And it came to pass a teenage girl was “punished with a baby” (© Obama 2008); which presupposes sex, of course, but modern parents do not really care for chastity, so there you are.
Unfortunately, there were no abortion clinics within the state; therefore, something convenient and fast to get rid of the baby will have to be found, without the hassle and inconvenience of traveling.
Therefore, would-be (actually, would-not-be) grandma bought some unauthorised
medicaments lethal poisons on the internet to get rid of the baby fast and on the cheap. I notice the news have no trace whatever of a father. Don’t ask me why I am not surprised.
The poison is bought, and the girl proceeds to kill the baby in her womb. The thing goes wrong, and she must be recovered in the hospital for the complications of a half-botched chemical abortion. Two years later, the mother is charged. She faces jail time, and serves her right.
I cannot avoid noticing a few things here:
1. It is fine if you kill your baby in a far away abortion clinic; it is not fine if you kill it with internet-sourced poisons. The law protects the life of the girl (and the abortion isn’t without danger, either), but the baby’s rights are nowhere to be seen. “Look”, say the prosecutors, “we are perfectly fine if you kill your baby; but please move your ass to the nearest butchering place…”.
2. One never ceases to wonder at the interior life of such people. To look on the internet for a poison that would kill your grandchild on the cheap.
3. Wait for the Abortion Nazis to try to ride this: see, they will say, nowadays to abort a baby isn’t easy enough, so we must provide for more opportunities to kill the baby; otherwise the “vulnerable” parents (or rather parent) will recur to the pill, or to a coat hanger. This argument was used in Italy when there were an estimated few thousand illegal abortions a year, and obviously a death every now and then as a result of obvious, grave criminal offences. Now we are easily above 100,000 deaths a year in the same country. Congratulations. Very humanitarian.
4. The would-not-be grandmother now faces some jail time; I can’t imagine it will be very long.
The baby was killed.
I always had a marked dislike for those who want to bend everything to their own ideology; particularly so, when the issue is religion. You all know the types: the revolutionaries telling you Jesus was a “revolutionary”, the pacifists maintaining he was a pacifist, or the environ-mentalists insisting that Jesus was one like them. They all take a message (actually, the Truth) and deform it so that it may serve their own purposes.
The Bishop of Rome, “who am I to judge”-Francis, is no exception; and he is no exception, inter alia, pertaining to one of the most sacred issued in Catholicism: the defence of the unborn.
As a Pope, Francis must say something on the matter every now and then. He tried to downplay or kill the issue: first keeping schtum for months, and then telling us we should not “obsess” with abortion, the loneliness of the elderly clearly being a far bigger problem. Still, he realised he would not be able to completely avoid the issue. What will he, then, do? He will do like the people mentioned above, and conveniently deform or downplay the issue to promote, at least in part, something else.
He did it one first time when he spoke of the unborn child as poor. Put that way, the impression is endangered the characteristics of the unborn child we should first notice is not that he is God’s creature, endowed with the right to live God has given him and no one can take away from him. No, what is presented to us first is that the unborn child is poor. In this way, the attention is deflected from the issue at hand (the legalised murder) and is conveniently directed towards, who would believe it, the true obsession of the Bishop of Rome: poverty.
The same has happened again some days ago: speaking of abortion, Francis had nothing harsher to say than it being another aspect of the throwaway culture, or if you want to be more ample in your criticism: consumerism. Curiously, this is another pet peeve of a man who is unable to obsess about abortion, but is perfectly able to touch ad nauseam all the usual issues of the West-hating liberal and socialist culture; which, in the end, is the culture of selfishness, smugness, envy, or plain death.
Last time I looked, to kill a baby in the womb was a tad worse than to buy a new car without the old needing replacement, or the larger LCD TV set when the old was doing its job just fine. Abortion involves an elementary issue of life and death, a brutal question of a human life being disposed of. Therefore, the issue of abortion lives in a sphere infinitely more important than every consumerism and every poverty. It is, in fact, difficult to imagine a more dramatic issue than this, even for people without a religious instruction or without any interest in getting one.
Francis knows all this. But he also knows that clear condemnation of abortion as what it is, the legal killing of an innocent unborn life to satisfy the selfish desire of her mother, would come across as “judgmental” and “reactionary”, thus costing him very dear in terms of what he wants most and really obsesses him: his own popularity and perception as icon of change. Therefore, he prefers to downplay the issue whilst blowing the horn of his own ideological bias.
Put in short: Francis talks about abortion as little as he can get away with. And when he does, he tries to let you think of something else, and to direct you towards his usual issues.
