A “blogment” conversation about abortion

A recent commenter made so many common pro-abortion claims that I thought I’d post my reply as a “blogment” (a comment turned into a blog post).  Sadly, these are common arguments, but they are easy to respond to if you do some preparation. 

He had claimed elsewhere, among other things, that genocide, the Holocaust and starvation were bad but that abortion was not, and he wondered how I could equate them.  I replied:

Genocide = dead human beings

Holocaust = dead human beings

Starvation = dead human beings

Abortion = dead human beings.

They seem similar to me.

The quotes are from the commenter:

Then I suppose you’re equating an aborted fetus with a conscious, adult human? Something doesn’t seem quite right there; unless, you are actually thinking of the adult human beings the unborn will grow into when you say abortion kills the same kind of human beings genocide and the other transgressions do.

What kind of fetus are you speaking of? If it is a human fetus then she is a human being at a particular stage of development deserving of having her life protected. She isn’t an adult, but neither are toddlers. Your rationale could plug in human toddler instead of human fetus and claim that the “toddler will grow into” being an adult, but it would still involve killing an innocent human being.

This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when I mentioned something about equating an unborn human being with one outside the womb. If you’re saying the fertilized egg is a human being are you saying there’s no difference between us and that egg?

Of course there are differences: Size, level of development, environment and dependency. My claim is that none of those differences gives rise to the right to destroy those human beings.

Does this sound reasonable to you? I’m pretty sure I have a lot more in common with a fish than a few cells. I’m pretty sure a newborn infant has a lot more in common with a fish than a dozen cells.

Fish aren’t human beings.

Personally, I would say that the fertilized egg has the potential to be a human being,

Then you would be in direct conflict with science. We aren’t talking about birth control here, which is what “potential” arguments relate to. The fertilized egg is a human being.

and I would add that I would love nothing more than to see that fertilized egg grow to be a wonderful individual who lives a fulfilling life,

That’s encouraging!

but I would also say that in general the welfare and livelihood of those of us in the here and now takes precedence over those who have not yet entered the world.

I was afraid the last line was too good to be true 😉 . First, you haven’t demonstrated that the rest of us benefit when innocent human beings are slaughtered.

Second, even if it was true your claim proves way too much. It could be used to rationalize the destruction of the homeless, welfare recipients, etc. I am pretty sure you don’t mean to advance that argument.

They don’t call it “coming into the world” for nothing.

I don’t see why euphemisms would trump science. We also say women are “with child,” but I doubt that gives you pause on your pro-abortion views. Just because you can’t see the unborn without an ultrasound doesn’t mean they don’t exist on this planet.

“If you mother had paid someone to crush and dismember you in womb would it have had a “negligible impact” on where you are today? When your skull would have been crushed, would that have been a “potential you” and a “potential” skull or a real you and a real skull?”

I feel like these sorts of hypothetical questions are frivolous. If I had been aborted, there would have been no impact on where I am today because I would have never existed.


There would be nothing to have an impact on. Since that fetus would not be the same organism you are talking to, I think it is perfectly correct to say that fetus was the “potential me.” I think it’s pretty clear that that fetus is not me and that I am not that fetus, but that fetus would eventually become me. As for the skull question, it would have been the skull of the fetus that eventually became who you are talking to now, and nothing else.

That’s odd, because the unique DNA of that hypothetically dead human fetus would have matched yours exactly. And if the skull had been crushed you wouldn’t be here.

I suppose it depends on how you define “me,” or “I,” or “you.” I’m pretty sure when we say those things, we are talking about the present us. If you really want to get philosophical, the “me” you will respond to after I post this will technically not be the same “me” as the one who wrote this because some time has elapsed and we are all in a constant state of change/growth.

Try committing a crime then sharing that philosophy with the judge. I’ll come visit you when I’m doing prison ministry 😉 .

I’ll spell it out for you: There is a 1:1 correlation between the human fetus and the subsequent human being. If you arm had been ripped off in utero, you’d only have one arm now. That was you in your mother’s womb, not a potential you. It was you at that particular stage of development.

