Life Matters

Brian Johnston gives an overview of why the assertion of the right to live is not based on the theological question of Ensoulment. The right to life is based on self-evident truths as demonstrated through observation and demonstrated in the laws of nature.

"Ensoulment" is an issue which is often raised regarding the question of the right to life of a pre-born child. But this issue of when the soul enters the body is solely one of conjecture and religious opinion.

The invocation of such a question is merely an invitation to uncertainty and ultimately leads to a lack of conviction regarding protection for that child. The right to life, on the other hand, is based solely on self-evident truths that are demonstrable and can be shown objectively, and is not determined on personal predilection or personal enlightenment in opinion. The founders of United States asserted that this was necessary in establishing justice and that, in fact, right to life was the first and most immediate of the self-evident truths established for the purpose of government to protect.

Brian tells the story of his cat "Tiger." The friendship and comfort we get from animals is often confused with a question of soul and is currently being used to promote the notion of animal rights. It is critically important that this very pernicious idea, that an animal should have the same rights as a human being, be confronted for what it is: a confusing assertion, based not much on fact, but in our emotional feelings towards those animals.

The protection of innocent children in the womb is based upon scientific evidence. Common law protected the child after quickening, but protection of the child from conception began in England in the mid-1800s after Sir Thomas Barry had witnessed conception is the beginning of human life in the modern microscope. By 1860, the British Parliament had enacted the "Crimes Against the Person Act," making all abortions a felony.

The United Kingdom had moved to outlaw the slave trade long before the United States rose to the proper understanding of the humanity of the slave. Similarly, the United Kingdom rose to the protection of the unborn child long before the United States. An American student at the University of Edinburgh was in fact studying childbirth at the time. His name was Dr. Horatio Storer and he became the Father of Modern Gynecology.

On his return to the States, he took it upon himself to similarly pass laws to protect that vulnerable child who had been denied legal protection. Storer, along with the American Medical Association, went state by state, not asserting his faith as the premise, but asserting the self-evident, scientific truths of the child's life in the womb which was demonstrable and which was beyond debate. Those are the laws that were in effect up until 1973.

Those laws are obviously under attack, but what is worse is that logical thinking is under attack with the new assertion that animals are essentially the same as human beings and should be afforded the same rights. There is confusion in both mind and heart regarding this battle of ideas and even well-meaning Christians have errantly been seduced by such thinking.

It is vitally important to understand the battle of ideas that human laws are first and foremost designed to protect human lives; that animals should indeed be cared for and protected, but they are of an entirely different nature than the laws which need to be in place for human beings. Professor Peter Singer is one of many thought leaders who is forcing on the culture the idea that animals are in fact in some cases more worthy than certain human beings of having their lives protected. This is a direct assault on the right to life.

Brian Johnston gives an overview of why the assertion of the right to live is not based on the theological question of Ensoulment. The right to life is based on self-evident truths as demonstrated through observation and demonstrated in the laws of nature.

“Ensoulment” is an issue which is often raised regarding the question of the right to life of a pre-born child. But this issue of when the soul enters the body is solely one of conjecture and religious opinion.

The invocation of such a question is merely an invitation to uncertainty and ultimately leads to a lack of conviction regarding protection for that child. The right to life, on the other hand, is based solely on self-evident truths that are demonstrable and can be shown objectively, and is not determined on personal predilection or personal enlightenment in opinion. The founders of United States asserted that this was necessary in establishing justice and that, in fact, right to life was the first and most immediate of the self-evident truths established for the purpose of government to protect.

Brian tells the story of his cat “Tiger.” The friendship and comfort we get from animals is often confused with a question of soul and is currently being used to promote the notion of animal rights. It is critically important that this very pernicious idea, that an animal should have the same rights as a human being, be confronted for what it is: a confusing assertion, based not much on fact, but in our emotional feelings towards those animals.

The protection of innocent children in the womb is based upon scientific evidence. Common law protected the child after quickening, but protection of the child from conception began in England in the mid-1800s after Sir Thomas Barry had witnessed conception is the beginning of human life in the modern microscope. By 1860, the British Parliament had enacted the “Crimes Against the Person Act,” making all abortions a felony.

