January 28, 2007

Young Women's Leadership Conference

As an advocate for human life & dignity, the Christian faith, and women, I am always discouraged by the work that I see the prochoice/"women's rights" groups pursuing - because I don't think we are nearly as deliberate about developing women to live in this world, we forget (or don't even know?) that the cultural mandate was given to both man and woman. Apart from the chastity/abstinence movement (which is a good thing!!) I don't see much activity within evangelicalism toward the development of young women, especially as future leaders. I'm open to criticism on this, but what I see is an evangelical community in which the 20 and early 30 year old young women are absent. Where are they? Young women today want and can impact the world - professionally, politically, theologically, and eventually, through their own families. But in our evangelical subculture, young women don't seem to exist until they are married and start their family. Sorry about the generalization, but that's what I see. The fact is, women are in a great position in our society today to have a tremendous impact for the Kingdom of God, whether through secular work or in ministry proper. But what the heck are we doing to develop our young women today into tomorrow's leaders? While we're telling them to find a hunky young youth pastor to have a quiver-full with, the feminists are tapping into their talents and gifts and working to develop them as tomorrow's feminist leaders. If you don't believe me, check out the Young Women's Leadership Summit.

So while I'm hesitant to reveal all of my passions and desires in developing an annual event that focuses on young women, I find it necessary in order to bring a group together who is committed to developing today's young women into tomorrow's future leaders. I'm not trying to build an evangelical-feminist counterpart to extreme feminism. But I do believe young women are going to be significant players as tomorrow's leaders....but who will they advocate for? Will they be strong proponents for women's reproductive "rights" and rejoicing merely in busting through marble ceilings? Or will they represent what is right, true, and good, not seeking stature for the sake of stature, but seeking to impact the world that is both glorifying to God and personally meaningful? Time is short, so I hope you will join me in my goal to develop today's young women into tomorrow's leaders. Drop me a comment or an email at sarahflashing@gmail.com and let me hear from you.

January 24, 2007

American Idol, State of the Union, and Feminism

Last night was great television! I've never watched American Idol from the very beginning, and thus far I haven't missed a week. Of course, I don't appreciate the abuse that some of the not-so-talented people are forced to endure (for the record, abuse isn't always at the hand of Simon). But I really do enjoy the unexpected talent. So far this year, the best singers seem to be the least physically attractive people. In other words, they aren't covergirls or centerfolds, they're just regular people. One, in fact, looks just like Castro!

Last night's State of the Union address was equally as entertaining. While watching American Idol, my husband often remarks "wrong door" when people leave their audition and can't open the door to leave. We were both quite amused by the restraint of the democrats on many occasions last night. Similarly to the contestants trying to exit through the "wrong door," I could hear myself saying "wrong door" to the Dems who remained sitting in judgment of Bush whenever they didn't agree with parts of his speech. I know this is nothing new and is really something more of a tradition. But nevertheless, it is quite comical. Bush could have worn them down and had his speech written in a way that integrated a standup/sitdown pattern.

And while it's interesting that this is the first time in history that a President has been able to say "madam speaker" I am not all that interested in her gender. By demonstrating over-excessive glee over a woman (finally) in the speaker position is to forget the great accomplishments women have already had. Women have been to space, have written books, have fought for our right to vote, have fought for our country, have always been mothers, are college professors, CEO's, senators, etc. As a woman, having a woman speaker is no big deal to me. And having her as a liberal only makes things worse.

January 22, 2007

Not NOW: An Open Blogpost to Kim Gandy

This post is in response to NOW's press release, Roe v. Wade at 34: A Pillar of Reproductive Freedom. To say that it reveals a "depth of ignorance" is an understatement, because their press release qualifies as downright stupid. Tell me what you think.
The National Organization for Women, the first women's organization to call for an end to criminal abortion laws nearly 40 years ago, and a leader in the ongoing fight for reproductive rights...
...blah blah blah. I take serious issue with calling abortion laws that pre-existed Roe V. Wade "criminal." They might not have agreed with them, but that doesn't make them "criminal"...though it does make them laughable. A law, by definition, is not criminal. It may not be unconstitutional, but I don't think criminal is an appropriate category. Desperate.

