan]

Considering I can barely navigate my way through making a phone call using a cell phone — let’s not even get into my “texting” deficiencies — my interest in Facebook surprises many of my friends. Granted, it’s only a novice interest. I avoid most of the “apps” because I have no clue how to use them. But it is fun to read my friends’ updates and see their latest photos.

The quizzes, however, never fail to amuse me. Things like “Find out which movie best represents you,” or “Which alcoholic beverage are you?” Just think of a topic, odds are there’s a quiz — or a poll — for you on Facebook.

One recent poll took me by surprise. The heading read, “Do you think abortion should be legalized? Yes or No.” Other than the confusing wording — abortion is already “legalized” — the subject wasn’t that surprising. Political polls pop up every now and then. But the accompanying photo was a different story. Just a thumbnail, the image wasn’t immediately recognizable. When I did recognize it, the shock factor was off the charts. There, beside the poll, was an image of the bloody, separated remains of an aborted fetus for all the Facebook world to see.

My emotional response was something of a strange dichotomy — part of me grieved deeply for that baby, and others who meet or have met the same fate. The other part wanted to stand up and applaud such a stark revelation of the truth. Curious to find out the origin of the poll, I clicked on the image, and read: THIS POLL HAS BEEN DISABLED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS EITHER OFFENSIVE CONTENT OR INAPPROPRIATE LANGUAGE AND/OR IMAGES.

My reaction? Long sigh. Can’t argue with the offensive part. Such an image should be sickeningly offensive to any and all who see it. Offensive in the way images of drug-or-drinking-related car accidents serve as an incentive to keep people from making poor decisions. Offensive in the same way stories of accidental shootings by children remind grown-ups to store their firearms safely. Offensive in the same way Emmett Till’s open-casket funeral shocked the nation with the realities of racism and prejudice. Offensive in a way that ensures such a brutal and tragic end will not be met by any more human beings.

It’s worth mentioning here that the three examples I offered, however offensive, are or were used as deterrents on a regular basis, with good ends in mind — a desired outcome that ends a kind of evil. Perhaps the difference is the desired outcome. The end of killing unborn humans would cause inconvenience for many. It would cause some to feel real pain and suffering about a decision to have an abortion. An offensive truth perhaps, but true nonetheless, in the same way that image of the result of abortion was both true and offending.

Is that what made the image inappropriate? I understand that images of violence are not necessarily suitable for audiences of a certain age and cognitive level, though it might be worth mentioning that young people are exposed to all manner of violence-depicting images while studying the history of our nation. What confuses me is how a thumbnail image of a true reality is inappropriate in comparison to a 10-year-old learning that if she were an alcoholic beverage, she would be a Sex On the Beach or a Martini. One exposure serves as a deterrent from taking the life of an innocent human being, the other gives a fourth grader bragging rights and a curiosity about the flavor and “cool factor” of a drink she shouldn’t legally consume until she’s nearly out of college.

By removing the poll, a subjective decision about the “inappropriateness” of an image was made regarding an objective and true reality.

Just something to think about.

I, for one, was grateful that more than 21,000 (according to the poll’s voting numbers) were exposed to the ugly truth before it was made unavailable.

Welcome, Megan! [SK]

Megan Almon joins our LTI blog team starting today. Megan is a journalist with the Newnan Times-Herald and a graduate student in theology and Christian apologetics. She's also a former member of the University of Georgia gymnastics team. She and her husband Tripp have a daughter, Neely, age 3.

In the weeks ahead, you'll notice the LIT website undergoing a major upgrade, which includes adding new bloggers. (Serge, Jay, Bob, and I will continue posting as well.) Megan is the first of several you'll soon be seeing here.

It's great to have you on board, Megan!

Lifting the "Ban" -- Or Obfuscating the Truth? [Bob]

I know this is a little dated (March '09), but it hasn't been addressed on the blog directly so I'm bringing it up again.

Listen to this speech (the first 4 minutes should suffice) and then check out the timeline (below) of what really happened. The methodical deceit involved here is incredible to behold ...

