Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

It seems that there are always numerous stories floating around that manifest the great dangers a society faces when it has rejected sound, classical philosophy. Modern philosophy, with its foundation in Cartesian doubt, has left the average person who has thought about it with the impression that philosophy is to be equated with sophism.

Modern philosophy has also undermined our ability to any longer distinguish right from wrong. For centuries the Christian ethos in the West held at bay the deleterious effects of the loss of classical metaphysics, philosophical anthropology and practical philosophy (politics, economics, and ethics). The West, by and large, is now post-Christian. The Christian ethos is lost and now we are drifting free in Nietzsche’s great sea of endless possibilities that he waxed on about in his Gay Science. Unfortunately the sea he envisioned will be found to be the “lake of fire” St. John saw in his vision.

We now have medical ethicists who, if not morally sound, at least are honest. Two of them recently published an article in the NEJM, as reported by LifeSiteNews, in which they admit that brain death and cardiac death are fictions. These “ethicists” support the donation of vital organs and are left undeterred by the prospects for donations even though they admit we cannot reliably determine death before needing to harvest vital organs. LifeSiteNews quotes the two doctors:

Troug and Miller suggest that, rather than insisting on dead donors, “ethical requirements of organ donation” should be looked at “in terms of valid informed consent under the limited conditions of devastating neurologic injury.”

They base their “ethics” on a synthesis of Mills’s utilitarianism and Nietzsche’s will to power. If one does not have the prospects of an “adequate” quality of life (i.e. a devastating neurologic injury) then someone (Danger! Danger! Will Robinson) can choose (ala Nietzsche) to kill that person in order to harvest his organs. This is perfectly in line with our culture of comfort and choice.

It seems so reasonable because choosing to be comfortable is the only non-negotiable “value” that we seem to have left. Thus, choice becomes the only absolute moral norm. Good is the right to choose, bad is anything that conflicts with this “right.” How about when two choices for comfort conflict? Well, Barack Obama provides us the answer using this neo-Western ethic.

Last week LifeSiteNews ran a story about Senator Obama’s radical position on abortion and his work in killing (sardonic pun intended) the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection bill. The details are curious. Issues of his integrity in owning up to what he actually did with this bill aside, one thing really stands out to me. The Illinois bill copied language from a congressional bill that passed, that included a so-called neutrality clause. The language of this clause is enough to make one shudder:

‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section’’

Look at the stark language which wishes to exclude from the bill, any change in legal status or legal right of “a member of the species homo sapiens” before he is born alive. In other words, those drafting this bill who support the “right” to choose (i.e. abortion) have to have carefully considered how to separate members of the same species from one another with respect to legal rights. We have seen this happen in many different ways in the past. We can see it in the U.S. slavery episode, we can see it with the way aboriginal people were often treated, and we can see it in the systems of totalitarian collectivism of the 20th century in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, China, North Korea, etc.

Here is the philosophical problem with pro-abortion thinking in terms of the above clause. They have chosen the criteria of passive potency in order to distinguish between members of the same species. Passive potency is essentially all of those possibilities of changes that can be done to a human being from the outside (without killing him). They do not seem to have the sense of active potency, those things that a human being already inherently has and can do by virtue of his nature as being human, but has not yet manifested.

What I mean by this is that they do not seem to recognize that everything that a human being will become, he has already in himself, in seed-form if you will, from conception. In other words, after conception, from the perspective of nature, a man gains nothing new. He simply is able to manifest inherent capabilities at different stages of maturity, that already exist in him as “potency.”

All human attributes, for those who reject classical philosophy, seem to become passive potencies–they are given from the outside–somehow. That is why they think that the status of a member of a species can change when some new attribute is manifested or hidden. The problem with this is that there is no way to decided then which attributes are necessary to be manifested, or even how they should be manifested, in order to change the status of a member of the species from one who deserves no protection under the law to one who now is given rights that can come at the expense of the unprotected class (see list of abuses above).

The underlying danger with this type of thinking is that when choice becomes the absolute moral norm, there is no way of ultimately deconflicting the choices of groups or individuals. The atheist phenomenologist Jean Paul Sartre saw this clearly–that is why he so coldly proclaimed that “hell” is other people. The mere existence of others denies one the absolute liberty to do as he wishes. This explains why the Liberté of the French Revolutionaries turned into totalitarian bloodshed. It also explains why “liberal” political movements such as Nazism, Fascism, and Bolshevism become totalitarian. It helps us to understand why modern liberalism also moves in the direction of media censorship and thought censorship (e.g. Canada’s Human Rights Commissions, the modern liberal mind’s proclivity to legislate against “hate speech,” this movement’s move to do away with medical practitioners’ conscience clauses when it comes to “choice” issues such as abortion and contraception, etc.).

This, I fear, is also behind Senator Obama’s rhetoric about getting beyond the debate about abortion. For him the debate is over, even though in reality it is just beginning to turn against abortion “rights.” The debate must end because the supporters lack the intellectual resources found in classical philosophy to defend their positions and they are now coming to terms with the fact that their arguments leave them in self-contradictory, and thus intellectually indefensible, positions. The only option left to them is the “will to power.” They must gain power in order to exert their will upon others–i.e. to end the debate. If this comes to pass, anyone familiar with history must be aware of the dangers which lie ahead.