Because for all practical purposes they haven’t joined the rest of society until after birth.

They are unique human beings. Your made-up definition of who gets to be considered part of society has all sorts of ramifications.

Once that developing human leaves the birth canal, however, the responsibility for its development shifts from that of the mother’s body to society and however we consciously decide to treat it.

That’s a fine argument if you are trying to advance infanticide as well.

Keep in mind the reasons abortions take place at all. Abortions do not occur out of some malicious intent toward a potential human being (as the word murder most often implies). Abortions occur out of practical purposes directly related to the individual(s) involved.

You really lost me there. Abortions tell the unborn one or more of the following:
– You are going to cost me too much money, so I’m going to kill you.
– You are going to get in the way of my love life, so I’m going to kill you.
– You are going to hamper my career or education, so I’m going to kill you.
– You are going to be a burden to society, so I’m going to kill you.
– You have (or may have) a disability , so I’m going to kill you.
– You are the wrong gender, so I’m going to kill you.
– Etc.

How very practical.

This brings up the other big issue I have. We as the whole of humanity illustrate daily that we are not taking adequate care of the children we already have.

Then do something about it or persuade others to. That’s what I do with my own time and money. In the mean time, I don’t use that as a rationale to kill those in the womb.

Why would you want to protect the lives of so many unborn, unwanted children who would simply join the ranks of those who are denied the life they deserve?

I find better slaughtered than poor to be a profoundly bad argument. I won’t even go into how you justify the “life they deserve” bit.

I don’t have the personal experience, but I would imagine there is not a whole lot worse than being an unwanted child, a derelict and burden to society.

Then why aren’t you advancing the cause of destroying orphans and foster children? Think of the money we’d save while putting them out of their misery!

I would rather see all our children live equally fulfilling lives than a few who have been deprived in various respects. Do you think orphanages are more appealing than a properly functioning family environment?

Those are multiple false dichotomies: Kill the unborn or others will be unhappy.

If we allow our mothers to consciously choose if or when they have children, we go a long way to eliminating unwanted children, and consequently providing all our children with the lives they deserve.

That is an argument for birth control, not murder.

Why is what I’m saying not cruel? Well, for one, who is this being cruel to? I would wager that a human fetus doesn’t have the nervous capabilities to experience pain as we perceive it.

Neither would orphans if you just gas them in their sleep. Murder without pain is still murder. I find your argument to be very uncompelling both scientifically and philosophically.

It certainly does not possess consciousness as we know it. Certainly a fertilized egg doesn’t have any of these capabilities.

So. What.

What I’m suggesting isn’t cruel because the subject doesn’t have the ability to experience cruelty, and as I’ve already said, there is usually little to no impact felt on anyone or anything by the existence of a new human being until the birthing process and afterward.

Again, very bad argument. Pain-free murder is still murder.

The unborn human being hasn’t actually experienced any life, so what life are we taking away?

Uh, the whole life? Using that logic it is only 10% murder to kill an old guy. That sentence makes the crime stronger, not lesser.

Why subject anyone to some form of unpleasantness or suffering when we can prevent it altogether?

Using your logic we should put over 90% of the world out of their misery.

I noticed something interesting about calling abortion “murdering an innocent human being.” What do you really mean when you say that?

I mean it is an indisputable scientific fact.

I realized something when I thought about all the other organic life that a fetus is most similar to. I mean just think about it for a second. If you were just holding a picture of a fetus and looked at its level of complexity, what other organisms is it most similar to?

What someone looks like at a stage of development doesn’t change what she is: A human being. And even with your “logic” most abortions are performed on human beings that are quite recognizable.

Cognitively speaking, there are thousands upon thousands of animals that possess a level of cognitive awareness closer to us than that fetus, but you say it’s still murdering an innocent human being, so I realized what you really mean when you say something like that is that we’re murdering the human being that fetus may or may not become.

That is scientifically false. She won’t become a human being, she is a human being.

