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.
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.”
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.
First of all, let me say that **in general** I am highly suspicious of the number of children allegedly conceived by rape. This does not, my dear female reader, concern *your own* rape, and I am sure your rape was entirely authentic and an extremely traumatic experience. I refer, though, to the fact that by reading around one has the impression rape is something that in the US happens all the time, as a matter of course; particularly if we think that after all is said and… done to conceive a baby is never an automatic matter, as millions of couples will testify.
Having said that, *some* babies are (must be; it is a statistic certainty) conceived through rape.
Here is where one of those phenomena start which I cannot but call inconceivably stupid, and a worrying sign of the inability of our generation to simply think logically.
To be an abortionist or pro-life can never be a matter of degrees.You either think an unborn child should not be killed, or you think his life is disposable. Tertium non datur.
If one thinks the life of the unborn baby must be protected, then this must perforce be valid for every life, as there are no unborn babies who are less innocent than others.
If one thinks the baby can be aborted in certain circumstances, then one is simply an abortionist, and the only difference with the mainstream “pro-choice” abortionist is that he is in favour of choice in a more limited set of circumstances.
If you want to listen to pro-lifers, listen to real ones, like this pro-life activist conceived in rape and born notwithstanding two botched back-alley abortion attempts. She wouldn’t have had any chance in the world of so-called pro-lifer Ann Coulter, and would have had her life terminated with the seldom failing procedures of the professional Nazi butcher of Planner Parenthood. She lived, though, because to abort her was a criminal offence, rape or no rape.
Therefore, Ann Coulter – who has launched herself in a rather violent tirade against coherent, if perhaps not entirely articulated, pro-lifers like Richard Mourdoch – simply does not get what pro-life means. She is clearly pro-choice, with the only qualification that the choice whether to kill an innocent unborn baby must in her opinion be given only in case of rape.
This position is, besides being contrary to logic, not very intelligent also from a practical point of view.
If abortion were one day to be banned allowing for the rape exception, we would see an explosion of alleged “rapes” like humanity has never seen in its history; you would see girls denouncing their boyfriend of rape out of sheer selfish desperation if forced to a DNA probe, or simply claiming they have been raped by a stranger after a night in the disco if not. In a country which does not set extremely hard evidence requirements to the accusation of rape (as it was in Italy last time I looked, with the necessity of a medical report from a doctor documenting clear signs of sexual violence) this game could be played if not by anyone, certainly by anyone without scruples or desperate enough to think she has the moral right to put another man’s liberty and reputation in danger.
Let me say it once again: you either are pro-life, or you are pro-choice. If you think a baby can be aborted because he happens to have been conceived by rape, then you are most certainly pro-choice. Nor can it be said – as some Protestants might say out of sheer ignorance – that the Church allows for abortion in case of impending danger for the mother’s life. This is simply not the case, and those poorly instructed will have to inform themselves better.
Ann Coulter is that kind of conservative who just doesn’t get the profoundly Christian roots of conservative values: this is why her conservatism does not extend to sodomites, and why she is in favour of killing babies.
We don’t need this kind of conservatism, because besides being immoral it is logically incoherent and therefore, in the end, self-defeating. True conservatism must come from a coherent, all-encompassing view of life that is inspired by a consistent set of values. These values are the values Christ and His Church gave us. There is no escape, and we can see from this episode how illusory it is to think that one can tailor one’s views to the fashions of the time.
Beware of the false conservatives. They are the bearer of a self-defeating ideology that does not do much less to damn your soul than the mindset of the liberals.
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.
My two cents on the so-called “rape exception” is that there can be no exception to the protection of human life.
There cannot be, because a human life is valuable as God’s gift irrespective of the circumstances which factually led to the conception of this life. Every life is God-Given and wanted by God, full stop.
Therefore, every discussion about “exceptions” is fully beside the point, and particularly despicable if coming from people who dare to tell themselves “pro-lifers”. Under no circumstances should abortionists be given victory on this battleground.
One is either for life, or against it. One either thinks that men do not dispose of the God-given gift of life, or he does. In the first case he cannot even think of possible “exceptions”; in the second he is not pro-life.
Simple logic, methinks.
This is to pay tribute to a not-so-small company which has been proudly displaying the strong pro-life convictions of its owners for… the last 15 years; and has been prospering whilst doing it.
