|Destiny Lynn Arroyo||Born: 2007/12/13|
|Father: Jose' Antonio Arroyo||Mother: Unspecified|
|Siblings: Cayden Joseph Anthony Arroyo, Chasity Lynn Marie Arroyo, Chandler Michael Allen Arroyo|
I was thinking about our life expectancy in the 21st Century. Well, honestly, thinking about those loved ones who’ve gone before. I realized that, as we grow longer lives, we stay young just as long! We really do grow older, not younger. For those that live 80, 90 or 100 years, it just means they’ve been old longer! Not that they’ve been young longer.
No one will look back at my funeral if I live to be 100 and comment on how young I was at 55! For my uncle at 55 when he passed, he wasn’t ‘at the end of his life’ at that time. Young and old are concepts that we have which really no meaning unless we’re at one end or the other. The only ‘end’ that is determined is the beginning, a 15 year old is young, a 40 yr old is ‘old’. So, oddly enough, our increased life expediencies have only served to make us “old” longer, not young longer. Youth is gone when it is gone and never comes back.
Despite the longer life spans, we still need the promise of the Resurrection. From here, the promise of Christmas, of new birth, comes real “Youth” that never grows old. I’m always going to see my boys as babies, but that is perception, not reality. The only true reality comes through Faith.
Peace and prayers this season of the Nativity of Our Lord.Share on Facebook
2016 has finally arrived and we are in the midst of the political season as two completely opposed worldviews are set to collide. One view, calling itself ‘pro-women’ actually advocates the annihilation of male and female children on the whim of the mother. This view does not advocate responsibility but that women are not responsible for their actions following their instinctive urges.
Again, we march for Life, we support our priests, we lament the loss of thousands more Christians at the hands of zealot Islamists and at the abortion doctor’s knife. We lament the loss of responsible adults who make choices based on informed decisions rather than feelings.Share on Facebook
I was unfriended by a family member on Facebook over a disagreement about De-funding Planned Parenthood. I think it’s important to address this rather emotional issue.
To the claim that De-funding PP would hurt women’s access to health care such as check ups, food, medecine and even relaxing by booking at https://tranquilme.com/booking-page/ for a good parenting you need to relax and avoid too much stress. I point out that, in Tulsa, OK, there are 13 free clinics for women, only one of which is PP. Of these 12, all provide all the services PP claims to provide, including PAP, STD testing, and mammograms. The only service not included is abortions.
To the claim that there would be children being born into unwanted situations, I point out that, after 40 years and over 55 million abortions later, we still have children in foster care and abused. Abortion has not proven to solve these sad situations.
Then, in Margaret Sangar’s own words, the reason for the existence of Planned Parenthood.
“The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”
Speech quoted in “Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do.” The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference. Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City.
Finally, the challenge must be addressed of: “you pro-lifers want to make a woman have an unwanted child then don’t want to help them support it”. The response is two-fold. First, we have to challenge our citizens to be responsible. We can’t treat people like animals, with no responsibility to control their urges or the consequences of their actions. This completely diminishes the dignity of a human being. Second, treating these people as dignified human beings, we must provide with a leg up, with programs aimed at making them self-sufficient, not more dependent. Provide support that encourages the parents to make their own way, not rely on the government to support them.
Instead of continuing to support programs that are proven to fail over and over, were must provide support which enables our citizens to be productive.
We have to provide support and compassion without claiming innocent lives in the process. Murder cannot be compassion.
Posted from WordPress for AndroidShare on Facebook
I read an article yesterday regarding some of the questions asked at the Republican Debate. If you saw the debate, of course you are aware of the questions asked of Donald Trump but that is not why I am addressing it. The question asked of several candidates pertains to Abortion. Would you support abortion in a case that the mother’s life is in danger?
The subject of rape, incest and life of the mother as exceptions to bans on abortion came up at last night’s GOP presidential debate, and moderator Megyn Kelly proved to be dangerously wrong on this issue.
Kelly was aghast that anyone would have any hesitation about approving an abortion to save the life of the mother. She spoke of this choice as if were one that commonly and frequently must be made.
The reality, however, is that an abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. This is, quite simply, a choice that a mother and her doctor never have to make, and Ms. Kelly has contributed to the already widespread ignorance on this subject. (AFA.net, By: Bryan Fischer Posted: Friday, August 7, 2015 11:20 AM)
This is one of those questions that is often asked and, if one replies that it is never alright to murder a children, then one is automatically labeled as someone that is somehow against women. What this article very clearly points out is the obvious that has been before us all this time. If a woman is clearly in a situation where the death of either her or her child is imminent, an Abortion Clinic is not where she would go. Abortion Clinics are not in a position to treat in an emergency situation. Recent legal challenges have proven this as well. Several states have passed or are debating laws such as one hotly contested legislation in Texas. In Texas, which has lost nine clinics, lawmakers have slashed family planning funding in the state budget, required abortion clinics to become ambulatory surgical centers and required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
What strikes me as interesting is the fact that there is such an outcry over legislation such as this. By having admitting privileges, a doctor at an abortion clinic would be empowered to treat a woman that actually might be in danger of losing her life because of her pregnancy. Though this is a stated argument, it isn’t the aim of abortion supporters, abortion clinics, or Planned Parenthood. They are not in the business of actually caring for the lives of women, only in supporting their agenda.