When you say we’re murdering innocent human beings you’re really just mentally picturing the people those developing humans will become and saying it’s immoral to murder those fully developed human beings. You’re thinking in terms of potential.

No, I’m speaking in terms of facts and science.

Realistically speaking, however, we’re not murdering innocent human beings, because those innocent human beings haven’t even become a part of the world yet.

Really? What planet are they on? If they don’t exist on this planet then why have the abortion on this planet?

How many people does a bad economy affect? Would maintaining a healthy economy protect more human lives than abortion stops from coming into existence?

Your economic arguments are perhaps the most bizarre of all. Not only do they beg the question but they would rationalize the murder of those outside the womb.

Simply using the phrase “human being” seems to me a bit misleading.

Only if you are anti-science.

I am a human being; you are a human being; how can you logically equate the unborn with us?

Of course. They are human beings and so are we. Could I logically equate you with a newborn? Not in terms of size or age, but in inherent worth.

The only way I can possibly see you doing that is by thinking of the unborn not simply for what it is but for what it will become, in which case you’re thinking in terms of potential. If we’re thinking in terms of potential, we can’t literally be killing a physical human being like me or you; we’re instead killing the idea, the thought of that human being. Is it immoral to kill the idea of a human being?

That is gobbledygook. Seriously, if you think that view is accurate then women could just “imagine” that they are having an abortion.

Honestly, Neil, I think abortion is a sad state of affairs for any society; that circumstances permit individuals to find themselves in the process of bringing about human life they did not intend to is sad.

That is a bad argument. These people had sex. Pregnancy is a potential outcome of sex. They didn’t wake up one day and realize they’d had an accidental in vitro fertilization.

Do you find it sad that actions have consequences? Boo-hoo. But don’t kill an innocent human being over actions you regret.

If I had it my way, no one would ever have to get abortions.

Why not? You are fully convinced that they do not kill an innocent human being and you “know” they are safe, right? So they must be cost effective methods of birth control.

As it stands now, I’m more concerned with providing the kids we already have with the kind of life they deserve, and I think that if we can avoid consciously placing children in situations in which they are not reaping all life’s benefits I have no objection to doing so.

I don’t care how much you help the kids who are alive — though I wonder how much you are really doing — but I still find your “better dead than potentially poor” argument to be ghoulish and a horrible thing to say about most of the planet.

Major kudos for Stand to Reason, the ministry where I learned many of the arguments above, including the “trot out the toddler” technique and the SLED reasoning (how the Size, Level of development, Environment and Dependency don’t determine the worth of an individual).

Bait & switch = bad idea. Forgetting to switch = really bad idea.

The Bible teaches that we should not use trickery to share the Gospel.

1 Thessalonians 2:1-6 You know, brothers, that our visit to you was not a failure. We had previously suffered and been insulted in Philippi, as you know, but with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel in spite of strong opposition. For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts. You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed—God is our witness. We were not looking for praise from men, not from you or anyone else.

Sadly, many churches water down the Gospel to avoid offending people.  They just want to get them in the door and plan to get around to the whole truth later. 

Of course, we don’t want to add to the offense of the Gospel, but we shouldn’t distort it to avoid the legitimate offense. 

But as bad as the bait & switch strategy is, the bigger problem is that the churches using this strategy forgot to make the switch.  And they used the bait for so long that they now think that is all they need to do.  They never get around to sharing the whole Gospel.  If your message never offends (in the appropriate Biblical sense) then you are preaching the wrong message (Hello, is Joel there?).

We shouldn’t dilute the message just to grow the numbers.  Hey, if youth groups offered free beer & p*rnography that would probably increase attendance, but are those the numbers that count?

And consider the mainline churchs that continue to see declining figures.  The more “inclusive” they are the smaller they get.  They offend the world less, I suppose, but they have nothing left to offer the world, either.

I think it exhibits a lack of faith when we don’t trust God enough to preach his word in an undiluted fashion.  Does He really need us to edit it for him?