Shy of the re-Christianization of the West, we need to re-appropriate the self-consistent philosophical framework of classical philosophy in order to facilitate lucid and fruitful public debate on these life and death issue; that is, if we are to turn back the lemming-like march toward liberal totalitarianism. It appears, however, that at this point a Christian West is the more realistic of the two possibilities.

Update: Senator Obama’s campaign now admits that the “people” whom Obama had accused of lying about his part in voting down the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection bill . . . was Senator Obama.  It appears that Obama did indeed take the position that he now says “defies common sense.”  One wonders what position he really holds with respect to infants born alive as is clear that one cannot reliably discern this based upon his words.

Pro-abortion advocate Dr. Waldo L. Fielding, takes us back to his early medical days during the pre-Roe “bad old days”. In his New York Times essay he endorsed himself as a reliable source in Repairing the Damage, Before Roe , “when a woman’s desperate need to abort was the driving force behind the selection of using any method available.”

The patient also did not explain why she had attempted the abortion, and we did not ask. This was a decision she made for herself, and the reasons were hers alone. Yet this much was clear: The woman had put herself at total risk, and literally did not know whether she would live or die.

The familiar symbol of illegal abortion is the infamous “coat hanger” — which may be the symbol, but is in no way a myth….. Almost any implement you can imagine had been and was used to start an abortion — darning needles, crochet hooks, cut-glass salt shakers, soda bottles, sometimes intact, sometimes with the top broken off..

Whether it be embellishment or outright lies which have given way to the iconic status of the pro-choicers coat hanger, there is a certain ironic veracity to the scandalous attachment to the coat hanger as THE object of the radical feminist’s combustible rage. The abortion industry’s propaganda strikes at the heart and soul of the radicals who scream for the rights for abortions on demand. In the case of the American abortion movement, the creation of the perfect storm was crafted from the symbiotic relationship between predator and prey - manipulators of the abortion industry exploiting abused girls and young women with psychological/personality disorders. More specifically - text book examples of cluster B personality disorders - Borderline Personality Disorder and Histrionic Personality Disorder.

Despite their being no rational medical reason to stick a metal hanger up a birth canal other than to self mutilate, there is minimal evidence (at best) to link the use of coat hangers ever being typically used as devices for “back alley” or do-it-yourself self abortions. There is, however, no shortage of evidence linking those with specific “cluster B” Personality Disorders with genital mutilation , some of which have been associated with the behaviors of sticking sharp objects such as coat hangers, pencils, and other sharp objects up into their genitalia. (Also, see Caenis syndrome).

Those who develop a Borderline Personality Disorder are predominately angry women (with histories of sexual abuse) who are consciously or subconsciously driven to deliver a hurtful revenge onto others. They typically have poor self images and are consequently highly sensitive to rejection and constantly haunted by the fear of being abandoned. As a result, they are willing to take drastic measures to avoid loneliness and solitude, which can often include self mutilation, suicide threats and attempts.

As a way to inflict pain unto those who have or may abandon them, self-mutilation somehow releases the rage by witnessing and showing her pain to those whom she feels, has disavowed the value of her own life. Among the more mentally healthy population - the coat hanger symbol as an abortion device never quite makes sense as there can be no point of reference; where as, those who may have a more maladaptive emotional/mental disposition, would have significantly less problems “relating“; therefore, more likely to accept this as unadulterated truth. As well, can be said for the patriarchy conspiracy theory of being the driving force behind the pro-life movement. This is not meant as a derogatory jab to the intelligence of pro-choicers, but as a simple explanation behind the absurdity of the abortion industry strategies.

As in most cases, we ultimately like to shape our own realities (the value and dignity of each human life as being equal) based upon the history of our past and the current direction of our personal desires. Although tragic, the manifestation of a maladaptive personality disorder imposing it’s anger and will upon our culture and consequently sustaining the abortion industries hypocritical lies (one class of human life is superior to another) must be unconditionally defeated. We are all susceptible to the desires of our weak human nature, and the mental illness which can be intrinsically linked to the abortion industry is no where more evident than within the radical feminist’s iconic regard for the wired coat hanger.

This was passed along by Anti-contraception News Tips:

Two Youtube videos made by Fr. Frank Pavone have been causing quite a stir.

In the videos, Fr. Frank demonstrates the two most common abortion procedures, using fetal models and instruments that were actually used to kill babies.

This is Dismemberment Abortion

This is a Suction Abortion

Now if it were not so fundamental an issue as life, perhaps I could respect someone who repays old loyalties. However, when someone claims to be Catholic, claims his position as an officer in the Knights of Columbus, and even establishes a pro-life apostolate working for legislation that supports both life and family issues and then not only votes for one of the worst politicians on these issues who is running for president , but he actually campaigns for her, well. . . this I cannot respect.