If, indeed, a woman were in a situation where there might be a choice made to save one or the other, an abortion is not the prescription for her care. The doctor treating her and the child would do everything in his power as a physician to save both of his or her patients, mother and child. If the unfortunate situation took place under a doctor’s care, that one survives in spite of all the best efforts, that is a tragedy. If the child died during treatment, even if it was a choice made to save the mother and the child died, it would still not be abortion.
Abortion is a term and distinction like that between murder and accidental death. Abortion is always clearly with the intent of ending a human life, it is no accident and is not a treatment any more than euthanasia is a ‘treatment’ for illness. The loss of life while at a qualified treatment hospital in the attempt to save a life is not the same as going to an Abortion Clinic with the expressed purpose of ending a life. There is no chance of saving a life in an abortion clinic.
The question asked of a Pro-Life candidate to “take a stand for women’s rights but allowing an exception regarding the life of the mother” is a trick question. The situation does not exist, one cannot allow for it legislatively because it isn’t reality. Abortion supporters know this or they would not be fighting legislation in states that make their facilities legal health care facilities. If, as in the State of Texas, an Abortion Clinic follows the law, roid’s position would be to care for the health of the mother AND the health of the unborn child as well. In that case, they could be placed in a position where they would have to abandon their mission of taking a human life and be forced to save it instead.
Marijuana or weeds can cure diseases, there is a legit and legal way to purchase marijuana and serve as a medicine to sick people who needs it. You can get advice and tips from houseofcannabis if you want to order and purchase online.
Dr. Benjamin G. Swartout is a fellowship trained in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery and has a separate facial cosmetic surgery practice located at his facility. He is board certified in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery and performs reconstructive surgery on the face related to skin cancer, trauma, congenital and other deformities.
In the meantime, our politicians need to answer the question factually and throw it back on the person asking the question. Can you give me one instance where a woman has ‘checked into’ an abortion clinic in an emergency situation where the life of the mother was at stake? Though you might say that woman are in those situations all the time, accidents, cancer, etc., they are not treated at an Abortion Clinic and, if the baby is lost during treatment, they were not lost because of a treatment plan that had an abortion as the treatment.Share on Facebook
In his essay “Politics and the English Language“, George Orwell observes that political language serves to distort and obfuscate reality. Orwell’s description of political speech is extremely similar to the contemporary definition of doublespeak;
In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible… Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness… the great enemy of clear language is insincerity. Where there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, …
Today, we are faced with such opposites and asked to believe them on face value, the language of the day. “Tolerance” is used to brow beat those that disagree so that those that do not hold those same views are “intolerant” and “haters”.
“Choice” is used to justify completely taking away choice from children and those that believe that abortion is murder are advocating taking away a woman’s right to choose. Now we learn that a group that has made a campaign on describing the unborn child as no more than tissue are making money by selling the children’s organs as human tissue.
“Love” has been twisted into meaning whatever our carnal desires dictate rather than a life long commitment to raise children teaching the commitment to God, our spouse, and our children in a loving home. To disagree or to point out that an interpretation is wrong is not the same as hating another person.
I can tell you that a friend or family member is doing something that I believe is wrong without hating him or her. I have a family member that is an alcoholic, I do not condone the behavior, I do not condone the lifestyle. I may even chose not to be around that person. I do love that person and still try to be there as much as reasonable. I will not be around when they are drinking, which may be most of the time. But, despite that behavior, that person is stilled loved and will remain in my heart though I will not tell them that they have my approval.
Though the behavior is displayed more than I would like to admit, alcoholism is not WHO that person is. I do not define the person by their sins, I define them by who they are. I believe that is what God is calling me to do. I will accept a sinner into my home, just as Jesus did. However, I do not believe that Jesus defined his Apostles and disciples by their sins. He told the Magdalene, “Is there no one left to condemn you?… Nor do I. Go and sin no more.”
I condemn no one, that is not my place. I condemn behavior which I know is wrong. I taught my children what was wrong. Sometimes they chose do what I had taught them was wrong. I do not, nor can I, accept words on face value that have meanings that go well beyond what they say. I cannot believe that “Compassion” is taking someone’s life through Euthanasia, or that a “choice” is taking another life who cannot defend himself. I do not believe that “Love” can be gained by using acts rooted in hate or that disagreement is the same as “hate”.
I will proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord! Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!Share on Facebook
Well, Baron is on his last day of medication and he’s healing rather quickly. He’s still moving slowly but his limp is much less pronounced.
With the rain, we’re sure the colder weather must be causing some discomfort. All in all, he’s doing better and we’re past that scare.Share on Facebook
I don’t know what kind of person runs down a dog and drives off. Witnesses saw it happen and came to Baron’s aid.
The poor baby slept in the living room last night. He is pretty badly bruised but, by the Grace of God, will probably pull through.
Well, the deck is looking ready for summer, the pinion wood has begun to smell up the yard and the pool is working. Last weekend, Alec has his 10th birthday celebration at the house. They had a wonderful time in the pool, which finally was warm enough to avoid the Popsicle effect!