Originally posted December 29, 2011 @ 11:06 PM.

On Facebook, the anti-abortion organization, 180 Movie, posted a link about a young teen, Jenni Lake, who gave up chemo treatments in order to protect her unborn son's life. Twelve days later, she died.

Jenni didn't show regret for her decision, not in the final weeks of her pregnancy as she grew weaker, and not when she started to lose her vision as the cancer took its course, her family said.

Jenni's last words were about her son as he was placed beside her a final time, her father said.

As she felt for the baby, she said: "I can kind of see him."

Jenni was 16 when she was diagnosed with stage-three astrocytoma, a type of brain tumor. According to her biopsy, she had three tumors on her brain, and three on her spine, which was rare because the tumor spread without any noticeable symptoms.

"Jenni just flat out asked them if she was going to die," said her father, Mike Lake, 43, a truck driver who lives in Rexburg, north of Pocatello.

The answer wasn't good. With treatment, the teen was told she had a 30 percent chance to make it two years, Lake said. While he was heartbroken, Lake marveled at how strong she seemed in that moment. "She didn't break down and cry or anything," he said.

The strength Jenni showed, however, was not without an endless string of trials that tested her courage and determination to endure on towards life renewed.

Jenni started dating Nathan [the baby's father] a couple of weeks before she received her diagnosis. Their adolescent relationship withstood the very adult test posed by cancer, the treatments that left her barely able to walk from her living room to her bedroom, and the gossip at school.

"The rumors started flying around, like Nathan was only with her because she had cancer," said Jenni's older sister, Ashlee Lake, 20, who tried to squelch the mean-spirited chatter even as the young couple ignored it.

The greatest test of all, though, came when Nathan and Jenni discovered they would become parents. Jenni's chemo treatments were already helping her win the battle against her cancer, even as it left her weakened and frail. Still, her resolve for life extended far beyond simply her own well being...

She had been throwing up a lot and had sharp stomach pains. She went to the emergency room early one morning with her boyfriend and when she returned home, her family members woke up to the sound of crying. "We could hear Jenni just bawling in her room," said her sister, Kaisee, 19.

She had learned that she was pregnant, and an ultrasound would show the fetus was 10 weeks old.

Jenni's journey was no longer her own.

Because of the likelihood that her chemo treatments could make her unable to have children, Nathan recalled how they did not worry about the possibility of pregnancy. Jenni had always wanted to be a mom, and wasted no time in making her decision: she was resolute in the fact that she would do all she could to ensure her baby lived on. That meant her chemo treatments would have to end even though her cancer was not completely eradicated.

There was no discussion about which path Jenni would choose. Her parents didn't think of it as a clear life or death decision, and Jenni may not have, either. They believed that since the tumors had already started to shrink earlier, she had a strong chance of carrying the baby and then returning to treatment after he was born.

"I guess we were just hoping that after she had the baby, she could go back on the chemotherapy and get better," her mother said.

Sadly, Jenni died twelve days after giving birth to her son, Chad Michael, who was named after both of his grandfathers, one month before she turned 18.

The nurse would later repeat the girl's words to comfort her family, as their worst fears were realized a day after Jenni's baby was born.

"She told the nurse, `I'm done, I did what I was supposed to. My baby is going to get here safe,'" said Diana Phillips, Jenni's mother.

When Chad Michael gets older, both his dad, Nathan, who has legal custody, and the rest of his family - grandparents and aunts and uncles - will know that his mother loved him with every fiber of her being. She gave up her life so he could have his.

...

I shared this link on Facebook and posted the comment...

Tell me AGAIN that a mother ought to abort her baby just to save her own life. Tell me AGAIN how that's somehow better than murdering a child. This baby won't have his mom, but he'll later learn that his mom LOVED HIM more than enough to see him come to life. This boy will grow to be a man knowing everything he NEEDS to know in order to have a full and great life. This was nothing but selfless. You can't say the same thing for those mothers who lived while their babies died.

...to which I was given the following reply...

Because she is a person and it is a fetus, and the known person should have the right to choose to live.