This is a family run operation owned by four brothers. The CEO is Mr Tony Maas, a chap with very clear ideas about life in general.
Maas says that JTM has never encountered a complaint about the unapologetically pro-life messages that have been on his semitrailers for 15 years.
“Quite frankly, we never get any bad calls. It’s all good.”
Maas said that his pro-life convictions were passed on to him from his “extremely Catholic” parents and grandparents who believed that with the passage of Roe v. Wade, there would be a need for “much prayer, not just for the babies, but for the mothers who were going to have abortions and for the grief that they would be experiencing.”
Maas explained that a culture of life is founded upon the principles that “God has made us”, that a man and a woman come together to form a “forever relationship in the sacrament of marriage” through which children are born, and that “strong families” are the building blocks of a flourishing society.
“Unfortunately our culture has countered these principles with the destruction of human life through abortion,” he said.
“A culture of life is about being obedient to God and his plan whereas a culture of death is about being disobedient to God and his plan.”
“There’s nothing more important in this world than trying to bring people to the truth, because there’s a lot of people living in misery because of ignorance.”
“It’s our responsibility to have our company honoring God with what we do, and to evangelize in the setting that he has given us.”
“To be honest with you, it’s good. It’s good business.”
Moral integrity, business sense, and an “extremely Catholic” background (we are not told whether the “four brothers” are all Catholic, but one can hope…) obviously mix here to create a success now going through the third generation, and $100m turnover a year for a family business certainly witness the soundness of the business model.
Compare with the like of Starbucks, peddling their ideology (and, hopefully, coffee with it) to a tiny minority of perverts and a less tiny minority of degenerate urban cretins: a strategy which has already started to hurt, and will hurt more in the years to come.
Conclusion: pro-life works in business, too, whilst support for perversion damages business, too. I can easily predict that in five or ten years’ time Starbucks will try to let their customers forget their “message” with the same zeal with which Marks & Spencer backpedaled on what must have been the most cretinous campaign of the century: the “Plan A” to “save the planet”, (and I quote) “because there is no plan B”.
“There’s no difference between killing a fetus in the mother’s womb and killing someone after birth,”
These are the (true) words of the Turkish Prime Minister, Erdogan. Erdogan’s clear positioning on the matter seem to have “prompted” his government to examine new anti-abortion legislation. If the strong man of the Government takes such a strong position, there is little doubt the matter will end if not with an abortion ban, with a clear improvement on the present situation. Already a reduction from the actual ten weeks to four weeks would actually, if seriously enforced, start looking somewhat similar to a ban.
In case you would think, though, that Erdogan can lead the way, please reflect what his – also rather outspoken – health minister has declared:
“There are similar laws that have been passed in many societies in the West in the same vein. Now that is what we are working on, too. This has a place among our values, for one. This cannot be permitted. May God forbid, things such as threat of death are a different matter.”
I have reported on similar initiatives in the Ukraine (which I would hesitate in calling “West”) and Poland (which I would not), and it is clear there is an aggressive pro-life movement in the United States. Be it as it may, it is nice to see a powerful minister of a Muslim countries mentions the West as at the forefront of the movement.
Some say Erdogan is only trying to distract the attention from other internal matters, but I wonder whether such a controversial issue would be the right way to patch a short-term crisis. It is in my eyes more likely Erdogan & Co. want to tackle the matter seriously.
Well done, and let us hope this becomes a rather strict law able to inspire the less perverted among the European governments.
Please pray for this wonderful woman and her beautiful family.
Look at her eyes, her smile, her attitude.
What a wonderful mother.
Try not to cry, of course.
Though I know you’ll fail.
And so the Mississippi referendum did not go as I – and, I am sure, many of you – had wished. What hurts more, the result was clearly in favour of those against the measure, whereas the polls indicated a close call.
It would appear that in the last days of the campaign, prominent pro-lifers have intervened and expressed their concerns about the initiative. I have written already about this, but the concerns may be summarised with the argument that you shouldn’t fight to win, because you may lose and be in a worse position than you were before.
I never cease to be amazed at such arguments. Did the participants of the “Boston tea party” reason that if the operation had failed, their cause might have been set back? What about the Independence war: isn’t it so, that if that war had been lost an even bigger yoke would have been imposed on the Colonies? More in general, what kind of reasoning is that, that one shouldn’t fight because he might, in theory, be worse off if he fights and lose?
