To all the prochoice,abortion activists out there who oppose male circumcision you might want to stop trying to tell people not to circumcise their sons, especially because you are ok with killing and dismembering living human beings in the womb before birth. Regardless whether you believe they feel pain or not, they are still living human beings and abortion kills not heals. Health care should heal not kill people.

In addition, male circumcision does not kill anyone, unless by rare chance done incorrectly, but is often a religious sacrament among Jewish&Muslim families and in many boys it is done for preventive health reasons. This latest study from the University Of North Carolina,published in the International Journal of Cancer, proves male circumcision has been found to prevent HPV, human papillomavirus in men, thus preventing spread to women.

HPV can lead to cervical cancer in women, infertility and cancers of the penis in men.

In Kenyan men, circumcision is associated with a lower prevalence of human papillomavirus-associated precancerous lesions of the penis, a University of North Carolina-led international study has shown.

Human papillomavirus - HPV - is a sexually transmitted virus that plays an important role in genital cancers in men and women, including cancers of the penis and cervix.

"Our data are the first to show that male circumcision may reduce HPV-associated penile precancerous lesions. This represents an additional public health benefit of male circumcision," said Jennifer Smith, senior author.

"The percentage of men with HPV-associated precancerous penile lesions was substantially higher among those who were not circumcised - 26 percent- compared to those who were circumcised - .7 percent," explained Smith, a associate professor of epidemiology in the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health and a member of UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center.

"Interventions that reduce HPV-associated penile lesions could be important to both men and women, because such lesions may increase HPV transmission from men to their sexual partners.

"Circumcision may also provide a useful intervention to prevent HPV-associated penile lesions and ultimately invasive cervical cancers in less developed countries, since prophylactic HPV vaccines may not be readily available to men, and current HPV vaccines do not include protection against all high-risk HPV types," added Smith.

The study has been published in the International Journal of Cancer. (ANI)

Source:Big News

©2008-2011 Patricia Garza

 

©2008 Patricia Garza

Posted by Patty Littlebytesnews at 1:56 PM 0 comments blog comments powered by Disqus Links to this post    

Again, adult stem cell research advances in medicine. While the prochoice, abortion movement continues to support embryonic stem cell research, which has resulted in zero medical cures, adult stem cell research may cure MS,multiple-sclerosis, which affects three million worldwide.

Adult stem cells have also been found to help heart patients to HIV patients. It's time to end the destruction of human embryos, which are living human beings before implantation via methods such as IVF, and it's time to focus research and funding on adult stem cell research. In addition, there are other ways of getting embryonic stem cells without destroying human embryos, such as stem cell cord banking.

A major UK-based clinical trial is set to investigate whether stem cells can be safely used to treat multiple sclerosis (MS).

The trial will involved 150 patients from across Europe and will be launched later in the year, according to Dr Paolo Muraro from Imperial College London, who wants to look deeper into evidence that suggests MS can be treated with stem cells.

“There is very strong pre-clinical evidence that stem cells might be an effective treatment,” he told the BBC.

Stem cells will be collected from the bone marrow of patients and grown in a laboratory. They will then be reinjected and researchers hope they will make their way to the brain and repair the damage done by multiple sclerosis.

There is no clinically-proven stem cell treatment for MS in the United Kingdom, but many patients with MS travel overseas to have treatment done that claims to be long-term stem cell cures.




Read More

©2008-2011 Patricia Garza

 

©2008 Patricia Garza

Posted by Patty Littlebytesnews at 1:44 PM 0 comments blog comments powered by Disqus Links to this post    

Labels: abortion, Health care, pro-life, prochoice, prolife, stem cells

Many abortion doctors and prochoice advocates admit, abortion kills a human being. Yet, many prochoice advocates continue to deny this scientific and medical fact in order to defend their 'right' to kill the preborn. This video is a great summary of the medical, scientific and moral reasoning why abortion is undeniably wrong and kills a preborn human being. Abortion denies the "personhood"[humanity] of an individual living human being by denying them of human rights. As humans, we all have the inalienable right to life and to be born, if we were not given that right none of us would have the right to exist. Despite this, the proabortion movement advocates the woman's rights trumps the preborns individual human rights. However, a mother/woman wouldn't have those rights without the right to live and be born first.

Pure logic and common sense, as explained in this video by a 15yr old, clearly shows the abortion debate is lost because it is discrimination against another simply because of the preborn humans size,level of development, environment/location and dependency on the mother. The acronym for this analysis is SLED, according to author Steven Schwarz: size, level of development, environment and dependency.