The United Kingdom had moved to outlaw the slave trade long before the United States rose to the proper understanding of the humanity of the slave. Similarly, the United Kingdom rose to the protection of the unborn child long before the United States. An American student at the University of Edinburgh was in fact studying childbirth at the time. His name was Dr. Horatio Storer and he became the Father of Modern Gynecology.

On his return to the States, he took it upon himself to similarly pass laws to protect that vulnerable child who had been denied legal protection. Storer, along with the American Medical Association, went state by state, not asserting his faith as the premise, but asserting the self-evident, scientific truths of the child's life in the womb which was demonstrable and which was beyond debate. Those are the laws that were in effect up until 1973.

Those laws are obviously under attack, but what is worse is that logical thinking is under attack with the new assertion that animals are essentially the same as human beings and should be afforded the same rights. There is confusion in both mind and heart regarding this battle of ideas and even well-meaning Christians have errantly been seduced by such thinking.

It is vitally important to understand the battle of ideas that human laws are first and foremost designed to protect human lives; that animals should indeed be cared for and protected, but they are of an entirely different nature than the laws which need to be in place for human beings. Professor Peter Singer is one of many thought leaders who is forcing on the culture the idea that animals are in fact in some cases more worthy than certain human beings of having their lives protected. This is a direct assault on the right to life.

Science, used as a means to harm or destroy human life, is perverted science, and is detrimental to the right to life of the human race as beings created in the image and likeness of God.

Science, used as a means to harm or destroy human life, is perverted science, and is detrimental to the right to life of the human race as beings created in the image and likeness of God.

In the battle of ideas it is not uncommon for people to carry ideas in their head, but they don't know what the name of that idea really is. One of the most common, dangerous ideas abroad today is that of socialism. Socialism is a faith that, at its heart, believes that government must be empowered and government must address evil that emanates from classes of people, and that the purpose of government is to limit the evil done by certain groups of people. It is a faith that doesn't necessarily believe in individual right and wrong, but clearly believes in group right and wrong and is therefore a religious worldview, although it is a worldview that is quite free to deny God. It has its own morality and ethics, teaching sense of cultural sin and sense of redemption - all of which is dependent on the centralized government that is established to determines these things

The election of 2016 voting patterns demonstrated just how widespread this idea is as Bernie Sanders garnered millions upon millions of supportive votes for his very clear proclamation of socialist ideas. It is vitally important to realize that socialism views groups as the basis of society not human individuals and that socialism is – as a systematic approach to human events, willing to dismiss the value of individual lives.

The great challenge of World War II was actually in warring against this idea of socialism. Socialism came in two major forms. National Socialism - a collectivist form of government tried to right the wrongs of a nation which was perceived as an oppressed race, the defeated Germanic people as a cultural group. The other form of socialism is international socialism, which had gained a foothold in Russia, destroyed the foundations of that country and quickly spread like a cancer to the other Slavic nations creating a Soviet union. Inter-national Socialism, or Soviet communism, believes that the entire world should be governed by governments that treat people as groups and addresses the evil done by certain groups. It views 'The perfect society' as one, giant, egalitarian group.

Sir Winston Churchill recognized that freedom required opposing,, and ultimately destroying, both forms socialism, as science and all the tools of mankind would be perverted and individual human lives crushed under such ideas.

His speech, Their Finest Hour, is but one example of his clarity on the idea that the role of a just and free government is to protect the lives of its people and to not act against them.

In the battle of ideas it is not uncommon for people to carry ideas in their head, but they don't know what the name of that idea really is. One of the most common, dangerous ideas abroad today is that of socialism. Socialism is a faith that, at its heart, believes that government must be empowered and government must address evil that emanates from classes of people, and that the purpose of government is to limit the evil done by certain groups of people. It is a faith that doesn't necessarily believe in individual right and wrong, but clearly believes in group right and wrong and is therefore a religious worldview, although it is a worldview that is quite free to deny God. It has its own morality and ethics, teaching sense of cultural sin and sense of redemption - all of which is dependent on the centralized government that is established to determines these things

The election of 2016 voting patterns demonstrated just how widespread this idea is as Bernie Sanders garnered millions upon millions of supportive votes for his very clear proclamation of socialist ideas. It is vitally important to realize that socialism views groups as the basis of society not human individuals and that socialism is – as a systematic approach to human events, willing to dismiss the value of individual lives.

