We are now informed Savita Halappanavar’s death was caused by a rare infection and was nothing to do with any kind of “denied abortion”.
This is a strange of piece of information even to get, because if you click elsewhere, like for example at the usual BBC, the fact the whiners were wrong is merely mentioned en passant. You read the article and barely know what is all about, and what the findings might have been.
Not better is, predictably, the Huffington Post. We knew already that systemic failures were in place, and it is obvious there would be recommendations. Strangely, the evidence that the fact she was “refused” to get an abortion (I think it’s because it would have been murder in the circumstances; but these are too fine details for the HuffPo) did not play any role in her death is not, how should I say it, adequately conveyed.
I truly hope that all pro-abortion fans now do the one thing that must be done, and shut up.
Just as an aside, I want to say that where I come from, a husband saying “my wife should not have been denied an abortion” would have been looked at as a strange mixture between a freak show and a criminal not later than one generation ago, and many would do it even today. You see, there was a time where elementary concepts like the protection of an unborn baby – as opposed to murdering him at the first sign of complication in the pregnancy because hey, this might be good for the mother – were so universally understood that even BBC journalists got them.
I understand Mr Halappanavar is an Indian citizen. I trust he will now leave Ireland and go back to India. A Christian country is clearly too much for him.
I have not written about the Gosnell affair yet, because time is a tyrant. Still, I have followed regularly not only the flow of atrocious details from the Catholic and the conservative press, but the other scandal of the main (read: liberal) media making the impossible to ignore the matter; a very stupid endeavour in a free society, which predictably led to back pedalling.
For those who want to read more (attention: this is atrocious stuff to be kept absolutely out of children’s reach) ” The Pulpit” has a “Gosnell Special”. If you feel like delving into the atrocious details of the matter and the scandalous treatment given (or not given) to it by the media you can do worse than start from there.
To think that in Ireland a huge mess was started for the death of a pregnant woman in a hospital, and now many feel (idiots don’t think; they feel; less work, and one can “feel good”) abortion laws should be changed because of one death that was most certainly not a murder.
Mala Tempora currunt
North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple has signed the strongest bill limiting abortion after the tragedy of Roe vs Wade. The new bill bans abortion once the baby's heart is “detectable”, which is at around 6 weeks.
Make no mistake, this measure does not ban abortion in the least; it is well possible to be sure of pregnancy within this time, and of course abortifacients like the “morning after pill” are not touched by the law.
Still, this is clearly a most courageous step towards the return to sanity. I do not doubt this Law will be challenged and will end up in front of the ugly fat lesbian and the other people already mentioned in a very recent post; but however the outcome of the legal challenge, it is clear the pressure on Roe vs Wade is mounting.
This legislative measure is also, if you ask me, a good way to put a probable decision of the US Supreme Court in favour of sodomy in perspective. Would a single judge of the Supreme Court have thought in 1973 that in 2013 Roe vs Wade would be more controversial than ever? I doubt it. Much more probably, they thought their decision would end the debate once and for all. Big mistake.
The same will, very probably, happen if the Supreme Court tries to shovel abominations down the throat of the Christians: it is going to start a decade-long fight that, in time, will lead to the recovery of traditional Christian values, exactly in the same way as abortion is now challenged in a way certainly not hoped by many in the years following Roe vs Wade.
The lot of our generation is to see Christianity massively challenged. The day we die, let it not be said of us we have not been able to raise to this challenge.
God bless the voters, the lawmakers and the Governor of North Dakota.
We all know that pro-abortion radicals have no problem with male politicians speaking in support of abortion, or male lobbyists fighting for federal funding of Planned Parenthood, or male doctors performing abortions. But the minute a man speaks out for life, it’s “HEY! If you don’t have a uterus, ZIP IT!!!”
No, Madame Anger, I will not zip it. Unless you are trying to tell me my fly is down, in which case, thank you. I will zip it slowly and carefully.
Guys, I don’t know about you, but I for one am tired of being told that because I can never carry a child, I can’t stick up for one. It’s time to stop bowing to prejudice. It’s time to start being men.
In conclusion, to those who burn with rage when we men have the nerve to stand up for life, I offer this humble apology: please forgive us for being born male. What were we thinking?
This very funny lines come from the author of an article appeared on a pro-life site, and worthy of being read in its entirety. I think it stands out for the refreshing openness so far away from the usual political correctness surrounding these arguments.
Having a uterus does not give her owner any property right over any human being, least of all an unborn child.
One of tragic problems of modern Christianity is that the religion of niceness pollutes their very thinking and speaking.
Once upon a time, he who murdered a person was a murdered. It’s really not complicated. There were no questions about “judging”, the need to show “sensitivity”, the desire not to hurt one’s “feelings”, and the lot.
It is high time that we go back to a simple logic by which political correctness cannot deform, or remake, reality anymore: a woman who chooses to abort is the murderer of her baby. Why? Because she murdered him.