I nearly fell off my chair when I read that Ray Flynn was campaigning for Hillary Clinton. I saw that the Curt Jester had already noticed Flynn had voted for her in the MA primaries. I was in the middle of my move is probably why I missed that post. One asks how anyone could do some such thing that is so antithetical to his view of truth. Jeff shows how: Flynn admits that it is his loyalty to his former boss, Bill Clinton.

Flynn exasperated his Democratic friends and colleagues when he became a strong, public advocate for a culture of life. They were completely befuddled as he voted and campaigned for pro-life Republicans at all levels of Government. He even endorsed “Dubya” against Gore, though he couldn’t bring himself to do so the second time around.

While I disagree with his views about Clinton’s economic and social justice policies and how these accord with Catholic values, that is certainly something that is open to debate among faithful Catholics. We can vociferously disagree and then go out for a Guinness together afterward. However, when one returns to one’s loyalties in such a way that it will promote the death of untold numbers of unborn children, when policies will be championed that will further attack marriage and family, when one is working at cross purposes with himself, this is not an area in which good Catholics may just simply disagree with one another and both be good Catholics.

It is the sin of pride at root I suspect. The fear of someone having something over you in which you cannot repay him that can lead someone like Flynn into such a publicly sinful and scandalous action. Instead of continuing to witness and work for a culture of life, Flynn now takes action to put someone in the office of President of the United States who will promote a culture of death. This is formal cooperation with evil; it is mortally sinful and publicly scandalous. Because of his position, Archbishop O’Malley should take very public action against Flynn to bring him back to his senses and end this scandal.

Flynn seems to exemplify the sinful rationalizations of his earlier career in which he consorted with the angels of death for the sake of political expedience. St. Peter’s admonition about the return to one’s sinful ways after repenting from them was illustrated ever more aptly in the second proverb of this pericope from his second letter . . . “A sow even after washing wallows in the mire” (2 Pt 2:22).

Catholic, Brescia Women’s College out of Ontario, had recently invited a hostile, hate mongering feminist named Michele Landsberg to speak at a ‘Women Making Change‘ conference in conjunction with International Women’s Day.  Her talk was to be called “The F-Word: Fearless, Funny, Fast-Forward and Fabulous…Feminism.” Like most radical feminists, Landsberg is an sworn enemy of orthodox Christianity and hater of anyone and everything pro-life.

Will no priest or minister publicly resolve to stop the indoctrination of youth to view abortion as murder?

Is none ashamed of the blood-drenched holocaust vocabulary used so cynically (and anti-semitically) to whip up fervor for the crusade?

Where are the outspoken cries of conscience by bishops and cardinals who should be appalled by the evidence of links between anti-abortion fanatics and far-right militias, neo Nazis, and white supremacists? Is there no religious leader who regrets his church’s role in feeding this blind frenzy?

Will none of them repent of their excesses, will none call a halt to their sickeningly manipulative campaigns of ‘precious little feet,’ their fake ‘documentaries’ about screaming fetuses? You’d think that the world had enough lessons in the dangers of hate speech.”

My initial reaction to people like this is typically one of anger and condemnation because, I rationalize, this kind of hate speech not only distorts the truth of my faith and who I am, but also because of the danger it brings. I am offended and judge her to be all about hate through her slandering of those who are just like me. I feel anger and animosity towards her as a person because of her lies. Subsequently, I may get some sort of consolation assuming she will get hers in the end for her part in indoctrinating others to hate me and others who believe as I do. Non-heroically, I reluctantly carry a burden of paranoia, while trying to be a “good” Catholic in the public eye, but being well aware of the faceless others who will hate me for who they think I am - all because of the lies.

Obviously it’s especially difficult to let the “ill feelings” go, if those “others” hate and wish bad things upon you. Forgiving and forgetting among those with whom we have contact is one thing, but how about those those whom we will never meet or come in contact? It all comes through grace, but I try, so that I may will it, to examine myself more closely. Learning that our subconscious mind, so many times, significantly contributes to self-destructive, selfish behaviors. We become who we are, by how we react to life’s events - some over which we have no control. In reality, we are so often blind to how we come across to others, or why we do the things we do. Things are not aways as they seem to others and conversely to me.

In the case of so many among the radical activist ranks, there are the walking wounded who suffer from unmet emotional needs, neglect, seductions and possible other abuses which occurred during their lives. Sometimes, a nerve can be struck when someone says or does something that reminds them of their past which creates somewhat of an “emotional time warp” transferring their emotional past of anger, fear and inadequacy into the present. In other words, they react to someone in terms of what they are afraid of or what and who they think they see when, in reality, they know so very little at all. Like so many of our reactions, this happens without our knowing why we feel and react the way we do. In psychological terms, this is known as transference, and the reaction to it (or our reaction to Michele Landsberg) is known as counter transference. Depending on the situation, on the negative side - transference can produce a destructive hatred based specifically upon the individual’s personal illusion.

As it is, I’m still a work in progress.