 

©2008 Patricia Garza

Posted by Patty Littlebytesnews at 8:18 PM 0 comments blog comments powered by Disqus Links to this post    

Labels: abortion, health, human rights, prochoice, prolife, women's rights

 This is latest big government intervention on the horizon. Though I highly doubt it will become legal in the case of two million morbidly obese children. I think the government needs to give parents more credit and just raise awareness of the health risks and dangers of being morbidly obese. The child's pediatrician should have these children on special diets and instruct the parents as well as to what a healthy diet and weight for their child is.

It is not the job of the government to take children away from their homes and families, dividing families and causing emotional trauma to children, in order to make sure their children are eating a proper diet. The trauma of being separated could become worse for the child than the actual solution to the weight problem, as has occurred in such cases already. Not to mention, there is a need for more foster families to care for children who are in far more imminent danger from abuse,&death.

CDC:2009 State Prevalence Among Low-Income Children Aged 2 to 4 Years

While I believe government intervention is needed to protect children from imminent harm,such as physical,sexual abuse&neglect, this is not necessarily a case of neglect or abuse,but perhaps lack of parental guidance,supervision or education and awareness,and could also be genetic. Some children are prone to weight problems, diabetes and other conditions because of genetic predispositions. You can't say because your child is 100 pounds overweight we are going to take them away from you. This is a dangerous precedent to take, because who's to say later the government won't say, your child is failing in school so we are going to remove them from your care and make sure they are getting proper tutoring and supervision.

The New American sums up the case of government intervention below, as reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association:

An article in the most recent edition of the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) suggests that as many as two million children who are "morbidly obese" should be put on a diet by government and removed from their parents and families if they don't show progress.
A morbidly obese person is someone who's body mass index (BMI) is 40 or higher, generally someone who is 100 pounds or more overweight. According to the July 13 USA Today, and the JAMA article, "Roughly 2 million U.S. children are extremely obese. Most are not in imminent danger, Ludwig said. But some have obesity-related conditions such as Type 2 diabetes, breathing difficulties and liver problems that could kill them by age 30."
USA Today added, "Ludwig said he started thinking about the issue after a 90-pound 3-year-old girl came to his obesity clinic several years ago. Her parents had physical disabilities, little money and difficulty controlling her weight. Last year, at age 12, she weighed 400 pounds and had developed diabetes, cholesterol problems, high blood pressure and sleep apnea." But Ludwig has apparently never heard of the legal adage that "hard cases make bad law."
David Ludwig of Boston Children's Hospital, one of the two authors of the JAMA article, is quick to say that society itself should be restructured — in addition to the family — in order to combat childhood obesity. "The point isn’t to blame the parents, but rather to act in the child’s best interest and get them help that for whatever reason their parents can’t provide,” Ludwig told the Children's Hospital blog. “It’s ironic that we would blame parents for their child’s obesity when we tolerate as a society policies that directly promote obesity, like food ads aimed at young people, atrocious-quality school lunches, cutbacks in school budgets to support regular physical education. There’s plenty of blame to spread around.”
Ludwig and his co-author Lindsey Murtagh of the Harvard School of Public Health acknowledge their proposals are going to be controversial. "State intervention would clearly not be desirable or practical, and probably not be legally justifiable, for most of the approximately 2 million children in the United States with a BMI at or beyond the 99th percentile," the two wrote.
Indeed, the legal hurdles are daunting. The traditional standard for removing a child from his or her parents has been only to prevent permanent "imminent and irreparable harm to the child." Despite the extreme example that inspired Ludwig, most obese children have little damage that is irreparable to them and little damage that is imminent. Moreover, even imminent harm to a child alone is not enough to necessitate taking a child away from his parents. In a 2004 New York state custody case, the state's highest court unanimously ruled that "the court must specifically consider whether imminent risk to the child might be eliminated by other means" before parental custody can be removed.
This standard of presumption on behalf of parents is under assault, however. "It’s a controversial stance, but not one without precedent," the Boston Children's Hospital blog noted. "To date seven states have seen legal cases where the over-nourishment of a minor ended in state intervention."
And while nobody wants children to grow up obese and with health problems, the alternative is almost certainly worse. ABC-TV covered the Ludwig story and found that in one case placement in foster care did not cure the weight issue, but parental separation had traumatized the child.

