Whether it's pro-life philosophy, activism or legislation, whether it's about a current topic or a situation pro-lifers face in their own lives and work, this is the place where we'll talk about it! Please forward any comments to me, Judie Brown. Thank you!
PELOSI’S ERROR BECOMES A BISHOP’S OPPORTUNITY Posted: Thursday August 28, 2008 at 8:30 am EST by Judie Brown
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is, as we know, an avowed proponent of aborting innocent preborn children, and for that she makes no apologies. But what Pelosi is not honest about is her position and what it means (or should mean) when she claims to witness to the truths of the Catholic faith.
She recently said that she is an “ardent, practicing Catholic” who has studied the question of abortion for a long time.
Oh? Well, in her study, something has gone terribly wrong. She told Tom Brokaw that the debate within the Catholic Church on the question of when life begins has been ongoing and that nobody really knows when a human being begins. With all due respect to the Speaker of the House, I think she must be getting her Catholic education from an avowed atheist! Her misrepresentation of truth is fatally flawed.
And I am so happy to say that several Catholic bishops have come forward and spoken about this, telling the media the truth. For example, Cardinal Edward Egan of the Archdiocese of New York said, “What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.”
Archbishop Donald Wuerl, of the Washington, D.C. archdiocese, who has persistently said he would not deny the body and blood of Christ to pro-abortion Catholics like Pelosi, told the Washington Post, "Abortion is evil. It's the destruction of a human life... this teaching has not changed and remains unchanged."
Archbishop Charles Chaput, of the Denver archdiocese, who is not denying Holy Communion to any pro-abortion Catholic during the Democratic National Convention or at any time as far as we know, wrote in an open letter released just after Pelosi’s diatribe, “Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely ill, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it – whether they're famous or not – fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith."
Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Doctrine, issued the following statement:
In the course of a "Meet the Press" interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion.
In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law." (No. 2271)
In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church's moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.
These mistaken biological theories became obsolete over 150 years ago when scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization. In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church teaches that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life.
We are grateful to God that so many bishops have found it necessary to publicly clarify Catholic teaching on the value and dignity of the human being and when each human being’s life begins. It is indeed a breath of fresh air!
But I have to ask, amidst the celebration about this remarkable turn of events, why these same bishops – and their fellow bishops – do not follow through and make it clear that pro-abortion Catholics should stay away from the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist until they have repented of their sins, and that if those who publicly support abortion attempt to receive the sacrament, they will be denied!
When Nancy Pelosi was asked whether or not she had been denied Holy Communion, she told a reporter that she has not experienced this and said, “That would be a severe blow to me…”
And that is precisely my point! Nancy Pelosi is telling the world she would be devastated if her priest told her that until she repents of her public support for aborting innocent preborn children, she may not receive the body and blood of Christ. However, her actions in defense of abortion support the tragedy of severe, deadly blows being leveled at thousands of preborn children daily. Can’t she see that? And will she ever see it if bishops remain timid?
Just as surely as it is wrong to misrepresent Catholic teaching on such a fundamental question as when a human being’s life begins, it is equally outrageous for so many Catholic bishops to ignore Church law and, in the process, fail to protect Christ from sacrilege and reach out to those whose eternal salvation is at stake to help them realize they must repent of supporting abortion.
PRO-LIFE MEMORIAL DAY Posted: Wednesday August 27, 2008 at 8:12 am EST by Judie Brown
In the midst of all the clamoring, posturing and bickering of the election season, it is easy to get swept up in discussions on how to vote, if one should vote and why it is important to vote. And, of course, it is of the utmost urgency that we take full advantage of our freedoms in America and do all we can to select those men and women who will keep our nation safe from external dangers and internal strife.
Not only do we entrust the implementation of just laws to these people, but we also rely on them to make prudent decisions in matters affecting the rest of the world and those who defend our nation at home and abroad.
As Americans, we commemorate our war heroes and their sacrifices by setting aside one day each year to honor them: Memorial Day. On that day, we remember in prayer and in our hearts the thousands of valiant, heroic men and women have given their very lives to protect our right to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave. They are the ones who have secured our liberty and confirmed with their blood the principles that make America great.
So why am I asking you to take time out of your politicking and busy schedule to think about a memorial day of a different sort? The single most important reason is this: Electioneering is not saving preborn babies, and the so-called pro-life individuals who have been elected as a result of our blood, sweat and tears have not even made a dent on restoring personhood to the preborn.