How can it be explained that Planned Parenthood was clearly opposed to the initiative? If it had played in their hands, they should have chosen a lower profile, right? How can it be explained that President Obama hailed the defeat? Have these people all become covert pro-lifers?
And about the argument of the Supreme Court re-affirming Roe vs Wade: Roe vs Wade is in force now. It kills children now. It can’t kill them more after being upheld that it does at the moment. It’s not that 73% of a baby is aborted now, and this percentage would have been increased to 91% after a second sentence upholding Roe vs Wade. No, when a child is aborted , he dies to 100%. He ceases to live. He is no more.
So, it is difficult for me to see how avoiding a further controversy in the Supreme Court might help a child to be “aborted less”, or help the cause in any way. In the end, the United States are a democracy, and when the public opinion decides that it wants to go in a certain direction – with an amendment of the Constitution, if must be; more probably without – there is no need to persuade Supreme Court judges. And how can you get the “right” judges to the Supreme court, if not creating a climate hostile to abortion in the Senate that must approve them, or making it more difficult for a President to propose the election of pro-choice judges? How can a battle to raise the awareness of the Holocaust that is abortion be fought with the fear of letting the issue become a hotly contested, highly controversial one?
I am baffled, really. I think this was a victory of cowardice over hope. Not so much for the end result of the defeat, which might have happened anyway, but because of the way in which this defeat has been, in a word, deserved.
What is next, I wonder? No battle in defence of DOMA because if it is lost we might end up in a worse position than we are today? If you ask me, this is Chamberlain’s logic.
Again, I am baffled.
Beautiful intervention from Bishop Conley, attacking the (aggressive) secular society at a pro-life meeting in Dallas.
“Atheocracy” is the name he chooses to describe
“a society that is actively hostile to religious faith and religious believers. And I might add — the faith that our society is most hostile toward is Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular.”
Such a society is based upon purely synthetic moral values, based on pretty much nothing as far as inviolable principles are concerned.
“Hence, it has no foundation upon which to establish justice, secure true freedom, or to constrain tyrants,”
As an example, he took Roe vs Wade, “atheocracy” in action and “the violence of the strong against the weak”. Still,
“Without God, there is no basis for morality and no necessary protections for man. The strong decide what is right or wrong — even who lives and who dies.”
Abortion anyone? Euthanasia? Why does this ring a bell?
Atheocracy works very well, of course, in matters of sexual perversion, then a society with no place for moral values is a place with no place for condemnation of sexual perversion. This is when atheocracy starts to recognise so-called homosexual marriages, because
“our atheocratic government now deems itself competent to rewrite ‘the laws of Nature’s God’ — the God-given definitions of marriage and the family”
It wasn’t always that way in the old U S of A, though, as
“the Declaration’s expressed belief in the divine origin of the human person is everywhere presumed in the Constitution”,
and one can’t say that it hasn’t served the country well. Whether this will continue, and a country where homo soldiers have the right to shower together with their straight colleagues – what have homos to look for in an army, anyway? I mean, have we all become MAD?! – might discover before too long that being a world power is nothing automatic, or due to one country.
In short, Bishop Conley hits the bull’s-eye on the protracted deterioration of democratic institutions through aggressive secular thinking. Mind, though, that when a democracy betrays Christian values, this democracy has ceased to earn the right to exist, and the time will come when it is not able to withstand the onslaught of other – and hopefully authentically Christian – forces.
The great Ronald Reagan* used to say that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. The same thinking applies, I believe, to democratic institutions. As long as there are deep and universal values sustaining them, they will thrive and prosper. When, though, these values are substituted by caricatures of Christian values – see the fake “charitee” of the pro-homo lobby, or the fake Hitler-humanitarianism of
Lebensunwertes Leben euthanasia – the basis of democratic consensus will be eroded, up to the point where democracy is not in a position to defend itself anymore and dies; it dies, then, because it has deserved to. And when your democracy goes, be very afraid for your freedom itself.
About freedom again, Reagan – one who would have liked Bishop Conley – said it so beautifully:
How can we survive as a free Nation when some decide that others are not fit to live, and should be done away with.
Food for thoughts…..
*Three Hail Marys from me, and you’re welcome.