Odd similarities

There is an weird sort of parallel between many atheists and theologically liberal Christians: Making up a false version of God.  The difference, of course, is that one group doesn’t believe in their false version and the other does believe in their false version.  But the end result is the same: Self-worship, or making up your own version of the universe. 

Many atheists mischaracterize the God of the Bible, such that they don’t believe in a god that doesn’t exist.

Many theologically liberal Christians mischaracterize the God of the Bible and believe in a god that doesn’t exist.

Both groups take things out of context and only read the parts that (they think) support their views.

With the atheists it is a classic case of asking about the god they don’t believe in and then responding, “Oh, I don’t believe in that god, either.  I believe in the one who revealed himself in the Bible.”

With the liberal Christians it is simply a form of idolatry.  They have made a god in their image that agrees with them and comforts them, but it isn’t the true God.  They disagree with Jesus over and over on important issues and either don’t notice it or it doesn’t bother them.


If you don’t have the Wintery Knight Blog in your blog reader then I encourage you to do so right away.  I’ll wait here.  Seriously, everything this guy publishes is terrific.  I have to limit myself to one link per roundup. 

Ex-atheist returns to Christianity and offers candid insights as to why he left in the first place.

Liberal Christianity vs. orthodox Christianity:  Real Christianity tells you that forgiveness for your sins is available in Jesus.  Liberal Christianity will tell you that you don’t need forgiveness.

WordPress has a very cool new feature where you can respond to comments via email.  When I get notice of a new comment in my email I can just reply to the email and my comment automatically posts to my blog.  I love saving time!

Richard Graves, aka DJ Black Adam (a welcomed and regular commenter here), has started a new blog called Christian Re-education 101.  Check it out.  I read and enjoyed Richard’s book.

Funny video by Zo.  Watch and laugh.

A great history lesson on the horrible consequences of protectionism.  Hat tip: Lone Star Times

Hey Christians: Don’t be cheap tippers!

I have no studies to back this up, but I’ve heard too many anecdotes about some Christians being lousy tippers and that this is a defining characteristic of us for some waitstaff.  C’mon, folks, for people saved by grace we should not be perceived as being stingy.  If you can’t afford to tip properly, don’t go out to eat.  Or eat at McDonald’s.

I heard one horrific story recently about some Christians who went to a restaurant on a Sunday and informed the waitress that they wouldn’t be tipping her because she shouldn’t work on the Sabbath.  That is so hypocritical and horribly wrong theologically it is hard to know where to begin.  Ugh.

Birthmother’s Day celebration

Birthmother’s Day observed by women who gave children up for adoption — one of my sisters-in-law works for Adoption Network Cleveland.  They organized this celebration for birthmothers. 

Another sister-in-law is in the 2nd picture on the linked page hugging her adopted son’s birth mother.  The young lady’s mother and grandmother had died and she lost her college scholarship due to an injury.  The birthfather said he’d leave if she didn’t have an abortion (they leave 90% of the time anyway, but the women don’t know that). 

So against all odds, she had the child and gave him up for adoption.  Praise God for that!  And I have another nephew.  Gotta love that hair!

Christmas Ohio (14)

Sibling rivalry and bad pro-abortion arguments, Part II

Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason uses the term sibling rivalry to describe conflicting arguments used by the same party.

Sometimes objections come in pairs that are logically inconsistent and therefore oppose each other. I call this “sibling rivalry” because they are like children fighting.

For example, those who are quick to object that God isn’t doing enough about evil in the world (“A good God wouldn’t let that happen”) are often equally quick to complain when God puts His foot down (“A loving God would never send anyone to hell”). If He appears indifferent to wickedness, His goodness is challenged. Yet if He acts to punish sin, His love is in question. These objections compete with each other. They are siblings in rivalry. One or the other needs to be surrendered. Both can’t be held simultaneously.

I encountered a second example from a pro-legalized-abortion advocate.  He simultaneously maintained that:

  1. I was trying to force my religious views on other people by maintaining that abortions should be illegal.
  2. Abortion was acceptable according to the Bible given his interpretation of Exodus 21.