Far too many in this nation have never thought of the struggle to end abortion as a war – a war that has taken more lives than all the wars in the history of America combined.
This is precisely why we set aside a day each October to mourn the loss of the millions of Americans whose lives were cut terribly short. Not a one of them will ever have an opportunity to cast a vote, wear a uniform or defend the borders of this nation. They are dead, and if you put this fact in the proper context, its profoundly tragic dimensions become even clearer. For example, those 744,600 Americans who died prior to birth in 1973 alone would today be 35 years of age and contributing to society in ways we cannot even imagine.
Maybe one of those 35-year-olds would have discovered a cure for Parkinson's disease. Perhaps one of them would have mesmerized a nation with a vision of what it means to follow Christ and never count the cost. It is feasible that at least a few of them would have been among those heroic men and women we honored this past Memorial Day.
But they are all gone – murdered in the wombs of their mothers before they ever had a chance to give a hug, shed a tear or inspire a child. Their loss is our loss, and we must never forget them, lest we forget the real reason why we struggle to end this plague.
In addition, October is Respect Life Month all across America. We will participate in Life Chain; 40 Days for Life will be well under way and religious services will be held so that Americans can pray for our nation, mothers who have aborted their children and all others affected by this tragedy.
October is the month when leaves change colors, and autumn presents us with an array of colors that please the eye, reminding us of God's awesome gifts. Appropriately, October 6, 2008 is also the day when we will take time out to remember those boys and girls whose fate was intentionally and irrevocably sealed by the slice of a knife, the stab of a needle in the heart or some other grisly practice resulting in premature death.
More than 49,000,000 children have died in this tragic war being waged in the wombs of mothers on a daily basis. To my mind, this sobering fact should prompt anyone truly committed to ending abortion to use October 6 as an opportunity to remember the dead and resolve to actively pursue the protection of those persons not yet created – none of whom should face premature death by abortion.
CONSCIENCE: PROTECTING THE PROTECTED Posted: Tuesday August 26, 2008 at 9:24 am EST by Judie Brown
When I first wrote about the proposed federal regulation designed to protect healthcare workers who refuse to participate in abortions, I was a bit incredulous. It boggled my mind that the government would take such a bold step considering our current culture. But I was wrong.
The latest news is that the Department of Health and Human Services has published the regulation, and after the 30-day comment period, the regulation may go into effect. This is important for many reasons. According to the HHS press release, this proposed regulation would
Clarify that non-discrimination protections apply to institutional health care providers as well as to individual employees working for recipients of certain funds from HHS;
Require recipients of certain HHS funds to certify their compliance with laws protecting provider conscience rights;
Designate the HHS Office for Civil Rights as the entity to receive complaints of discrimination addressed by the existing statutes and the proposed regulation; and
Charge HHS officials to work with any state or local government or entity that may be in violation of existing statutes and the proposed regulation to encourage voluntary steps to bring that government or entity into compliance with the law. If, despite the Department's efforts, compliance is not achieved, HHS officials will consider all legal options, including termination of funding and the return of funds paid out in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions.
When you visit the web site, you will be able to read the steps Congress and HHS have taken in the past to protect the conscience rights of those who simply cannot commit abortions, do not wish to be trained in the procedure and are uncomfortable being pressed into the role of abortion advocate. HHS is recognizing the fact that it is indeed a form of discrimination for employers to expect, if not demand, that their employees to compromise their consciences. It has been a long time coming, but at least the proposed regulation makes some sense.
In the summary of the proposed rule, you will note that the rule would apply to those entities that receive federal funds from HHS, and that in order to comply with the rule, the entity would not be able to discriminate in any way against those who do not wish to perform or refer for induced abortion. What this means in plain English is that the proposal addresses surgical abortion or chemicals that are known to induce abortion, such as RU-486.
However, it should be noted that the current version for which comments are being sought does NOT contain earlier language that defined abortion as "any of the various procedures – including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action – that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." This language thus encompassed hormonal contraceptives' ability to cause an early abortion. Its deletion from the published version of the proposed regulation is tragic, and as we said in a media release earlier this month,
"[HHS Secretary Mike] Leavitt, who says he wants to protect conscience rights of physicians, is backing down: 'An early draft of the regulations found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review,' Leavitt said on his blog.' It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true.'"