It is not always within your power to control your feelings. You will recognize that you have love if, after having experienced annoyance and contradiction, you do not lose your peace, but pray for those who have made you suffer and wish them well. - as told to Saint Faustina, Diary, 1628

Source of story on Michele Landsberg: LifeSite

There can be no justice without truth because in the absence of truth, there can be no verdict which separates the guilty from the innocent and justice from injustice. When tolerance supersedes truth, tolerance eventually mutates into intolerance and truth is abandoned altogether; consequently, “tolerance” (term used loosely in context) dictates that we are bound to accept simultaneous contraries and contradictions.  This would ultimately force the hands of society to be reduced to the moral equivalence of hypocrites and liars. In other words, As the Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain wrote, “The man who says ‘What is truth?’ as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race.”

As for the wreckage caused by a relatively unknown amount of oppressive, abusive and cowardly males, we are now dealing with the angry, mutated version of the original feminist movement, now referred to as Radical Feminism (not to be confused with the garden type of new age cafeteria feminists). Many of these women who find refuge in the movement are not equipped with the coping skills and support system with which to help them heal from their emotional scars, and consequently resort to anger and revenge to help them cope with the hurt, because hurt - at its core, is a reminder of our human vulnerability and helplessness. Without the proper coping skills, even if one were to eradicate the person who hurt them, it would only amount to a temporary relief, because they never resolved the cause of their emotional damage nor let go of the anger. Consequently, instead of identifying themselves as a victim of trauma and try to heal themselves from the inside - out, they externally employ the very means of their abusers with the hope of bringing about some sense of safety and security in their lives.

In the world of the radical feminist, a fear of being controlled by men and a patriarchal society dictate that we no longer be recognized as different sexes, but more as androgynous genders. When in reality, radical feminists grasp for a sense of security to become the best they can be through a rejection of the feminine and embracing characteristics of the masculine. This strategy rests on the premise that for women to reach their full dignity and freedom, they must become as much like men as possible. Ironically and irrationally, Radical feminists adopt the very same characteristics they publicly denounce, which is the true measure and embodiment of humanity being man.

Abortion ranks as their number one non-negotiable demand, of which they have successfully disguised among the rhetoric of choice. In this case, “the” choice must always return the the woman, who alone can only judge her specific situation. When does life begin? Do they feel pain? None of these questions in truth really matter, other than in the forum of public opinion. According to the true radical feminist, the defense of abortion is an inalienable right, and is seen as nothing more than a defense of privacy and the individual conscience. Justified killings (although never to the point of murder) is always warranted with or without the pro-abortion rhetoric, here is some of the latter.

Margaret Sanger (Founder Planned Parenthood) - …“ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.” “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

Cynthia Daniels (Political Scientist - Rutgers University) - Urged women to acknowledge the life of the fetus. This does not weaken the case for abortion but strengthens it. In Daniels’ reasoning, if the fetus is living and uninvited, off of the woman’s private resources and must, therefore, be viewed as an aggressor. Since every person is entitled to self-defense, the woman has a right to kill the fetus to defend her own life.

Naomi Wolf (author, 3rd wave feminist) “So what will it be: Wanted fetuses are charming, complex, REM-dreaming little beings whose profile on the sonogram looks just like Daddy, but unwanted ones are mere “uterine material”? How can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted by them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view of women is unworthy of feminism. Free women must be strong women, too; and strong women, presumably, do not seek to cloak their most important decisions in euphemism.”

Of course, this type of brutal honesty is not for the faint of heart or the common consumers of abortion nor compatible with the normal decency of human beings . I believe the typical woman who undergoes abortion, hopes upon hope on the truth of the abortion rhetoric in order to reduce the stresses associated with undergoing an abortion. I also find it difficult to imagine that the radicals have a lick of concern or compassion over another human being’s safety or mental health if it has the potential of having a negative impact on the over-all world wide approval rating of abortion. The way I see it, in order to protect the idol of abortion (at the expense of the consumers) and subsequently their own lives - they deny, spin, invent, manipulate and attack with a vengeance anything or anyone whom they deem a threat to their means of survival. As with the wicked servant in today’s gospel, in our selfish blindness, how often do we plead for mercy and forgiveness while denying that very same mercy and forgiveness to others - and in this case I think the refusal to forgive others maybe at the core of radical feminism.

Sources:

Feminism and the Unraveling of the Social Bond

When Tolerance Trumps Truth

Prolife students at Franciscan University of Steubenville protested Bill Clinton at a speech recently. They put up a video of his heated reaction to their protest on youtube:

Clinton’s reaction is instructive. Now admittedly it is hard to get the entire context of what Clinton is arguing because the voice quality is poor and one cannot make out the question from the Steubenville student. However, from what can be heard it seems that Clinton’s strategy is a form of ad hominem. What he attempts to do is to undermine the student’s credibility. Instead of discussing the issue of protecting the life of unborn children which seems to be that of the questioner, Clinton claims that to be authentically prolife one must want to put all women and their doctors in jail who engage in abortion.

