Category Archives: infanticide

What if you could go back in time and kill Hitler?

A powerful speech.  Even if you don’t usually watch videos online, you really should listen to this one.  It speaks for itself, especially regarding judging others.  It’s a talk by genetics pioneer, Down syndrome researcher and outspoken pro-life leader Dr. Jerome Lejeune, whose Cause is being initiated, telling a powerful story about the dangers of judging based upon appearances, and the problem of eugenics:

“No Death Panels!” HA!

When Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann warned of “Death Panels” if Obamacare passed, liberals and some conservatives balked at this “slippery slope” “conspiracy theory,” saying that it was hogwash, there were no “death panels” in the bill (a bill that no one apparently ever read), etc.

Well, Kathleen “Tiller the Killer paid for my career” Sebelius says that “reduction in the number of human beings is a cost containment goal of Obamacare.”

And liberals are now talking about “After Birth Abortion.”

Go figure when we have a president who actively opposed protecting protection of babies who survived abortion, who accused Jill Stanek of lying (and liberals take for granted that Stanek was “discredited,” even though she wasn’t), when even Hillary Clinton and NARAL refused to take a position on born-alive protection. Obama has stated that infanticide is necessary to protect the “right to an abortion,” and we know liberals think abortion is necessary to protect the “right to contraception,” but slippery slopes are logical fallacies. Yeah, right.

So, what makes a person?

It’s the question “pro-choice” people hate to address. It forces them to examine what they really stand for. I’ve applied it, Socratically, in many an online discussion to get one of the following results:

1. The person tries to say I’m improperly using Socratic logic or analogy.
2. The person says the question is absurd and refuses to answer it
3. The person is honest and admits there are standards by which he or she would deny the right to life to a born person.

So, the question is:
“Is it OK to kill blind people?”
Presumably, the person will say, of couse not.
To this, I respond,
“Well, then, the lack of sight doesn’t deprive one of the right to live?”
No.
“OK, well, what about the lack of hearing? mobility? and so on.”

What faculty do you believe is necessary for a person to have human rights?
At what point does the loss of some particular faculty deprive one of human rights?

After all, an unborn baby is deprived of the right to life merely because of some missing faculty. For many who support abortion, especially our president, that missing faculty is visibility. Wait–for Barack Obama, it’s not even visibility, since he says it’s OK to starve or suffocate newborn babies to death if they’re born in “botched” abortions.

And for the average person who *has* an abortion, visibility is the missing factor, because people don’t take the time to think about such things.

A Day that will live in Infamy

One of the most powerful pro-life talks I’ve ever attended was given by Dr. John Bruchalski of the Tepeyac Clinic, several years ago at adult education night at St. William of York in Stafford, VA. He shared a lot of the “inside scoop” as a medical professional, a revert who used to work in the clinic that pioneered in vitro fertilization in the US. I’ve discussed some of these before, but it doesn’t hurt to repeat.

Some of the key points:

1. There will never be a male contraceptive on the market. Whenever they test a male contraceptive pill, the test subjects did not like what it did to them, how shall we say, aesthetically. The estrogen pill doubles a woman’s risk of stroke or heart attack and increases the risk of various cancers. Any other drug with the estrogen pill’s side effects would be pulled from the market. Double standard, anyone?

2. When conception occurs, the newly formed embryo sends out an electrical impulse to tell the mother’s brain, “Hey! I’m here!” It is possible to detect pregnancy within moments of fertilization, since there are *immediate* changes to the mother’s biochemistry. When conception occurs in a petri dish, there is a visible flash of light. He says that, back when he worked at the IVF lab, they used to watch and wait for that flash of light, and they would cheer.

3. On January 22, 1973, he came home from school and found his father dressed in his funeral clothes. He asked him who died, and his father said, “I am in mourning for America, because today America legalized abortion.”

Simply Put


I am pro-life.