This thinking seems to make inroads among pro-life activists in the Socialist Republic of California, who are becoming rather explicit in the matter.
A pro-life group in the San Fernando Valley is now producing a “provocative” documentary with a rather explicit intent, explicitly targeting an abortion clinic which might kill up to fifty babies a day. They won’t mince words. As they put it:
“It’s time the pro-life movement starts calling abortion what it is — murder. And it’s time the men and women who participate in the murder of unborn children are brought to the knowledge of their sin against God. They are murderers.”
No fake sensitivity here. Tell it as it is. False charity doesn’t help anyone.
Some more explanations:
“Our primary goal” [...] “is to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to everyone associated with the abortion industry, from the women having abortions to the people working inside the clinics. We don’t want anyone to perish in their sin. But we must stop showing deference to the feelings of women who are murdering their children. Yes, we must speak the truth in love, but it must be the whole truth.”
At times, truth is harsh; and when it is, a lot of “sensitive” people will not hesitate in attacking those who speak the truth accusing them – mind, without any sensitivity – of not being “charitable”, and “hurting” the “feelings” of women who are simply murdering a baby, and bla, bla, and bla.
This must stop. It must be the whole truth.
The documentary is aptly called “Babies Are Murdered Here”. That’s a promising title, for sure.
It has now transpired both Pelosi and Biden (attempted to) receive communion during the inauguration Mass.
Whilst the ceremony was transformed in the usual mass-exercise of the V II era (apparently more than 500 people, many of them certainly priests, distributing communion) and we do not know the exact modality of what has happened, it seems clear to me this grave scandal was at least made possible by the Holy Father, who was accessory of their grave sin at the very least by silence.
Pope Francis is certainly aware of the atrocious work of the two Catholic Pharisees in matter of abortion. If he himself gave communion to them, he did so in full knowledge of the grave scandal they continuously give, and can certainly not hide himself behind the finger of the two perhaps having reached perfect contrition in the minutes preceding the reception of the consecrated host. The scandal given by the two being very public, their being allowed to receive in itself gives scandal.
Even if the Pontiff did not give communion to the two himself (which I find improbable, both because of the rank of the hosts and for security reasons) and the two slipped among the crowd to receive from some other priest or “Eucharistic minister” unaware of who they are or too scared to refuse communion to them, the Pontiff is responsible for it because he made it possible through his silence.
It would have been sufficient to address a warning during the homily, impersonal but clear, on the lines of “those who directly or indirectly support abortion in full knowledge of the gravity of their sin are not allowed to receive communion, and are therefore invited not to present themselves in front of me to receive” to keep both Biden and Pelosi solidly anchored to their pews without any names being made; none of the two would have dared to stand up in line and be publicly refused communion by the Pontiff, or simply ask for a benediction acknowledging they are unworthy to receive; nor would they have dared to (attempt to) receive from some other person, lest they are exposed in front of all the planet like the con tricksters they actually are.
Someone may say that this was a diplomatic exercise, and therefore had to be conducted according to the usual rules of diplomacy. Fine, and no one asks the Pope should have refused to have Biden and Pelosi at the Mass and should have asked Obama to send him presentable representatives instead. Still, when the rules of diplomacy impinge on the Sacraments, a line too much has clearly been crossed.
Nor can it be said this is not the first time such scandals happen (Pope Benedict apparently did exactly the same when he visited the US, and he certainly gave communion in Germany to “Catholic” politicians of whom he knew they gave scandal) and therefore the matter should be looked at with more leniency. Scandals committed in the past by past Popes do not justify scandals committed in the present by the present one, and no one is ever obliged to receive, or ever forced to give, Holy Communion.
The result of the Inauguration Mass is that Pelosi and Biden will now be able to continue their work undisturbed, and brag with everyone they have even received Communion at a Mass celebrated by the Pope – and very probably from his own hands – so they must be fine Catholics after all.
It is utterly irrelevant whether this is how things really stand, or not; that is, whether the two have validly received. This is how the two will be perceived by the huge number of ill-instructed and ill-informed Catholics in the US, and the Pope enabled them to continue to do so.
This Papacy claims to be on the side of the weak and unprotected. Posed in front of the choice between the hundreds of thousand of babies slaughtered every year in the United Stares alone and the prospect of seriously angering powerful people – and their President – by clearly upholding Catholic values for all the world to see, the Pope chose to please the second rather than defend the first; but he was not shy in making popular gestures in front of the world cameras, like stopping the car and go to the disabled man in the wheelchair.
Up to now, the “defence of the week” seem to be all right when a world audience is there and there’s nothing to be feared, but to stop when it becomes inconvenient; but the Holy Father wears a metal cross and used to travel by bus, so he must be a friend of the oppressed. At least of those who have not been butchered because of Biden and Pelosi.
I knew the numbers for London doctors are good (for us), but this here is a devastating blow for the Nazi troops.
