Abortion & the Creation of Democrats

This is a very interesting take on why people have devolved into such vehement opposition and downright hysteria in response to Trump’s presidency.  As usual, there are many things at play here, but this is a factor I hadn’t thought through this explicitly.  I’ve thought of all these adults being made by divorce and broken homes or single mothers or abuse into the shrieking, unreasoning, emotional wrecks that they are.  All factors, I’m sure.  But this article from Crisis, Aborting a Presidency, ties in complicated, unresolved and denied grief from personal abortions or complicity in abortions (or both) to these hyper-liberal democrats of today and their excessive reactions, projections and anger.  Anger and blaming is, of course, much more comfortable than pain and guilt.  This too makes sense.  It’s worth a read.

Author and political scientist Darrell West is deeply concerned about the current climate in the United States. “Societal tensions have metastasized into a dangerous tribalism that seriously threatens U.S. democracy,” he warns. “Unless people can bridge these divisions and forge a new path forward, it will be impossible to work together, maintain a functioning democracy, and solve the country’s pressing policy problems.”

The impeachment of President Trump reveals that our two political parties have devolved into a state of war. Representative Adam Schiff and many of his fellow Democrats are filled with such loathing and hatred for Trump that they were willing to invest considerable taxpayer money and political capital to destroy his presidency.

How did we get here?

There are many factors that have contributed to this toxic situation. Perhaps the most powerful force feeding the frenzy to remove President Trump is a national trauma that has impacted our nation and its citizens.


After 45 years of legalized abortion in the U.S., and close to 60 million procedures, there are few families that have not been directly impacted by the loss of a son or daughter, grandchild, sibling, nephew, or niece.

Millions of our fellow citizens have been complicit in the death of children in the womb—e.g., paid for the procedure, pressured or encouraged someone to have an abortion, or driven a friend to the abortion center.

Thousands of medical and mental health professionals, educators, and politicians have directly participated in the death of the unborn.

This is a shared national trauma. (Continue Reading Here)

James Younger, “Designer Kids,” and Adoptive Parents

If you’ve been following the recent news story about little James Younger (in pieces like this and this from LifeSiteNews), you may have recently learned that James and his twin brother Jude were conceived via donor eggs.  James’ “mother” isn’t his biological mother. (Why she was given exclusive control over this kid’s medical decisions and primary custody makes no sense.  The father is at least the biological father.)

Here is a piece from the Federalist about how this might matter: Why It’s Probably Not A Coincidence That The Mother Transing Her 7-Year-Old Isn’t Biologically Related

It’s worth a read.

I ran across this article because Lila Rose, founder of pro-life group Live Action, had shared it.  It’s conclusions are unsurprising.  I’ve read plenty already about how children who grow up in ANY family configuration other than two married biological parents don’t do as well in many areas of life, this has included how donor and in vitro conceived children grow up feeling unsettled, if not actually unhappy about how they came to be — even feeling this way if they weren’t told as kids about it.  When I read that James Younger’s “mother” wasn’t really his biological mother, I thought: Aha, that explains some of this!  He has always just been a product, a “commodity” to please her from the beginning.  She paid for him after all; doesn’t she “own” him?  Doesn’t she have a “right” to get what she wants — which in this case is a girl or maybe she really wants a trans-kid because then she’d be the wokest pediatrician ever?

What did surprise me was the backlash of adoptive mothers against this article.  Many left comments criticizing the article and/or Lila Rose for posting it.  The comments can be summarized as this: But I’m an adoptive mother and I love my child just as much if not more than most biological parents!  Some bio parents are bad parents!  How can you say this?  It’s trashing adoptive parents and pitting bio and adoptive parents against each other!  I thought you were pro-adoption!

Good grief, people, it’s not about you! Maybe this is a just a symptom of how self-centered and excessively sensitive people have become.  The article is quite clearly NOT knocking adoption.  Selfishly creating children through any means necessary to please yourself is not the same as adopting a child who, through no fault of their own (the child’s or the adoptive parents’), ended up without a set of loving biological parents.

One conclusion of the article can be summarized thus: “biological parents are normally the best parents.”  That doesn’t mean they always are or that non-bio parents never are.  It means just what it says: normally — as in most of the time, in most situations.