On the 8 November, the voters of Mississippi will be able to vote on the possibility of granting “personhood” to the unborn child, with the consequences you can easily imagine. Basically, one would be a person for the law before being born, with all the protection of the case.
Mississippi being one of the most pro-life States of the US the proposal might well win, and the fact that both major parties support the initiative speaks volumes about the general climate. I wish the initiative all the best.
Surprisingly, a good number of pro-lifers do not support the initiative. The train of thoughts is that this legislative measure will be challenged, probably up to the Supreme Court, where liberals and assorted perverts will take care that Roe vs Wade is confirmed, thus making the battle more difficult.
I struggle to follow the logic. The argument reminds me of those priests saying to us in the Eighties that the Church only fights the battles she can easily win, because to be seen as losing battles damages her reputation and influence in the country. So they prefer to shut up and lose quietly in order not to be seen to have lost openly. Congratulations.
It seems obvious to me that the overturning of Roe vs Wade will not happen without a long, excruciating conflict, dividing the country in the most painful of ways; unless, of course, one is ready to wait for the death of the Sixty-Eighters, with several millions babies killed in the meantime. I cannot see any way of getting Roe vs Wade out of the way without great conflict; the possible confirmation of Roe vs Wade by the above-mentioned liberals and perverts would only exacerbate this conflict and, very possibly, lead to the appointment of other and better judges in due time. Either way, it won’t happen without people noticing, so we had better let them notice now.
As I see it, on the 8 November something huge might happen; something that – irrespective of the probability of survival of such measure in the shirt-ish term – points out to a slow but more and more marked shift in the popular feelings, and to a clear re-adjustment of the debate’s coordinates.
In my opinion, you win wars by fighting them bravely, not by hoping to win without the enemy’s opposition.
I truly hope that on the 8 November a huge cry will rise from Mississippi’s families:
Bring it on!
A rather embarrassing small incident after the victory for pro-life supporters in Mexico.
It would appear that Bishop Guerrero Macias had boasted that “a call from the Pope, I don’t know to who[m]“, had changed the situation.
Federico Lombardi promptly intervened and said that oh no, God forbid, the Pope would never do that. The head of the biggest organised religious organisation in the planet to say to a Catholic what he thinks about what he is doing with his soul? Unthinkable. The Pope “always respects the internal affairs of nations”, and therefore such calls simply do not take place.
I have a couple of small problems here.
Firstly, the Pope is not only a head of State, but the head of a religious organisation. It is not clear to me how it should be a problem that – wearing his religious hat, so to speak – he should contact whomever he pleases in the discharging of his religious duty. On the contrary, I see it as difficult to justify how he could not intervene.
Secondly, Lombardi’s principle sound dangerous, as it makes every religious controversy “an internal affair” of that nation. If in Malta divorce is legalised the matter concerns all Christianity, not only the Maltese. Christianity doesn’t know “internal affairs”. This is why religious blogs like this one deal with Christian matters wherever they happen, UK or US or Mexico or Hungary.
There might be reasons of prudence suggesting that a Pope doesn’t make this or that phone call. But when Lombardi declares with such blunt words that the Pope has the duty to shut up in matters concerning “the internal affairs of nations” and that it would be “disrespectful” to intervene, I wonder whether the mentality in the Vatican is becoming a rather secularised one.
I don’t know anything about Justin Bieber. I mean, I really couldn’t care a straw. I barely know he exists, and I assure you the last circumstance is merely due to the fact, alas, not being really avoidable.
It’s astonishing to me that people still fighting against their acne might be considered the carrier of any form of message (let alone wisdom) whatsoever. It tells something about the state of our society. Add to this that the young man looks like a …. oh well, let’s not say that, poor chap.
It would appear that whatever this chap says, makes waves. Crucially, he appears to be, in a way, “pro life”. At least as much as one can be whose clarity of thought doesn’t go beyond saying “whatever they have in North Korea, that’s bad”. Whatever? If you don’t even know what it is they have, how can you….. ? But I’m getting excited, and in the day of Gaddafi’s fall I do not want to get nervous.
It would also appear that the young chap has made a video looked at 600 million times, which poses the question whether all this popularity couldn’t be put to a good use, for example trying to condemn genocide. Adolf Hussein Obama wouldn’t be pleased for sure; at least for the duration of a golf game.
It seems easy, but it isn’t. In my eyes, the problems are as follows:
1. This is a teenager. Teenagers do change their mind. If you start supporting him now that he says what you like, you run the risk of a huge problem the day he will start saying things you don’t. The probability is not small.
2. This is a teenager who can only influence teenagers. People who – looking at reality for what it is for once instead of drinking the kool-aid of youth rhetoric – don’t vote and, basically, don’t count. People who will grow out of their infatuation with a pop idol and will soon start thinking with their own head, provided they have one. It is a delusion to think that a pop idol can influence a generation, much less a generation of teenagers into their adult years. Teenagers change rather rapidly and many will be ashamed in five years’ time – nay, make it two – of having ever told themselves fans of their idol of yesteryear.
3. Beware of those who are popular. Truth is not spread through those who are popular. On the contrary, popularity (as in pop-ularity) doesn’t really make great inroads. If the religious opinions of famous people had a real relevance, Scientology would make no prisoners. The reality is that people – even when stupid, and even when teenagers; which all too often is the same thing – can well separate their musical preferences from their values. My impression is that people “follow” their idols when the latter do what they want to do in the first place; their idol is one who took drugs because they want to take drugs, etc. Pop idols don’t change people, for sure, much less change adolescents into different adults. Thank God for that, by the way.
4. If we want to really fight against abortion, we need something with a bit more weight than a walking Clearasil ad. We need brave priests and bishops saying it as it is. Serious advancement for Truth is effected by serious people being taken seriously by serious people, not by teenagers expressing some broken idea in broken English to other barely literate teenagers.
Bieber can do whatever he pleases. It doesn’t really count. What counts is, primarily, priests and bishops, and they are the ones who must begin to seriously wake up.
It’s not that people become conservative because, say, they like Beyonce’s voice (a lot else to like, anyway….). They become conservative because they develop that conviction.
Like millions of others, I spent countless hours listening to Simon & Garfunkel. Never could give a straw what their political opinions are.
You will not believe this.
A group of pro-lifers wearing pro-life t-shirts were denied entrance to Montreal Basilica because their message was “too political”.
Being against abortion is “too political”.
I assume being against the war in Iraq isn’t.
I know, you don’t believe me. This is why I have posted the link.
I can’t wait for the day when being Catholic will be “too political”. By all those atheists and Muslims around, we can’t be so insensitive…
I hope this will have consequences.
This is new to me and something you don’t hear very often. A former supermodel – as such, belonging to a world with all but the reputation of being spiritual, or even half-decent – and former pro-choice advocate continues to speak in favour of the unborn life with a clarity and openness that puts to shame the almost totality of, say, our English bishops. Try this (emphasis mine):
“From the moment of conception, a new life comes into being with a complete genetic blueprint. The sex is determined. The blood type is determined. It doesn’t start out as one species and suddenly become a human being.”
This, from a person who claims that she “always has and always will fight for the rights of women”. I am not entirely clear as to what rights women need to fight for nowadays, but this tells you that the lady is certainly not your typical bible-belt fundamentalist.
The matter is, in fact – and as Ms Ireland points out – one of mere logic: either there is a human life, or there isn’t. If there isn’t, show me that this is the case and how and when it happens that one life is born. If there is, the rest follows from mere logic.
We don’t have people like Ms. Ireland in Europe. When we hear of supermodels it is generally because of something stupid they have done, or something stupid their friends have done, or something stupid their boyfriends/husband/significant whatever have done. If they support some public cause, it is very likely – nay, it is sure – to be some very easy and popular one, and one more probable to go against Christian values than to protect them.
Kudos to women able to change their mind (as Ms Ireland openly says she did) and progress from feminism to simple logic.
Following to the Gallup polls showing an increase in pro-life stance in the last years, a new set of polls from NPR shows that the trend is not only consolidating, but very marked among those below 35.
As there were several questions asked, I refer you to the link. The most notable facts are the constant prevalence of pro-life supporters under 35 and the diffused misinformation about actual abortion rules.
The first fact once again seems to validate the perception that once the undertaker has taken care of the sixty-eighter potheads, things will naturally improve. The second makes clear that information on the ground is extremely important and can help changing things without having to wait for the above-mentioned potheads to kick the bucket.
