The Pain of Divorce

Divorce is an evil of contemporary society. Approximately one-half of all marriages fail to endure "until death do us part", as the spouses pledged in their wedding ceremony. The consequences of a marriage break-up are damaging for everyone, excepting, of course, the lawyers who make substantial financial gains from the legal proceedings.

For the couple involved, a divorcing is one of the most painful experiences life has to offer. Among the common difficulties are:

* Loss of a loved and trusted partner

If you were not the party who initiated divorce proceedings, you may be in a state of shock for some time. The person you loved, with whom you planned to spend the rest of your life, has betrayed your trust. That realization may hit you like a fast, hard fist in the stomach.

Compounding the misery, is the necessity of informing your family members and close friends of the new reality. Although this may be hard to do without dissolving into tears, these same relatives and friends will be your best sources of support through the difficult days ahead. Their compassion and affection will be of significant value as you begin the adjustment period, and also as you start your new life.

* Trauma for children

If there are children in the family, their emotional welfare must be of utmost concern.. They will lose the security of having two on-site parents. Their living arrangements will be disrupted. They may feel that they are somehow at fault for driving the departing parent away. They will cling desperately to the custodial parent, fearful he or she may also abandon them. Youngsters could benefit from psychological counselling to help them adjust to the new circumstances.

* Damage to self-image

Meanwhile, each spouse may be dealing with personal emotional issues. The departing partner should be dealing with, at least, a vague sense of guilt, even as he or she attempts to retain enough material assets with which to begin an independent life. The custodial parent must continue with daily routine of work and childcare, struggle with grief and loss, while trying to plan for the future. Both partners, if they are honest, must admit that they have failed at the marriage. Their ability to accurately judge the characters of members of the opposite sex is called into question. Moving forward, there can be no guarantee they will not make another such mistake in the future.

*Lifestyle change

Different housing arrangements, perhaps a change of schools and new routines must be established. Instead of two adults contributing to family scheduling and activities, there will now be only one. For childless couples, this will allow greater freedom for each partner. For those with children, the custodial parent usually has to accept the majority of responsibilities.

Financial hardship

Previous family income will be halved. Sacrifices will be made by everyone: music lessons, sports activities, vacations, family excursions and other "extras" will be eliminated or severely reduced in number.

* Adjustment of social circles

It is difficult, although not impossible, to stay close to former in-laws after a marriage break-up. The number of persons each spouse had previously considered as extended family will be drastically reduced.

Each partner will also confront a need to acquire new friends. They will no longer fit in with groups of other married couples. The process of meeting others takes time. Meanwhile, at least one partner, the one left behind, should expect a lengthy period of loneliness, regret and soul-searching.

For all these reasons, the decision to divorce should never be taken lightly. The couple, their children, their friends and family will all be negatively impacted by a marriage break-up. It is for humanity's benefit, not God's, that the Good Book decrees: "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

 

Should Mitt Romney release more than 2 years of tax returns?

Democrats and even many Republicans agree that Mr. Romney should release his tax returns for the last ten years. The fact that he refuses to do so should raise important questions in the minds of the American people, those who oppose him and his supporters as well. Why would he not do so? There are at least three possibilities that occur to this writer.

 1. Is Mitt Romney just plain stubborn? Having once decided that tax returns for the past two years are sufficient, is he refusing to be pushed further by the media and increasing public pressure?

If so, the fact raises troubling concerns about the character of the man who seeks the presidency. Citizens hope that their future commander-in-chief will be attentive to the concerns of the people and  anxious to put to rest any uncertainties they might have. His obstinacy in this matter would indicate disregard for his fellow citizens.

Also, in these days of international conflicts, the president needs to be a master of negotiation. Why does Senator Romney not offer to release the tax returns from the last five years, if that will satisfy the questioners?

2. Is he afraid that his ever-increasing wealth and opulent lifestyle will alienate voters, many of whom have struggled just to make ends meet during the recent economic downturn?  His tax return for 2010 shows that his income was $21.6 million. He promises to release the 2011 figure before the election.

According to Forbes Magazine, Mitt Romney owns $18 million in real estate. With his wife,  he owns 3 homes and 2 Cadillacs. His net worth is about $250 million dollars. He also has an undetermined number of offshore investments.  Perhaps he fears that voters will judge that he may have difficulty relating to the average American. In this instance, the voters may well have a legitimate concern.