It is pretty obvious that his views conflicted: You should not use religious views to influence public policy on abortion and it is acceptable to use religious views to influence public policy on abortion.  It was a transparent attempt to ignore my views while permitting his, all the while demonizing me for supposedly doing a bad thing.

I think both arguments fail badly, as I’ll demonstrate in a moment, but under no circumstances should a pro-choicer use both.

Argument 1 fails because there is no reason someone’s religious views should not inform his political views.  No one seems to object when my religious views on perjury, stealing and murdering atheists align with my religious views.  I think all those things should be against the law.  Oh, yes, and there’s that First Amendment thingy, which protects my religious views.

Also, as usual I was taking great care to use secular reasoning when dealing with secular arguments.  The scientific fact is that abortion kills an innocent human being.  I can point to the immorality of that all day long without opening the Bible.  The other gentleman was the one who brought up the religious bit in an attempt to discredit my views.

Oddly, though, he didn’t realize his inconsistency in using his (mis)reading of Exodus 21 to support his views.  If religious reasoning isn’t fair game to oppose abortion, why is it  allowed to condone abortion?  I pointed out to him that he was just forcing his religious views on the innocent unborn human beings who die during abortions.

I encourage you to watch for this trick whenever pro-abortionists pull the religion card out.  Ask them if they are just as opposed to liberal Christians (such as the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice) who insist that Jesus is OK with abortion.  I’ve yet to find one who objects to that support.  That works on the same-sex union and other debates as well.  Just look for it.

More importantly, the religious pro-abortionists rely on a bad translation to make their case from Exodus 21.  This link is a keeper, as it clearly demonstrates from the original languages why the verse does not support abortion.  Oddly, this fellow never responded to my counter to his Exodus 21 arguments.

Also, it is interesting that these liberal Christians find a passage in Exodus as a foundation for their pro-abortion views, yet they have a generally low view of scripture and ignore the legions of pro-life verses — e.g., Don’t murder, do unto the least of these, love your neighbor, Jesus is the author of life, God knit us together in our mothers’ wombs, etc.  Just flip your bible open just about anywhere and you’ll find some. 

So remember these responses and don’t let them dismiss your views so easily.

The Mercy Project

A terrific website called Girls Gone Wise had a post on CareNet Pregnancy Center’s Mercy Project ministry.

The Mercy Project is the educational outreach component of the CareNet Pregnancy Center of Northwest Houston. In Mercy Project classes, volunteers from the community seek to teach women with crisis pregnancies specific skills needed to become better parents, to learn a healthier lifestyle for themselves and their babies, and gain valuable skills necessary for personal and spiritual growth. Classes are divided into three main areas: pregnancy and baby care, life skills, and relationships.

The Girls Gone Wise group donated books for three classes, but you can help as well.  This is a ministry that everyone should be able to support and encourage.  See the link at their site. 

It costs only $10 US to provide materials for one client, and $250 to sponsor an entire class. God is using this study to impact generations, now, and for eternity.

Sibling rivalry and bad pro-abortion arguments, Part I

Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason uses the term sibling rivalry to describe conflicting arguments used by the same party.

Sometimes objections come in pairs that are logically inconsistent and therefore oppose each other. I call this “sibling rivalry” because they are like children fighting.

For example, those who are quick to object that God isn’t doing enough about evil in the world (“A good God wouldn’t let that happen”) are often equally quick to complain when God puts His foot down (“A loving God would never send anyone to hell”). If He appears indifferent to wickedness, His goodness is challenged. Yet if He acts to punish sin, His love is in question. These objections compete with each other. They are siblings in rivalry. One or the other needs to be surrendered. Both can’t be held simultaneously.

I encountered a recent example from a pro-legalized-abortion advocate.  He simultaneously maintained that:

  1. Making abortion illegal would not reduce abortions and would just result in more women being injured via bad abortions. 
  2. Making abortion illegal would result in fewer abortions and thus more foster children.

I think both arguments are wrong, as I’ll explain shortly, but under no circumstances can he logically advance both arguments at once.  He was insisting that making abortions illegal would both reduce abortions and not reduce abortions.  There is no way both “siblings” can be right.