Then he opines that this student will not admit to it because it would deny him political support if he were to admit such a thing. Clinton then makes an interesting claim that there is no one involved in politics today who has done more to reduce real abortions then he did as President…but he does not name any of his policy initiatives which support this claim. Then, he appears then to dismiss the entire prolife movement as nothing but TV adds spewing hot air. Finally he gives a plug for Hillary as one who will not be pushed around when it comes to standing up for personal rights.

It is common for those arguing in favor of abortion to keep the focus of the discussion away from one of whether anyone has the right to deny a human being the rights of personhood and to keep the discussion around the “rights” of previously born women. It is interesting that in his response he suggests that abortion is a bad thing by touting his efforts to decrease abortion but he is not clear as to why this should be so. It is apparently was a good thing that he was able to reduce the number of real abortions but if it is just a medical procedure then why would it matter?

The common ad hominem tactic for the proabort crowd is that once they have moved the discussion to be centered around women’s rights, they then move to cast their opponent as an enemy of women and women’s rights. This ad hominem approach is trotted out almost without exception.

What about his attempt to say that all prolifers must want to put women who abort, and their doctors, in jail? Well, this is a false dichotomy because it already presupposes that women must be able abort their children, at least in some cases. The prolife position need not be that women and their doctors go to jail; another option is that we all come to our senses and the government work together with the prolife movement to “re-educate” the population to understand that abortion is murder because an unborn child is just that…a child.

The claim that the prolifers are not forthright about their position because this would deny them political support says a lot about Clinton himself.  I believe that this is called projection.  While it is clear that the prolife movement ought to be concerned about the best way to save the lives of children, to assume that they are simply interested in putting forth a politically viable message does not look at the reality of the prolife movement itself.  Few prolifers are motivated by the same things that motivate all too many politicians, apparently including Clinton himself.  Rather, they are authentically concerned about the lives of mothers and their unborn children.

I remember the first inauguration of Dubya; it was as if a dark pall had been lifted from over the U.S.  The pall had primarily to do, in my mind, with U.S. policy as having been a world leader in promoting the culture of death world-wide.  Unfortunately, of the three candidates now most likely to be the next U.S. President, two of them are sure to bring back this pall…the third is a little more promising in this regard…but not nearly as much as is needed.  In any case, at least he is not likely to dismiss the prolife movement as a bunch of hot air.

Thomas, who is now in the DC area, has done a considerable amount of work in documenting the pro-life commemoration of the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.  While living in the DC area was not my cup of tea (traffic and cost of living primarily), I very much miss participating in the Vigil Mass at the National Shrine for the march for life and the march itself.

Again this year, the news coverage presented a very biased picture.  Most of the national media appeared to ignore the various marches throughout the country.  For those who did cover it, one got the sense that there were just as many pro-aborts demonstrating as pro-life.  For example, one station said “thousands on both sides showed up to demonstrate.”  Moreover, the media always seems to give the pro-abort message the majority of their coverage.

One thing that I found very interesting, though it is impossible to say what it means, was that the local Champaign-Urbana news station (CBS affiliate) did one of their on-line polls and asked the question, “Do you think abortion should be legal?”  Given the very liberal university town that this is, I was very surprised to see that 55% said no.  One can only pray that this might soon be the trend nation wide.

Our local Coalition for Life activity has moved up a couple of notches over the last couple of weeks, and it’s apparent Planned Parenthood wants to nip what ever momentum, we may have gained, right in the bud. After 40 Days and prior to January, I suspect PP expected everything would return to business as usual, meaning an insignificant and inconsistant Pro-life presence, which could possibly be here today but be gone by tomorrow. Last week, was our first sign of us having some type of impact, as we were told by potential PP victims that they’re not allowed to speak to us if they planned on going inside the clinic. On Saturday, our cutting edge pearls of wisdom to PP victims and employees alike combined with a distraught young man calling EMS in an attempt to get his girlfriend out of the abortion clinic was enough for PP to finally flip their lid. In almost surreal fashion (a sure sign of frustration and tool of intimidation), our group of pro-life supporters were converged upon by a group of armed PP minions who proceeded to video tape and take photos up to the point of police being eventually called. At the end of the day - after the ambulance incident, the police being called twice, and a PP escort being stationed in front of the Pro-Life group - the police gave warning that any more incidents would warrant breaking up the party, thankfully the day eventually ended without further incident.

Although there maybe a natural tendency and a temporary sense of satisfaction in retaliating against those who slander and insult our personal appearance and intentions, it’s obviously wasteful of one’s good intentions and totally harmful for adopting into a one’s personal coping mechanism regimen. Not only does it waste the personal efforts of the offender, but can also be detrimental to the efforts of others who have spiritually committed themselves to staying focused on the mission at hand. While I have admiration and affection for all those who serve as advocates for innocent life, it’s a sad lesson to be learned about life in general - the toll taken on those souls who have exchanged an original purity of purpose for a self serving personal vendetta.

