Ran into this recently.
The Trust Birth Initiative:
"What We Believe...
The decisions that women make concerning their birth should be based on the truth rather than fears and misconceptions.
Every woman deserves the right to hear the truth about birth.
Women know how to give birth. They may not realize that they do, but they do.
Birth is a natural function of life.
Our bodies were designed to give birth just as they were designed to conceive and grow a baby. Our bodies know how to finish what they began.
Birth should not be a time in a woman’s life when she has to FIGHT for anything.
Birth should not be a battlefield.
Birth is not normally a medical event and rarely needs any medical interference.
Birth belongs to women and not to their birth attendant.
We don’t want to promote any birth attendant as being more essential to the process than the woman giving birth.
We don’t want to promote any place as being safer for birth than the woman’s home.
We don’t lie to women about what may or may not happen if they follow a formula or a plan.
If supporting a woman’s choices is really our goal then we have to tell her the truth about the limitation of her choices once she enters a hospital.
We tell the truth: Interference with birth starts the minute she
leaves her home and the minute she is in the hospital she is no longer in charge.
Hospitals offer no measure of safety for birth for the average woman and, in fact, increase the chances of many potential complications.
The Trust Birth Initiative is not ANTI-hospital as much as we are pro-TRUTH.
Interfering with birth increases risks regardless of where the birth takes place.
Women and their babies are being abused in the name of “safety.”
There are too many surgical births, too many epidurals, too many episiotomies, too many inductions, too much monitoring and managing.
Women are being scared and bullied and manipulated.
Women are being robbed experience of giving birth; babies are being robbed of a peaceful environment in which to be born.
We support a woman’s right to choose to birth at home with any attendant or no attendant.
Trust Birth Facilitators are not concerned with being politically correct; there is no middle of the
road rhetoric. We only tell the truth.
Natural and normal is not the same as easy and painless and we acknowledge that there is pain for almost every woman, but we know that women live through the pain.
The pain of childbirth is not without purpose and chemical means of avoiding the pain of childbirth holds many potential risks for the baby and the birth process.
We also acknowledge that birth is not always without risk, but we believe that life is not without risk. There are a lot of things more risky than birth.
Birth is not the act of rescuing a baby or a mother from death, yet that is the prevalent attitude about birth.
Mothers are not the enemy of their babies and babies are not going to destroy their mothers in birth.
Mothers and babies are symbiotic units, and if left alone, would know what to do.
Parents are qualified to become informed about their choices and can make the decision to make all the decisions.
We encourage women to stop giving their authority away and recognize that they are their own authority -- Midwives, doulas, doctors, childbirth educators are paid consultants.
Too many women have been told too many lies.
Too many women have lost something they don’t even know they had.
We want to tell the truth and tell the truth and tell the truth
until women find it in themselves again."
©Copyright Trust Birth Initiative/Carla Hartley 2005. doc 1
So here is the exchange I had with my son after their mock election at school today...
Michael: "Mommy, only 2 people in our class voted for Obama...Deon and Jalen." (the other 2 black children in his class)
Me: "Really? Wow. Only 2? Did you guys talk about how you chose who you were voting for?"
Michael: "Yea, I asked them why they voted for Obama, and they wanted to know why I didn't vote for him."
Me: "Well, what did they say?"
Michael: "Because he is black."
Wonder what woulda happened if one of the white kids said "Because he's white." Hmmm...
An article I agree with almost completely. It's kinda long, but a great read!
A Principle Based Manifesto on Voting for Social Conservatives
By John Stemberger
Since I cast my first rather misguided vote in 1980, I have given much thought and consideration toward developing a principle based grid for political decision making. What are the moral "first principles" to consider when deciding who to vote for and why? These points below represent an attempt to develop a principled approach for social conservatives exercising active citizenship as we choose and support candidates.
1) The pro-life issue is not merely a single issue-it is a disqualification issue.
As a movement, social conservatives have and will continue to have influence only if we are willing to draw an "ethical line in the sand" over certain core moral principles. The single most important such principle is the protection of human life from conception to natural death. From the destruction of human embryos, to killing people because they are old or disabled, pro-life issues represent the most fundamental of all human rights issues. Many have accused pro-lifers of being "single issue" voters. However, the pro-life issue is not merely a single issue, it is a disqualification issue-and one which goes to the core of human dignity and respect. So-called "pro-choice" candidates in essence argue that unborn children and other unwanted human beings should be denied full legal protection as persons under our constitution. This disqualifies them from holding public office. Whether rich or poor, young or old, handicapped or whole, born and unborn, all human life is made in the image and likeness of God and is therefore worthy of legal protection. If we are ever going to roll back the tide of these human atrocities, then we must be firm in our resolve to reject candidates who refuse to support this timeless and controlling principle. This is a hill we must be willing to die upon.
