I was just rereading my Bible and I got to page two. God writes we are to reproduce after our kind. What is the result? With all the white meat we produce for KFC and others, the fact is all chicken eggs produce chickens. I’m sure the evolutionists would have publicly announced if there had been even one throwback to a dinosaur kind. Thus, with my BS in Zoology and as a Bible student and since I am a person, both of my children have been persons from the egg. I don’t have to get past the supreme court to enter Heaven.
I was at the founding of the Personhood movement in Michigan with Calvin Zastrow and others in 2005. I have since left it and promote the anti-murder position. Murder is the word I think God uses for the unauthorized separation of a person’s soul from its body. I don’t know of anybody who can improve on my omniscient God’s word, murder. It covers all situations: knifing, shooting, aborting, throttling, poisoning, etc.
WHO IS A PERSON
September 20th, 2011The “You’re a Man” Fallacy, Posted by Tony-Allen. In abortion argumentation, a common attack against critics who are male is, “You’re a man, you can’t get pregnant, so you don’t have a right to talk about it.” Let’s take a moment just to review why this argument simply doesn’t work. 1) It’s an ad hominem, plain and simple. An ad hominem is often believed to just be an insult (like “You’re stupid!”), but actually the Latin phrase itself means against the man. It refers to an argument that attacks a personal trait of someone giving the argument, rather than the argument itself. In this case, the response is not to the argument the man is making, merely the fact he is a man. It is therefore, at its very nature, a fallacious argument. Let me put it this way: suppose I had a physical, and the female doctor inspecting me told me that it seemed I had testicular cancer, and that I should get treated or I might lose them. Would it make any sense to tell her, “Don’t tell me what to do! You’re a woman, you don’t know what it’s like to have testicles!” Of course not. I’m not responding to her arguments or any of her points – I’m just stating that she’s a woman, as if that ends all discussion or completely negates what she just said. 2) It’s inconsistent with other argumentation. If a white person said, “I think the Jim Crow laws were wrong,” would anyone stand up and say, “You can’t comment! You’re white!” Probably not. Likewise, one has to wonder if in a scenario a man supported abortion, how many pro-abortion people would jump up and say, “You can’t say you support abortion! You’re a man!” Probably none. Yet if you’re going to make a kind of argumentation about one subject, you have to be consistent across the board. The presents a good reason why this form of ad hominem is so fallacious: a moral or ethical question is not bound by the personal traits of the person giving it. A person does not have to be Jewish to say the Holocaust was wrong. A person does not have to be black to say the Jim Crow laws were wrong. A person does not have to have to be a kid to know child abuse is wrong. A person does not have to have lived under a dictator to know tyranny is wrong. Likewise, a person does not have to be a woman to say abortion is wrong. 3) It’s not carried to its logical conclusion. Let’s say, for the sake of argumentation, that a man can’t comment on abortion because he’s a man and can never be pregnant. Who, then, can? If we say those who can get pregnant (ie., women), let’s take that a step further. A woman who has never been pregnant could not comment, because she has not shared in all the emotional and physical experiences that come with that, therefore women who have never been pregnant cannot comment. Furthermore, a woman who was pregnant and had an abortion did not experience childbirth and all the positives and negatives that went with it, therefore she cannot give a valid opinion based on experiences. Even then, one would have to go through child rearing, raising a child through infancy, the teenage years, and through college to see if any one can go through that. Therefore, the only people who can ever comment on abortion are women who have had actual pregnancies, given birth to children and then raised those children through adulthood. That would not only take out a good chunk of pro-life advocates, but a good number of pro-abortion advocates as well. Sadly, I don’t think many pro-abortion advocates would follow this logic quite this far.
September 9th, 2011In abortion argumentation, a common attack against critics who are male is, “You’re a man, you can’t get pregnant, so you don’t have a right to talk about it.” Let’s take a moment just to review why this argument simply doesn’t work.
1) It’s an ad hominem, plain and simple.