If you pay attention to the news at all, you are probably convinced that stem cell research will eventually solve every medical challenge our society faces. The blind will see. The paralyzed will walk. Cancer will be cured. All this will be possible if the anti-science zealots in the pro-life wing of conservative politics would just get out of the way. President Obama repeats the mantra here.

George W. Bush in particular thwarted all advancement in scientific research because he placed his anti-scientific, Neanderthal faith ahead of the more reasonable desires of those who wanted to find cures. Thoughtful depictions like the one at right were offered to make the point. But there's just a minor problem with all this. It is complete nonsense

Over the last several weeks I have been doing some research on embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) for a project I'm involved in. Along the way I realized that some of the legal/political meanderings surrounding this issue have become so muddled that, for my own sake, I decided to put them in the form of a chronological chart just to make things easier to follow. Though these were all things I was vaguely aware of, seeing how the issue has played out was so stunning to behold so I thought I would share the facts here:

• 1996 Congress passes, and President Clinton signs, a rider to an appropriations bill, titled the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which makes it illegal for the federal government to fund research that destroys human embryos. This rider has been re-approved by Congress and signed by the President in office every year since then.
  
  
• 1998 President Clinton signs an Executive Order (EO) enforcing the ban on federal funding for ESCR that destroys human embryos. He bases his decision to do so on the restrictions created by the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.
  

• 2000 After six years of taking a position against taxpayer funding of the destructive research, and on his way out of office, President Clinton flip-flops and announces his support for new federal guidelines that would allow taxpayer funding of embryo-destructive research. This apparent set up for the incoming Gore administration backfires when Gore loses the election.
  

• 2001 -- August 9th: President Bush signs an Executive Order meant to compromise on the restrictions that had previously been placed on ESCR. This order continues the restrictions put in place by the Dickey-Wicker Amendment but allows an exception for more than $200 million in federal funding for 21 existing stem cell “lines” that had previously been created (through IVF). Thus, President Bush becomes the first president to allow federal funding of ESCR.

At this point, federal funding for ESCR is restricted to these 21 lines.

It is not “banned.”

There is not, and there has never been, a ban on privately funded research.

• 2007 -- June 20th: President Bush issues Executive Order 13435, which requires the government to fund research into alternative methods of obtaining pluripotent stem cells -- methods like Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (IPSC) -- that do not require the destruction of embryos but instead "induce" regular adult skin cells to act like pluripotent cells.
  

• 2008 “Scientific researchers hail the development of IPSCs as the biggest scientific breakthrough of the year.”

• 2009 -- March 9th: President Obama rescinds Bush’s August 9, 2001 EO with his own EO entitled, “Removing Barriers To Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells.” The revocation of Bush’s EO is heralded as “lifting the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).” (this is the event found in the video offered above)
  
  
• This EO simultaneously revokes Bush EO # 13435 which has provided federal funding of successful IPSC research. This aspect of the order is not mentioned at the press conference.

• 2009 -- March 11th: President Obama signs and renews the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which continues the ban on federal funding for ESCR that Obama claims to have lifted 2 days earlier. No announcement is made and no press conference is called.

Whatever one’s politics, it is hard to deny the purposeful deceit and tactical shenanigans that have gone on with respect to ESCR. During his speech, Mr. Obama claimed to want to honor both the scientific promises of stem cell research and the ethical issues some hold toward the research. He did neither.

He refuses to ever acknowledge a difference between stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research. The effects of his policies have been:

• Creating cloned embryos with the purpose of letting the created person live is illegal and outlawed.
• Creating cloned embryos for the purpose of tearing them apart for research purposes is approved.
• Though he claims to have "lifted the ban of the last 8 years" (a direct shot at Bush), two days later he knowingly and quietly re-signs the amendment that overrides his own Executive Order.
• He claims to approve of "promising research" yet touts the very kind of research that has led to exactly ZERO cures (ESCR) and actually undermines research with adult cells that has, up to this point, shown 73 successful therapies.

And, most importantly ...

• He claims to seek compromise with those who have ethical reservations about ESCR but (again quietly and underhandedly) removes federal funding for IPSC that does exactly that -- and never mentions it.