Here’s how I prioritize my vote:

1. I oppose contraception–if I find that rare politician who does, he or she has my vote, hands down.
2. I oppose abortion, completely. I vote for the *MOST* anti-abortion candidate: I’ll vote for an “incrementalist” or “some exceptions candidate,” but I’m going to vote for the person who’s going to do the *most* to outlaw abortion. If it’s a choice between someone who’s anti-abortion but pro-ESCR and someone who’s anti-both, I’ll vote for the latter.
3. If the positions on abortion are relatively equal, and depending upon the office, I’ll consider the death penalty, torture and war. For example, I care far more about the death penalty if I’m voting for a judge or district attorney. I really don’t care about a district attorney’s position on war, but I care more about a presidential candidate’s position on war than his position on the death penalty.
4. If all of the above are equal, then I’m going to look at candidates’ positions on marriage, education, and parental rights. I supported Mike Huckabee in the 2008 primary because he calls for getting rid of “no fault” divorce and he supports laws that favor homeschooling.
5. After all these, if it gets down to nuances between candidates with similar views on all the above issues, I’ll look at their positions on “dignity of the human person” issues such as disability rights, welfare and the environment.

I believe in a consistent life ethic

I believe in a consistent life ethic, but I’d rather use Fr. Frank Pavone’s analogy of a house (some issues are foundational; some issues are pillars; some issues are the roof; and some are the walls and decorations) than the “seamless garment” of Eileen Egan and Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. Apparently, Bernardin’s seamless garment tore when he worked to cover up the still-unsolved 1983 murder of a church organist who had documentation of the active homosexual subculture in the Chicago priesthood and was about to go to the media.

Anyway, the Church is very clear that there are times when war and the death penalty are necessary–even Jesus Himself says so (Mt 18:6).

But there is no justification for abortion. There is no justification for killing the disabled. There is no justification for killing people on the basis of religion, race, sexual orientation or gender.

Oh, by the way, in all the complaints about oppressed minorities, and in all the media complaints about the lack of justice for victims of crimes committed *by* priests, when are we going to start hearing about the many crimes committed *against* priests? When are we going to hear about the the murders of Catholic priests by KKK members in the “Old South,” unsolved or otherwise unresolved?

Yay for kids!


Recently, one of my Facebook friends mused whether going shopping with her husband without any kids constituted a ‘date.’

I replied that Mary and I have gotten to the point that any situation involving 2 or less kids is a “date.” Someone else concurred, noting that she and her husband have had the same thought when out with “only” 2 kids–along with the thought that, for many people, that’s their entire family.

I love hanging out with my kids, and I love going places with them. I love having them there in the day when Mary’s working. I love having their company on expeditions during the day.

“Come on, let’s go on an adventure!”
“I hate adventures!” said Joe (3 at the time)
“Why’s that?” I asked.
“Cause adventure means grocery shopping!”

I was reflecting once last year about how boring it will be when they’re all grown up and gone.

Abortion is an Obamanation


Election Day is coming! Remember to vote pro-life!

The Problem with “Movements”

Since 2004, there has been a discussion of so called “non-negotiables” in Catholic public life, often tied with the term “intrinsic evils.” I have problems with the usage of both terms as they have their ambiguous elements.

However, they have been introduced into Catholic political discourse to emphasize that the Church is unequivocal on some issues.

Almost all teachings of the Church regarding public life have some level of nuance to them. Usually, the Church teaches a totally different way of looking at politics or economics (notably subsidiarity and distributism) that, despite more than a century and a quarter since _Rerum Novarum_, still don’t quite fit into established secular political movements. Part of this is due to the fact that people have listened to the social encyclicals only reflexively by rejection (“Mater si, Magistra No”) or by intentionally misinterpreting (“If you’d only read the social encyclicals, you’d vote Democrat”).

With almost every issue, there’s some nuance. The Church almost always advises more on which principles to consider in regard to an issue rather than prescribing a particular course of action.

War: Just War Doctrine
Death Penalty: Equivalent strict standards of application
Economics: distributism; right to property, but the right to property is not absolute, etc.
Environment: Care for God’s resources; be good stewards; don’t blindly destroy nature; yet don’t put nature above humanity
Immigration: Have generous immigration laws; respect human dignity; keep families together; secure borders; don’t allow illegal immigration.
Even with the War in Iraq, there is some level of nuance in the Church’s teachings. Indeed, the War in Iraq was going on in 2004 when then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote his now infamous letter to Cardinal McCarrick saying specifically that war does not carry the same weight as abortion, since the Church teaches that some wars are just, and we can’t always be 100% sure of the justice or injustice of a cause. Yet Popes Benedict and John Paul have made comments against the Iraq War. Yet again, before the war, John Paul appealed not to the US but to Saddam Hussein to do what was right, since he was the one being uncooperative with the UN. And yet again, when B16 came here in April 2007, he praised our troops for fighting for the cause of freedom.