3. Prior to be elected governor of  Massachusetts, Mitt Romney headed a company named Bain Capital. In 1999, Romney claims to have taken a leave from the company to run the Salt Lake City Olympics.

He says that during this time, he had neither knowledge of nor control over the decisions Bain made. However, from 1999 to 2002, Mitt Romney was listed on the Securities and Exchange Commission documents as Bain Capital’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer and president.” In addition, he received a $100,000 annual salary from the company.

During those years, Bain Capital ran companies that laid off workers, outsourced numerous jobs and invested in a business called Stericycle, whose services included the disposal of aborted fetuses. All of these activities would be embarrassments to Candidate Romney who did not wish to alienate pro-life supporters and American workers, many of whom were unemployed because of outsourcing.

For these reasons alone, Senator Romney should release his tax returns for at least the last ten years. His father released tax forms for the previous twelve years during his bid for the presidency in 1968.

 Even if they reveal that he is as stubborn as a mule, outlandishly wealthy, and had approved Bain Capital decisions that were unwise in view of his present situation, it would be better to reveal them now and deal with the consequences. If these facts come to light just before the November election, they may result in a disastrous ending to a hard-fought campaign.  

 

Is it right to use animals for medical research?

My husband is currently awaiting open heart surgery. He needs an aortic valve replacement. Several bypasses will be performed while the surgeon has access to his chest cavity. His damaged heart valve will be replaced with that of a pig. If I had to make a choice about whose life to save, my husband's or the pig's, there would be no contest.

Undoubtedly, many pigs were sacrificed while the valve replacement operation was being developed and perfected. However, the end result would be that thousands of human lives would be saved or prolonged every year through the use of this animal tissue. I have no ethical problem with this.

Of course, experimentation on any living creature should be performed humanely, by competent and compassionate scientists. Pain killers and sedatives should be administered as needed to eliminate any possibility of pain or trauma to the animals. In Canada, medical laboratories using animals are routinely checked by government monitors to ensure that humane procedures are strictly followed.

Most people routinely consume meat from cattle, pigs, poultry, fish, and even wild game, without a thought as to how the animal progressed from being a living creature to being a part of the dinner on the plate before them. Periodically, horror stories are reported of inhumane practices on factory farms or in slaughter houses owned and managed by insensitive, money-hungry individuals.

In reality, humans can live quite well without meat, as evidenced by the thousands of vegetarians living healthy lives around the globe. Those who don't object to the slaughter of animals solely to tantalize their taste buds, are surely being hypocritical when they complain about the use of animals in research which will culminate in the saving of human lives. Let's keep our priorities straight.

Most religions allow the comsumption of at least some meat, knowing that this form of protein is valuable in achieving and maintaining good health. In his letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul advises his followers: " Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience, for the earth and its fullness are the Lord's." (1 Cor 10:25)

Humans have a duty to be responsible stewards of the earth and all its resources. We are obliged to preserve them, to use them with care and never to destroy or waste any of the products of natural world. Some plants, animals, birds and sea creatures provide human food and medicine. Other organisms exist for a variety of reasons: sheep give us wool, hens provide eggs, etc. Still others, as does the whole of creation, reflect the beauty, versatility and awesome power of the Creator.

When my husband is wheeled into the operating room for heart surgery, my first prayers will be his safety and health and for the success of the operation. Then, I will thank God for the plants and animals used to improve and prolong life, and for scientists and doctors whose knowledge and skill enable them to appropriate these tools for the benefit of humankind. Without medical reasearch, some of which must be on animals, these achievements would have been impossible.

Should former US presidents speak out against a current president?

The rest of us speak out quickly enough. Why shouldn't former presidents have the same right?

Seriously, of course former presidents should speak out against a current president if they disagree with him or any of his policies. In addition, they should speak out in his support when they agree with him.

Under the American political system, the people elect the person they consider the brightest and the best in the country to be their president. The individual doesn't lose these qualities when his term of office is finished. By speaking out on issues of the day, he can continue to offer guidance to the ship of state, though from a greater distance.

Sometimes as citizens, we tend to become preoccupied with our own lives or, at times we become just plain lethargic. We fail to pay sufficient attention to government activities, to foreign affairs or domestic policies being formulated in Washington. But wait a minute!