In assertion 1 he ignored the fact that in the “bad old days” approximately 90% of abortions were performed by doctors.   Only 39 women died in the last year of statistics kept by the CDC (1969, I believe).   He also ignored the increase in abortions after Roe v. Wade. 

He argued that making abortions illegal wouldn’t reduce them, so we shouldn’t bother with laws.  Using that reasoning, of course, we’d drop every law from the books.  After all, making murder, stealing and rape illegal haven’t completely stopped those practices.

In assertion 2 he offered no proof.  I think that if abortions are illegal then people will be less reckless about out of wedlock sex and more likely to keep their children or give them up for adoption.  Perhaps he can offer statistics on how the amount of children in foster care went down dramatically when abortion was legalized.

More interesting to me was his underlying premise that foster children would be better off aborted.  That’s a cheery, Christian outlook!

Deceived and/or deceivers?

It is hard to believe, but some Christians actually think Obama is advancing policies that will reduce abortions.  I am not making this up.  One “Christian” blogger even wrote this gem:

Paying for safe abortions helps make abortions rare.

Uh, sure, and while we’re at it let’s provide free drugs, cigarettes, pornography, guns and more!  That would reduce all sorts of societal ills, eh?  Businesses give away things for free so that people will ultimately buy less of them, right?

And of course, abortions are never safe for one of the human beings involved and not that safe for the woman, either — physically or mentally.

Interestingly, these folks are the first to rationalize away scientific facts such as that a new human life begins at conception and they oppose all or virtually all restrictions on abortion.  They claim that abortions are safe, so why reduce them?  They would be a cost effective method of birth control. 

So at the same time they deny that abortion kills an innocent human being and protect unrestricted access to abortions, they claim to want to reduce them.

They also often claim that if our policies are enacted then there will be more children on welfare (that’s their “better dead than in foster care” mantra), yet they don’t see how that contradicts their claim that outlawing abortions won’t reduce abortions.

So let’s consider how Obama’s plans — some enacted, some to come — “reduce” abortions:

  • Funding for abortions domestically and internationally.  Yeah, paying for more of something and giving it away for free will sure reduce it.  Taxpayers have no “choice” in the matter.  You must fund abortions whether you like it or not.  That example alone should put to rest the lie that he really wants to reduce abortions.
  • Eliminating parental consent laws so public schools can help your kids have serious medical procedures that will destroy your grandchildren, all without your knowledge.  They can do this without your consent and your awareness.  But if you want your child to take an Advil at school for orthodontic pain, be prepared to go to the school with the original bottle and sign some forms.
  • Eliminating the conscience clause, so medical personnel will have to either perform abortions or refer them to where they can be performed.  This proposal is so reprehensible it is hard to believe it is even being discussed.  Again, what happened to “pro-choice?”  It was a myth all along: They are pro-abortion. 
  • Eliminating partial-birth abortion restrictions.
  • Eliminating informed consent and requirements to allow women to see ultrasounds of what they are about to have destroyed.  Pro-abortionists don’t trust women to make fully informed decisions, you see.
  • And more!

Obama & Co. want to reduce abortions about as much as McDonald’s wants to reduce hamburger sales.  To state otherwise is to be deceived and/or a deceiver.  Anyone who perpetuate the lies should be ashamed, especially if they claim to follow Christ.

If they really want to reduce abortions, they should make them illegal and/or volunteer and donate to crisis pregnancy centers.

It’s a Cinderella story, Part I

cinderellaFrom the I am not making this up department, I will be playing the role of Cinderella’s father in the Houston Repertoire Ballet’s production of Cinderella  on May 16-17.  My wife is endlessly amazed that I’m doing this because I’m the guy who doesn’t even like to dress up for Halloween.

My oldest daughter will be playing the title role and my youngest has a big role as the Spring Fairy.  Given that I’m the father of Cinderella in real life, I suppose that means I am uniquely qualified for this role.   How could I say no?