The great challenge of World War II was actually in warring against this idea of socialism. Socialism came in two major forms. National Socialism - a collectivist form of government tried to right the wrongs of a nation which was perceived as an oppressed race, the defeated Germanic people as a cultural group. The other form of socialism is international socialism, which had gained a foothold in Russia, destroyed the foundations of that country and quickly spread like a cancer to the other Slavic nations creating a Soviet union. Inter-national Socialism, or Soviet communism, believes that the entire world should be governed by governments that treat people as groups and addresses the evil done by certain groups. It views ‘The perfect society’ as one, giant, egalitarian group.

Sir Winston Churchill recognized that freedom required opposing,, and ultimately destroying, both forms socialism, as science and all the tools of mankind would be perverted and individual human lives crushed under such ideas.

His speech, Their Finest Hour, is but one example of his clarity on the idea that the role of a just and free government is to protect the lives of its people and to not act against them.

Brian Johnston, host of the Life Matters along with Roger Marsh, host of the Bottom Line, discuss several important pieces of California legislation. One is a bill which would mandate the distribution of the drug RU486 throughout the California college system. There are many many people including many pro-lifers, who regularly confuse RU486 with other pills taken, such as the morning after pill. The morning after pill is actually designed as a contraceptive, and is regularly included in rape kits issued at police stations in order to prevent the onset of pregnancy. RU486 is a dramatically different and a very lethal drug taken only after the woman is quite pregnant, usually she has missed at least one period. RU486 literally attacks the woman's body first. This very powerful artificial steroid is a combination of several drugs it causes the mothers body to no longer be a nurturing motherly body in spite of the fact that nature has designed her to dramatically change during pregnancy to fulfill her role as a mother. The drug causes her to cease providing nutrition and hydration to the child resting in her womb. Eventually, the child within her dies and is expelled as a miscarriage which she witnesses. Only then, upon seeing the head and arms and legs, will many women realize this is not merely a vague cluster of cells or a blob of tissue. Women in France, where this was designed, numerous women have died from the effects of RU486 on their own body. Many feminist authors have spoken out against RU486 because of the fact that it essentially attacks the woman's body in order to impact the body of the child. Giving this drug to young women in their late teens, who have no real understanding of the risks involved, is a very, very dangerous proposal. A second bill has to do with the other end of life and that is a bill authorizing nursing homes to, on their own recognizance, declare patients to be incompetent. This declaration empowers the nursing home to make any medical decisions they choose. What is not understood by many is that a very common medical decision, now being made for the sick, the terminally ill, seriously ill and even the disabled or otherwise medically dependent, is to simply end the life of that patient. Voluntary euthanasia through self-starvation and volunteer euthanasia through physician assistance (i.e. physician-assisted suicide), is already illegal in many places. The doctrine of substituted judgment allows a third-part to make that decision on behalf of a vulnerable patient. Thus, voluntary euthanasia has already moved to the status of non-voluntary euthanasia and is being practiced in California. State Senator Pan has sponsored SB 481 which protects nursing homes and other medical facilities from action when they decide to deny essential care or even intentionally cause the death of one of their patients. While this is a challenge in California in the growing battle of ideas, it is now a challenge nation and world wide.

Brian Johnston, host of the Life Matters along with Roger Marsh, host of the Bottom Line, discuss several important pieces of California legislation. One is a bill which would mandate the distribution of the drug RU486 throughout the California college system. There are many many people including many pro-lifers, who regularly confuse RU486 with other pills taken, such as the morning after pill. The morning after pill is actually designed as a contraceptive, and is regularly included in rape kits issued at police stations in order to prevent the onset of pregnancy.

RU486 is a dramatically different and a very lethal drug taken only after the woman is quite pregnant, usually she has missed at least one period. RU486 literally attacks the woman's body first. This very powerful artificial steroid is a combination of several drugs it causes the mothers body to no longer be a nurturing motherly body in spite of the fact that nature has designed her to dramatically change during pregnancy to fulfill her role as a mother. The drug causes her to cease providing nutrition and hydration to the child resting in her womb. Eventually, the child within her dies and is expelled as a miscarriage which she witnesses. Only then, upon seeing the head and arms and legs, will many women realize this is not merely a vague cluster of cells or a blob of tissue.