In Italy, conscientious objection is over 70% among doctors, with some regions at or above 90% when counting effective objectors.
If one considers objection is highest among the youngest doctors, one has a clear picture of the Italian abortionist doctor as a more endangered species than the Panda.
Predictably, Nazi Activists are now getting nervous, and asking for legislative provisions to force the doctors to kill babies.
Keep dreaming, Adolfo...
This is one of those areas where a strong Pope – and strong clergy – can really do a lot. Again, Catholic thinking – broadly intended – still has a big traction in the country: but it must be cultivated and led to bring fruit, with an aggressive defence of Catholic values.
The article seems to praise Pope Benedict for the advancement of the cause; but I’d say the Italian clergy themselves – and Cardinal Bagnasco first – are the ones who deserve praise.
Bagnasco was the kind of chap willing to cause a pandemonium in order not to have atheist ads on buses. Compare with London, where atheists and homos advertise their own stuff undisturbed (but Christian organisations are not allowed, because it is “hate”: frock yourself, Boris…) and our Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is so nuanced he doesn’t even notice, and you’ll see what a difference assertive clergy makes.
Think of this: if your clergy are ready to put up a fight for atheist ads on the bus, what message will this give concerning their attitude about abortion?
Kudos for the Italian doctors. The vast majority of them still know what the Hippocratic Oath means.
This shocking piece of news reaches us from Australia, where two hopefully hallucinated ethicists (unfortunately, both of them with Italian sounding names) talk of after birth abortion like I talk of the necessity to cull badgers.
The mentality behind these two satanic minds is that at times a child is born with circumstances “which would have justified abortion”, and in that case the abortion should be justified after birth.
Now, I do not know of many circumstances in Australia in which abortion is not justified. It is probably on demand, after going through the obligatory motions. Therefore, the Nazi argument shows its astonishing cruelty already at the start.
Still, the two “ethicists” (hell must be full of them, I think) seem to restrict, in their compassion, the circumstances in which abortion would have been “justified”. Say, the child has Down syndrome. Then, it is “justified” to abort it. Therefore, if after birth it turns out the baby has Down Syndrome they will say to him “we are sorry, chap, but you shouldn’t have been admitted entrance, therefore we’ll have to, erm, ah, oh, well, abort you”.
Notice also the two well know that in Australia the costs for the families of children with Down Syndrome are largely paid and therefore not an issue, but their point is that:
“such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
It is, therefore, an unbearable burden for the State to pay for the welfare of children with Down Syndrome.
Seriously, these people have the brown shirts in the closet, and no mistake.
More in general, though, I must make here the usual considerations about the logic of all this.
The two brown-shirted “ethicists” are, in fact, only thinking to end the abortionist mentality. If one is allowed to kill a baby in the womb, why not outside of it? Is there anyone in a state of sobriety who does not know inside the womb is a perfectly formed baby?
Monsters like the two disgraceful offspring of Italian ancestors therefore do nothing else than point out to the utter monstrosity of abortion.
Still, even abortionists generally try to at least appear compassionate.
These two here think like Heinrich Himmler on a bad day.
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.
Interesting Huckabee quote from Jill Stanek’s blog:
I’ve never been so shocked in my life… to see speaker after speaker go to the podium in Charlotte at the Democratic National Convention and all but give a rallying cry (that) the single most important thing to them in all of America was not a stable economy, was not a secure border, it was not that we had peace within our country and that we were protected from enemies around the world.
It was not that we stop terrorism. It was not that we had an education system that gave our kids the opportunity to become independent and self-sufficient. It was not that we would have a food supply system that would allow us to feed ourselves and not be dependent on some foreign country.
It was not that we would have our own energy resources where we could take care of ourselves and not be slaves to some Middle Eastern tyrant who takes our money by the wads and then turns around and spends it to use against us to murder us and kill us in the name of a perverted faith. No, that wasn’t the most important issue.
The most important issue was: “I want to be able to take the life of my baby and I want someone else to pay for it.”
As so often, I have difficulties in talking about the latest antics of a Cardinal without showing a lot of, say, Italian temperament. It isn’t good for my lever, either, so I tend to pass on more than some of the horrible news I hear coming from that corner.
This time, though, I must go back on the latest comments of Cardinal Meisner, because the way some Catholic news outlets tried to defend the indefensible exposes the utter confusion reigning in these disgraceful times.
It has been said, then, that never has the Cardinal said that the use of the “morning after pill” is justified; not on any circumstance. The poor Cardinal was merely badly advised, in that he was told the morning after pill can be used to prevent a pregnancy; which turned out to be, would you believe it, wrong.