If I could have chosen for myself, participating in the pro-life movement would have been near the last of all possible choices, but God in all of His merciful wisdom, knew this is where I needed to be. This is the place where I face so many of my weaknesses, fears, and selfishness on a regular basis and; therefore, am most keenly aware of how much I really need and love Him. May He heal me and others of so many of our infirmaries and deficiencies.

What I consider to be a bizarre reaction and suspicious behavior, a group of 40 Spanish abortion clinics are shutting their doors in protest of government clinic inspections which have continued to uncover illegal abortion activities and irregularities. Some of the illegal activities and irregularities include evidence of a type of wide-spread abortion tourism in Spain which allegedly provide illegal abortions up to 8 months, and found in one clinic was a machine constructed for the sole purpose of destroying the remains of aborted babies.

In lieu of these grim and morbid discoveries, the abortion advocates were forced to employ the tactics they know best - the total avoidance of relevant issues by diverting the attention away from themselves and putting blame on the pro-life activists and government inspectors for their systemic harassment of abortion clinics, staff and patients.

If these people are so committed in providing women with their birthright to abortion, how does it make any sense to punish these same women by blocking their access to the clinics based on the actions of others (the government inspectors)? Seems to me, their commitment and compassion goes only as far as they can cover their dirty little secrets. What about the women, what other choice will they be forced to make when they no longer have access to that good ol’ safe and legal “on demand” abortion? Hypocrites.

While browsing Life Decisions International, I was more disappointed than initially shocked by a group of individuals who I believed to possess an above average intelligence, but have - for what ever reason - expressed a support for legalized abortion and/or Planned Parenthood’s agenda (in whole or in part). In general, so much of what we believe is formed by our upbringing, individual traits and life’s experiences - obviously, my and Paul Harvey’s ideas about compassion and common sense take on distinctively different connotations - depending on which side of the track you’re on.

The way I see it, the pro-abortion brand of compassion is based on a foundation of inconsistent limitations and pessimistic predictions and goes ONLY as far as the individual is subjectively able to justify in his own mind - the destruction of a child as act of mercy - while avoiding the burden of seeing oneself as being immoral or advocating acts which are undeniably evil. There’s something about pride that drive us to do what is necessary not only to look favorably in the eyes of others but also to feel really, really good about ourselves on the inside.

Based on the pro-abortion theories of fetal self-awareness and when life begins, it’s probably pretty simple for them to decide for themselves that which is easiest or most convenient to accept, as a counter argument will most likely never be proven to the level of absolute certainty which they demand. Unlike some who may use simple common sense and, if there are any doubts, choose to err on the side caution/life,  others conveniently appear to ignore simple facts and evidence they have no way of disproving and choose to err in favor of “choice.” That’s why the 1st trimester abortion of a “clump of cells” is pretty much a no brainer for most “choicers,” but the further along the baby develops, the less popular the procedure.   In reality, the act of taking a life through partial birth abortion is no more evil than an abortion taken early in the 1st trimester through RU-486, but only when a baby is yanked from the womb and stuck through the brain with a sharp metal rod is the question of ethics raised by some abortion advocates.  In my opinion, the controversial graphic photos of abortion evoke a sense of guilt and doubt and subsequent rage among many abortion supporters as the truth of abortion is exposed for the atrocity it is.

If it’s compassionate and/or a women’s right to abort a child in the womb when there is simply the potential for suffering, how much more then should she have the right over the same child once born when the potential becomes THE feared reality? Common sense dictates some hypocrisy here. If anyone supports the legitimacy of an abortionist’s taking of the life of an unborn child, having no proof of the child’s ability to feel pain or having self-awareness, why would they not support the same act on an anesthetized child who would be unconscious and pain free? Look at all the unwanted children in Darfur - could they not be the poster children for post natal abortion procedures? Where finally women could have opportunities other than giving birth to unwanted children who are just going to die anyway and become useful, like men. What’s the difference - if it’s the right thing to do while the child is in the womb, what changes when they’re out?

For whatever reason abortion and or Planned Parenthood is supported by:

Bush, Barbara (former First Lady)

Bush, Laura (First Lady)

Ford, Betty (former First Lady)

Harvey, Paul (newscaster, commentator)

Miller, Dennis (comedian, talk show host)

Powell, Colin L. (former U.S. Secretary of State, retired U.S. Army general)

Rice, Condoleezza (U.S. Secretary of State)

Heston, Charlton (Supports Planned Parenthood but opposes abortion?)

babies end up just as dead.

As far as the excuse of supporting legalized abortions so that women won’t die by way of baby digging with hangars or trolling for back alley abortionists - the same can be said for legalizing child molestation, rape and most other crimes, as there would be no witnesses to a crime or a need for killing them if there were no crime committed.

Fr. Raymond Gravel, a Catholic priest/Canadian politician who promised his Bishop he would NOT take on political positions that opposed the Catholic faith, went on record as defending legalized abortion as being a good thing. Yesterday he prefaced his credentials of being a Catholic priest prior to condemning a bill which would recognize the life of an unborn child as being separate from that of the mother. In short, he opposed the bill on two points - first, he felt the Campaign Life Coalition who tabled the bill was too fanatical and second, the fetus is only a fetus - which is only an “it”.