An ad hominem is often believed to just be an insult (like “You’re stupid!”), but actually the Latin phrase itself means against the man. It refers to an argument that attacks a personal trait of someone giving the argument, rather than the argument itself. In this case, the response is not to the argument the man is making, merely the fact he is a man. It is therefore, at its very nature, a fallacious argument.
Let me put it this way: suppose I had a physical, and the female doctor inspecting me told me that it seemed I had testicular cancer, and that I should get treated or I might lose them. Would it make any sense to tell her, “Don’t tell me what to do! You’re a woman, you don’t know what it’s like to have testicles!” Of course not. I’m not responding to her arguments or any of her points – I’m just stating that she’s a woman, as if that ends all discussion or completely negates what she just said.
2) It’s inconsistent with other argumentation.
If a white person said, “I think the Jim Crow laws were wrong,” would anyone stand up and say, “You can’t comment! You’re white!” Probably not. Likewise, one has to wonder if in a scenario a man supported abortion, how many pro-abortion people would jump up and say, “You can’t say you support abortion! You’re a man!” Probably none. Yet if you’re going to make a kind of argumentation about one subject, you have to be consistent across the board.
The presents a good reason why this form of ad hominem is so fallacious: a moral or ethical question is not bound by the personal traits of the person giving it. A person does not have to be Jewish to say the Holocaust was wrong. A person does not have to be black to say the Jim Crow laws were wrong. A person does not have to have to be a kid to know child abuse is wrong. A person does not have to have lived under a dictator to know tyranny is wrong. Likewise, a person does not have to be a woman to say abortion is wrong.
3) It’s not carried to its logical conclusion.
Let’s say, for the sake of argumentation, that a man can’t comment on abortion because he’s a man and can never be pregnant. Who, then, can? If we say those who can get pregnant (ie., women), let’s take that a step further. A woman who has never been pregnant could not comment, because she has not shared in all the emotional and physical experiences that come with that, therefore women who have never been pregnant cannot comment. Furthermore, a woman who was pregnant and had an abortion did not experience childbirth and all the positives and negatives that went with it, therefore she cannot give a valid opinion based on experiences. Even then, one would have to go through child rearing, raising a child through infancy, the teenage years, and through college to see if any one can go through that. Therefore, the only people who can ever comment on abortion are women who have had actual pregnancies, given birth to children and then raised those children through adulthood. That would not only take out a good chunk of pro-life advocates, but a good number of pro-abortion advocates as well. Sadly, I don’t think many pro-abortion advocates would follow this logic quite this far.
POST ABORTION DEPPRESSION
May 23rd, 2011POST ABORTION DEPRESSION 1 of 7 Carl G. Oehling 8 May 2011
Every woman talks about post partum depression. But
nobody talks about Post Abortion Depression (PAD). There are
many articles by women and even books on the problem. The
women who write relate they are left to solve the issue on their
own. This article is a desire to help each and every woman with
this issue.
I am a father. Obviously I have children so I might have a
little personal experience. Our first birth resulted in my wife
having severe post partum depression. It lasted about five
months. At the second birth she knew we could handle the
problems of marriage and children. This goes along with the
study and logic I have found in order to write this article. We
were paying our mortgage, utilities, and eating enough
nutritious foods. We had a constructive future. The percent
of women in an ethnic group who have PPD are in lower
Post Abortion Depression 2 of 7
socio-economic straits, have little family support, possibly
no spouse, and are already responsible for other children.
There have been some studies on the hormone changes.
But the responses to therapy have not proven successful. They
do not explain PPD of the husbands involved. True, husbands
have lesser and shorter problems, but they can and do have
PPD. They don’t have hormonal changes.
There is another issue called the baby blues. It is shorter
term and seems to be more related to the fact of the increased
work load, interrupted sleep patterns, colicky baby, change in
diet needs and house hold tasks. The organizational ability of
the woman and advice from friends solves most of the blues.
But I think the problem of Post Abortion Depression is
moral problem. My logic is based on my acceptance of the
Christian moral position of a righteous God and sinful humans.