If, suddenly, several former presidents speak out strongly in support or against a particular law, or issue being discussed in Congress, and it is widely reported in the media, many people will snap to attention. They may even be motivated to become involved and influence the outcome of the matter.

During their terms of office, former presidents were made aware of background information that may not have been available to the general public. Because of this, their judgements are apt to be more informed and should carry greater weight. Shrewd listeners will pay close attention.

These men still have connections with influential friends and associates they met while in the White House. They hear the rumours and back room gossip to which ordinary citizens are not privy. They have the good sense to know which scuttlebutt is valuable and which should be ignored.

In some cases. they also have connections with leaders and other influential individuals overseas. They can help voters see other viewpoints besides those of the current administration. There are always two sides to every story.

Former presidents are, in most cases, out of public life and back home in the bosoms of family and friends. They no longer have to worry about party politics or maintaining a presidential image. Their priorities are now likely to be similar to that of most ordinary Americans.

They want peace and security for their country, jobs and a decent living wage for their friends and relatives, and a clean, healthy environment to leave to their children and grandchildren. The difference is that they have greater skill and more privileged knowledge than most of us, to bring to bear on attaining theses goals.

Former presidents should consider it a duty to speak out as their conscience dictates, either for or against the current president. Americans, and indeed, the citizens of the whole world will be poorer and less knowledgeable if they choose to keep silent.

Designer babies: reflection on foetal screening during pregnancy

Ultrasound has made it possible to peer into the sanctuary of a mother's womb and see the developing foetus moving about in the amniotic fluid. Amniocentesis, whereby a needle is inserted into the womb, and some of the fluid surrounding the baby is withdrawn, is another prenatal test sometimes performed. The fluid can be checked for genetic birth defects in the child. Occasionally one or both of these tests will reveal a foetal abnormality. What happens then?

The answer usually depends on the spiritual faith of the parents. If they believe in the sanctity of human life, from conception to natural death, they will continue with the pregnancy, ensuring that the mother has the best possible physical, emotional and spiritual care, and preparing as well as possible for the birth of their child. If, on the other hand, they believe that the foetus is just a blob of tissue, the likely result will be abortion.

In actual fact, by the fourth week after the egg is fertilized, often before the mother even realizes she is pregnant, traces of all the body organs are present in the embryo. It is only 1/4 inch long, but its face is beginning to take shape. Bulges that will become ears and nose appear.

By the seventh to eighth week of pregnancy, the head can be identified. It contains a developing brain. Amazingly, the tiny heart has already begun to beat. Fingers and toes appear.

By the end of the third month, nails form on the fingers and toes. The bones begin to calcify. The foetus begins to make breathing movements. Skeletal muscles and muscles in the intestines begin to contract and relax, already preparing for life in the outside world.

Because the developing child is recognizable as a human baby, abortionists will keep the ultrasound monitor turned away from the mother, as they perform the procedure. If she saw her baby, recognizable as it tries move away from the lethal instruments, she might well change her mind.

In the near future, science may progress to the stage where parents can produce designer offspring. They may be able to choose the sex, hair and eye color, intelligence, athletic ability, and every other feature that will form their child's physical appearance, character and levels of natural abilities. Will this be a beneficial progression? I submit that it will not.

We humans have no right to play God. Choosing a new car is one thing. Wanting to possess a designer child is quite another. The all-wise Creator knows exactly what child will be best fit into each family situation, and He will not give any family a burden with which it cannot cope. The disabled person is no less valuable than the able-bodied. A quick study of the life and contribution of Stephen Hawking will bear out this fact.

Modern technology, such as ultrasound, should inspire in us emotions of wonder and awe. We are now privileged to witness the creative action of God in the very process of creating a new human being. It should definitely not be used to aid in the destruction of His unfinished handwork.

There is great value, beauty, and fascination for all of us in the diversity of people inhabiting our planet. God has been doing a great job designing humans thus far. We should not usurp His undertaking. If we try until eternity, we'll never be able to even approach His talent.

If I were the American President

If I were president, my first act would be to order all American troops home from Afghanistan as soon as they could safely be evacuated. The people from that part of the world would then be responsible for settling their own differences. They've been battling each other for thousands of years. If they choose to continue to do so, so be it.

I would send troop carriers to the prison compound at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to return all prisoners to their country of origin. They're not likely to become sterling citizens; why should America spend time and money detaining them, trying them, imprisoning the guilty and later attempting to rehabilitate them?