Upon careful examination of the text of his political sermon, it almost seems as though he dotted and crossed his way all the way up to a heretical line without legally crossing it - but if by chance, his message was intended to portray the image of a heretic, than he pretty much knocked it out of the park. I quoted out his short speech, deleting what I saw to be deceptive CYA disclaimers, including proclamations of being Pro-Life.

As a Catholic priest, I find it somewhat difficult to relate to this bill quite simply because the member who tabled it belongs to a pro-life group, the Campaign Life Coalition, which, in my humble opinion, is a fairly extremist and fanatical group.

I believe it is dangerous to establish a new law that would treat the murder of the fetus and of the mother as a double murder… In my opinion, this bill will open the door to re-criminalizing women who have an abortion, and that is not a good thing.

When a pregnant woman is assaulted or killed and her fetus is killed at the same time, I agree completely that it is an abominable crime. …I believe that when the fetus is in its mother’s womb, they are one being. ONLY when it leaves her womb does it become a child.

I think a moderate approach is needed. It is not by creating new legislation that we will successfully reduce the number of abortions and creating new committees…

One can’t help but marvel over a pro-lifer who appears so committed in protecting the life of the non-existent and speaking on behalf of those who never could, should or woulds and to seek to avoid and lower abortion ratess, despite there being NO death!

His plan to end abortion? In order that we, as pro-lifers, can save lives where there is none taken - we must also go to places where the Pro-Life movement has dared not go before. We must give something that is commonly referred to - by some - as support, love and understanding. We can also do something as simple as to “take control of the situation“, and fix other stuff like finances and relationships. Well who’da thunk it?

Well. Since I posted something yesterday along the lines of spiritually adopting priests, and since this was the next priest who saw the light of day on this blog- I am committing to adopt Father Gravel for a period of one month, with additional monthly options for each one there-after, for whom I will pray for each and every day, to include an unspecified duration of time spent in Eucharistic adoration and a daily rosary - I heard you  eventually  get quite fond of people you pray for.

Credits: Image and Story - LifeSite

Found among the “letters to the editor” section of the Medical Journal of Australia or eMJA, is a proposal by a university professor of Obstetric Medicine to overturn a policy of providing Government type grants to families who have children, and to establish a new tax burden onto any of those who go beyond a recommended two children family for what is referred to as a, ”greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour”.

What then should we do as environmentally responsible medical practitioners? We should point out the consequences to all who fail to see them, including, if necessary, the ministers for health. Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and thereby rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a “Baby Levy” in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the “polluter pays” principle..

Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being. .

This infers a levy per child of at least $5000 at birth (to purchase the land needed and plant trees) and an annual tax of $400–$800 thereafter for the life of the child (for maintenance of the afforestation project) (based on 1990 figures,4 and probably much more now).

By the same reasoning, contraceptives, intrauterine devices, diaphragms, condoms and sterilisation procedures should attract carbon credits for the user and the prescriber that would offset their income taxes, and lead to rewards for family planning clinics and hospitals that provide such greenhouse-friendly services.

Ironic,  but even more pathetic on how these intellectual types like to assume we are as stupid as they think they would like us to be.  Honestly now, the revelation of a doc-tor’s illogical, eco-facist formula on carbon credits makes among the realms of possibilities a Federal Government totally reversing it’s well thought out policy of population replenishment? 

More likely among the realms of possibility is an embittered Ob-Gyn who has a disdain for Australia’s current policy of re-imbursing families who have children and is hell bent on destroying it by any means necessary. In this case, he exploits his position as a physician, a medical journal, and the hysteria associated with global warming for the purpose of promulgating a culture of animosity and fear - where the divine nature of pro-creation is reduced to a level of being little more than destructive pollution. I think it’s obvious these guys have no idea of what they’re talking about and are well aware that their science is totally flawed and that’s o.k. with them; because any facts about global warming is totally inconsequential to the real objective of manifesting hostility towards those who do not submit to the lies of contraception and abortion.  So transparent and predictible are buffoons and talking points, as cultivating the culture of death has never been and will never be about the truth, but accomplished through simple intimidation and emotional manipulation to induce feelings of fear, anger, guilt and despair.  

 Source 

This is the question a NYC abortionist, William Rashbaum, asks when commenting on the nature of his work. He admits that he has recurring nightmares “of a fetus trying to hold onto the walls of a uterus by its tiny fingernails.”

This is from a LifeSiteNews article discussing the high rate of “issues” among those in the abortion industry, from pedophilia and child pornography to sexual assault and variety of psychological disorders. It is not a surprise I suppose. If one has no respect for life of the unborn or their women “patients” it has to come out some place. Go read the article.

I wonder what kind of dreams the folks doing this have?  Just when you think that the things that these abortion “providers” come up with can’t possibly repulse you any further…they surprise you…

This question has become a Madison Avenue money maker but the global hype about the mythology of human caused global warming is beginning to show its radical foundations. The Daily Mail, for example, is running an article about women who claim that they have undergone sterilization and even abortion in order to reduce their carbon footprints. Kill a child, lower your carbon footprint. Sweet.