The father role is in the first act.  I basically have to act irritated at my nagging wife and obnoxious step-daughters and then I have a nice one-on-one scene with my daughter.  It is just the two of us interacting and dancing for a couple minutes.  I “tell” her (using hand gestures) that she looks like the picture of her real mother (now deceased), then we have a little dance.  Oh, who am I kidding?  I basically stand there and she dances around me.  It is the only time my character is joyful.  He had a great political job until his first wife died, then he married for money.  Bad idea.

My daughter likes to remind me that my character is a pretty lousy dad.  He buys dresses for his step-daughters but not for Cinderella.  Apparently he dies between Act I and Act III because he is nowhere to be found when the Prince arrives with the shoe and then marries her.

I was surprised to find out that I’m in the second act ballroom scene as well, but this time as a different character.  There are six couples doing ballroom moves throughout the act. 

The show is coming together very nicely, with lots of good dancing, acting and humor.  The artistic director and the dancers are so talented and hardworking, and rehearsals are a lot of fun.  It is nice distraction from my day job. 

This will be a lot more challenging than the Nutcracker “Party Dad” gig I’ve done four times.  We won’t have three dozen other people on stage with us and I can’t just blend in.

Dates & times

  • Sat. 5/16/2009 at 2:00 PM
  • Sat. 5/16/2009 at 7:30 PM
  • Sun. 5/17/2009 at 3:00 PM

If you are interested you can order tickets here

It’s a Cinderella story, Part II


Hey friends and family in NW Houston — I’m re-running this as a reminder that the shows are May 16-17 and some good seats are still available.  It is your best local fine arts value.  I’ll have pictures and a little video from dress rehearsal up next week.  It is looking good!


I’m enjoying listening to Steven Curtis Chapman’s song Cinderella.  It is fun to play on the guitar as well.  It was popular on Christian radio and again when the daughter he wrote about was killed in a horrible accident. 

I have to confess that I changed the station the first time I heard this song.  Not that it was bad, just that I wasn’t in the mood for that kind of song.  I’m the guy who thought the DJ was being sarcastic when she went on and on about how great she thought the “Christmas Shoes” song was (turns out she was serious).  I’m not without sentiment, but it isn’t my first reaction.

But my wife pointed out just how much this song applies to us.  My oldest is currently Cinderella both literally (in the ballet) and figuratively (about to leave home as the “clock strikes midnight”).  And I’ll be dancing with her onstage!  (See Part I.)  She is ready to be on her own at college and dancing.  In fact, she’s been mature enough for some time. 

I love the song’s theme that we need to make time for our kids.  I frequently tell my employees and anyone else who will listen that while delivering results at work is very important, all our money and all our success can’t buy our kids a second childhood.  I’ve made my share of parenting mistakes and could use some do-overs, but one thing I’ve been very intentional about from day one is being there for them.  It isn’t like I never worked late, but I was very disciplined about getting out of work at a reasonable and predictable time, especially when they were younger.  Now they are so busy with dance that it is pretty easy to be surgical and schedule volunteer and other activities while they are in classes.

Here are some of the lyrics (see the YouTube post below if you want to hear it).  The picture in the slideshow above of her in the pink outfit reminds me of the first part of the song (more pictures to come, of course!). 

She spins and she sways to whatever song plays, without a care in the world.

. . .

So I’ll dance with Cinderella, while she is here in my arms.

‘Cause I know something the Prince never knew.

Oh I’ll dance with Cinderella, I don’t want to miss even one song.

‘Cause all too soon the clock will strike midnight, and she’ll be gone.

So I get to dance with Cinderella right before the “clock strikes midnight!”  God is so very, very good.

Just for the record, one part of the song that does not apply to us is where the girl goes to her Dad to practice dancing.  Let’s just say that conversations about dance tips are one-way streets in my house, and it doesn’t start with me!

All the sentiments apply to my younger daughter as well!

Here’s the video and the story behind the song. 