Knowing a few adoptive parents, I know that it can be hard.  Children, even when adopted very young, can have a host of attachment and adjustment problems.  And later in life it’s no easy thing to come to terms with the fact that your own biological parents did not want you — no matter how much you love your current “real” adoptive family or appreciate that at least your parents gave you life and may have been trying to do their best for you (in the best case scenario).

It’s not the kids’ fault.  It’s not the adoptive parents’ fault.  But it’s going to be harder and the kid is more likely to struggle in life.  But it’s a whole lot better than living in an orphanage without a loving surrogate family.  It doesn’t have to be a perfect life to be a good life.  We can acknowledge that and still have plenty of struggles to work through.  Life is often not ideal and we have to make the most of it and do the best we can to fix or compensate for messy circumstances and not having the perfect settings.  But that doesn’t mean we need to run around creating bad circumstances to begin with — like these poor “designer” kids who will never have the best situation for them: living with their own, two biological parents.

These adoptive mothers who are freaking out about an article not about them need to stop being so insecure (although maybe that’s part of the problem with adoption — you don’t feel as secure as a bio family).  Do you love your kids with all your heart?  Would you do anything for them?  Great!  Carry on.  No one’s criticizing you personally when they point out statistics that kids do best with their biological parents.  I’m pretty sure that deep down you know that your kids would have done the best with biological parents who were stable and loving enough to have kept them.

The “Mania” of Transgenderism

I recently read an interesting article, The Cracks in the Edifice of Transgender Totalitarianism, which gives a lengthy and thorough look at Transgender ideology and the movement from beginning to now.

When reading it the names of Drs. Benjamin and Money, the doctors who were involved in pioneering “sex reassignment surgery” at John’s Hopkins, stood out to me.  They were familiar.  After a quick search, I remembered why I recognized them: they were mentioned in the book about David Reimer, As Nature Made Him, that I read years ago detailing the life of this twin boy who was raised as a girl after a circumcision accident, only to completely reject “being a girl” and revert to living as a male in his teens (sadly, later David committed suicide, unable to cope with the psychological damage done to him as a child).  Dr. Money is every bit as much a sicko as one might imagine and destroyed the lives of David and his twin brother through his “therapy.” You can read a brief overview of David’s life here or here.  Honestly, I’m surprised these accounts haven’t been scrubbed from the internet.  But apparently people are really dumb.  I read one review of the book on Amazon praising the book and saying people should be encouraged to explore their own gender.  The story of David Reimer is a very clear argument for the unchanging nature of biological sex and the tragic consequences of trying to alter it.

The Cracks in the Edifice of Transgender Totalitarianism is worth a read:

“What we live through, in any age, is the effect on us of mass emotions and of social conditions from which it is almost impossible to detach ourselves. Often the mass emotions are those which seem the noblest, best and most beautiful. And yet, inside a year, five years, a decade, five decades, people will be asking, ‘How could they have believed that?’ because events will have taken place that will have banished the said mass emotions to the dustbin of history.”

–Doris Lessing, Prisons We Choose to Live Inside (1987)

The epidemic of supposed gender dysphoria among children and adolescents—“transgenderism”—has often been described as a cult. The designation is in some ways apt. Though lacking a charismatic leader usually found in such movements, other expert descriptions of cults certainly apply: “designed to destabilize an individual’s sense of self by undermining his or her basic consciousness, reality awareness, beliefs and worldview, [and] emotional control.” Cults also lead the target to believe that “anxiety, uncertainty, and self-doubt can be reduced by adopting the concepts put forth by the group.” The promise is a “new identity” that will solve all problems, even as it separates one from family and previous life.

This is especially true in cases of so-called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, in which previously normal teenagers (usually girls) suddenly announce their desire to transition to the opposite sex. It is readily apparent how a teenager struggling with severe or even common adolescent angst could be lured into such a group.

Perhaps transgenderism is better described as a form of “social contagion.” This term refers to “the spread of ideas, feelings and, some think, neuroses through a community or group by suggestion, gossip, imitation, etc.” The explosion of cases of gender dysphoria, previously an exceedingly rare condition, over the last few years has coincided with a meteoric increase in sympathetic attention to the topic in regular and social media—thus suggesting social contagion. Parents whose children “come out” as transgender when their friends do certainly agree with this explanation.