These “humanitarians” argue that having children is selfish. Now why would one say that having children is selfish? Isn’t it ironic that selfishness is the first “thought” that comes to their minds. Now if there is any logic to this thoughtless rejoinder then it would have to arise from the perverse notion that the reason one has children is for personal fulfillment rather than for the sake of love. It’s not that children are not personally fulfilling, they are. But when one sees children as means to satisfy selfish desires rather than as ends in themselves, one can see where this distorted thinking arises.

However, I would suggest that the reason that selfishness naturally comes to mind is that pesky effect known as projection. Selfishness is not wanting to share one’s life, goods, love with others. It is selfishness when children are viewed in economic terms rather than as blessings of love.

Planned Parenthood has been handed its next big money making idea: in addition to planting trees, companies can get green points by lowering their overall carbon footprints by paying for their workers’ sterilizations and abortions. An idea made in hell.

He claimed because the relationship with his pre-teen step-daughter was voluntary, he was within his “rights“. “I’m just telling you that we wanted to make a life together, because we have the right, because we all have rights, and they have to be respected“. The little girl known as Rosita, the poster child of “therapeutic” abortion for South America, was repeatedly raped by the pro-abortion spokesperson and exploited by pro-abortion organizations which subsequently threw her back to the dog - concealing both the crime and criminal.

Justice was served this week in the amount of 30 years, with the hope of convictions against International Pro-Abortion Feminists upcoming.

Predators and frightened young girls in stirrups - this is what abortion looks like.

Credits: (Article: LifeSite Image: Nacion)

A man who usually went to Mass prior to protesting the local Planned Parenthood was arrested for trespassing on St. Matthew Catholic Church property in San Mateo, CA. The church officials said they banned him from Mass because he failed to abide by an agreement they had which required him to cover the graphic anti-abortion pictures and words on his truck, which were visible to the parish school children. In a letter sent to the man from the pastor, Fr. Anthony McGuire:

“You informed me that you would not conform with one of the demands which we had agreed to on Thursday, Sept. 20; namely that you would not attend the children’s Mass on Friday mornings. You also agreed to cover the pictures and words on your truck when you came to church. Because you reversed your position … you are no longer welcome at St. Matthew’s Church.”

The man disputes Fr. McGuire’s assertion that he agreed to stop attending the children’s Mass permanently, and also never agreed to cover up the anti-abortion words on his truck. The parishioner doesn’t feel the priest was justified in having him arrested.

Update: I found that California Catholic has been following this story for some time. 1, 2, 3

British physician, Dr. Tammie Downes is being investigated by a Medical Council for a possible breach of ethical guidelines for providing women with information that has been shown to lead some away from abortion. The charges were brought by pro-abortion fanatic, Dr Evan Harris, who supports an amendment allowing nurses to carry out abortions without the supervision of physicians.

Given the fact that about 98% of the abortions are performed on mothers who simply do not want the child for what ever reason, it’s evident there’s a prevalence of ignorance out there; consequently, there’s no bigger threat to the abortion movement than the truth and little common sense.

Additional Source

At what point does the state of ignorance end & the manifestation of wickedness begin within each individual who comes to abhor anything considered Pro-life? When or how does one cross-over from a distorted sense of altruistic compassion into the realm of the wicked? A New York Times article which featured an abortionist named Dr. Susan Wicklund brought this to mind.

While the article starts off with a somewhat negative connotation towards abortion, it eventually becomes apparent that the NY Times is setting Wicklund up as some sort of twisted mother of mercy. It’s the times! To me, there’s something even more so wicked when those in positions of authority employ techniques of establishing a false sense of security and trust, only to draw victims into the corruption of their lies and deceit. Whether or not she believes in her own lies is of little concern to me, as opposed to the prevalence of liars who perpetuate and create the lies and deception which are responsible for a crime which is one of the most despicable acts one human could ever inflict on to another. Among her claims to promote a more relaxed and nonchalant attitude towards abortion:

40% of American women have abortions.

More common than the removal of wisdom teeth.

Abortion restrictions are about the control of women, about power, and it’s insulting.

Protesters who regularly appear shouting outside abortion clinics also get abortions.

Abortion give women back their life, their control.

Here’s an illustration of figures that don’t lie, but liars doing the figures, and evidence of fraudulent statistics that compliment the immoral practice of protecting child sex offenders.

Teen Wins Legal Battle for H.S. Pro-Life Club - 16-year-old Stephanie Hoffmeier started a  Pro-Life club in a public high school which attracted approximately 20 people at it’s first meeting. After originally denying her request, school officials quickly conceded they were wrong after discovering she had filed a law suit. Hoffmeier said her legal fight was a matter of equity. (more)

Atheist Gun Man Pummeled by Church Choir - 65-year-old atheist armed with a gun terrorized a Catholic church before the evening Sunday Mass. While yelling that there was no God and no religion he assaulted a priest after calling him a child molester and had to be taken down by members of the Choir. (more)