The Cuban base itself I return to the government of Cuba. NATO allies no longer need a remote facility in which to "persuade" alleged war criminals to confess.

As President, my next project would be the construction several state-of-the-art military hospitals around the country. Care would be available to all veterans wounded in either body or mind while serving their country. Members of the military would be kept in hospital as long as necessary, then given attentive follow-up care until they were completely healthy, with no cost to themselves or their families.

With the money I had saved from waging war, I would establish an effective health care system, so that every man, woman and child in the United States would have quick access to the best doctors and medical treatment available. This service would be free and the same for everyone, no special treatment for sports figures or politicians.

International outreach committees would be established to oversee foreign relations: no more confrontational postures would be allowed. Our ambassadors would be instructed to hold discussions with every country, to find areas of agreement and attempt to build on them to form positive alliances. There would be no name-calling or vilification. Labeling a country and its people "evil" is hardly the way to win cooperation or establish a basis for fruitful negotiations.

I would strive to have America lead by example. When she became once again the strongest, most honorable, peaceful, most respected democracy in the world, other nations would be anxious to install similar forms of government. And, the changeovers would be accomplished by peaceful means.

I would appoint George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as roving ambassadors for peace. They would travel the globe, lecturing to all who would listen about the benefits of living in a peaceful world. And if their audiences were always very small? Well, at least they won't be getting themselves and us into any more trouble.

Finally, I would establish free daycare for every family having young children or older dependents with special needs. Every able-bodied adult would be required to work at an appropriate job, 40 hours daily, five days a week. Minmum wages would be adjusted so that everyone would be assured of receiving a decent living wage.

Does this sound like an Utopian dream? Perhaps someday, someone who is wise and competent enough will be elected to the presidental office, and put this plan or a similar one into action. What would you bet that this capable, far-sighted individual will be a woman?   

Should control of Jerusalem be split between the Israelis and the Palestinians?

Jerusalem is regarded as the holiest city in the world by many people. It is the site of places sacred to three of the world's great religions. The Dome of the Rock is holy to the Muslims, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher to Christians, and the Western Wall of the Temple Mount to the Jews. The status of Jerusalem has been a stumbling block to all peace negotiations in the Middle East. It seems ironic that leaders and members of three of the world's great faith communities cannot find a way to coexist peacefully with each other.

Control of Jerusalem has been contested for centuries. Some of the bloodiest battles between Jews and Arabs have been fought within its walls. In the 1967 war, Israel gained control of Jerusalem. The Jews contend that it is now, and must remain the eternal capital of Israel, and that it should remain forever under Israel's sovereignty. Their government's official guidelines guarantee freedom of worship and access to holy places to members of all faiths. Within the city there is tension and the occasional skirmish, but day-to-day-life is relatively normal. To date, the Israelis maintain control of Jerusalem, although there are neighborhoods of Palestinians within the city.

The Palestinian authorities maintain that Jerusalem should be the capital of an independent Palestinian state. They demand that Israel withdraw from all territory captured during the 1967 war. At present, the status of Jerusalem has been left open until the final negotiating period of an all-encompassing peace initiative, because it will almost certainly be the greatest problem.

The question arises: should the city be split, divided between the Israelis and the Palestinians? I submit that it should not.

The chance of civil conflict would be increased. The police of one state would inevitably clash with those of the other on something. Even if the matter were minuscule, the citizenry of each side would join in to support their officers, and the result would be a battle. With the Middle East such a powder keg, it could easily escalate into a more  serious situation.

The Israelis seem to have done well maintaining the peace in Jerusalem. There are adjustments which must be made to facilitate access of Muslims to their shrine, but these could be effected with a few strokes of a pen. Perhaps an advisory body, consisting of several representatives of each faith, could be established to recommend necessary changes in policies affecting Jerusalem to the Israeli government.

All of these three faith groups honor some version of the Golden Rule, "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Leviticus 19:18

If a major publicity campaign were launched and carried out by the leaders of all religions within the holy city, persistently drumming this injunction into the consciousness of every citizen, Jerusalem just might become the shining example of peace and brotherhood in the Middle East, instead of the major stumbling block to peace.

One can only imagine God smiling with delight at this development. "Well, they finally got the message. It's about time..."