Individuals who have been ensnared in but escaped from the transgender movement describe it as an ideology, with elements of both the political and the religious. The devotion to the ideology is so deep that, as one psychiatrist describes the mindset, “[a]nyone who hesitates in supporting transition and [sex-reassignment surgery] is a dinosaur committed to an outgrown, inherently discriminatory understanding of trans persons and needs to be defeated in court or in the public arena.”

And yet these descriptions—cult, social contagion, ideology—fail to capture the uniqueness and enormity of what is happening with the transgender movement. Past and current cults have seduced their victims into losing all sense of reality and embracing bizarre and dangerous beliefs; social contagions and mass crazes have affected large groups of seemingly intelligent individuals; ideologies have taken hold that have altered societies and cost lives. But now we are facing something different.

Read the rest here

Is Lack of Sun Exposure Worse for Us Than We Thought?

This article is interesting:  Is Sunscreen the New Margarine?

If there was one supplement that seemed sure to survive the rigorous tests, it was vitamin D. People with low levels of vitamin D in their blood have significantly higher rates of virtually every disease and disorder you can think of: cancer, diabetes, obesity, osteoporosis, heart attack, stroke, depression, cognitive impairment, autoimmune conditions, and more. The vitamin is required for calcium absorption and is thus essential for bone health, but as evidence mounted that lower levels of vitamin D were associated with so many diseases, health experts began suspecting that it was involved in many other biological processes as well.

And they believed that most of us weren’t getting enough of it. This made sense. Vitamin D is a hormone manufactured by the skin with the help of sunlight. It’s difficult to obtain in sufficient quantities through diet. When our ancestors lived outdoors in tropical regions and ran around half naked, this wasn’t a problem. We produced all the vitamin D we needed from the sun.

But today most of us have indoor jobs, and when we do go outside, we’ve been taught to protect ourselves from dangerous UV rays, which can cause skin cancer. Sunscreen also blocks our skin from making vitamin D, but that’s OK, says the American Academy of Dermatology, which takes a zero-tolerance stance on sun exposure: “You need to protect your skin from the sun every day, even when it’s cloudy,” it advises on its website. Better to slather on sunblock, we’ve all been told, and compensate with vitamin D pills.

Yet vitamin D supplementation has failed spectacularly in clinical trials. Five years ago, researchers were already warning that it showed zero benefit, and the evidence has only grown stronger. In November, one of the largest and most rigorous trials of the vitamin ever conducted—in which 25,871 participants received high doses for five years—found no impact on cancer, heart disease, or stroke.

How did we get it so wrong? How could people with low vitamin D levels clearly suffer higher rates of so many diseases and yet not be helped by supplementation?

As it turns out, a rogue band of researchers has had an explanation all along. And if they’re right, it means that once again we have been epically misled.

These rebels argue that what made the people with high vitamin D levels so healthy was not the vitamin itself. That was just a marker. Their vitamin D levels were high because they were getting plenty of exposure to the thing that was really responsible for their good health—that big orange ball shining down from above.


Am I willing to entertain the notion that current guidelines are inadvertently advocating a lifestyle that is killing us?

I am, because it’s happened before.

In the 1970s, as nutritionists began to see signs that people whose diets were high in saturated fat and cholesterol also had high rates of cardiovascular disease, they told us to avoid butter and choose margarine, which is made by bubbling hydrogen gas through vegetable oils to turn them into solid trans fats.

From its inception in the mid-1800s, margarine had always been considered creepers, a freakish substitute for people who couldn’t afford real butter. By the late 1800s, several midwestern dairy states had banned it outright, while others, including Vermont and New Hampshire, passed laws requiring that it be dyed pink so it could never pass itself off as butter. Yet somehow margarine became the thing we spread on toast for decades, a reminder that even the weirdest product can become mainstream with enough industry muscle.

Eventually, better science revealed that the trans fats created by the hydrogenation process were far worse for our arteries than the natural fats in butter. In 1994, Harvard researchers estimated that 30,000 people per year were dying unnecessarily thanks to trans fats. Yet they weren’t banned in the U.S. until 2015.

Might the same dynamic be playing out with sunscreen, which was also remarkably sketchy in its early days?

Read the rest HERE

New Documentary About Africa

African pro-life leaders are putting out a new documentary about Africa and aid from the Western World and how it comes with “Strings Attached” in the form of pushing “progressive” Western ideas and ideology about “reproductive health” (i.e. contraception and abortion) and the harm it causes African nations and peoples.

Here’s the trailer: