Daily Archives: February 18, 2009

It’s easy; declare an unborn baby a legal "person," and _Roe_ will be gone.

One of the loopholes offered by Roe v. Wade is that a state can define an unborn child as a person–something never done–and Roe could thereby be overturned. Such efforts are usually squashed by the NRLC (in the interest of self-preservation) and the USCCB (out of fear of bringing the abortion issue to a head and causing “social distress”).

Now, legislators in seven states are promoting amendments to their state constitutions that would grant personhood status to unborn children. Five states have bills in theirs legislatures to that effect: Maryland, North Dakota, Montana, South Carolina (yay!) and Alabama. Oregon and Mississippi are doing petition drives.

Advertisements

University of Georgia

Michelangelo’s painting of God giving life to Adam–and carrying with Him the promise of a wife and children–has a great deal of symbolism for pro-lifers.

Now, a poster on display at University of Georgia is abusing that image to promote condoms, showing God’s hand giving a condom to Adams’ hand.

Chilean Man visits comatose wife 3 times a day, every day, for 17 years

The latest assistive device for NFP: your Cell Phone

For women who have regular or only slightly irregular cycles, there are many websites out to help with Calendar Rhythm Method. Of course, they are promoted primarily for couples trying to conceive.

But BabyCenter.org has taken its charting page to a new level by offering a text messaging service. It requires a knowledge of the average cycle length, but you enter the information here, and it estimates the most fertile time. Enter a cell phone number, and it sends 3 text messages during the days that should be peak, for 6 months.

COURAGE comes to North Carolina

I’ve been a big fan of the young North Carolina bishops for a few years now. Bishop Michael Burbidge of Raleigh is strongly pro-life and supports the traditional Latin Mass. Bishop Peter Jurgis of Charlotte, who is the same age as Burbidge but has been a bishop a few years longer, joined with retired Archbishop Donohue of Atlanta, and former Bishop Robert J. Baker of Charlotte, in denying communion to all pro-choice politicians in their dioceses.

Now, both bishops have officially sponsored COURAGE ministries in their diocese.

It’s funny how the advocates of "choice" do not believe in Free Will

That’s my thought on the above-linked article regarding environmentalists who say that having more than 2 kids is “selfish.”

The basis of their argument is the amount of per capita environmental damage in developed countries. Rather than saying that people should reduce their consumption of natural resources, they argue that we should reduce the number of people. Why? Because they think that people are nothing more than Pavlov’s Dogs. They play to the lowest common denominator: don’t call people to actually sacrifice or make changes in their behavior. Just expect people to be selfish and destructive.

So, those who say “we are pro-choice” cannot be “pro-choice,” because they don’t think people really have the capacity to choose. They don’t think women in crisis pregnancies have the capacity to choose anything but abortion. They don’t think that people have the capacity to choose abstinence. They don’t think people have the capacity to choose living a temperate lifestyle.

They think that people should be slaves to their basest instincts, but they euphemize that as “choice.”

As NSSM-2000 clearly states, the Social Engineers want to reduce the population so the “powers that be” can have greater access to take over whatever resources they want. They call this “choice” so we won’t think it’s imperialistic.

Then they come up with all these “moral reasons” why it’s important to have a “small family”, such as claiming that large families harm the environment. This, too, debunks the lie of “choice”: “You have ‘freedom of choice’, so long as you choose what we want you to.”

Then there’s the whole contradiction that they say “Large families strain the environment,” but then they say, “Children in large families have to endure the hardships of homemade clothes and hand-me-downs, and not enjoying all the creature comforts that children in smaller families are able to enjoy.”

It’s easy; declare an unborn baby a legal "person," and _Roe_ will be gone.

One of the loopholes offered by Roe v. Wade is that a state can define an unborn child as a person–something never done–and Roe could thereby be overturned. Such efforts are usually squashed by the NRLC (in the interest of self-preservation) and the USCCB (out of fear of bringing the abortion issue to a head and causing “social distress”).

Now, legislators in seven states are promoting amendments to their state constitutions that would grant personhood status to unborn children. Five states have bills in theirs legislatures to that effect: Maryland, North Dakota, Montana, South Carolina (yay!) and Alabama. Oregon and Mississippi are doing petition drives.