A Child's Voice is Silenced in Tripoli (and on Rutledge) as Planned

Where is the outrage?
Where is the shame at the continued slaughter?
Can we really pretend to be righteous
when innocents die,
murdered by those
who claim authority
and blasphemous right?

What has happened to our consciences
that we bray at the suffering of animals,
yet turn a blind eye to a massacre
taking place here in our sight?

How can we lay ourselves down
to hypocritical sleep
while blood stains the ground
and angels weep?

They cry out to God for help
and we, who claim to be His children,
refuse to hear
the dirge that will one day haunt our memory
and condemn us for complacency
for ever more.

And on that day we will mourn,
O yes, and bewail our inaction
laid naked as sin unto ages.

Let prayer be the start of our work,
not the excuse for our inaction.

Harsanyi Reconsiders Abortion

Over at Reason.com, David Harsanyi has contributed a piece encouraging a re-examination of the question of abortion. It is entitled Abortion, Religion, and Science. His basic thesis is that one should honestly look at the science as well as the religious issues involved. I have often made the pro-life argument solely on the basis of biology, genetics, and logic. The debate Mr Harsanyi proposes should be taken up on all sides as the impact on the Abortuary Business could be significant.

Here is a snippet to encourage you to read it:

Does life really begin on the say-so of a single person—even the mother? Does her position or mental state change what a fetus is or is not? That kind of elastic calculation grinds against reason. Even our intuitive reaction to motherhood agrees. As Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who is an ob-gyn, once explained, "people ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite."

Read the article here.

The Witness of Lila Rose

The current issue of First Things includes a powerful article by Lila Rose on the lies perpetrated by Planned Parent. Below is but a short snippet. I encourage everyone to read the article and, if there is any doubt, check the facts - it's so accurate it's frightening.

When I was thirteen I wrote in my journal, “God, it’s time I actually do something about abortion.” I began to research online and think about what I could do to tell other people about this terrible crime being committed even in our own neighborhoods. A friend and I wrote a letter to the community of Almaden, where we lived, exhorting people to vote only for pro-life candidates. We put up copies of the letter around the local shopping center. When I was fourteen I began planning a “Pro-Life Club.” Within months it became Live Action. It began in my parents’ living room, with a meeting of about a dozen of my closest friends, all whom I had convinced to come.
...
I posed as a young, scared, pregnant girl, fifteen years old, the victim of a twenty-three-year-old statutory rapist. The Planned Parenthood staff told me, into our hidden cameras: “Figure out a birth date that works.” Lie about your age on the paperwork. Say you are older than you really are. We will give you a secret abortion, and no one will ever know.
...
I remember seeing that and not being able to look away. I knew I was looking at the meeting of two cousins separated by just inches of flesh—and one of them, a little boy or a little girl, would be violently killed by abortion that very day. It reminded me of another meeting, one between two unborn cousins, when Mary, the Madonna, visited her cousin Elizabeth. And how could it not? We had named the Mona Lisa Project after these two women.

Read the entire article here.

The Manhattan Declaration

Manhattan Declaration -

You can also read, download it and find out more about it here.

An open question...

"For every argument there is a counter-argument, but who can argue against life?"

St. Gregory Palamas,
Triads in Defence of the Holy Hesychasts

Someone Must Have Been Praying to the Softener of Evil Hearts

This from KBTX' Web Page.
(Hat Tip to the Priestly Puglist - quite a srappy guy!)


Planned Parenthood Director Leaves, Has Change of Heart

Planned Parenthood has been a part of Abby Johnson's life for the past eight years; that is until last month, when Abby resigned. Johnson said she realized she wanted to leave, after watching an ultrasound of an abortion procedure.

"I just thought I can't do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that's it," said Jonhson.

She handed in her resignation October 6. Johnson worked as the Bryan Planned Parenthood Director for two years.

According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it's business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.

"It seemed like maybe that's not what a lot of people were believing any more because that's not where the money was. The money wasn't in family planning, the money wasn't in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that," said Johnson.

Note especially the phrase: the money was in abortion.

Read the entire story here.

Elizabeth Bathory must be dancing in her grave

This from yesterday's Washington Times.

Aborted fetus cells used in beauty creams

Valerie Richardson

A San Francisco cosmetics company has ignited an outcry among pro-lifers for including an unexpected ingredient in its anti-aging creams: skin-cell proteins from an aborted fetus.

Children of God for Life, a watchdog group that monitors the use of fetal material in medical products, called last week for a boycott of all treatments manufactured by Neocutis Inc., which acknowledges that the key ingredient in its product line was developed from an aborted boy.

"There's just no excuse for using aborted babies in skin-care products," said Debi Vinnedge, executive director of Children of God for Life, a 10-year-old organization based in Murfreesboro, Tenn. "The reaction, the shock and anger I've seen is incredible."

In a statement released Friday, in response to a wave of condemnation from pro-life and religious blogs, Neocutis defended the use of its trademarked ingredient, Processed Skin Cell Proteins, or PSP, arguing that the fetal cell line was harvested in a responsible, ethical manner for use in treating severe dermatological injuries.

The company compared its situation to that of researchers who used fetal kidney cells to develop the polio vaccine. {BR notes: Of course, kidney cells do not require the death of a child to provide working 'material' for use in pharmacological development.}

"Our view - which is shared by most medical professionals and patients - is that the limited, prudent and responsible use of donated fetal skin tissue can continue to ease suffering, speed healing, save lives and improve the well-being of many patients around the globe," said the statement.

The ingredient was developed at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland from proteins in the skin tissue of a 14-week-old male baby electively aborted at the university's hospital and donated to the Swiss university. The abortion was deemed medically necessary because the baby could not survive to term, according to Neocutis.

The fetal skin cell line was taken from a piece of skin the size of a postage stamp and donated voluntarily by the parents for medical research. The donation was approved by the hospital's medical ethics committee and in accordance with Swiss laws, said the Neocutis statement.

And comments from the Church Fathers?

Charity is no substitute for justice.
Saint Augustine

Unfortunately, in our time, when spheres of knowledge have greatly multiplied, logic has shaken the very foundations of people's faith, and has filled their hearts with questions and doubts. As a consequence, they have been deprived of miracles, for a miracle is something experienced personally, not something than can be logically explained.
Elder Paisios

Theology without action is the theology of demons.
St. Maximos the Confesso

Thou shalt not murder.
Moses the Lawgiver

News (that will be denied) supporting the humanity of the fetus

The Washington Times and other sources are reporting that studies have revealed/proven that a fetus (READ: "unborn child") has memory from an early state of development. This should have immense implications in the ongoing pro-life versus pro-abortion debate. We'll have to wait a few days to see how the main stream media handles this news.

Do read the whole article but feast your eyes at the following paragraphs about mid-way through the report:

"It seems like every day we find out marvelous new things about the development of unborn children. We hope that this latest information helps people realize more clearly that the unborn are members of the human family with amazing capabilities and capacities like these built in from the moment of conception," said Randall K. O'Bannon, director of education and research for the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund.

A call to NARAL Pro-Choice America for comment on the implications of the research were not returned.

Sometimes it is amazing how science actually proves what most people would otherwise rationally consider to be commonly sensible.

Ugly Truths

Hat Tip to + Papist + Filioquist + Azymite + Priest & Pilgrim + for a spot on discussion of the true history and motives of Planned Parenthood's founder, entitled The Ethic of Control: Margaret Sanger, Eugenics, and Planned Parenthood. To those who don't know the rest of the story (as Paul Harvey used to say), there just might be more to why Planned Parenthood seeks out certain neighborhoods to establish their clinics (read: Abortuaries).

Read it here.

As my Grandfather would have said, "Now, there's stem cells and there's stem cells...."

Real Clear Politics has an essay by Kathleen Parker regarding President Obama's recent "lifting" of the stem cell ban by the US Government. Here are a few pertinent excerpts:

Unfortunately, the stem cell debate has been characterized as a conflict between science (as though science is always right) and religious "kooks" (as though religious folk are never right). In choosing sides, it is, indeed, easier to imagine lunch with a researcher who wants to resurrect Christopher Reeve (whom Obama couldn't resist mentioning) and make him walk again, than with the corner protester holding a fetus in a jar. (Note: I don't believe I've ever heard of an abortion protester "holding a fetus in a jar".)