It is not my desire that the mother should have to die at all, for any reason. That death is even a factor in any situation saddens me greatly. As a Christian, even the most vile of people - even Hitler, himself, and rapists and murderers and wife beaters alike - I desire to have life. Unfortunately, the world we live in is not so ideal, as there are natural and imposed consequences for the choices we make. So there is no option to remove death from the list of options available to us when dealing with dire and difficult situations. Please don't think me, or anyone who shares my Christian and/or anti-abortion views, as the sort to disregard the concerns of the parents of the potentially-aborted baby. I'm not. There is a stark difference between maintaining one's rights (better said, one's privilege) to life and upholding the value of life.

That said, I was extremely upset - furious - with that comment. I gave the following rebuke:

Right... Let's just totally disregard the baby. They are BOTH persons. Point of fact. That baby has EVERY right to live. How utterly self-serving for a mother to choose her own life over an innocent child's. How absolutely HEARTLESS for anyone to think a child - regardless of how developed they are - is disposable because someone else might be at risk. If life is that trivial when another's life is in danger, why do we praise soldiers and cops and the like who risk their own lives so another may live? When someone is at a point of helplessness and cannot save themselves, it is our DUTY - every human being - to offer ourselves for the sake of another.

The right to choose has become a pathetic flag for the self-indulged to hide behind because they care more about themselves and their desires than the well being of another. It's disgusting and pathetic.

That child will never know his mother, but he will know that he was WANTED, that he was LOVED, and that someone valued his life over their own.

He stands a better chance (assuming he makes consistently wise choices of his own) of growing into one FINE young man.

But if you're going to see that once-unborn baby as just a fetus, and because presently there is still a large debate about when a fetus supposedly "becomes" a person...since there is still no consensus on the matter, I'm going to decide to call YOU a disposable "mass of cells", too. Oh, no, the fact that you've been born doesn't matter. No, because I refuse to recognize any other point where your value as a person suddenly initiates.

Does that sound like a ludicrous argument? It ought to. Because so is your reference to that once-unborn baby as a mere fetus whose worth was somehow less than the mother's. Who are YOU to determine that the baby wasn't worth dying for? The mother valued her SON even before she knew him in her arms. And for ONE WEEK she got to love him. For her, that was worth dying. DAMN YOUR PATHETIC ideas that choice trumps life. DAMN IT!

As the saying goes, YOU got life even though you had no ability to choose it. HOW DARE YOU insist that any other child not be given the same opportunity!!! How hypocritical!!! A "fetus"? A mere "fetus"? Look at that baby boy in the picture again and call HIM a fetus again. "Fetus" is nothing more than a description of the stage of development. Shall I call you less than a person because you haven't "developed" into an older man yet? Shall I disregard your worth because you haven't "arrived" in life? How completely asinine! And such is that line of thinking.

...

There have been arguments in the past regarding the times when a mother's life is in jeopardy during a pregnancy. Again, it's not my desire that any should die. I'm not one who would insist on forcing a mother to die. To that point, it ought to be a choice...her choice. However, I argue passionately that there is only one right choice to make. Legality be damned. Further, the number of occurrences when a mother's life is in mortal danger range in the nearly obscure. It's barely an argument that bears deep attention.

Abortion does not solve any real problems. The over-population of the world is based on false claims. The issue of unwanted babies would be greatly diminished if people would stop abusing sex as nothing more than "two consenting adults" (which is really just an excuse to have all the pleasures without the responsibilities and potential consequences). The existing "unwanted" children really are wanted by someone...it's just a matter of helping to get them to the right parents.

Abortion only continues to serve the self-serving focus that infects all of humanity. Further, it is a known cause of cancer, potentially prevents a woman from having kids when she does want them, and adds to one's sense of shame. Not to mention is allows the devaluation of life to prevail!

The story of Jenni Lake proves that the argument for abortion is empty of any legitimacy. There are people who would want the unborn child - in this case, Chad Michael's entire family, especially his own father! Choice is an ill argument in the face of the fact that a living human being was growing inside Jenni. Choice over life fails in the face of a mother's recognition to see a baby to full term even as it risked her own well being. In contrast, the argument that a woman's body is her own (while valid by itself) cannot win when confronted with the reality of another life that depends on love of his mother.

...