There’s always *something*. There’s always a level of room for adaptation of the general principles to one’s own perspective and situation, and the Popes acknowledge this.

However, there are issues for which there is no nuance. Abortion is wrong, period. The Church has always taught that and makes no exceptions.

Two equal and opposite problems arise from this.

The first problem involves voting. Since parties are coalitions, voting involves some kind of compromise. In theory, people “tally” votes, where, in reality, they vote on their pet issues. I’ve often heard it said, “The Democrats are in line with Catholic teaching on more issues than the Republicans,” though I’ve never been able to figure out which ones. Another justification Catholics will use for voting Democrat is trying to apply to abortion the level of nuance that other issues have, making up arguments about ensoulment and so forth, or else just saying that the Church is “hypocritical.”

And that, right there, gets to the problem of “movements.” I will grant that politics is one thing, and sometimes holding one’s nose and voting for the least evil of the candidates is what one must do.

However, most “movements” become so focused on their issue that they lose sight of the Church. It’s one thing when this happens in terms of political alliances. It’s quite another when the movement turns to criticizing the Church.

So, for example, with the “Peace Movement.” Peace is a good thing. However, I have a hard time maintaining dialogue with peace activists, with whom I largely agree, because they are so adamant about pacifism as such. I may not approve of the war, but I approve of the existence of the military, and I believe in the possibility of a Just war that is defensive or one that liberates one country from another’s attack.

However, that mere distinction is too much for many peace activists. Indeed, they’ll say that “Just War” theory itself is wrong and “goes against the teachings of Jesus.” To show how it goes against the teachings of Jesus, they’ll quote Dorothy Day, or Eileen Egan, or the Berrigans, Sr. Joan Chittister, or one of several dubious bishops. Challenge them with actual writings of Popes and Saints, and they’ll shut you out.

I have no problem with conscientious objection. Indeed, I support it. I have no problem with criticizing a war if one sincerely believes it is wrong. I have no objection to a person living a pacifist life, save for the question of protecting a loved one from assault. However, I *do* have a problem when someone’s zeal for peace takes the form of criticizing the Church and saying that Just War Doctrine itself is wrong.

Similarly, the Holy Father recently gave a speech about environmental concerns, which has spurred the usual debates on that topic. Again, the Church teaches that the environment must be honored and safeguarded, but the needs of humanity must come first. Radical Environmentalists conveniently ignore the latter qualification and use the Church to promote their agenda. Their opponents will ignore the first part and focus on the latter.

Again, it’s one thing to make an unhappy allegiance for voting purposes; it is quite another to call the Church’s teaching on a subject “wrong,” whether that subject is “peace” or divorce or economics or contraception.

So as much as I sympathize with their causes, I can’t get behind the “Peace” Movement or the “Environmental” Movement because they involve too much criticism of the Church and too many sketchy interpretations of Church teaching. The pro-life movement may compromise itself sometimes in its political allegiances, but the movement itself does not go around saying the Church is wrong on matters of dogma.

I support PETA

Pets for the Ethical Treatment of Anthropoi

(This one is mine)

Cool Website

Free  Pro-Life Images

Evangelium Vitae on Other Offenses to Life

Expounding on the vast range of offenses of the Culture of Death, John Paul II writes, in Evangelium Vitae,

What of the spreading of death caused by reckless tampering with the world’s ecological balance, by the criminal spread of drugs, or by the promotion of certain kinds of sexual activity which, besides being morally unacceptable, also involve grave risks to life? It is impossible to catalogue completely the vast array of threats to human life, so many are the forms, whether explicit or hidden, in which they appear today!

Ecological responsibility is a pro-life issue.
The drug war, obviously, is a pro-life issue.
But it is interesting that John Paul notes, in passing, how sexually promiscuous behavior, due to spreading STDs, is also an offense against life.
Interesting contrast to those who say that the Church is irresponsible in regard to AIDS by opposing condoms: how about those who engage in promiscuous sex are “irresponsible” in regard to AIDS?

What will happen when Doctors don’t have conscience rights

A great blog piece, by one “Suzy B”, about the lack of support special needs families get in an era when we can use genetic testing to “prevent” “defective” children by IVF and abortion contains the following bit:

Newsweek spoke to the mother of a Down Syndrome child who said that there was a strong pressure among doctors, telling her to have an abortion. One pediatrician was so bold as to say, “You should consider putting him up for adoption. You’re going to end up divorced. Don’t even bother having any other children. Didn’t you have the option to terminate?”