2) We should not vote for candidates based upon where they stand in the polls.
Everyone wants to support a winner and no one wants to be with a loser. This may represent worldly wisdom but certainly not eternal truth. We are governed not by polls, politics nor profits-but by principle. Poll based voting is probably the single most insidious deception we can fall into as a movement. It is unprincipled to the core and a misguided way to engage in political decision making. The insatiable desire to be popular, to be an insider, and to be a winner for the sake of personal or political gain must be resisted with all our might if we are going to be people of integrity who have a sustained and lasting impact upon the process. On the other hand, throwing your vote away for totally long shot candidates can keep good viable candidates from getting elected, so we need to be both wise and strategic. While I do believe that electability and political viability can be legitimate factors to consider, these are not the type of first principles which should guide our initial or final political choices.
3) Character matters-a lot! Modern American political history screams the truth that "character matters"-a lot!
Even candidates that seem to be very committed to social conservative issues can still be very bad choices if they lack basic character. Temper tantrums, arrogance, dishonesty, poor judgment, ethical compromise, disloyalty, undisciplined lifestyles, financial mismanagement, rampant immorality and broken promises are all red flags that should be considered in deciding upon a candidate. And unless you know a candidate personally or know someone who knows the candidates you may never know the truth about a person's character and lifestyle. Having good character is critical and without it, an elected official can easily turn into an embarrassing disaster in no time.
4) We are not electing pastors or priests; we are choosing civil government officials.
While character matters quite a bit, we must also remember that we are not electing pastors or priests-we are choosing civil government leaders. Personal immorality in the lives of our political leaders is an unfortunate but common reality. Affairs, divorce, alcohol and drug abuse, gambling and other manner of vice all present a question about how we should evaluate such behavior. While we must stand for righteousness, we must also guard against our own self-righteousness in evaluating others. Truth be told, there was only one perfect man and we crucified Him over 2000 years ago. While it would be preferable to have men and woman in public office whose personal lives are required to be "above reproach," like pastors, this is often not an option in our fallen world. A working principle to consider is that we should be more willing to forgive personal indiscretions and immorality that occurred in the long ago past than those transgressions that occurred recently. Time and retrospection offer the greatest opportunity for real contrition and conversion. Was this matter a mistake? An isolated moral failure? Or was it a pattern of long-standing bad behavior?
5) Realize that elections present both clear choices and mixed choices.
In some election years candidates stand in stark and clear contrast on the issues and the choice is easy. However, it becomes more difficult when there is a mixture of good and bad factors to weigh. We live in an imperfect and fallen world and so we are often presented with a sort of choice-of-evils problem. This can be frustrating because many of us understand and want to clearly see right from wrong in the world. Yet, competing strengths and weaknesses can be difficult to weigh when there is no clear moral answer to the question, "who is the best"? Political candidates can hide, lie, misrepresent, and manipulate their past record or present views. However, usually with enough good information, it is possible to determine which of the candidates presents the "lesser of the evils." Staying home and shirking your most important civic duty should never be an option. Do the best you can and engage in the process as an active citizen.
6) "Professions of principle" are more important than "professions of faith".
This can be a controversial point for some, but I have found this principle to be true over and over again. If I hire a plumber to fix a leak, I am not primarily concerned whether he claims to be a Christian, whether his faith is genuine or whether his theology is accurate. I am primarily interested in whether he can get the job done-and done correctly by the manufacturer's standards. I would argue the same is true for elected officials. Today it can be "cool to be Christian" and many public officials make professions of faith or church membership. However, we should be more concerned with where candidates stand on issues then where they go to church. The 1980 race between Carter and Reagan clearly highlights this principle. From all external standards, Carter was a "better Christian." Reagan however, was the candidate that stood for Biblically based values in his social policies. It is clear that true faith can and should have a dramatic effect upon a person's worldview. But a mere expression of faith is not as important as a demonstrated record of commitment to the values that should flow from faith.