The insistence on using embryonic stem cells always rested on the argument that they were pluripotent, capable of becoming any kind of cell. That superior claim no longer can be made with the spectacular discovery in 2007 of "induced pluripotent stem cells" (iPS), which was the laboratory equivalent of the airplane. Very simply, iPS cells can be produced from a skin cell by injecting genes that force it to revert to its primitive "blank slate" form with all the same pluripotent capabilities of embryonic stem cells.

The iPS discovery even prompted Dr. Ian Wilmut, who cloned Dolly the sheep, to abandon his license to attempt human cloning, saying that the researchers "may have achieved what no politician could: an end to the embryonic stem cell debate." And, just several days ago, Dr. Bernadine Healy, director of the National Institutes of Health under the first President Bush, wrote in U.S. News & World Report that these recent developments "reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells ... are obsolete."

Many scientists, of course, want to conduct embryonic stem cell research, as they have and always could with private funding. One may agree or disagree with their purposes, but one may also question why taxpayers should have to fund something so ethically charged when alternative methods are available.

Read the entire essay here.

Twixt (Support for) Life or Death (PC="Choice")

Kathryn Jean Lopez, of the National Review Online reports on her attendance at last week's March for Life in DC, as well as reflecting on attending 2004's March for Women's Rights. March for Life is an annual protest march in Washington, DC, in support of equal rights for all human beings from conception to natural death. March for Women's Rights was a protest march in 2004 organized by the National Organization for Women in support of abortion and other political 'rights'. Below is an excerpt from Ms Lopez' article.

But I walked the whole March. I walked the March from the Mall to the Supreme Court after attending the pre-rally. I walked the March and hung around on the House side of the Capitol for a little while. The only display of anger I saw came from a woman walking a block away from the Supreme Court with a big round “Keep Abortion Legal” sticker from the National Organization for Women. She was furious, saying to a friend, “They don’t care about human rights. I can’t believe all these people. They just care about babies.”

Of course they care about babies. Some of them have had a lot of them, and brought some of them along; others look on with joy at the families. But it is because they know these babies are human—which shouldn’t be in dispute, though it seemed to be back when Obama was in the statehouse arguing that a newborn shouldn’t have the same rights as an older baby—that they care about this issue.

And that message—that this is a human-rights issue and men, women, and children deserve better than a culture that values the legal “choice” of abortion over all other values, including compassion and common decency—was emanating from the March for Life this year, and so many of the events surrounding it. “Healing” had a big presence there.

Read the whole article here.

Touchstone and friends on partial-birth abortion

Touchstone Magazine's Mere Comments blog references a blog by an Anglican minister who has written a scathingly logical and accurate argument against "partial-birth abortion".

Touchstone's piece is here.

The original blog entry is here.

Abortion Rights? Personhood Misunderstood

A recent letter to the editor in the local paper presents several interesting arguments on the topic of abortion and politics. What surprises in the letter are both an admission and an assertion that bears need of more scrutiny than the writer would have the reader consider.

First, for a pro-abortion advocate, the writer surprises in his first paragraph by conceding the fact that life begins at conception. Despite the opprobrium of pro-abortion fanatics, the pro-life position is grounded on solid physical science. Far from being a question of imposing “my” personal religious beliefs on anyone, biological science clearly shows that an abortion ends a human life. The writer admits this fact at the outset.

In conceding this point, writer hopes to ground his pro-abortion stance on a more controversial question: “But at what point on that line can we say that we are dealing with a human person?” Surely, the writer must know that the question of what constitutes and defines the limits of “personhood” has vexed philosophers for over two hundred years. To date, most attempts to define personhood so as to include every human while excluding non-human creatures and devices like computers have proven fruitless. But this shift from a scientific and fact related discussion to a philosophical one suits his purpose.

The writer goes on to note several “striking facts” that he believes lend support for his pro-abortion stance. First, he asserts that “nature is an abortionist on a large scale”. In other words, if something occurs in nature, it must be morally acceptable. However, this ‘fact’ fails to distinguish between “miscarriage” and “abortion”. Miscarriages occur in nature, sparked by any number of biological causes: these cannot be seriously considered as relevant to moral decision-making. Only human actions or factors resulting from human interventions can impute a moral dimension to a miscarriage. The argument that nature itself is ‘acting’ murderously and that this should impact the position of pro-life advocates is a straw man and absurd. This argument also involves a fallacious appeal to common practice that would analogously require agreement with killing the sick on the basis that a large percentage of deaths occur due to sickness. Nature is not the guarantor of moral rectitude.

The writer next ‘reveals’ that “every religious faith allows some abortion”, which he seems to equate with a logical imperative to morally approve of all abortions. But this is a genetic fallacy failing to distinguish the relevance of specific, defined circumstances that impact the moral standing of certain particular cases of abortion versus the blanket assertion that all abortions must permitted. The argument is another straw man, cast in all or nothing terms, that presumes the existence of exceptions justifies abandonment of any limitation. It is worth noting that there is a real difference between an ectopic pregnancy that will end in the death of the child and the mother if the pregnancy is not terminated, and the pregnancy resulting from rape, in which an abortion kills a child that would otherwise live. This failure to distinguish the moral impact of specific circumstances would just as easily allow that if I am morally allowed to shoot someone who attempts to kill me, I should be allowed equally to shoot anyone I choose for any reason.

The writer next attempts a logical sleight of hand to confuse the position of the Catholic Church. In Catholicism, matters of belief and morals are held to be infallibly defined and confirmed by the Holy See. Yet the writer asserts, “While the Vatican holds firmly to its position, several Catholic theologians … have argued for setting the marker for personhood later than conception.” This is all well and good, except that these theologians and groups, in opposing the teachings of the Vatican, are opposing the teachings of Catholicism. In short, they simply disagree with Catholic teaching. The fact of their disagreement does not address the issue of the position of the Catholic Church at all.

This brings us to the final paragraph of the letter, which deserves full quotation:

“Finally, we need to see pregnancy as a dual operation, involving an egg and its
host — the woman. Robert Goldstein, a teacher of law at the University of
California at Los Angeles, suggested that we should continually think of the
"dyad" of mother and egg. Her needs and her rights should have weight as much as
those of an embryo. She needs the right to exercise choice.”

The issue of personhood returns with a vengeance: “We need to see pregnancy as a dual operation, involving an egg and its host.” At first blush, this would seem to coincide with the heart of the pro-life position - two beings are involved. But the writer subtly mischaracterizes the issue. Pregnancy involves a fetus and a mother, not an egg and its host. An “egg” by definition is unfertilized and has only the potential for life; a fetus is a living entity. Similarly, a “host” need not be ascribed to have any relationship whatsoever other than proximity to the one for whom it is host. Using this terminology at best obfuscates the issue; and at worst seeks to persuade through assuming the conclusion. This is begging the question.

By using the term “egg” the writer devalues consideration of the fetus's rights and attempts to lend credence to the view that unless the mother is accorded the “right to exercise choice” her needs and rights are being ignored. Only by ignoring or eliminating the rights of the fetus are the rights of the mother ensured. By having equated an embryo with an egg, the writer fosters the notion that the two humans involved (the mother and fetus) are intrinsically unequal. De facto, the writer denies the personhood of the fetus. Thus, the writer's desire to shift the argument to personhood is no more than a slightly more sophisticated denial of fetal rights - the same basic denial that has always been championed by pro-abortion advocates

The writer has, unfortunately, admitted a view of personhood that presents a slippery slope. At what point do we ascribe personhood? He does not directly answer this question, but presumably does not ascribe it to fetuses. However, it is logical to ask: if an otherwise healthy fetus is not ascribed personhood, then are other circumstances also to be equated as invalidating the attribution of personhood? Should Down syndrome, Alzheimer’s, mental illness, or other physical ailments invalidate one’s personhood? By what standards? By whose authority? It is not sufficient to say these are different circumstances; one must show why they are different and why similar considerations could and should not be given to the fetus.