This disgusting sentiment is exactly what Sen. Edward Kennedy and Sen. Sam Brownback hope to change with their recently passed bill that requires doctors to tell expecting parents about medical care, services, and support available for Down Syndrome children and their families.

I keep saying it: doctors’ conscience rights are *your* conscience rights. Two years ago, when we moved to Columbia, I called around to find a pediatrician who wouldn’t force us to use tainted vaccines. Most of them said they wouldn’t allow patients to conscientiously object, even for religious reasons, because the doctors were against it.

If a patient wants to conscientiously object to some practice, then the patient needs a doctor who will permit it. If the government won’t allow doctors to make conscience decisions, doctors will force such patients to use procedures we conscientiously object to.

Also, of course, we wont’ be able to make our conscience decision of not wanting to engage in remote material cooperation by funding OB/Gyns who provide abortions.

The Groningen Protocol

Sounds like some suspense movie, but there’s no movie here. In the Netherlands, source of much of the evil that’s spread through the world since at least the Pilgrims, it has become standard medical practice to kill severely disabled infants who meet the following criteria:

there are three classes of newborns that can be euthanized under the Groningen Protocol, including: 1) Those who have no chance of survival, 2) those who “may survive after a period of intensive treatment but expectations for their future are very grim;” and 3) those “who do not depend on technology for physiologic stability and whose suffering is severe, sustained, and cannot be alleviated.”

As Adrian Monk would say, “Here’s the thing. . . “
There is no such thing as suffering that cannot be alleviated. All suffering can be alleviated with the right treatments and the right amount of love. And isn’t that an open-ended “criterion”? My suffering has been severe and sustained for as long as I can remember. That’s of course why we have “abortion on demand”: first it was “life of the mother”; then it was “life and health of the mother”; then it was “health of the mother includes mental health.’

As for criteria one and two, “no chance of survivial” and “expectations for their future are very grim,” gee. Glad these guys think they can see the future.

Obama’s ego

Some time ago, I posted about how I had sent a message to the Barack Obama campaign, responding to a speech in which he criticized pro-lifers for “hijacking” Christianity.

In response, I was put on their mailing list as a supporter, and I keep getting messages from them in my GMail.

So, this weekend, I started replying.

First, this message from “Michelle Obama” to me:

Dear John,This is the season where many of us get to leave the pressures of daily life behind and focus on what keeps us grounded — being together with our families.For our family, it’s been so important for us to maintain our traditions no matter how hectic life gets. Just a few weeks ago, Barack left the frenzy of the campaign trail to come home to get the Christmas tree with the girls and me.Today, I’d like to share a special holiday greeting from our family to yours:

I replied:

And some of us actualy worship Jesus Christ, at the Mass, on the day of
Christ’s Mass.

Editor’s note: why is “Christmas” politically incorrect, but “Holiday,” “holy day,” is not?

Then there was

With extremely close races shaping up in states across the country, we need to
win every delegate we can this Tuesday, February 5th. . . .

And a bunch of junk after that. So I replied,

I’m hoping for the Democratic Party to split over this nomination, since there’s
no other way the Republican losers will be able to beat Hillary Clinton, now
that they’ve decided they want pro-abortionists Mitt Romney and John McCain as
their leading candidates.

Then I got this “endorsement” message, “personally” to me from Ted Kennedy:

The fact that Barack Obama has been endorsed by Ted Kennedy, the illicitly
divorced and remarried, pro-abortion “Catholic” who railroaded Judge Robert Bork
makes me loathe Obama even more. Why do I get all these e-mails from his
campaign?

Another one from “Michelle,” earlier last month:

Right now in Iowa, your fellow supporters are calling their neighbors and
asking them if they need someone to baby-sit while they caucus tonight.

My reply:

I would never trust a Democrat to come near my children, much less baby sit
them.

(OK, there are one or two exceptions to this rule).

Then, on Jan. 29, I got this message, allegedly from Barack “Infanticide is a Woman’s Fundamental Right” Obama:

You did it. Not just on Saturday, but every day for almost a year, you did
what the cynics said we couldn’t do.

Me:

Why would I vote for a mass murderer like Barack Obama?

I voted for Huckabee.