Women in France, where this was designed, numerous women have died from the effects of RU486 on their own body. Many feminist authors have spoken out against RU486 because of the fact that it essentially attacks the woman's body in order to impact the body of the child. Giving this drug to young women in their late teens, who have no real understanding of the risks involved, is a very, very dangerous proposal.

A second bill has to do with the other end of life and that is a bill authorizing nursing homes to, on their own recognizance, declare patients to be incompetent. This declaration empowers the nursing home to make any medical decisions they choose. What is not understood by many is that a very common medical decision, now being made for the sick, the terminally ill, seriously ill and even the disabled or otherwise medically dependent, is to simply end the life of that patient.

Voluntary euthanasia through self-starvation and volunteer euthanasia through physician assistance (i.e. physician-assisted suicide), is already illegal in many places. The doctrine of substituted judgment allows a third-part to make that decision on behalf of a vulnerable patient. Thus, voluntary euthanasia has already moved to the status of non-voluntary euthanasia and is being practiced in California.  State Senator Pan has sponsored SB 481 which protects nursing homes and other medical facilities from action when they decide to deny essential care or even intentionally cause the death of one of their patients. While this is a challenge in California in the growing battle of ideas, it is now a challenge nation and world wide.

Brian Johnston meets with Roger Marsh of the radio show Bottom Line and they interview Beau Brians: Communications Director of Life Fest Film Festival. The single most influential town in our nation is that place we refer to as "Hollywood". In the battle of ideas regarding the value of human life, Hollywood is a natural starting point. The influence of films on our culture and the thinking of the modern American, in fact, every member of the western world, is influenced by the films that are exported from Hollywood. Life Fest Film Festival is an annual event in Hollywood, California that honors those films that, in particular, value the significance of even the seemingly insignificant life. This had been a hallmark of classical Hollywood, but those values seem to have been lost. Life Fest Film Festival provides an opportunity for industry professionals as well as rising filmmakers and film aficionados to network together and to work on changing the message of Hollywood to affirm Human Life once again. More than 300 films from throughout the world are submitted each year for screening at the Raleigh Studios screening rooms. Raleigh Studios is the original studio for Hollywood founded by Charlie Chaplin in 1915 and is still a working studio lot for both film and television shows throughout the week. In addition to the film screenings, there are workshops for those interested in film-making and the Hollywood culture, and there is a special Filmmaker's Challenge: The 5 x 5 for Life where filmmaker's are given five days to write, produce, direct, and score a five minute film. All submissions that follow the rules are guaranteed to screen on the big screen in Hollywood.

Brian Johnston meets with Roger Marsh of the radio show Bottom Line and they interview Beau Brians: Communications Director of Life Fest Film Festival.

The single most influential town in our nation is that place we refer to as "Hollywood". In the battle of ideas regarding the value of human life, Hollywood is a natural starting point. The influence of films on our culture and the thinking of the modern American, in fact, every member of the western world, is influenced by the films that are exported from Hollywood.

Life Fest Film Festival is an annual event in Hollywood, California that honors those films that,  in particular, value the significance of even the seemingly insignificant life. This had been a hallmark of classical Hollywood, but those values seem to have been lost.

Life Fest Film Festival provides an opportunity for industry professionals as well as rising filmmakers and film aficionados to network together and to work on changing the message of Hollywood to affirm Human Life once again.

More than 300 films from throughout the world are submitted each year for screening at the Raleigh Studios screening rooms. Raleigh Studios is the original studio for Hollywood founded by Charlie Chaplin in 1915 and is still a working studio lot for both film and television shows throughout the week.

In addition to the film screenings, there are workshops for those interested in film-making and the Hollywood culture, and there is a special Filmmaker's Challenge: The 5 x 5 for Life where filmmaker's are given five days to write, produce, direct, and score a five minute film. All submissions that follow the rules are guaranteed to screen on the big screen in Hollywood.