Let us reflect on a couple of issues:
1. Apparently there are Cardinals going around the world who pretend not to know the difference between contraception and abortion. They seem to believe contraception is something that can happen after intercourse, as in: I had sex yesterday, let me contracept today! The idea that the intercourse has taken place several hours before the use of the pill and sperm has a limited life, after which it’s either pregnancy or nothing, never touched him. He seems to think many hours after the fact there’s still a spermatozoon slowly travelling toward the egg (on a British train, I imagine), but in case of rape the Cardinal can put himself between the traveller and his destination and say: “stop, you wicked rapist’s spermatozoon: you’ll only reach your egg and do your wicked work over my dead red hat! Don’t you even think of doing this! Bad, bad spermatozoon, don’t you know the girl was raped? “. It would be fun, if words would not fail at explaining how tragically incompetent all this is.
2. The Cardinal is a typical V II product. He will do whatever he can, absolutely everything, to bend himself forward for the aborting and contracepting masses. So when he receives a report saying “dear Cardinal, it’s still no abortion until we call it so” he does not react saying “stop smoking whatever it is you are killing your brain cells with”, but on the contrary even wants to believe it. If he received a medical report saying pregnancy begins only ten weeks after intercourse he would, methinks, believe that too. The simple truth is that in his desire to appease the dissenting, but Kirchensteuer-paying Catholic public the Cardinal has simply decided to forget the most elementary common sense; or else he is on cocaine, which I wouldn’t struggle to believe if he has received a medical report saying cocaine is good against arthritis.
3. Dulcis in fundo, a point already touched by me in the other post but which (the point, not my post) does not seem to have been much noticed by the press: a Cardinal publicly stating that he favours contraception in certain cases. Unless I am gravely deficient in my Catholic instruction on the matter, this is a huge blunder.
As far as I know, the Church does not condone contraception, full stop. Not in this case, not in the other, not in that third one. Never. It might have tolerated the use of condoms in brothels, as it tolerated the existence of brothels; but she certainly never said there are cases in which condoms should be used more than she said there are cases where the use of the services of a brothel is justified, courtesy of the Cardinal after he received the newest medical report.
The Cardinal allows himself to disagree: confused as his ideas about conception and contraception are, it is clear he had to realise if what he wanted to achieve was not outright abortion, it was most certainly – absurd as the thinking is – contraception. Let us examine the consequences among our oh so well-instructed Catholics in just a few years’ time….
“Care for a quick rape tonight, darling? I really am in the mood….”. “If you really must, dear. Remember in that case you can contracept, though…”.
Other variations are possible:
“Father, I really think I should start taking the pill now; I am going out with that nice guy who is always so correct and polite, but you never know when he may start to rape me”.
If it sounds so ridiculous, it is because the Cardinal’s thinking is. He should have thought: “Achtung! This here is clearly contraception at the very least! What does the Church says about contraception, again? Remind me, secretary, because my seminary was rather liberal…”.
He didn’t, and he made an ass of himself in front of the Catholic world.
Outside of Germany, at least, as I start to think the little stunt might have procured him the one or other friend over there.
Some of the most most impressive statements made by speakers on occasion of the March For Life in Washington yesterday:
“How many of you were born after 1973?” Kristina Garza, leader of Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, asked the crowd. Almost every hand went up. Garza nodded. Young people, she said, were conceived “with a target on our backs. If you were born after 1973, there were people out there who wanted to kill you for money.”
Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America said this generation has grown up around technology that makes it impossible to deny the humanity of the unborn. “We’ve seen our brothers and sisters on ultrasound,” she said. “We’ve Googled abortion and seen the bloody images.”
“Talk about abortion everywhere you go. Do not shut up until we’ve abolished abortion. When someone tells you to stop talking about abortion, say, ‘Join with me to stop abortion and I’ll be more than happy to.’”
Another speaker, Kellly Clinger, told the crowd about her own abortion – an abortion she tried to keep secret from everyone, including her doctor. When she developed an infection after the procedure, however, her secret was revealed. “I didn’t tell my doctor I had an abortion,” she said, “but when I awoke after an invasive exam to see what was wrong with me, my doctor was in tears. When I asked her why, she said, ‘Because I found hands and feet inside of you.’”
It will take time and effort, but I have no doubts in my heart one day will come, possibly still in my lifetime, when people realise abortion is murder, full stop.
Lord, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?
How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves?
They break in pieces thy people, O Lord, and afflict thine heritage.
They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless.
Yet they say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it.
Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise?
He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?
He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?
The recurring 40th anniversary of Roe vs Wade is a good way to say a word or two about the pendulum which seems to swing across societal phenomena.
No doubt, when the disgraceful Roe vs Wade ruling was issued, very many thought this was one of those moment of irreversible change, so that the return to a ban for abortion would not be more likely than a return to the horse cart. For some time the facts seemed (seemed only) to agree with them, as abortion became a largely unquestioned part of the landscape in most of the Western world.
At some point, though, the pendulum came to a still stand, and then began to swing in the other direction. It is fair to say it is now in full swing and winning the biological battle, big time. What happened is not only that the abortionists made fewer children, but that more and more people realised (or are in the course of realising) a genocide doesn’t become legitimate only because it happens to be legal.