Dates & times for the Houston Repertoire Ballet presentation of Cinderella:

  • Sat. 5/16/2009 at 2:00 PM
  • Sat. 5/16/2009 at 7:30 PM
  • Sun. 5/17/2009 at 3:00 PM

If you are interested you can order tickets here.

Roundup — UPDATED

Will someone please explain why the WordPress spell check feature doesn’t recognize the word blog, not to mention the word WordPress?  Just kidding.  I love  WordPress.

Mom Loves Being At Home has a lot of posts on home schooling that offer great advice and address many of the myths surrounding it.  We’re excited that our youngest will be home schooling her last two years.

Oprah’s fact-free assertions about the alleged growing new trend of women abandoning relationships with men to go with women.  Someone should tell her that these anecdotes sure get in the way of the “born that way” canard. 

It is possible that the rate is increasing, but that would just prove out Romans 1 that much more:

Romans 1:26-28 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

Did Obama snub Christians over the National Day of Prayer celebration?  Who cares?!  Whether it was a snub or not, Christians should not complain about such a thing. Just spend the time praying some more.  I am glad anytime the clear distinction is made between authentic, biblical Christianity and whatever it is that Obama & Co. believe.

UPDATE: Apparently there is some confusion about the next article. DJBA has some insights that address the legal language.  My apologies if the source was not accurate.  They are usually quite reliable.  Of course, at least I didn’t get the information from Wikipedia and then fail to correct it like the MSM does ;-).

More importantly, I think the Dems lose either way on this.  

The act of pedophilia is a crime, but is the orientation towards pedophilia a crime? If someone hates pedophiles — whether they are practicing pedophiles or not — and beats them up because of it, it that a lesser crime than beating up someone who happens to be gay? (whether or not you knew he was gay)

I’m pretty sure that if the pedophiles had a lobby as well funded as the gays they could convince you populace that they were “born that way” and that is was an orientation.

Hate crime protection for pedophiles! —  Part of the problem with superfluous legislation like this, which is primarily driven to silence free speech and the authentic church, is that you have to be very precise about what is included and what is excluded.  And by favoring sexual perversions that Democrats like, they are, by default, saying it is legally acceptable to hate people with less favored perversions.   But if you provide extra protections for all the perversions then you look like a real freak.  Wait a minute, now this is starting to make sense!

And having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words. The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) … it could include Urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they’ve committed a misdemeanor, you’ve committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong.


Who are these people? Good is evil and evil is good. Good luck with that super majority, America.

Important job hunting tips

Some excellent job-hunting tips from The Ladder.  No, I’m not looking.  I’m quite happy where I am, but I like to keep up on the market and thought that others might benefit from these.

 1. Computers can’t read – here’s how to make your resume computer–friendly.
2. Age discrimination – it exists. Now what are we going to do about it?
3. The taxman cometh, your job goeth. How to make the job hunt tax-efficient.
4. Dude, lose the sweatpants while you’re unemployed, OK?
5. What you absolutely must know about headhunters.
6. “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!” – how to stop job–loss anger from stopping you.
7. What naughty things are your future employers reading about you right now?
8. Yes, tie clips are out of style – try not to look like you’re past the expiration date, OK?
9. Job Hunt 101 – you think you know this stuff. You don’t. Please read.
10. Who moved my industry? What do you do when your industry evaporates?

Which is more disgusting?

I linked to these abortion images in a comment at the blog of pro-abortion Christian who insists that he loves science but repeatedly denies the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception.  He had told me to “think compassioniately,” so I pointed him to that excellent pro-life site and questioned his compassion.

His response:

That’s pretty disgusting Neil. Really.

My response back to him:

Why is it disgusting? I mean, I think it is disgusting viewing the remains of crushed and dismembered human beings. But for those who insist that it wasn’t a human being who was destroyed, it isn’t any more gross than your random episode of House.

We should use caution when showing images, but there is no reason they should not be part of the debate.  After all, what could be more relevant than an image of what is being discussed?  People have been in denial far too long about what abortion really does. 

So which is more disgusting: Images of abortions or the abortions themselves? 

The other blogger thinks it is the images.  I think it is the abortions.