I personally accept the Old and New Testament as the writing
of the same God and of equal authority.
Post Abortion Depression 3 of 7
Everybody in the world lives in a country with a law against
murder, stopping a human life. God included it in His Ten
Commandments. Murder in the Bible includes more than just
stopping a life. We can kill a fly. We can kill a cow and eat the
meat. That is stopping a life. But the death of a human includes
the separation of a body and its soul per biblical information.
Well, what about self defense and capital punishment you
That is a proper question. The Old Testament (OT) records
two instances of a killing. Self defense is illustrated in the
story of an individual entering through a window at night. The
owner of the house is allowed to assume the intruder is entering
with malicious intent. In the defense of the home, if the intruder
dies, the home owner is not to be accused of a murder.
The second is in Ex. 21:22-25 and it is included in the
account of an abused pregnant woman. God seems to give
two principles we should live with in this account. One
Post Abortion Depression 4of 7
principle prescribes equal punishment for comparable crimes, a
‘soul for a soul, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. But
secondly, the separation of the soul of one of the victims must
result in God also receiving the soul of the person who caused a
death. That would reinforce the command of Gen. 9:6 where God
commands the shedding of a man’s blood be followed by the
shedding of the killer’s blood. Other places indicate there must
also be a public court case to prove guilt for such human action.
So now that we indicated an authorized separation of a body
from its soul, killing, there must be an unauthorized instance,
murder. The explanation is more involved and starts at the
creation.
The Bible takes the existence of Jehovah as a given. Then at
creation He gives Adam a “living soul” which makes him special
and different from the other living creatures. An important concept
is the adjective and the noun. The soul is a real thing. God gives a
few rules to the new couple. The critical one being, “rebel and I
Post Abortion Depression 5 of 7
will take back my “living soul” (My paraphrase). They rebelled
and God kept His promise, continuing death to each of us. It is His
promise so God doesn’t allow sinful humans to usurp His deity or
when He decides to carry out His promise. He calls that a murder,
a short word for an ‘unauthorized separation of a body and its
soul’. The soul of each individual was given at the same time as
the sperm joined with the egg according to Psalm 51. It is a new,
special creature, a human being.
Now we are getting into the cause of PAD. Most people
believe there is a god. I didn’t capitalize the word because many
have a vague definition with no specific god in mind. However, the
Bible claims He has a name, Jehovah, and has written a book they
are to read, understand, and follow. That book claims everybody
has inner knowledge of the God mentioned in it.
Reading between the lines of articles written by women with
PAD, a Christian has a perspective of befuddled individuals
Post Abortion Depression 6 of 7
hunting for salvation from God’s justice. They sense they have
murdered their own flesh and blood. They are afraid of the coming
Judgment and the Hell God has promised. It is a lifelong turmoil.
Unfortunately, I know of no Christian Church or its adherents
who are publicly advertising they know the solution for PAD.
They are proving a poignant and common complaint of these
suffering women who are left to suffer alone in silence.
Personally I am available to help. I will explain in as simple
terms as I know of the fall into sin. The picture of the unblemished
lamb which shed its blood to pay for sin was written in the OT.
The final shedding of blood by the unblemished Lamb of God,
Jesus Christ, paid for all sins. The result is a future life with God
after repentance and acceptance of Jesus’ blood as payment for the
sin of murder and subsequent forgiveness. The life time
commitment is the personal part, and sharing with others is
reassurance and joy.
My email is coehling@sbcglobal.net and the website is
Post Abortion Depression 7 of 7
www.michigandersforlife.com, my telephone is 1-269-
468-7110, 6314f, and I can be contacted at 330 E. Center St.,
Coloma MI 49038. I will provide Luther’s Small Catechism. It
contains the doctrinal basics in Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
form focusing on Bible passage answers. Acceptance and belief is
up to the individual’s personal commitment to Jehovah. I can try to
connect individuals to other Christian women. You are not alone.
1164 words
DR. EIDSMOE’S DEFENSE OF EX. 21:22-25
April 15th, 2011Does Exodus 21 Provide Legal Protection for the Unborn Child?
Today, 13 April 2011, the Health Committee of the Alabama House of Representatives held a hearing on the Alabama Personhood Amendment, a proposed amendment to the Alabama Constitution that would recognize the personhood of the unborn child from the moment of fertilization and at all times thereafter until death.
A rabbi spoke in opposition to the amendment, arguing that the Mosaic Law does not recognize an unborn child as a person. To prove his point he cited Exodus 21:22-25, in which a man who causes a pregnant mother to deliver a child prematurely is liable only for damages, not murder or manslaughter for causing the death of the child.
I respectfully disagree. I make no claim to be a Hebrew scholar, although I did study Hebrew in seminary. But my study of this passage convinces me that the rabbi’s interpretation of this passage is mistaken.
The passage reads,
If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no lasting harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (NKJV).
The passage presupposes that the pregnant woman’s husband is in the right and that the other man is the aggressor. As the men fight, the pregnant wife is struck (possibly she had entered the fray to help her husband, or they rolled in her direction), and “she gives birth prematurely,” or as the King James says, “her fruit depart from her.” Some have interpreted this passage to mean that the woman has a miscarriage, but I’m convinced that is not what the text says or means.
The term that the KJV translates “depart from her” and that the NKJV and other translations render “gives birth prematurely” is yatsah. In every other Old Testament passage in which yatsah is used in connection with childbirth, it refers to a normal and healthy childbirth with the possible exception of Numbers 12:12 which may refer to a stillbirth but not a miscarriage. If the author of the Book of Exodus (whom I believe to have been Moses) had wanted to speak of a miscarriage, there are at least two distinctive words for miscarriage that he could have used: shakol, which he used two chapters later in Exodus 23:26, and nephel, which is found Job 3:16, Psalm 58:8, and Ecclesiastes 6:3. But Moses did not use shakol or nephel in Exodus 21:22. He used the normal word for childbirth, yatsah. I believe Moses, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said exactly what he meant and meant exactly what he said.
Some confusion over this passage resulted from an early version of the New American Standard translation which rendered the passage “miscarriage.” But the 1995 edition of the New American Standard corrects that mistake and renders the passage “so that she gives birth prematurely.” Thus the New American Standard is now in harmony with most other translations. Brown, Driver & Briggs, the most authoritative Hebrew lexicon, lists the passage as “untimely birth.”
The term the KJV translates “fruit” and that other versions render “child” or “children” is yehled. This word is found 89 times in the Old Testament, and in every other passage in which it is used in relation to humans, it is translated as a child, children, a boy, or a young man.
The picture this passage presents, then, is that of a pregnant woman who is struck by an aggressor and who as a result gives birth to a child prematurely. Now let’s look at the result.
If “no lasting harm follows” (the word ahsohn translated harm is a broad term meaning harm in general), meaning there is no injury to the mother or to the child, then “he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.” Again, the text presupposes that the other man is the aggressor and at fault. He is to be punished for starting the fight, and he is to pay restitution for any damage he has caused to the husband.
The text continues, “But if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” If there is harm – and nothing in the passage limits the harm to injury to the mother only – then the offender is to be punished according to the lex talionis or law of like punishment: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. If the offender causes the death of the unborn child, the crime is to be treated as murder, “life for life.”
Correctly translated and interpreted, the passage cited by the rabbi strongly supports the personhood position by providing legal protection for the life of the unborn child.
Share
2 Responses to “Does Exodus 21 Provide Legal Protection for the Unborn Child?”
Rebecca YeHyung Lee says:
April 14, 2011 at 10:51 am
Dear Professor Eidsmoe
Thank you for pointing out that. I was at the hearing with the Bible with me, but could not think about the points. Blessings, Rebecca
Carl G. Oehling says:
April 15, 2011 at 9:27 am
Dr. Eidsmoe, I read of the examples of men of God like Nathan, Elijah, Jonas, John, etc. who spoke God’s words with the meaning (Neh. 8:8) so the people could understand. They spoke against the sins of the day. John spoke of repentance of the sins of the day and little of the coming payment for those sins. What is wrong with “Go and do thou likewise”?
LIFE
December 21st, 2010Let’s not get into the game of deciding which humans are persons.
SANCTITY OF LIFE AND POST ABORTION DEPRESSION
Life is introduced in the first two chapters of the Hebrew Bible and we have a lot of information. God has as an innate part of Himself the attribute of life. Since He has always been and always will be, so life has no beginning or end. In the course of events, God created the universe, formed Adam from the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Adam became a living soul. Next God took a living rib from Adam and formed Eve from it. Thus life was continued in her. There was no spontaneous generation. A new life was not started. The two produced live, haploid cells in their bodies. The two cells joined in Eve’s falopian tube to form a live diploid cell with its human DNA. It developed onto a live, adult human being, Cain. God’s life has continued in that manner ever since because God decreed man continue their kind. The difference between human life and other organisms is the soul God gives humans at conception.
The sin of murder is because of God’s covenant with Adam, ‘you eat, I take back my soul”! (My paraphrase). Since we are in Adam’s image, we die. It happened 930 years later for Adam. Nobody has authority to interfere with God’s covenant with each individual. We cannot give a living soul. God does that at conception. But we can separate the body from its soul. God calls the usurped authority a murder. That action irritates God to the extent He commands society to immediately send the murderer to Him for eternal Judgment upon conviction of the crime. We call that capitol punishment, but it is merely the door of God’s Judgment Hall.
That is the origin for my position on murder. I think society has determined the same idea and in Michigan we have MCL 750.316, the law against premeditated murder. For those two reasons I am anti-murder.
Please note well I am not pro-life. I have nothing to do with making life. I think that is Jehovah’s sole domain.
I am not anti-abortion, either. An abortion is: “the premature removal of the fetus from the maternal organ of reproduction”. It is done to bitches, cats, rats and many others. It is accomplished by God Himself in a spontaneous abortion. I don’t have the authority to disagree with God. There are many other justifiable reasons that abortions occur as a quick check with a medical dictionary will confirm. Since those terms are written in Hospital records and used in court cases they also have court precedence.
I think it is proper to illustrate how far the definitions of murder and abortion are separated in meaning. One method of murder is done when a human being removes some of the amniotic fluid from the sac and replaces it with a chemical which causes the death of the baby in about 2 hours. Often about 2 days later the mother goes into labor and gives birth to the dead child. That is a normal reaction. The abortion has nothing to do with the murder. But it has a lot to do with the mother removing the rotting baby from her body. It is common in an infection of Brucelle Abortus in cows also.
Some times we desire a quicker solution to a pregnancy so we devise other methods. In partial-birth-abortion, we define when a fetus is still in the womb and when the baby is considered born. The critical moment is when the belly button passes outside the labia major. Thus, when the Medical doctor blows the brains out of the skull before the belly button passes outside, the death occurs before birth. The doctor then aborts a corpse before it rots.
The Justices of the U. S. supreme court have decided a fetus is not defined as a person and has no Constitutional rights. I beg to differ. The “right to life” is a clear statement in the way I read those words. The distinctions of color of skin, sex, ethnic group, age and other qualifications are not included. I do not read where the Justices have the authority to add words or ideas to the Constitution.
I bring up another legal problem now. What if a man dies and one of his children is in the womb. His will give his estate to his wife and children per stirpe. The estate will be divided as if the child is born even if he is still a fetus and not a ‘person’, and I imagine that has court precedence.
POST ABORTION DEPRESSION (PAD) is a terrible result of many abortions. The problem is many people think there is a God who will judge them after they die. The Judeo-christian Bible claims everybody knows it in their heart. It is therefore a foregone conclusion that the woman who allows another person to destroy the life in her womb is guilty of murder. That is the recipe for life long depression. It is universally ignored by most people because they were not the mother. But if a person reads the pathos of women in PAD, one cannot help but cry. My solution is to highlight the murder and ignore the abortion. Then tell her of humans personality to sin and God’s solution of shedding Christ’s blood on the cross in lieu of their own in Hell. I intend calling it what it is, premeditated murder, by including in MCL 750.316 the definition of a human by its DNA. LET’S STOP PAD!
I think one of the reasons there is no final social observance of the law against murder is because the Christians and Jews don’t tell people the unauthorized separation of the body and soul is a murder. Jehovah authorizes that separation in the case of self defense. He commands that separation after conviction of a capital crime against society’s laws which are patterned after His primary Law.
We intend having on hand bumper stickers, t-shirts, tri-folds and stuff to inform society. A bumper sticker might say: ROE vs. WADE EXPLOITS WOMAN; or Roe Vs. Wade 1973 to 2010: 50,000,000 murdered: Vengeance is Mine, God.
I was running for the Michigan 79th District House of Representatives. I will work to change MCL 750.316 to include the definition of a human being by DNA. My web site is www.carloehling.com or www.michigandersforlife.com.
coehling@sbcglobal.net; 1-269-468-7110
CHRISTMAS MESSAGE 2010
December 9th, 2010God says and so we’ve all been told
That at birth Jesus was nine months old.
For Liz declared when Mary came
That Mother was now her foremost name.
For when God took on flesh and bone
And Jesus became a human clone.
The Unblemished Lamb, soon to be slain,
Would obtain for all eternal gain.
And may you at Christmas ever know
How God has blessed us here below.
DISCUSSING THE 2010 COLORADO PERSONHOOD VOTE
November 22nd, 2010To: Operation Rescue ; Calvin Zastrow ; Keith Mason RE: The emial sent concerning the pro and con of personhood voting in Colorado 2 Nov 2010.
The whole reason we are still murdering babies in the womb is very few are
calling it by Jeh_vah’s Word, namely MURDER. In Ex 21:22-25 God doesn’t even
mention the abortion since it is not a sin against any of His Ten Commandments.
He does mention the command to send Him the MURDERER. Murder is mentioned as a
sin in the Ten Commandments. Neither of the men mentioned or Operation Rescue
promote God’s Word. I frankly wonder what they or any Christian or Jew uses as
the foundation for their position in Roe vs. Wade.
I have two URLs establishing my position, www.michigandersforlife.com and
www.carloehling.com. If you three don’t first establish we get a SOUL at
conception from God, then your life is no different from the cow we eat at
MacDonald’s. If you three don’t mention the SOUL leaves the body at death, even
as Rebecca’s SOUL left her body after death at childbirth, you have no Biblical
foundation. If you three don’t then remind everybody, God will have an
accounting on Judgment Day with each individual about how they voted, they have
no personal reason to vote God’s will.
What do all Christians mean, and especially the Pastors when they lead the
congregation, and they say in the LORD”S Prayer: “Thy will be done on earth as
it is done in Heaven”? Do you think the Angels were a nano-second late in
announcing the birth of Christ? Who do they think God expects to do it on earth.
Society is now 39 years late in sending the MURDERERS to God for His ultimate judgment
as He has commanded us. Either we do it God’s way or He will not listen to our
prayers or help us.
Carl G. Oehling, <’))><
THANK YOU
November 20th, 2010Editor, 12 Nov. 2010
I wish to thank the people who supported the principles I consider important to a society by their vote on Tuesday, Nov. 2 for 79th district, House of Representatives.
I think if someone assumes he has the right to take a life, society has the right and duty to take his life. Also, that is the justice the God of the Bible declares is proper and expected since He writes: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life”.
Further, if elected I would have promoted adding to the law against murder the definition of a human by its DNA. That would separate it from other organisms. That too is Biblical because Psalm 51 indicates the soul is put into a human at conception, just like the DNA. The Constitution seems to agree since it gives a human the “Right to Life” without consideration for color of skin, ethnic group, quality of life, sex, age, and other things.