It took a long time, though, because it always takes time for the lazy cattle we call “electorate” to slowly wake up to reality, the commonly received perception of what other perceive being generally considered a perfectly valid substitute for truth, morality, or even thinking. It took time, but it’s now happening with great impetus, and it won’t be many years until the mass opposition becomes a reality in Western Europe, too. It works, and it works because of people who were not afraid of being in the minority, ostracised, or insulted.
We see the same pattern now at work in the matters of euthanasia and buggery, with the promoters of both trying to depict the change as a generational, epochal swift in perspective, and as irreversible as flying or eating Chinese food. They might well get their Roe vs Wade, and many people (the lazy cattle) will at that point think the world has ” evolved”, and will feel very smug in the process with that feeling of “look at how good I am” the stupid seem unable to live without. When that moment comes, is when we must continue the reaction without waiting for one generation to go by, learning from the abortion issue that nothing is irreversible, least of all abominations going against the most elementary natural instincts like the above mentioned euthanasia and buggery.
We live in times when we must face (never accept, or acquiesce to) the possibility of dying in a world much different from the one we grew into; a world in which the wicked triumph and the just are insulted, persecuted, or worse. We must stay strong and continue our battle, knowing that the one who planted the ear, shall ear…
One day, thinks will begin to improve; if our day comes before that day, perhaps we will be able to attribute our much hoped-for salvation to the battles we had to fight in a hostile environment, the object of mockery and hostility in the very mildest of cases.
As I will never tire to repeat, the greatest contribution to the swinging of the pendulum would come from the Church. But the Church is, if not entirely asleep, certainly slumbering in the drunken stupor of Vatican II, and does not see the dangers accumulating, does not notice the black clouds at the horizon, and does not feel the necessity to start a serious battle now in order, Deo Volente, to avoid a much more difficult one in 10 or 20 years time.
Much sooner, actually, if the likes of Andrew Cuomo get their way.
I am eagerly awaiting for Cardinal Dolan to invite him to some highly publicised dinner.
The Supreme Court of Alabama issued aninteresting sentence concerning the life of the unborn. Two pregnant women took drugs, gravely endangering the health of their babies, and were sentenced as a result. With the usual callousness of pro-choice people, they argued the babies are not persons, merely clumps of tissues, and therefore to damage them is really not an issue at all, much less a criminal offence.
The Alabama Supreme Court answered along the lines that the exact contrary is the case, and an unborn baby is treated by the law as a life worthy of protection in a range of issues, including of course the one of their health having to be protected from their mothers’ actions. In actual fact, they said, the only matter in which an unborn baby is not protected as a person is the issue of abortion, and this only because of Roe vs Wade.
Notice here the main point: Roe vs Wade is in opposition to the way the US legal system as a whole sees the unborn baby; a (though this is not explicitly said) monstrous creation of judicial activism going not only against the legal conception of an unborn baby, but (and this I add myself) elementary common sense. I do not know anyone who does not refer to the unborn baby as a “baby” instead of a lump of cells. Even the girl informed of an unwanted pregnancy will not say to her girlfriends she has been informed a lump of cells is growing within her; on the contrary, she will refer to him as “baby” even if she wants to abort him, and she will inform a certain boy or man that he is the…. Father, which implies a son, rather than the co-agent in the triggering of the rapid growth of tissues which, like a tumour, will soon have very unpleasant consequences unless properly expunged.
In fact, the way so-called pro-choice activists want us to see an unborn baby is exactly this: they want us to see an unborn baby like a tumour ready to metastasise unless treated promptly and decisively, with the removal and complete elimination of the dangerous excrescences threatening the health of the, er, well, mother.
Hitler is among us. But now he has millions of faces.
Those like me who, now slowly getting old(ish), see around them a world much different from the one they grew up in can also, in a way, observe epochal changes and their roots.
When I was a child, the expression that the sins of the father shall be visited upon the sons wasn’t very easy to grasp. Forty and more years later, things begins to make a lot of sense.
Where shall I start? Let us see: divorce. One generation decides that divorce can be barely tolerated in extreme cases, but thinks it “unchristian” to withheld it from all those women victims of drunken bastards and violent psychopaths now suddenly roaming around (and, apparently, just not there in Jesus’ time…).
The following generation sees a more generalised use of divorce, and many children begin to grow with huge emotional scars, and already predisposed to that absence of serious commitment they can clearly observe in their quarreling, self-centred parents. Their generation, the third, will be largely rotten.
Or do you want casual Catholicism? The generation of those who found V II somewhat “cool” but still believed in God raised up a generation of people who believe, if we are lucky, in a mixture of New Age and Nelson Mandela. Their offspring will believe, if anything, in the X-factor and often will be not even baptised, because such a “rigidity” was obviously inconceivable to their enlightened parents. The consequences of this are as tragic as they are predictable.