It is my hope that Jenni knew Jesus Christ. For now, though, it is to her memory that I post this article. She died a woman of honor and courage, and her memory and sacrifice will be of great power when her son comes to an age of understanding. Chad Michael was not born in tragedy, but out of love.

...

For a similar case, read on.

With the grand holiday of Christmas over with for the year, I just got to thinking given the many comments I hear and read saying how people are relieved that Christmas is over. It just got me to thinking...

See, I live in Texas now - I have been for the last year - and have no family down here. I'm virtually alone. I wasn't able to spend Christmas with my girlfriend because her family went to Dallas and I had to work before and after Christmas day. It was looking to be a very lonesome Christmas for me. But a co-worker and her husband invited me over and gave me a very warm and welcome Christmas. With their family, I was able to truly enjoy the holidays. They even bought me a few gifts - a warmer jacket and a book on Jesus' life before His crucifixion - which were completely unexpected.

I didn't have much this year that I wished for, but I was given more than all I dreamed of or "expected".

Ultimately, I wondered, did you get what you hoped for this year? And how did it affect your views on Christmas? What expectations did you have, and how might your attitude have changed if you didn't get what you wanted? Do you think anything would be different, or better, if things didn't turn out as expected?

Originally posted June 21, 2011 7:04 PM
NOTE: This post is written with a general tone. No specific criticism is intended towards anyone, general or specific. It is intended to be received with thoughtfulness and self-inspection. If this happens to not apply to you, then wonderful! If so, then it's with humility that I hope you will apply it. I, myself, have to remember to check my own attitude towards others, even if their attitude warrents appropriate criticism. God bless!

It is not up us (Christians) to say who IS or is NOT a Christian...who is or is not going to Heaven or Hell. No more than we can tell a tree what fruit it ought to bear.

But we can judge (reasonably) if one is a Christian by the fruit of his heart; his likeness to Christ. Just as we can tell an apple tree from an orange tree by their fruit. Do the qualities which define a Christ-follower show evidently in the character and actions of the person? If you were to examine his soul, would his spiritual DNA testify that it was truly Jesus who lived in him? If you cut open an apple, shouldn't you find apple seeds? You should certainly find seeds at all.

And is the Christian young in spirit? Is he recovering from a broken heart now made new? A young sapling may not yet bear any resemblance or show any evidence - that is, fruit - that it is, indeed, the sort of tree it will mature into. Even full-grown trees can become sick, too, and must be cared for, nurtured back to health. It's fruit may taste sour or bitter and not seem like it ought to be. But it is no less a fruit tree.

We may be deceived by some would-be Christians. We may falsely judge a new Christian who has not yet matured as pagan. We, ourselves, may not even know what all a Christian ought to be, or we may know and yet fail to apply love, compassion, patience and understanding.

Jesus knows who are His as a shepherd knows his sheep. Listen to the Shepherd, and let Him worry about who may enter the Heavenly Pasture. Simply continue to encourage and serve the Flock as you have been called to do, and "baa" with the same grace which God gave you towards those who wander close to the teeth of the wolves.

Discern wisely so you are in the company of fellow Christians and not led away by false believers, and then leave the Final Judgment to the Lord.

Originially written March 28, 2011.

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT
Contradictions in the Bible have been proposed and argued for years on end. Indeed, the original languages the Scriptures were written in still pose many questions for the best of the most honest of experts, even with the latest discoveries in the last 50-100 years. However, many critics (“many” in terms of my experience, at least) tend to harass Biblical claims not because of actual contradictions, but due to a misunderstanding of the context of each of the supposed contradicting passages.
The Bible, though, is not a straight-through law book. And its stories often refer to the same events and people in different ways. The Bible is, in fact, a book of books (and letters, to be precise). They were written by different people to different people, at different times, and with different topics or themes to highlight. To read it as a law book, where each law is built off of or a compliment or exception to one another, would be a mistake. When reading – and understanding – the Bible in its entirety, several factors must be taken into consideration:

• time and setting
• the author
• the original recipients of the Scriptures
• the writing style (i.e.: poetic, literal)
• the theme of or purpose for the writings
• the culture(s) being represented in the writings

 …and others. Create a better understanding by clicking here...