In reference to the Hyde amendment, the press release states:
We must ensure that not one more life is sacrificed by those who would force unwilling women to give birth, but who care little for children after they are born
Fallacious. Rediculous. And not to mention, a terrible sentence structure. Kim Gandy, who the heck is writing your quotes? But even worse than that is the ironic concern for the sacrifice of life. Even if it were true that the prolife community doesn't do enough to support the mothers and the children saved from abortion, you seem to be suggesting that you would be against abortion if it were a perfect world for the newborns. Ok, well maybe that's a stretch - but perhaps that's why you should have logicians checking over your press releases. You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Why I'm giving you pointers on this, I'll never know. Perhaps if I can give life to your intelligence you can actually support the life of the unborn you mention in the press release.

January 14, 2007

Size Does Matter: Appeals to Size and Age in the ESCR Debate

Ok, well now I know I have your attention. As I've been reflecting on the latest use of rhetoric within the embryo-destructive research debate, it is evident that proponents of this research are not really debating whether or not the embryo is a life. Justification for the killing of embryonic people is rooted in "it's no bigger than a head of a pin" and an embryo is "a clump of cells only 5 days old" from which the embryonic stem cells will be harvested. It may be a small world for the human embryo, but it's clear that the big world of full-grown human beings is viewed as more valuable than that of smaller human beings. Sadly, size does matter.

As members of the human species, each of us were once at the embryonic stage, and each of us were once just 5 days into our life. One would think, using objective mathematics, that every embryonic person that exists for 5 days is 5 days old. Yes, that includes all of us. But for some reason, no one on the other side can tell us when life begins, and consequently, when each of us were 5 days into our life. Yet it is this 5 day mark that they use to suggest that it is acceptable to destroy embryonic life for destructive research purposes. For them, the embryonic person is not 5 days old, rather she is just five days old - and she is no bigger than the head of a pin. They really don't reject the application of an age category, proponents of embryonic-human-destructive-research see the measurement of days as a way to minimalize the humanity of an embryo, but not really deny her humanity.

I'll be drawing more out on this aspect of the debate in the coming days. Is there anything more scary than a society that can target for destruction certain members of the human species because they look different than the rest of us? Don't forget, the argument "well they are just going to be destroyed anyone" is not a scientific argument that justifies the science and it does not take into account the embryonic humans that will be created for the purpose of their destruction.

Egg Donation, Eugenics, and Exploitation

Slate has posted documents from The Abraham Center of Life which contains various statements and claims pertaining to the egg "donation" process.

1. "Egg donation is a safe, simple, procedure that requires little more than several scheduled doctor appointments and the administration of fertility medication." I did not see where they might have nuanced this even a little. Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome is a real risk. Some of the symptoms will range from general discomfort to sever pain, infection, organ failure, and infertility.

2. An egg donor is "compensated for her time and commitment..." not for her eggs, of course.

3. "With recent breakthroughs in cryopreservation, or the freezing of eggs, for later use in infertility treatment, it is important that couples consider the use, storage, and disposal of excess embryos not used for the initial medical treatment. As these technologies progress, the period of time an embryo can be viably stored and used is likely to increase dramatically. Thus, the ultimate disposal and use of excess of eggs should also be considered prior to entering into an Egg Donation Contract." This facilitates opportunity for ECSR scientists to swoop in like hawks and steal a young mother's children for embryo-destructive research purposes.

4. "The egg retrieval/aspiration is performed in a hospital like facility using IV sedation." Isn't that just funny!?! They can't call an embryo an embryo - it's just a clump of cells. They can't even call a clinic a clinic, it's a "hospital like facility."

5.“Typically a donor fee will range from $3500 to $15,000. Additional compensation is offered to those donors who have earned a post-graduate degree; have a unique skill, characteristic, or trait; or is she has previously cycled with our program and her Couple achieved a pregnancy." This isn't just a 'good birth' that our society is striving for, it's the perfect birth. And sadly, so much weight is being placed on genetics, I can't help but wonder what expectations will be placed on these eu-genetically manipulated lives. Will parents of these designer babies believe that they have no responsibility in their ultimate outcome?