If you, however, prefer a more tragic example, think of abortion. Again, at the beginning it is always the “extreme cases” used as “justification” for the legislative novelty; then the taboo is broken and the murder of a child becomes a matter of convenience or, as a satanic generation will not be ashamed to say, ” reproductive health”.
Let us conclude, of course, with sodomy, with the usual geniuses of the Sixties thinking that the sodomy laws were too “harsh”, and their children and grandchildren now confronted with a gigantic Sodom, spreading almost all over the West.
Now, let us take a closer look at your typical new-age aunt (plenty of those around in Anglo-Saxon countries). Her children are caught in destructive legal fight with their ex spouses, and their daughters went around the world sleeping with many men, and still liking none. She does not have grandchildren because they were aborted; if they weren’t , they’ll soon be fatherless. Drugs aren’t really an issue (the old aunt did marijuana herself without any problem), so when the daughter takes to heroin or the son to vodka she will, in a non-judgmental way, speak of “poor choices” as if they were insisting in buying the wrong chocolate brand. She might also be “blessed” with a pervert nephew or niece, and whilst she is obviously disgusted (because she grew up in a world which still knew what is normal and what is pervert) she will have to play the non-judgmental game and “celebrate” this other piece of evidence of what a rotten family she has.
The old lady will, of course, not see the causal links. She will not see the drugs, or the vodka, or the divorces, or the abortions, or the perverted offspring all mean the same: you reap what you sow. We will.
Of course, our marijuana-aunt is symbolic of a generation, and here and there there might be individual disgraces: the good mother tested with the perverted son, the good father whose son insisted in taking the road to drunkenness, and so on. These tragedies happen, and as no parent will ever be able to influence his child more than a certain (pretty good) amount, the risk of things going wrong is never to be completely excluded.
But in general, it’s fair to say parents who believe in commitment will tend to have children who believe in commitment, pro-life parents will tend to have pro-life children, and so on. The merits of the fathers do tend to transmit themselves to the children, too, though at times this will become more evident as the children leave the rebellious adolescence and begin, with slowly thinning hair, to look like their fathers.
The marijuana aunt will never know why her family is so rotten. But we do, we do!
One of the most tragic consequences of the deterioration in education is the progressive abandonment of those disciplines specifically aimed at training people to think; like for example logic, philosophy and theology.
What we nowadays have instead is an excessive reliance on technical knowledge, without considering that this in itself is no guarantee of sound thinking. Therefore, whilst in the past we used to have a sufficient number of people thinking right enough as to influence the public discourse, today we have a tragic absence of people promoting sound thinking , whilst we drawn in (useful, but ultimately sterile) technical knowledge.
This is why we live among people who would know how to build a bridge or write a software programme, but never stop to think of the many absurdities of modern life, let alone act upon this knowledge.
Look at the UK. A country which allows the slaughter of (if memory serves) 180,000 unborn babies a year is so worried about whether the hounds will kill the fox in a “humane” manner (!) that it delivers itself a decade-long battle on the issue, concluded with the great advancement of civilisation that the fox may be killed with a gun instead (very natural, you see…). Of course the subtext is political here – the envy for the well-off finding an outlet valve in the supposed “care” for the foxes, of which many times as many die horribly and unnaturally on motorways and other roads without anyone thinking of banning the roads; the same mentality, by the by, is at work with the “global warming” – but this is further confirmation of the emotion-driven, logic-free way politics is made in this country.
It goes on in the same fashion in so many other aspects of real life: think of the frontal attack to our most elementary liberties from self-appointed nannies for which our health must be imposed on us against our will (again, whilst children get murdered); or the now defunct, but until very recently fiercely raging global warming hysteria. I could go on, but you get my drift: never has this country had so many people who think of themselves as well-educated but are unable to think logically, and live in a world of media-driven emotional craze instead. Their ancestors ( factory workers perhaps; or miners, or domestic servants) were in the end smarter than they are, because they lived in an environment shaped by logical thinking rather than brainless emotionalism, and the very thought of world where you can kill children but hounds cannot kill the fox would have been dismissed as a very, very bad joke. The decline of religious instruction – both Catholic and Anglican; the Methodists & Co, are apparently already extinct, and if they aren’t they don’t want you to know…) has obviously gone hand in hand with this, dumbing down religious knowledge at the same time as sound thinking was going down the drain…
Not so today: more and more babies get killed so that those who are born may be made more and more dependant from an omnipresent state teaching them that the government is needed even to breath, that is the source of morality (this is very important; religion is a hobby one can practice in private, but should never be allowed to challenge The Supreme Good, State Morality) and that it wants them to live in a un-thinking, obediently voting, semi-vegetative and, no doubt, very healthy alcohol- and smoke-free state (they’ll be able to contracept and abort at their heart’s content, though… these kiddies are so expensive…).
A country where education was progressively eroded is now experiencing a deterioration of political, moral and social thinking at all levels; because again, even if once higher education was open to only a few the mainstays of the thinking of these educated people would percolate down to all social classes, making the principles of sound thinking and acting work for everyone. Nowadays, you’d think million consider Jeremy Paxman a moral instance, are utterly unable of logical thinking, and do not know the Ten Commandments.
And so Cardinal Dolan is now trying to recover face after the shameless electoral help given to Obama, certainly in the hope that he will guffaw his way out of an utter loss of face with a couple of edifying exhortations, like the one to go to confession.
All very fine of course, if to the cynical eyes of yours truly this wouldn’t smell of a smoke screen aimed at letting us forget what a sell-out the Cardinal was until some days ago.
After his shameless betrayal of every pro-life decency (and make no mistake, he did it to stay in the graces of the man he thought would win; that’s why he did it; he is the kind of man who doesn’t refuse to help… the winner…) the very minimum the Cardinal can do now is to signal that he will defy a jail sentence (like some of his colleagues are already starting to do; Archbishop Lori of Baltimore comes to mind, and Bishop Conley of Lincoln) rather than bow to the HHS mandate.
Cardinal Dolan is the Numero Uno of the US Catholics, and a successor of the Apostles; he should remember his duty to fight the good fight, and the consequences he must be able to bear in consideration of the habit he wears. It now behoves him to stop guffawing already and start showing whether he is, as the immortal Alessandro Manzoni would say, an iron or an earthen vase.
I for myself am not ready to give sell outs any credit, unless and until they start to deserve it. Even if they happen to wear a red hat.
Enough of whitened sepulchres.
From The Democratic Platform
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right
From the Republican Platform
Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
The article here is a beautiful explanation of everything that is Nazi in the liberal mentality.
You see, it is not that the Nazis hated children or old people qua people. They certainly welcomed a baby if he/she was wanted (say: Aryan, or simply wanted), and certainly did not have anything against independent old people without need for extensive medical care.
They were, as every human being, very loving of their …loved ones.
The same happens with the modern Nazis, the feminists/ liberal “pro-choice” crowd. An unborn child is either a baby or a “woman’s health issue” according to whether they have, in their Nazi goodness, conferred on him the title and status of “human being”.
“How is your baby?” asks, no doubt, our “pro-choice” Yoko to her friend expecting a child she wants. In this case, it is undoubtedly a baby, already enrolled among the ranks of future peace activist and global warming nutcases.
In the other case a saw, a mallet or similarly gentle devices will take care of the baby, whose human dignity will instantly be all but forgotten.
If this isn’t Nazi thinking, I can’t recognise a Michelle Obama when I see one.
Let us examine again the reason brought forward to justify the invitation: it is better to talk than to criticise from far away.
Is it? Really? Are Satanists invited to the dinner? What about militant atheists and rabid “homosexualists”? Will a chosen selection of Church-persecuting Chinese leaders be of the party? Oh well…
You don’t say, Your grace? This is an astonishing, revolutionary thought indeed! What might have occasioned such a profound conclusion?
And so the Paralympics have gone to an end, and London has said “thanks” to its heroes with a nice parade.
Everyone felt so good.
Yours truly, who is a bit cynical about some matters, would like to pose two questions:
1) Are the Paralympics athletes aware of the fact that if they were in the womb today, many of them would be aborted upon discovery they will not comply, after birth, with the desired “A1″ quality standard?
2) How many of the Paralympics athletes are against abortion?
Just my two cents, of course….
Not without satisfaction I notice that the 2012 Democrats start to resemble the 1984 ones, when Walter Mondale was pitilessly massacred by the Gipper.
Of course, the situation is different today: being the President, Hussein O starts from a position of strenght Mondale never had, and God knows Romney is no Reagan. Still, one can clearly say in both cases the party activists have clearly seized the stage and dictate the agenda, pushing a maximalist program that would be suicidal if they were in the opposition and is still very dangerous now that they are in the White House.
Apart from the u-turn of the “first gay President”, whose opinions have (or so he says) “evolved” in line with the most angry liberals of his party, the ideological implications of “Obamacare” are more and more made explicit by the now advanced campaign, where there is no possibility anymore to hide behind the finger and every party is forced to say – or to have extracted from it – what is the party line in controversial matters.
The Democrats will, apparently, adopt the most extreme abortionist formulation ever used in matters of baby murder:
“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.”
Note here the unequivocal choice of words: “strongly and unequivocally supports” means no Catholic should even think of voting for them, and “regardless of ability to pay” means the taxpayer must pay for the murderous intent.
This is very far away from even the hypocritical “safe, legal, and rare” of the past. This is an open declaration of war to even basic Christian instincts. Interestingly enough, the position is adopted notwithstanding its seeming unpopularity among the voters; this clearly indicates the party activists have the campaign under control, and this is very much after the liking of a man capable of saying that a woman who remains pregnant is “punished” with a baby.