7) A candidate's past voting record is much more important than any recently announced commitment to policy positions.
One of the greatest challenges in political decision making is getting accurate and truthful information. Politicians can be very slippery and difficult to pin down as many try and please everyone and play to both sides. Even more difficult is a candidate who makes an election year conversion to conservative values after having a history of being moderate or liberal. How can we judge sincerity? Is this just political expedience? We can not judge a man's motive or his heart, but we can judge his words and actions. And when evaluating candidates, past voting records are much more accurate indicators of what type of leader they will be than any recently announced commitments for the future. Apart from a genuine Christian conversion or a major life changing event, seasoned politicians rarely develop deep convictions that are different from what they have displayed and acted out earlier in their careers.
8) Resist the temptation to vote your pocket book over principle.
Of all the principles, this is probably the most important and also the easiest to violate and then try to rationalize the violation. In the world of politics, decisions can affect the amount of profit made by various industries, professions and businesses. Profits can potentially stand to either be enhanced or limited by such matters as insurance rates, tort reform, taxes, regulatory issues, and government subsidies. So many people sadly support candidates solely based upon how their own personal business or industry will be affected. I have spent most of my life voting for candidates that regularly oppose my economic interest as an attorney. I don't like this and I do not agree with it from a policy standpoint. But my commitment to principle on moral issues is greater than my commitment to maximizing profit. Economic and business issues are important and should be debated vigorously. But social and moral issues are paramount because they define us as a people and guide our destiny as a culture. The Bible says that "the love of money is the root of all evil." And when we place our own personal profit before principles which are in pursuit of the common good, we engage in some of the most idolatrous compromise possible. We must pledge our allegiance to God and His truth alone, and trust in Him to provide for our businesses and for our families.
John Stemberger is an attorney in Orlando, Florida and a student of politics, theology and philosophy. He was Political Director of the Republican Party of Florida in 1992-93 and currently s erves as the President & General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council.
"You can't have your cake and eat it too."
I hate this expression, it's always bugged me. I mean, what in the world is the point in having a slice of cake if you can't eat it?
It would just get thrown in the trash or sit on the table getting stale and moldy.
And there are times when you expect to have cake AND you expect to eat it! Like at your wedding, for example, or your birthday or 25th anniversary party. In those situations, it would be just plain wierd NOT to have your cake and eat it too!
Every time I hear someone use this expression, I can picture that person sitting at a table with a slice of cake in front of them, staring at it, but not allowed to eat it. It's kinda funny.
It's like getting a new car and not being allowed to drive it. "He just wants to have his car and drive it too!"
1 - My husband got orders to San Diego. These are 'real' orders this time. Apparently, the Japan orders were not orders at all. He told me that's where he was being sent because the Navy sent him papers for medical and security work-ups...and this "usually" means you're going overseas. Well, not this time.
My confusion may also be contributed to the fact that my husband has such wonderful communication skills...lol
He will be stationed at North Island, which is where Coronado is.
He must report by April 10, 2009.
2 - The kiddos and I have had a stomach bug since last Tues. I think we are better now, but still don't have much of an appetite.
3 - Despite not feeling well, we went to my parents last weekend. Got to hear Curtis Pope preach while we were there. Of course, he stayed at my parents house (as did I)and that was just wierd...I mean, my old teacher from FC staying in my old bedroom...wierd. I did get a break, though. Since the big kids hadn't been sick, they had sleepovers with their cousins for the weekend. So it was just Eva and me...nice break!:)
4 - The best news from this weekend is that an old friend of my brother's (and mine, too) is back in town and was at the meeting all weekend. He's been in some trouble, but came back and is working with my little brother and getting back on the right track.
I learned this weekend that he's been coming every week with Adam to church and Adam is studying with him. I'm so glad for Joe. He was always my favorite of Adam's friends.
It also makes me realize how fortunate I am to have the parents I have. I was right there with Joe getting in trouble when we were younger, but it didn't take me quite as long to get out of it. And I attribute that to having my parents. And I appreciate Joe that much more because despite his upbringing, he is having the courage to change his life. Please pray for him.
And did I mention how proud I am of my brother??? After virtually no contact with Joe for several years, he came to my brother to help get his life right and to seek out God. I think that says a lot about Adam. Don't you?
(*sorry, big sister bragging on little brother*)