Although pro-abortion supporters seek to prevent this from being considered, abortion’s denial of the personhood of the fetus is logically no different than viewing the fetus as property – the same mindset that allowed for slavery. In the “dyad” noted above, two human beings are claimed to have differing rights; the rights of the fetus are tacitly viewed as deriving from the fiat of the mother. Ultimately, then, the fetus has no rights because these ‘derived’ rights ipso facto deny the fetus's humanity and reduce its status to property (the status of slavery). This is the reality of the blanket claim that one human being’s rights take precedence over those of another. Such inequality stands in total contradiction to primary and historic US political theory (“all are created equal”). It is at the heart of tyranny as witnessed in dozens of regimes throughout history and around the world.

While pro-choice fanatics see opposition to abortion in terms of religious groups ‘imposing’ their beliefs on others; it is incontrovertible that the pro-abortion position is rooted in a denial of the direct evidence of science. Further, the pro-abortion stance rests on political and philosophical premises that are illogical, irrational and built on the tyranny of some over others. These premises arbitrarily limit the attribution of personhood by criteria that, as noted above, open the door to countless other discriminations.

In truth, the only non-ideological criterion to ensure even the question of personhood for all human beings is in returning to the scientific biological fact that human life begins at conception and ends at natural death. Thus, personhood is attributable to every human being, and all humans possess an equality of rights and dignity. Personhood is revealed to be a characteristic of human beings and not reducible (ultimately) to discriminatory attributes such as mental capacity, intelligence, etc. On this model, the rights of all individual humans are protected. Similarly, such a model solves the problem of non-human entities or computers that to which could be attributed person-like qualities. In these cases, either “personhood” is being ascribed analogously, or else hypostatically of another order of being.

Does making babies make sense?

MercatorNet features an essay by Professor Richard Stith, who teaches at Valparaiso University School of Law, entitled "Does Making Babies Make Sense?". Let the following excerpt encourage you to read the entire essay.

In December of 2005 an op-ed piece by sociologist Dalton Conley appeared in the New York Times, stating that “most Americans... see a fetus as an individual under construction.” This widespread vision of the embryo and fetus as “under construction” is the key to understanding why good people may find pro-life arguments to be absurd or otherwise non-rational, eg, religious, particularly with regard to embryonic stem cell research.

The construction idea also may explain how Republican presidential candidate John McCain has been able to support both the right to life from the moment of conception and embryonic stem cell research.

It is a very thought-provoking essay. Read it here.

From the Church Fathers

And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.

Chapter Two, The Didache (c. 50-120 a.d.)

Therefore brothers, you see how perverse they are and hastening wickedness, who are immature, they seek abortion of the conception before the birth; they are those who tell us, "I do not see that which you say must be believed."

From a Sermon by St Augustine of Hippo

A Few Interesting Articles

From Life Site News more revelations about Planned Parenthood's ongoing attempts to increase its share of the death business: Planned Parenthood's 'A' Word Campaign Targets Cincinnati Teenagers

Also, a recent article from Center for a Just Society, Trying to Put Lipstick on a Pig

Planned Parenthood has begun to renovate office in our town. They picked a spot hoping to thwart protesters (no parking, small side-walk space, office at the back of a private parking lot, etc) and ultimately claimed that they won't be committing abortions "initially". We're urging a thorough environmental impact study to determine potential dangers to caused by their operations.

Then, there's Salvo Magazine's report on the de-masculinization of US boys and men. Girly Men: The Media's Attack on Masculinity

Having done some teaching over the years (junior high level), I can attest that playground activities are often strictly monitored for anything smacking of "rough housing" or other boyish behaviors. But then again, the US is also into over-medicating kids to avoid the unpleasantness of having to deal with kids being kids. I shudder to think what actions would be taken against crop of kids like those of my generation!

Sometimes...

Sometimes an image is worth a thousand words...
(This is very 'graphic')


And if words are still needed...

St John Chrysostom on Contraception

Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well…Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws?…Yet such turpitude…the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks.

Homilies on Romans, 24 - .St. John Chrysostom

The ACLU and Planned Parenthood

First Things's On the Square (one of the best daily features on the Web) speaks to California's 'no abstinence in public education' policy and the extremes to which the ACLU and Planned Parenhood are going to prevent young people from chastity.

Read it here.

Not For Faint of Heart - But it is True

From Priests for Life and YouTube









Step back from the emotion. Think logically. Abortion kills a human life. Biologically, there is no other rational way to say it. The only choice is to kill or not kill. Please God, may the choice be life.