In Obama’s world, the girl (or boy; of husband and wife come to that) is never “responsible” for anything, as responsibility is something simply non-existent in Obama’s world (ask his mother). Far better, in this perspective, get rid of the nuisance, as you would with a warp.
I never cease of thinking that seeing the circumstances (clearly unwanted pregnancy of a young slut playing liberal activist and a penniless boy utterly disinterested in paternity) Obama would have aborted himself. Fortunately for him, he was born in more Christian times than the present ones. He does not seem to give the same chances to the children of the sluts of the present generation.
You get the details here.
What is (not!) surprising is that the doctor who follow the expectant mother apparently did not explain to her the diverging opinions about the usefulness of the “therapeutic abortion”, but simply suggested to her that she gets rid of her baby.
Much easier, you know. They do that with hamsters, too.
Note the words of the new mother:
There was no way I was going to sacrifice him to save myself.”
“I knew that even if I didn’t make it, I would have brought a life into the world.”
I know of a chap who would consider an unwanted pregnancy a “punishment” for a girl.
Would you believe it? He is President of the United States.
In Spain, a proposal to ban the abortion of handicapped fetuses might become a very interesting battleground, already causing calls for the ban of abortion tout court.
The idea is that the soon-to-be handicapped child should not be discriminated. Which is very fine but – unfortunately for the abortionist troops – makes it all too evident that in this case it is he sane children who are discriminated against: the sane unborn baby can be killed, the handicapped one can’t.
On the other hand, it will be interesting to see how the lefties, always the first ones to exploit the rhetoric of the inclusion, will justify the killing of a baby because not destined to be born a sane baby. The practice of abortion is certainly indicative of nazi cruelty in itself, but the focus on the handicapped child certainly allows the intrinsic cruelty (and intrinsic Nazism) of the practice to come to the foreground even for those “mainstream” citizen considering abortion an unpleasant characteristic of modern times, like traffic and tattoos.
The party political implications are also clear: the leftist parties must either openly say they are in favour of the abortion of a baby because handicapped if the parents so choose, or they must unavoidably admit that abortion both discriminates against the sane babies, and leads to the unwanted killing of the handicapped ones.
En passant, it must be said the very same argument can be used by abortion against any other real or perceived “minority” like, for example, girls. Does your lefty Spaniard MP support the abortion of a baby because it is a girl? Let him say so.
I doubt this initiative will solve the problem, and Spain after Franco’s death has shown to be able to only walk in the wrong direction; but this might become an interesting argument which, if developed in the years to come, might well change the mind of many and, most importantly, help shaping the mentality of the next generation of Spaniards.
President Adolf Hussein Great Joke Obama is on record with the following:
“Mr. Romney wants to get rid of funding for Planned Parenthood. I think that’s a bad idea,” Obama said. “I’ve got two daughters. I want them to control their own health care choices.”
How about teaching your daughters to control their legs, Mr. President?
I have written some days ago about the astonishing Feminazi murdering her baby and (allegedly) documenting the feat on the internet (satanic, one can safely say. Thankfully, I have avoided clicking the site to make sure of this).
I would like today to spend a couple of words on a phrase reported in the article. Speaking of the Feminazi butcher, the author of the article wrote:
She noted the content of numerous “hate” e-mails was some variant of the message: “Maybe you do not know God or that abortion is a sin? Praying for you!”
I sincerely hope those who have written such rather sugary words were not Catholics. A Catholic who has been properly instructed – or has simply switched on his brains – knows that there is no way a mother can kill her baby and think it’s all right. What is she, a hamster?
Hamsters have no soul and as such behave according to their instincts. But humans have a soul, and God has put into everyone of them a basic concept of what is wrong and what is right, in such a way that no excuses are possible. The idea that a mother could kill one’s own child without “knowing” this to be a sin is, in fact, so outlandish, so out of this world that only very few civilisations have coped with such practices, which are considered abominable by most souls – and when it happened, like in Sparta, I doubt the practice was welcomed by the mothers themselves -. Still, even thosepeople had to know that it is a sin, because God has written it in their heart, however much they decide to ignore it. It is called natural law, and every murderous abortionist ignores it at his own peril.
Strangely enough, no one ever asked Himmler: “you do not know God, or that the extermination of Jews is a sin?”
Abortion is a Holocaust of much, much vaster proportions, brought about by degenerated democracies in nothing short of the cruelty of Nazism. I know this is difficult to accept because our generation has been raised up in the cult of democracy, but the reality is under everyone’s eyes. Abortion, euthanasia, sodomy, we have a vast range of atrocities on the rise in a fairly efficient democratic environment.
Like Hamsters, democracies are killing their own little ones.
But the fact is, their voters aren’t hamsters, and will have to answer for what they do.