No man plagued with “excessive doctrinal securities”, this one.
Particularly in the United States, the cry of the pro-life and other Catholic militants who feel abandoned by Francis is rising high.
They rightly observe that when Francis says they are “obsessed” with issues like sodomy and abortion he is basically devaluing their battle, and rather making of them an example of a behaviour not to be followed: an “inflexible”, “ideological” attitude that leaves “mercy” aside to privilege “legalism”.
This is all very true, of course. By subtly – or less subtly – sabotaging their work, Francis is saying that it is good to be “pro-life” only as long as this remains at the level of a pious wish, of the “I know what the Church says in the matter, so we don't need to talk about it” kind. When, though, the teaching translates into real action – and, forcibly, in controversial action – then the boundaries of “mercy” have been transgressed, and the realm of Pelagianism has begun.
Still, when all is said and done the Truth remains exactly the same Truth, and the fight remains exactly the same fight. One can be abandoned by the Pope, but one can never be abandoned by Truth.
Fights are fought for the Truth, not for the Pope. The Pope is supposed to fight the same fight, but there is no guarantee that he will do it properly, or that he will do it at all. The only way is to do what we ought, come what may, and to let the Pope be a bad Pope if this is his wish. The day will come when both – the pro-life activist and the professional saboteur – will get their reward.
For the same reason, I was never worried in the least about the effect that the antics of the Bishop of Rome will have on my blogging activity. We write our blogs because the Clergy don't do their job; that there should be a Pope even much, much worse than the already bad average seen after V II is, if not entirely par for the course, certainly within the cards now that a mad generation of blind, stupid, heretical, deluded clergy gone out of the seminaries in the Sixties and Seventies reach positions of great power and influence, up to the very top of the tree.
Let us do our job of little but determined Catholic fighters, like as many stubborn hobbits who love to eat and be merry, but can put a rather determined fight if they have to (ahh, Tolkien. So good, and so Catholic…). If Francis wants to sabotage our work – which he does – let us redouble our effort. We don't need to have the Pope on our side. We fight at the side of two thousand years of God-given Catholic tradition, not of fifty years of popes more or less drunk on modernism, up to the one who is completely plastered.
V II hasn't produced anything good anyway; merely degrees of bad. When we realise this, we will be able to fight our little fights – within the family, with friends and acquaintances, with colleagues – without looking left or right. Yes, we will probably die without seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. But we might be rewarded, in time, with an infinitely better one.
If you are the conservative oriented chap, it is always fun to observe the left's highjacking of people of the past who would, today, very probably not support them.
Take Martin Luther King, the determined civil rights activist and, strangely enough, Protestant pastor. Whilst MLK's record as a minister (small m) would not stand the most lenient moral standards of today (unless he were homosexual, that is; in which case a “progressive” Presbyterian community would be certainly found for him), it is fair to say he believed in God and in the sanctity of human life.
King was killed before Roe vs Wade, but there can be no doubt he was what we today call “pro life”. I am not even sure the expression existed in those times, and I actually am inclined to think the word was born only after it became necessary to find a way to express the bleeping obvious: that to kill a baby in the womb is murder.
It is, therefore, very apt one of MLK' daughters reminded us, during the celebrations for her father, that MLK was – obviously, I hasten to add – against abortion. I can't imagine the day he died there were many who would call themselves both Christians and “pro-choice”.
Even better is that his descendants hasten to make this point heard, with one of his daughters (apparently “Bernice”, perhaps “Berenice”?) making clear that life begins in the womb, and a niece of him, Alveda, making clear Obama's stance in favour of the genocide of – disproportionately blacks, by the by – babies in the womb is the reason why she would not vote for the Gay President.
I doubt the pro-life stance of MLK got a vast echo in the liberal media during the celebrations; but from the other side of the Pond one notices once again how healthily the pro-life movement is growing. Here in Europe we are very far from either the level of debate or the aggressive legislative measures of many parts of the United States. May they grow stronger in the years to come.
It's a long-term project. The process of de-nazification of a nation can only be carried out by caring for the new generations to grow up denazified; not many of those so horribly brainwashed during the last fifty years will change, at least consciously, their mind during their lifetime. Our best bet is in those, well, not aborted this year, rather than in those who have, well, aborted yesteryear.
You can have dreams only if you were born in the first place. If you are murdered in the womb, the only “change” you'll ever experience is atrocious suffering, following by your death.
“I have a dream”, would the baby in the womb say; “that I am not murdered before seeing the light”.
It's too bad for him that hope and change are in power.
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.