There are some basic facts that continue to be ignored. These young women are not just giving up eggs, they are selling their own offspring. Their egg is obviously not an embryo when it is harvested from her body, but the intent, the plan, the motivation is to fertilize her egg and create a child. This child is biologically hers - the egg donor's. No matter how these clinics and centers twist their message, that truth cannot be escaped. And now these women will have to live with the fact that they've sold their children in order to buy a car or pay off some bills - when and if they come to realize this truth. Where are the outraged feminists!?!?!

Working for Christians

Recently I was chatting with some friends of mine, friends I hadn't seen in a while. We were doing the whole catch-up on each other's lives when our conversation took a weird turn - we said, in about unison "Christians are the worst."

"At what?" the reader inquires. . .

Sadly to say, we were talking about working with each other "on the job."

We came to the conclusion that we would rather work for and with those who don't claim to be "Christians" than for and with fellow believers. I know, this borders on heresy in some camps. But I don't think we are not alone in that vein of thought. There are many who find the tediousness of "office faith" unsatisfactory, especially in a "faith-based organization."

I think that holding each other to rigid standards of "righteousness" is part of the issue. We are in truth "sinners saved by grace" and "works in progress" - which is not the "name it, claim it and fake it when needed" kind of doctrine that is popular these days.

I read and believe the promises of God. I also live with me - and St. Paul and I are in total agreement with the "spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" thing. The older I get, the more I know me, and it is a good thing that "me" is a new creature in Christ. Cuz the old me - not good. But with this knowledge/wisdom comes a great relief that I don't have to pretend to have it all together 24/7. Always sharing one's personal victories breeds competitiveness. But sharing our vulnerabilities, now that births and nurtures community.

I will be posting on this subject in the next month. Faith in the workplace shouldn't even have to be addressed if our faith is as fully integrated as we advertise. But we seem to have developed some bizarre split-personality disorder that makes us different at the workplace than at church or at home.

For now. . . enough with this "what would Jesus do" t-shirt slogan. We should know what He would do because. . . daily we're reading the Bible and praying - living our faith, moment by moment - not issue by issue or place by place.

We should know what He would do and then do it.

January 13, 2007

Advocates of ESCR are the Real Politicians

Gail Pressburg, co-author of The Promise & Politics of Stem Cell Research with Pam Solo, discussed the so-called politics of embryonic stem cell research on January 11 at a D.C. bookstore which was aired on C-Span. A couple of things stood out to me during her presentation:

1. Anyone who disagrees with funding embryo-destructive research is just playing politics (according to the interview). It would be one thing to be told that those of us who are against the research are simply in error with our ethical analysis. But instead of challenging our arguments, we are reduced to players in a political game. Why not address our arguments instead of suggest that we have no argument at all? And by the way, no proponent of ESCR can say that this is not embryo-destructive research, as this accurately describes that the embryo is destroyed. But perhaps embryo-destructive research too kindly describes it, perhaps instead it should be referred to as human-destructive research.

2. "Five-day old cells." Gail, are you afraid to use the word embryo? After all, the name of the research establishes that it is embryos from which the stem cells are being harvested. Let's not be coy. As well, since when do we allow an age category to be applied to what are [claimed to be] just clumps of cells/embryo? This effort to disguise the personhood of the embryo by referring to it as just cells is disingenuous. And combining this cellular way of talking about the embryo and the fact of age with the admission "well they'll just be thrown away anyway" is nothing less than conceding to the fact that these are human beings at the beginning stages of life. "They'll just be thrown away" is not an ethical argument for why the research should be pursued, it only describes an unfortunate circumstance related to the error we have all made in the pursuit of IVF.

3. Perhaps the book speaks to this issue, but why in your presentation did you avoid discussion of SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer)? Those unfortunately afflicted with juvenile diabetes will require genetically compatible stem cells. Embryos in storage that are left over from IVF treatments will not be their answer, and women will be asked to risk their own health to donate eggs through which clones are created and stem cells are harvested. Not only do we lack substantive evidence that embryonic stem cell research is a viable option, we are even less sure about the cloning process. Advocates of human dignity know better that embryonic stem cell research is never a viable option because it destroys human life, that human cloning is an erroneous step as it creates life for it's intended destruction, and that other avenues offer more hope without the ethical baggage.