All this to reiterate what has been said here before: When it comes to pro-life issues, President Obama's actions shout louder about his actual position than any of the words he speaks. Given the chance to seek true common ground on ESCR, he apparently has no intention of doing so -- though he doesn't have the courage to say so out loud.

Making the Case for Life to 2nd Graders at Public School [SK]

I've had a request to post this on-line, so here you go.

LTI Donor Letter, 7-09:

Dear Friends,

I did something fun at the end of the school year. I spoke to my daughter Emily’s 2nd grade class. Emily attends our local public school and her teacher thought the class would benefit hearing from a real life author. How could I resist?

Here's how I began: I held up a parchment copy of The Declaration of Independence (which the class had studied a bit) and read the following: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

I then asked, "What makes us equal? It can't be our body size, because some are larger than others. It can't be our intelligence, because some have good report cards while others have bad. It can't be our bellybuttons because some point out rather than in. So what makes us equal?”

From all over the room, tiny voices shot back “We’re all human!” Exactly. The only thing we all share equally is our humaness.

I then held up my book The Case for Life. The cover shows a picture of two tiny feet. “What’s this?” Without a moment’s delay, kids all over that room shouted, “a baby in the mommy’s tummy.”

“Right.” And what kind of baby is this?” Again, there was no delay. “It’s a human baby.”

Right again. “But how is this human in the picture different than us?” Hands shot up everywhere. “It’s smaller.” “It looks different.” “It can’t talk yet.” “You can’t see his eyes yet.”

“True. Do you think that any of those differences mean the baby in the picture is less human than any of us?”

A resounding chorus of voices shot back, “No!”

Notice the kids didn’t need a doctorate degree to grasp the obvious truth about our common human nature. I made a case for human equality (and thus, a case for the pro-life view) without mentioning the word abortion. More importantly, they understood perfectly what I was driving at.

Admittedly, I was having a blast with these kids. At the same time, they were teaching me an important lesson. The pro-life movement must find ways to reach kids earlier, before the surrounding culture talks them out of what they already know to be true. In many ways, these youngsters had better moral reasoning skills than many college students I meet!

That’s why here at Life Training Institute, we’re committed to reaching kids not only at the university campus, but long before they arrive. Now that my book The Case for Life is published, we’re stepping up plans to release additional speakers who connect well with middle school and high school students at Catholic and Protestant schools. I hope one day we’ll even have something for grade school kids--just like those at Emily’s school!

I can sum up the day this way. Making a case for the pro-life view to my daughter's 2nd grade class--fun! Hearing her tell the whole class, "I love my daddy"--priceless!

Grateful as always for your faithful support,

Scott Klusendorf

Comprehensive Sex-Ed Program in the UK Doubles Teen Pregnancy [Serge]

Here is the report from the BBC:

A total of 2,371 teenagers deemed at risk of exclusion from school, drug abuse and teenage pregnancy took part in the YPDP over the three years it ran, at a cost of £2,500 each.

Of these, some 16% fell pregnant.

It didn't appear to reduce teenage pregnancy so we will not be taking it any further Department of Health

This compared with 6% in other groups of youths deemed vulnerable but which were not taking part in the YPDP. These included for instance teenagers from Pupil Referral Units, who were being educated for various reasons outside of mainstream school.

The YPDP group had sex earlier, and reported a higher expectation of becoming a teenage parent.

The young women in the group were more likely not to have used contraception when they most recently had sex.

Here is the complete article which I have finished reading and will be analyzing in my series on the medical literature in our next podcast. I believe you will find the results just as fascinating as I did.

More Reviews of The Case for Life [SK]

Micah Watson in Public Discourse

Jivin J

Trevin Wax

Roger Overton
--

That's "Dr. Serge, Master Apologist, Sir" to you! [Serge]

At least that's how I would like Senator Boxer to address me if I'm in the unfortunate position to be in her presence. Of course, I would not be so rude to interrupt her in mid-sentence to tell her this, as she did with a brigadier general yesterday: