Don't get your panties in a knot.

So this evening I read an interesting blog post by, Vince Leibowitz, Capitol Annex’s daily publication’s supervising Editor & Publisher. The article was criticizing SBOE Chair Don McLeroy for “endorsing a new book calling those who support the teaching of evolution, including more than 11,000 members of the clergy, “atheists,” “monsters,” and “morons.”” The book, Sowing Atheism: The National Academy of Sciences’ Sinister Scheme to Teach Our Children They’re Descended from Reptiles, from my point of view, is coming from a biblical stand point. With that said, some of the “offensive insults”, for instance, “Regarding parents who support teaching their children about evolution: What kind of monster parents teach their children that they’re descended from rodents and reptiles?” might not be as offensive as everyone is making them to be. I believe the author is just fed up with all the “hypocritical Christian” parents, calling them, hypocritical Christian” parents, the “monsters” because they think that they can believe in Christianity and evolution, when the two should and can never be combined, if you are a “true Christian” and understand exactly what the Bible teaches. Although I agree with what the book teaches, as far as the principal of not being able to call yourself a “Christian” and believe in evolution, I do not think this book should be used as a school biology book. Instead of having a book simply stating opinions of what one author thinks about people calling themselves Christians and teaching evolution, we should have a book that digs deeper into the background of creationism to help further the views of creation vs. evolution. If this is the reason for criticizing SBOE Chair Don McLeroy for endorsing the new book, strictly because it is not an educative book for furthering creationism, then more power to the criticizers. However, they should not criticize him for viewing the book as being educational toward people who believe you can be a Christian and support evolution, because this book, as far as I can see, is doing a good job of that.

You Choose, Life or Death...

So here I am sitting at Starbucks, on a magical Monday night, sipping on my steaming hot white chocolate mocha when I came across this editorial from the Austin American Statesman. The editorial was about “forcing” future abortionists to view the ultrasound while listening to the heart beat of the unborn child. In a way I kind of disagree with this article and with the writer. I think that it is necessary to show the future abortionists exactly what they are about to do. The writer states in this message, “It is an incredibly invasive requirement forced on women, many already traumatized by an unexpected pregnancy and the decision to have an abortion.” This contradicts what the writer is saying here, “The doctor also must display the ultrasound images and present the printed material, though the bill says the woman doesn't have to look at it.”A pregnant woman may avert her eyes from the ultrasound images required to be provided and reviewed with the pregnant woman." In the article it is stated that this is a humiliating act. “Now comes an intrusive bill mandating that pregnant women seeking an abortion be force-fed information designed to humiliate them.” I don’t believe that they are being humiliated by being presented all this information since they are not technically being forced to look at it. Sure, you can say, “The bill is popular with the anti-abortion activists because the required reading and images puts them right there in the clinic, shaking their collective fingers at the woman. It is an incredibly invasive requirement forced on women, many already traumatized by an unexpected pregnancy and the decision to have an abortion.” Everyone has a different perspective on things, so I don’t believe that they are necessarily pointing the finger at them, but just trying to go that extra mile with this procedure.

P.S. Even though I think that the bill should pass, I do not agree that Texas should still be able to “misinform women that there is the possibility of an increased risk of breast cancer from an induced abortion. Extensive medical research has found no correlation.”