January 11, 2007

Killing People is a Big Deal, No Matter the Age or Stage

Let's just avoid the use of the word 'embryo' here for a second while we talk about what the House has approved. Proponents of this life-ending research hinge their arguments on the size of the person's life, arguing that it's not really any bigger than a pinhead, so what's the big deal? The big deal is, these are people and size and age are irrelevant factors to the value of human life. Human dignity is not based upon whether a person looks like a person, but whether they are genetically a human being. The House has approved federal funding for research that destroys human life. Can it get much worse than this?

January 10, 2007

Former CWA President Sandy Rios back at Chicago's WYLL

I remember the day when I realized Sandy was gone. It was such a disappointment - Sandy is a thoughtful and provocative radio host....in my opinion she's on the level of WLS's adorable and talented lil' heathen Roe Conn! Sandy Rios does a phenomenal job dealing with the political issues of the day, and Illinois needs her voice in a bad way.

Welcome home, Sandy!

January 9, 2007

The Liberal Sacrament of Abortion

Rush is right. There is no way to make any sense out of the left-wing's refusal to embrace other forms of stem cell treatment and continue to hype ESCR. The only way this makes any sense is to realize they are protecting their sacred cow. The debate over embryonic stem cell research really is all about the debate over the personhood of the unborn, it's NOT about "hope."

Discussing Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Rush said,

Why must you still continue to try to discredit all other research in favor of embryonic stem cell research, about which there are no success stories yet? It's because of abortion, and this is what's cruel. This is the false hope and the cruelty that the Democrats are famous for. Now they accuse others of it. That's typical of them, too.
Rush calls it like it is:
Why not research on umbilical cord blood cells that can be extracted from the blood in the umbilical cord? Because you can't take abortion out of this mix. Just because it's not being talked about in this campaign, do not be lulled and fooled into thinking that abortion does not remain the sacrament of the Democratic Party and its religion. It is the thing that they will never once compromise on, and they think that anything that stands in the way of embryonic stem cell research is going to be an obstacle to having abortions, and the converse is true.
As we call the left wing to intellectual honesty, let's do the same thing. The argument isn't fundamentally "embryonic stem cell research has not proven any real hope." Rather, the argument is this: embryos are people at the earliest of stages. Because all humans have dignity, no matter their age, stage, condition, or bank account, embryos should be treated with respect, not as subjects of research.

Embryonic Soldiers and the Liberal 'War on Terror'

What the heck do I mean by that? I know you're wondering. Pelosi's "100 hours" agenda seeks to end further funding for the War on Terror, yet her agenda aims to direct more tax payer dollars to embryo-destructive research. This is about to become the biggest draft in history, but these soldiers have no chance for survival. Yep, I said it. The liberals have their own "War on Terror" of sorts. But their actions to find cures are far more egregious than people realize, because they've cloaked the killing of human life in the language of hope and cures. This is an act of war against defenseless human life at it's earliest stage and is as great a threat to humanity as is abortion. Let me be clear. Embryonic stem cells are not persons. The embryos from which they are harvested are persons, and these people die when the stem cells are harvested. These soldiers bring their weapons to the front lines only to die on delivery. No matter your view on Iraq, that's a drop in the bucket compared to the lives that will be lost through ESCR and SCNT if Pelosi has her way.

January 8, 2007

Federally Funded Destruction of Early Human Life

The Degette/Castle Bill, H.R. 3, will come before the House for consideration on January 11th. The purpose of this bill is to provide federal funding for embryo-destructive research. Once again, we are faced with the question of when human life begins....and we know the answer! Yes, there are alternatives to ESCR that can and are being pursued, though the pro-aborts in Washington and the academy are not the least bit interested in pursuing their large-scale funding for these other options. If there were not any alternatives to ESCR, our arguments would be primarily focused on the personhood of the embryo, a human being in the earliest stages. This is actually the basis for arguing for alternatives to ESCR, but as evangelical Christians in bioethics, we need to be much more explicit about this point. We also need to remind Americans that proponents of ESCR are not neutral participants in search of what is ethically permissible, the fact is they've separated ethical reflection from so-called scientific progress.

The pro-abort liberal establishment is a manipulative big-government corporate machine motivated by power and money, not by cures and compassion.

January 6, 2007

Can you say women will not be exploited? A Challenge to Supporters of ESCR/SCNT

I challenge you, supporters of embryonic stem cell research and somatic cell nuclear transfer (aka "therapeutic" cloning) to state clearly-so that women across the globe can year you-that women are not and will not be exploited and commodified by this research.