Be it as it may, that in general opposition to abortion grows – at least in the US; in Europe we will probably have to wait longer – is a fact that in my eyes can’t be denied anymore and is cause of great hopes for the future.
In 50 years time, methinks, people will read of our age and wonder in disbelief how this generation could tolerate abortion.
Following on the Pro-Life Final Weapon blog post, it is now official that in Texas a sonogram will be mandatory before an abortion.
There are still unpleasant limitations to the measure. The mother is not obliged to see the sonogram or to hear to the heartbeat, but she will have to hear to the doctor’s description of how the baby looks like. Also, the baby result of rape does not have the same right and in this case, the mother will not even have to listen to the doctor (unless I am mistaken, expect an increase in cases of rape).
See above an example of the image generated by the sonogram. Truly impressive. The possibility of hearing the baby’s heartbeat will add to the experience.
Astonishingly, though, there are people who are against the measure because (please sit before you read this)
the law interferes in the doctor-patient relationship by adding a government requirement for a procedure that could be traumatizing to women going through an already difficult situation.
So, the mother should not be traumatised by …… letting her know that she is killing her own baby.
What sensitive Nazis we have there.
Kudos to the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, who put the measure on a legislative fast track as “emergency legislative priority”, and to the heavily pro-life majority in the state legislative which made the bill possible in the first place.
Truly beautiful blog post here, from a woman who was a persuaded (so-called) pro-choice activist and has later become a pro-life activist. In her case, this happened because she saw photos of aborted babies, those shocking images I do not have the nerve to put into this blog (which I would like to be readable also from impressionable natures), but which can certainly be extremely powerful in giving someone a salutary shock.
More in general, the author of the mentioned blog post reiterates what I was saying in a very recent post: the ultra-sound images (which she calls sonograms) will be a powerful element in persuading people that abortion is homicide.
Let us read together some beautiful passage of this remarkable story of personal development. On the photos:
Most people think, as I did, in terms of “tissue,” “clumps of cells,” “the products of pregnancy,” all the euphemisms Planned Parenthood and the entire anti-life front use to dehumanize an unborn child. An image of an aborted baby says in one second what even the most well-informed and eloquent pro-life crusader could not say in two hours. It says: “This is a human being, and it is dead.” A picture of an abortion does not show you a terminated pregnancy or some discarded tissue. It shows you, clearly and finally, a child that has been killed. Legally.
On the sonogram:
The sonogram image is the most powerful visual tool in the pro-life arsenal. It is far more effective and powerful to the woman considering abortion than even the most horrifying photo of an aborted baby, because the child is alive and the child is hers.
On the pro-choice propaganda:
“Women who go to abortion clinics are bombarded with the aforementioned euphemisms: tissue, clump of cells, product of pregnancy. But a moving image of the child inside her, in some cases fully formed and active, its strong little heart beating away: this belies the euphemisms. It negates the propaganda. It is the truth, in front of her eyes, and it is the most powerful weapon we have to fight the people who would kill that child and collect their fee”.
If abortion is the empowering act organizations like NARAL would have us believe, they would shrug off sonogram law. If abortion is the nonchalant casting-off of useless tissue anti-lifers would have us believe, a woman could look unflinchingly at the “clump of cells” on the sonogram and say to the abortionist, “Go for it.” But NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and their ilk know that the woman is going to see a baby.
But it is possible, and I like to believe probable, that it is a higher emotion that will cause a woman to keep her baby upon viewing a sonogram. I think it might even be appropriate to call it something very silly, like love.
These beautiful words truly expose the hypocrisy of the pro-choice rhetoric, and it is in fact true that if the “object” of the abortion were only a clump of cells, no sonogram in the world could ever be a deterrent to the abortion being executed.
For too long, Western societies have chosen – out of ill-conceived “feminism” or, more probably, in order to be able to do as they please – not to see. But when the sonogram or the photos are put in front of one it is really, really difficult not to see.
Therefore, it can happen that only looking at photos moves a person persuaded for years to simply change her mind. Juts imagine what happens when it is the sonogram of one’s own child.
I wish the Texan law all the best and am curious to see, in a couple of years, the effect of the 24 hour rule on a great number of abortion. It can be said that at times, gruesome photos save lives.