So while we recognize the proposal as a sign that the federal government wants to stop the type of discriminatory action recommended by the American Medical Association earlier this year, it is clear that HHS will continue to pander to the proponents of chemical abortion. This is indeed a sad reality.
In a press release on the regulation, Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life International, said, "This agency has ventured into the business of making regulations against intolerance."
But it appears to me, at least, that they are continuing to be blind to the fact that the birth control pill can and does kill. What a tragedy. This is indeed a bittersweet moment for preborn children.
HHS is accepting comments on the proposal for 26 more days. You may submit electronic comments on this regulationor via e-mail.
To submit electronic comments, go to the web site and do the following:
Click on the box next to "Select to find documents accepting comments or submissions."
Type the keywords "provider conscience" in the blank field above this and then click on "Go." This takes you to a page listing a document titled "Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law."
Click on the "Send a Comment or Submission" link, which will take you to the "Public Comment and Submission Form" screen. You may also attach documents to accompany your comments.
You may send written comments (one original and two copies) via regular mail to the following address only:
Office of Public Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services
Attention: Brenda Destro
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Room 728E
Washington, D.C. 20201
CATHOLIC BISHOPS: A QUESTION Posted: Monday August 25, 2008 at 9:26 am EST by Judie Brown
As you may know, I have been on vacation for a few weeks and have tried to write blogs when computer access is available. I am now back and was struck immediately by an e-mail I received from a long-time supporter of ours who is a cradle Catholic like me. He wrote the following:
Why have the Catholic bishops not instructed the appropriate dioceses and parishes to refuse to administer the Holy Eucharist to politicians and candidates who openly espouse a woman's right to receive an abortion[?] I find this refusal to act very cowardly and hypocritical. I don't believe that the church [sic] can hide behind the excuse that their tax free status prohibits them from acting because this is a matter of morals and is independent of politics. The failure to act causes me to question the validity of the church of which I have been a member for 70 years.
This is perhaps the $64-million-dollar question of the decade, if not the century. And I wish I had a simple answer to provide, but I don’t. So I would like to start with some basic Church teaching that might help us agree that there are some Catholic bishops who simply don’t see things as clearly as people like me.
The Catholic Church teaches that the act of abortion is an intrinsically evil act, a direct attack on God and, therefore, a mortal sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,
Since the first century, the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
A mortal sin is to be judged as mortal according to the following criteria set forth in the Catechism:
For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."
Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
By deductive reasoning, we can therefore know that those who are intentionally supporting the grave sin of abortion either politically, financially or otherwise in the public sphere, while claiming to be Catholic, can be guilty not only of scandal but also in serious danger of so gravely offending God that, unless they repent, they will be damned. That is not a personal opinion of mine; it happens to be a truth taught by the Catholic Church. Why else would the sacrament of penance exist?
Therefore, the Catholic bishops have a moral responsibility to be loving and charitable toward those errant souls by not only refusing them the body and blood of Christ, but explaining the reasons why they have no other choice. To deny Holy Communion to such people is act of love toward the public sinner and an act of protection for Christ’s body and blood. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) made that point perfectly clear in his 2004 memo entitled "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles". Archbishop Raymond Burke recently made the same statement, explaining that it is proper to deny Communion to such people "until they have reformed their lives."
Therefore, I have to answer the fellow who wrote to me by suggesting to him the following:
If a bishop knowingly avoids the obvious and does not teach his flock these facts from the Catechism and acts as if he does not believe in them by failing to explain
how we are evaluate political candidates and
why he is obligated to enforce Church law and deny Holy Communion to public advocates of abortion who claim to be Catholic,
then that bishop is at fault. We need to pray for him, exhort him to teach the truth and ask the Lord to make him bold in these tragic and treacherous times. If lay people like us fail to do so, then we too are too timid to defend the truths of the Catholic faith.
Whether or not a person is going to hell is not for any of us to decide. But it is for each of us to know and understand the truth and spread it to all those with whom we have influence. In the case of a bishop, this responsibility is enormous, but it is also part of his job description.
As far as questioning the validity of the Catholic Church is concerned, I would ask you to join me in praying for the man who wrote to me. He does not see the difference between the Church, which is the bride of Christ, and the mortal human beings who are bishops in need of guts. Let us not question Christ; rather let us question those who for whatever reason offend Him by their silence and acquiescence.