14th Annual International Conference on Bioethics

Call for Art - The Art of Medicine

14th Annual International Conference on Bioethics
Bioethics Nexus: The Future of Healthcare, Science, and Humanity
July 12-14, 2007

The Art of Medicine

A new opportunity will be available at this year's conference, Bioethics Nexus: The Future of Healthcare, Science, and Humanity. Artwork by conference attendees or friends of the Center may be submitted and will be displayed for the viewing of those attending the conference. The art may be in the form of paintings, drawings, photographs, poetry, sculptures, etc. Those presenting art must be in attendance at the conference. Please plan to deliver your artwork to the designated area no later than Noon on Friday, July 13, 2007. Artwork will be available for viewing during the days of the conference. Please retrieve your artwork no later than 5:30 PM Saturday. All artwork not retrieved will become the property of The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity. The Center reserves the right not to display artwork deemed inappropriate by Center staff. Please present a description of the art you will be displaying no later than May 31, 2007.

Please submit descriptions to:
James C. Moscato
The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity
2065 Half Day Road
Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 USA

Call for Papers

14th Annual International Conference on Bioethics
Bioethics Nexus: The Future of Healthcare, Science, and Humanity
July 12-14, 2007

There will be opportunities to present a Professional Paper during which the speaker will address a profession-specific topic. Those papers addressing future issues related to the conference subject matter will receive first priority. There will be time allotted in each venue for participation by the attendees in a question and answer session. The reading of the paper should take 25-30 minutes with 10-15 minutes of Q&A to follow. The total time allotted will be 40 minutes.

Those wishing to present a paper must submit a synopsis of their paper by May 1, 2007. All those presenting a paper will receive a $50.00 discount toward the conference registration fee. Paper presenters will be expected to sign a permission form allowing their session to be audio recorded and distributed to those wishing to purchase a copy.

Please submit proposals to:
James C. Moscato
The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity
2065 Half Day Road
Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 USA

First Female Speaker Leads Action that Exploits Women

Debate on a bill to fund embryonic stem cell research is set for Jan. 11 when the new session of Congress begins. Nancy Pelosi may go down in history as the first female Speaker of the House, but her legacy will also include her involvement in the exploitation of women. Embryonic stem cell research and so-called "therapeutic cloning" (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer) will not go forward without the harvesting of eggs from women of reproductive age. As a woman who claims to be for women's rights, for "breaking the marble ceiling" it's hard to know for sure if she is all she claims to be. If Nancy Pelosi is really for women, she will pull the plug on somatic cell nuclear transfer and protect women from commodification.

I predict the next (manipulative) method for extracting eggs will be in the student loan division of the federal government....perhaps "Eggs for Education" or "Cures for College."

I'm looking forward to the Wednesday veto.

If you have any questions on the science and ethics of embryonic stem cell research, somatic cell nuclear transfer, human cloning, egg harvesting, drop me a note or contact The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.

Five(ish) Things I'd Like to Know About You

I feel so honored. I have been tagged by Keith Plummer who was tagged by David Wayne with a meme request. A bit of background, a meme, according to Wikipedia, "refers to a unit of cultural information transferable from one mind to another." Supposedly the term was originally coined by Richard Dawkins. Even still, continue reading so that I can participate in this transferring of information from one mind to another.

1) What's the most fun work you've ever done, and why? (two sentences max)

Graduate school was the best....I had such an incredible time interacting with the professors and other students who were interested in similar concepts and ideas. I really grew tremendously at TEDS - intellectually, relationally, and in my faith.

2) A. Name one thing you did in the past that you no longer do but wish you did? (one sentence max)

Have small children.

B. Name one thing you've always wanted to do but keep putting it off? (one sentence max)

Getting a Ph.D.

3) A. What two things would you most like to learn or be better at, and why? (two sentences max)

I'd like to be a better piano player because I love music.

I'd like to be a better trumpet player because I get such a kick out of playing and I'd play more often.

B. If you could take a class/workshop/apprentice from anyone in the world living or dead, who would it be and what would you hope to learn? (two more sentences, max)

I'd like to be Nancy Pearcey's apprentice because of the incredible depth of knowledge I would learn from her. It would be like being one step away from Francis Schaeffer and two steps from Cornelius Van Til. :)

4) A. What three words might your best friends or family use to describe you?