On another principle, I think the officials in the Legislature and the Executive Offices are trustees and not owners of any of my tax monies or other property. Therefore, they had no right to give my money to the bankers or businesses. My Mommy taught me that principle when I took my sister’s toys. I have property rights and they did not go through courts and determine right of eminent domain. It is also a principle of the KING of kings who went to a far country and gave each of us stewardship of a part of His Kingdom. What will we report when He returns and demands an accounting?
Another principle is parental rights and duties. Court precedent somewhat indicates a daddy is supposed to care for his children. Almost all home schooled kids have both parents unlike many of the general public. The kids of school drop-outs average at the 86th percentile on state tests where the public school average is a 50 percentile. As adults they are twice as likely to be involved in little league coaching and other social needs. This indicates the positive influence of parents. However, the Bible gives the duty and all the responsibility to the father. This tells me we need a lot more social pressure to educate parents that conceiving a child is only the beginning of 21 years and 9 months of rearing the result. The Government must not usurp the rights and duties of a parent.
Six hundred thirty two people voted for these principles.
Carl G. Oehling <’)=><, 6545 E. Center St. Lot 33B, Coloma MI 49038, 1-269-468-7110
AN EMOTIONAL POEM
October 9th, 2010This poem was found in “Voice For The Unborn” and written by Marian Banducci in the May – July of 2010 issue.
TWICE BLESSED
The child of my child I now hold in my arms;
Defenses all down – I’ve succumbed to her charms;
Her toes how enchanting; Her hands sheer delight!
Oh baby! Oh baby—it’s love at first sight!!
To see the perfection of God in your eyes!
I knew you were coming—so why the surprise?
To witness this miracle – child come to be;
Oh child of my child – you’re life’s sweet mystery!!
You look like your mother and now I recall
A day wrought in fear like a tottering wall
About to envelope my heart and my soul:
To kill my own baby was my desperate goal.
And then as I walked in the cold winter air,
I heard a small voice like an angel in prayer:
“Please don’t kill your baby!” she pleaded with me
“My Jesus will help you and set your heart free!”
And now as I think of the deed almost done,
I’m TWICE BLESSED –oh, thank God for this little one!
Oh, child of my child what a wonder you are!
You shine on my life like a bright morning star!!
www.voicefortheunborn.com
Letter to the Herald-palladium 5 Oct 2010
October 5th, 2010The Herald –Palladium editorialized on reasons to re-elect Upton. They have all the politically correct reasons to support him, some of which I support. However, there is one issue ignored, namely murder.
All scientists know the baby is a live human from the moment of the joining of the two strands of DNA in each live, haploid cell. Pasteur scientifically proved there is no spontaneous generation. Life has to be a continuum! That is why the atheistic evolutionists are looking for an alien live form. The courts use this data when they declare fatherhood in paternity suits.
Our founding papers declare everybody has a “right to life”. Nowhere do they allow a distinguishing factor of skin color, sex, religion, ethnic group, quality of life, age, etc. to decide on when an individual can, must or should die. The Judges had no authority to include any factor in their Roe VS. WADE decision. Age was an addition without authority. I consider that “Bad behavior”. Where do you stand?
The Constitution does not seat a Judge for life. It seats them during “Good Behavior” only. Thus, I conclude any judicial edict which allows the death of an innocent person is an impeachable offense. Since Republicans and Democrats are not calling for impeachment, I cannot vote for either.
In all my Judeo-Christian Bibles, God calls the unauthorized separation of a body and its soul a murder. When I pray “ Thy will be done….” , what must I think God’s will is concerning my vote. Can I vote for a person who isn’t promoting the Constitution, Michigan law against premeditated murder, MCL 750.316, and especially God’s law against murder? I believe both Louise Stein and God will keep records. Ultimately, I think God’s ballot is the only one that matters.