Additional steps are being enforced already to reduce children's weight by limiting what they eat in school and the government dictating what choices kids have under Michelle Obama's platform. Some companies propose curbing junk food ads for kids , while states like CA are banning kids meals at fast food restaurants and other restaurants are changing their kids menus to offer more healthy selections. While this may limit people's choices;it only takes away freedom of choice and could cause children to eat less because they aren't eating what they want. However, this could also lead to malnutrition problems as well,because while taking away 'junk food' choices and chocolate milk might seem like a good decision, it could also hinder kids choices and willingness to eat a full meal.  The bottom line is that parents need to be educated on what a healthy diet is,practice eating healthy,stay active themselves and to limit junk food in the home. This  is what we strive to do with our sons, who are thankfully very active and healthy.


Source:New American

©2008-2011 Patricia Garza

 

©2008 Patricia Garza

Posted by Patty Littlebytesnews at 11:50 AM 0 comments blog comments powered by Disqus Links to this post    

Labels: awareness, children, cooking moms dads parents nurtrition, government, health, Health care, obesity

I saw this video earlier in the week and thought it was cute,but watched it again today and noticed something humorously ironic about it and the tragedy of abortion. While abortion is not a laughing matter, the old&tired argument abortion advocates like to use is:"it's my body my choice" is humorously depicted in this video.

This video shows two young children talking about abortion via an animated cartoon. The little girl explains how her mom told her she has a right to her body&if something is using her body she can get rid of it if she wants. So she chooses to urinate&poop on the carpet and her mom asks why she does it...she tells her because it's her body&her choice. LOL


On a more serious note, how do you tell your children about abortion and what the choice to abortion means? At what age do you think you should talk about this issue?

I have mentioned it slightly with my sons, who are too young to understand all about sex and birth control yet. But they understand and know where babies come from so I have told them while watching a video on when life begins, The Miracle of Life, that we all started as small cells in our mommies tummy and those cells grow to become little babies and as the baby grows they get too big for their mommies tummy so they have to come out and they are born. They understand they came from my tummy[uterus] but aren't yet old enough to understand all the medical and technical terminology, so I kept it simple. But, I want to make sure they know we all started out the same way, so that when the topic of abortion comes up they will understand the immorality of taking the life of a living and growing human being in the womb. I feel it is imperative that parents teach children where babies come from and that we must respect the right for everyone to be born and have a chance to live. There is never an excuse for abortion and personal responsibility must take precedent.

In addition, regarding rape/incest, children should be taught as they get old enough to understand sex and sexuality,such as pre-teens, that there are people who sometimes try to hurt girls/women[&sometimes boys/men] and can cause them harm or cause women to get pregnant with a baby they didn't plan for. I will ask them is it right to harm the baby because of something someone did to the mother or is it better that the criminal/bad guy gets punished? I'm sure their response will be the bad guy should go to jail, not that the baby should be harmed or punished. I am a Catholic, but I also believe in the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would want done to you. I teach and plan to emphasize this rule with my sons often, along with teaching our religious convictions, such as following the 10 commandments.

Currently, we teach our children about stranger danger and make sure they know their body is private and nobody should touch them anywhere they don't want to be touched, especially in private areas&unless mommy or daddy are there like at the doctor's office. Until they reach a more mature stage&are tweens I don't feel teaching every aspect of sex,homosexuality or anything related in depth is necessary. Though my children do know that men marry women and that only men and women can make babies together. My oldest has asked me,perhaps because of another child in school, what if some kids have two dads? I say sometimes it happens but that two dads can't make kids together. All of these are tough topics to deal with, but seem to be getting pushed more and more on young children at younger and younger ages due to television,media advertising, movies,and homosexual/gender diversity education and new legislation, such as same sex marriage. I truly wish we didn't have to deal with all of these topics at such a young age, but I will be as open as I can, while being honest about each issue and emphasizing the importance of respecting human life from conception to natural death and treating others the way we would want to be treated.

Finally, while I was raised in a large family, my parents weren't as open about talking about sex and puberty, so I mostly learned from my older siblings or peers about it, because of this I hope to be more open with my sons about these issues,as I try to be more open with signs of affection in front of them and towards them. My family was rather conservative growing up&traditional, so our parents rarely kissed in front of each other&we rarely hugged one another. Thankfully my husband was raised in a little more open family and we both freely express our affection for one another and our kids in public. We kiss and hug each other and our boys without hesitation. I don't think I missed out on being loved as a child because of this, but I think it is healthy to show and share your affection and love for those you care about and should say I love you every day to them, because you should never take life foregranted. This again is another reason all life should be respected because we only get one chance to live and that is when we are born.


via Jill Stanek

©2008-2011 Patricia Garza

 

©2008 Patricia Garza

Posted by Patty Littlebytesnews at 3:55 PM 0 comments blog comments powered by Disqus Links to this post    

Labels: abortion, health, Kids and Teens, morals, parenting, parents, pro-life, prochoice, prolife, values, women's rights

According to this recent post upsetting the proabortion movement on twitter, women are being arrested unjustly and being charged with murder and feticide for drug abuse habits or ingesting toxic chemicals:

38 of the 50 states across America have introduced fetal homicide laws that were intended to protect pregnant women and their unborn children from violent attacks.