B. Now list two more words you wish described you...


5) What are your top three passions? (can be current or past, work, hobbies, or causes-- three sentences max)

Engagement of bioethics/life issues in writing, teaching, presentations, and anywhere else.

Bringing rigorous theological reflection to the women's ministry culture.
Engaging extreme feminism.

6) (sue me) Write--and answer--one more question that YOU would ask someone (with answer in three sentences max)

Why can't the "evangelical left" just stay in the "evangelical right" and engage the social/justice issues that those on the "evangelical right" are accused of neglecting? I think the answer is because the "evangelical left" prefers to undermine the the "evangelical right" - it's all a power-grab.

[Bonus: What is one question you wish people would ask themselves?]

Why do I believe that? (Sorry Keith, that's my question as well. :)

Now that you know some other things about me, I've chosen to tag these 5 friends:

Collin Brendemuehl (and for those of you who don't know, Collin is my brother.)

Karen Corlew




January 4, 2007

"From the Kitchen to Congress"

In Nancy Pelosi's speech today, she thanked her family for encouraging her in her work, helping her to believe and actualize the move from "the kitchen to Congress." Now perhaps I'm reading way too much into her words, but her emphasis seems to have been placed on feminist issues...."breaking the marble ceiling." As to her comment about representing all American women, I can't help but wonder if her focus is entirely misplaced. I don't want her representation because of my gender but because of my humanity. I am a human first, what happened to representation for the people? I'm terribly bothered that the 3rd in line to the presidency (I doubt any further rise to power on her part would be 'accidental') seems to be more interested in the power and advancement of women.

And does Pelosi represent the woman who strives in her chosen career of homemaker? Extreme feminism in power.

January 2, 2007


Dorothy Sayers, as I have mentioned in previous posts, is one of the greatest thinkers of our time. Her reflections on femininity and humanity make her a helpful voice to the cause of human dignity in the 20th-21st century. On the desire to perfect humanity, she states
The delusion of the mechanical perfectibility of man through a combination of scientific knowledge and unconscious evolution has been responsible for much heartbreak. It is, at bottom, far more pessimistic than Christian pessimism, because, if science and progress break down, there is nothing to fall back upon. Humanism is self-contained - it provides man with no resources outside himself.
Reflecting on the idea that if this is all there is, Sayers clearly understands the consequences of such held beliefs. But in response to the quote above, I wonder if a godless culture can really be expected to do or think anything else. A society without God is a society that exists for itself. Our society, one which actively pursues scientific advancement while at the same time suppressing the idea of God, creates a world inhospitable to hope and to the miraculous. There is no sign of God, nor can there be, in a technological age that sees humanity as the means and the end.

In 2007, now and into the future, we've got to do more to challenge the symptoms of our ailing society. We must argue against the root causes - the underlying beliefs that support secular humanism, philosophical materialism.....godlessness. We may live in a postmodern culture, but the world of technological progress still abides by the principles of modernity. They just help themselves to a portion of postmodernism to escape the ethical quandaries that they can't escape from. And without ethical reflection, there is no real science, only agendas.

January 1, 2007

New Year's Resolutions

A common belief heard the last few days is that few people keep New Year's Resolutions, so why make them? I tend to agree with that wisdom, but still.....I'm going for it. The following is my list of changes I need to make in 2007. I share these with you at the end of the day, January 1, just because I wanted to see if I could keep them for one day. I did, though skeptics might say the day is not over.

1. Eat healthy. Well....for what I can afford to keep in the house, I didn't do too bad today. We need more fruit in the house, though.
2. Exercise. Yep, I walked a mile and made use of my abdominal crunching device. Not bad.
3. Make more money. I yearn for financial freedom and would love to be able to not only pay off that car and some student loans, but to be able to support myself as a speaker/writer. As of yesterday, the possibilities are immense. Visit www.sarahflashingdesigns.com. Support a designer. Save the World!

The key with New Year's Resolutions is that they ought not be lofty. So instead of declaring that I'm going to lose those 50 lbs, I'm just going to treat myself well and not eat the stuff that kills. I'll keep you posted. :)