The strange almost human-looking chap above is, very probably, what will give the Pro-Life Army final victory in the battle against abortion. It is an ultra-sound machine, and it allows to see a baby in the womb with a clearness never experienced before by the vast public.
In societies like the Western ones, where technological innovations are massively applied to the field of medicine and rapidly spread to everyday life, it is unavoidable that this machine will, in time, make more and more mothers truly, emotionally aware of what happens when they abort.
Every blathering of “reproduction rights” must surely pale, when a small human being is visible on a screen not three feet away from you. Every argument of “right to choose” must surely be exposed as cruelly selfish, when it is clear that this supposed right is to choose to kill a human life clearly, indisputably existent.
This is why, says here, even Gallup recognises the rapid shift in American public opinion; a shift that, in time and much more slowly, will certainly pave its way on the other side of the Pond too; not because of a newly acquired Christian sensitivity, but because of the sheer force of the ultrasound images.
It would be a delicious paradox if the gravest controversy of the last decades were to be decided through technology coming to the help of the Conservative side, and reinforcing religious ideas previously seen as the epitome of backward thinking.
Besides, technology won’t stop. In five years’ time the images obtained by ultrasound machines will be even better than the ones visible today; in ten years’ time, resistance to abortion ban on some strangely construed “moral ground” will be futile.
Better days ahead.
If you can, you should go to see this film. It is the story of a man who decides to become a pilgrim on the Camino de Santiago after his son dies whilst doing exactly the same. In a sense, it is the usual theme of the “journey of discovery of oneself” & Co, but this time it is different because the Way of St. James is not just another journey.
It seems to me that Estevez could have had a heavier foot on the Catholic gas pedal, and one can easily imagine the long discussions meant at having a product that would not put off non-Catholics and be a product interesting for everyone. I had the impression that the main theme of the movie was, so to speak, made shallow and not given due importance.
Still, you get a lot of things that are not everyday’s fare in today’s cinema productions: rosaries (two times, though briefly); a Catholic priest that is neither a pedophile nor an idiot and, in fact, a thoroughly good chap; a short but explicit pro-life scene; various tribute to French and Spanish traditional religiosity (the statues of the Blessed Virgin on the road, say) and, in the end, a clear tribute to the greatness of the Catholic Church and the faith of the Christians (I won’t spoil the film, I’ll just say: a) on your knees, and b) giant thurible).
The movie is authentically unnerving only on one occasion, and I won’t tell you what it is. For the rest, I can imagine that this movie will gently move many lapsed Catholics to start thinking about the sacramental life again, and will certainly instil in non-Catholics without prejudices a rather healthy curiosity.
Still, it seems to me that an occasion has been lost, in the sense that the movie could and should have been more overtly Catholic without losing its appeal for the masses, or better said gaining on one side what it might have lost on the other.
Be it as it may, already the fact that the Way of St. John has been the object of a movie is a noteworthy event. Kudos to Estevez for his work, then; a work which is also notable for having neither sex nor (real) violence.
Conan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say that reality produces stories that the most fervent imagination couldn’t invent.
One is, therefore, reminded of this great author when he knows of a taxpayer-funded website called mariatalks.com (well, no; no active link). The site is, unsurprisingly, funded by the State of Massachusetts, always in the forefront of every abomination movement.
This site gives girls such “useful” advice as suggesting that abortion is easy and safe (“effective”, they say, meaning that at the end of the procedure the baby is most surely dead), accompanied at most by some “temporary discomfort”.
This site is really satanic. To have the gut to even suggest to a girl that when she aborts she will not run the risk (and even the most Goebbelsian of pro-choice activist must admit that the risk is there) of being haunted all her life by what she has done is pure evil.
Instead, the accent is on “temporary” and on that oh so innocuous word, “discomfort”. One would think it is about a gym session, but it is about legalised murder instead.
Always on the satanic line, the name of the oh so liberated fictional woman giving oh so practical advice is, what a coincidence, “Maria”.
Also note that “Maria” gives suggestions about how to abort without the parents knowing. Think how nice this is: you are a taxpayer and you discover that your taxes are funding sites teaching your daughter how to kill your nephew without you even knowing! Aahh, freedom…..
Methinks, many parents will experience more than “temporary discomfort” when they know this.
If I were pro-oh-chooooooice, I’d wonder whether it’s not always the wrong ones who get aborted.