How is it that abortion or taking illegal substances during pregnancy are not equally a violent attack or crime against the unborn?? Why are women given the legal right to hire some doctor to assist them with drugging their unborn child or suctioning them out in pieces is legal&not considered a violent attack, but intentionally ingesting drugs or toxic substances is? Both should be seen equally wrong& violent crimes.

However, proabortion advocates are upset that women are going to jail for having miscarriages, stillbirths or delivering babies who die shortly after birth because of the actions of the mother.

Most recently a mother ate rat poison to attempt suicide after finding out her boyfriend was leaving her. She was 33 weeks pregnant at the time,instead of taking responsibility for the well being of her preborn child she chose to risk her life& her preborn child's life by consuming a toxic chemical which later lead to the death of her newborn baby. In this case, I find it is a clear case of negligent homicide because she caused the death of her newborn by ingesting a toxic substance without concern for the well being of her preborn child.

When a woman is pregnant she is a mother,despite what proabortion advocates believe, and as parents we have a responsibility to the well being of our children and should have that same responsibility while they are in the womb or out. If we can't care for our children in the womb how can we be trusted to care for children who are born? Those who do not want to be mothers can choose adoption as an alternative to parenting rather than aborting or killing their preborn child.

In another case, a young teen is in jail for taking cocaine while pregnant, regardless of her addiction problem;she had a right& responsibility to care for her preborn child's well being. The method of death is no different than whether someone put poison in her drink or she intentionally consumed or used a toxic or illegal substance. As women, when we are pregnant we are mothers and are responsible for the well being of another life,not just our own!

The case below is a little more complicated,but if toxicology tests can prove the cause of death was from the fetus or newborn being exposed to toxic chemicals or illegal drugs than the mother should be held accountable:

In Alabama at least 40 cases have been brought under the state's "chemical endangerment" law. Introduced in 2006, the statute was designed to protect children whose parents were cooking methamphetamine in the home and thus putting their children at risk from inhaling the fumes.



Amanda Kimbrough is one of the women who have been ensnared as a result of the law being applied in a wholly different way. During her pregnancy her fetus was diagnosed with possible Down's syndrome and doctors suggested she consider a termination, which Kimbrough declined as she is not in favour of abortion.



The baby was delivered by caesarean section prematurely in April 2008 and died 19 minutes after birth.

Police charged her with chemical endangerment.

Six months later Kimbrough was arrested at home and charged with "chemical endangerment" of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs during the pregnancy – a claim she has denied.

There aren't enough details on this case to say why police waited six months later to charge her,but there must have been some sort of evidence to cause them to arrest her. I guess we will have to wait and see what the courts say when and if her case goes to trial and if it gets the same attention the Casey Anthony murder received.

A civil rights lawyer speaking on the case had this to say:

"If it's not a crime for a mother to intentionally end her pregnancy, how can it be a crime for her to do it unintentionally, whether by taking drugs or smoking or whatever it is," Robert McDuff, a civil rights lawyer asked the state supreme court.

This statement defines the problem with legal abortion...if women can hire someone[ie:an abortionist] to intentionally end her pregnancy and kill a preborn human being/offspring in the womb;then what's to say women can't make wreckless 'choices' about their life& cause harm or death to them in the womb or when born??

After all, choice is choice and when someone chooses to take drugs or intentionally exposes her preborn child to illegal and toxic substances while pregnant&it causes the fetus or newborn to die the woman should be held responsible. It's no different than intentionally giving your born child an overdose or putting poison in their food. Both actions result in the death of a human being;one is preborn and the other is born.

Death is death, but how one dies or is killed should matter in all cases otherwise we wouldn't have homicide,feticide and suicide laws. This is one reason I also support determining the cause of death of a miscarriage or stillborn,especially if the mother's health& pregnancy were not at risk,and to determine genetic problems that could be caught early.

AlterNet

©2008-2011 Patricia Garza

 

©2008 Patricia Garza

Posted by Patty Littlebytesnews at 5:46 PM 0 comments blog comments powered by Disqus Links to this post    

Labels: child abuse, mother's, parental rights, pro-life, prochoice, prolife, women's rights