Let us not judge those bishops, but encourage them to be bold. The hour is late, and Catholics need leadership, not political pandering. Abortion is an act of murder, and the bishops have the obligation to tell it like it is. That’s a fact!
I am not familiar with your column, but I happened upon it and I assure you that with basic research, one can find several bishops and archbishops that have spoken out to our Catholic politicians about their stances on abortion, but still receiving communion. Here are two websites that address this.
2.
http://www.uslaw.com/library/Religion_&_Law/Archbishop_Tells_Kansas_Governor_Communion.php?item=138658 B | August 25, 2008
I'm sure you have seen the reports about Nancy Pelosi on Meet the Press last Sunday and her responses about how she is a practicing Catholic. She went on to speak of how the teachings of the Church on abortion are recent and have changed. It is obvious she is misrepresenting the truth and this is a perfect example of where her priests and bishop should make a public correction of her errors but I have my doubts this will ever happen. In light of their failure to respond I think it is a perfect opportunity for someone higher in authority to make the public correction of facts instead of leaving it to the people in the ranks being the only ones responding. Joe | August 25, 2008
Amen Judie!
I pray the U.S. Bishops come to understand the true gravity of not enforcing Canon 915 and the unfathomable harm that is being done. They might fear the perceived "fall-out" of enforcing this common sense canon...
Unfortunately, when this sad chapter in time comes to a close I'm afraid history will judge the Shepherds in the U.S. harshly for their failure to end this scandal. May the Lord be more merciful in His judgment! Fr. William J Kuchinsky | August 25, 2008
Dear Friend;
The point is there are 13 bishops - 13 out of 243 - who have publicly stated that they would deny the body and blood of Christ to pro-abortion public figures who claim to be Catholic. While I am quite familiar with the bishops who have that sort of courage, I wish there was unity among them and agreement that every bishop would protect Christ from sacrilege.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | August 26, 2008
Judie, What could be heard as the message of our bishops is: Nothing is a mortal sin. So Catholics can always receive Holy Communion. The new bright and breezy Catholic Church brought to you by the USCCB!!!!!!! Forget about sin. May God have mercy on all of us. Margaret M. O'Connell | August 26, 2008
Besides saying prayers at daily Mass for all of the Bishops as well as the rosary to encourage all the Bishops to enforce Canon Law 915 in their dioceses, Fr.John Corapi suggests in his
Weekly Wisdom Program that all catholics pray daily to the Holy Spirit for
a conversion of the world to the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.\" Come Holy Spirit fill the hearts of the Faithful with thy 7 gifts & graces of Fear of Sinning against the Lord,Wisdom,Knowledge, Fortitude,Council,& Piety. We ask for these graces for all individuals especially our priests to convert the world to the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. Amen.\" We need another Pentcost.
Dean Richards
DEAN RICHARDS | August 27, 2008
Joe;
I have posted a blog today presents the public comments of many bishops. As you will see if you read it, the problem is that there is no consistency among them for if they really want to chastise Pelosi, then they should be explaining to her that her immortal soul is in danger and they should be making it clear that she will be denied the body of Christ in Holy Communion until she repents.
KITTEN KITTEN – I MEAN BABY BABY Posted: Thursday August 14, 2008 at 9:03 am EST by Judie Brown
While in Vienna recently, I had the chance to meet a young man who has been married for nearly four years. He and his wife are waiting to have a baby because they simply, according to him, cannot afford it right now. His wife just got a job and has a lifelong contract, but he said that if she immediately became pregnant her employer would do all they could to make sure that at the end of her pregnancy leave she was demoted and would not like the job she had and thus would leave. His solution? NO BABY NOW.
But in the process of telling us this, he also said:
WE JUST GOT TWO KITTENS SO THAT WE WOULD KNOW HOW IT FEELS TO HAVE A BABY.
I nearly laughed. But I controlled myself and continued to listen.
He branched out into a diatribe about costs, the Austrian economy and the Austrian population-negation problem. His main concern was that nobody of Austrian descent is having any children! And he was not referring to the child preparation mode he has engaged in by doing a trial run with kittens.
He went into a long explanation of how concerned he was about caring for those in the Austrian population who are aging, as he said, FASTER EVERY MINUTE. He told us that though he knew the state was obliged to care for them, he also knew that the costs were going to become prohibitive.
I wished I had had several hours to spend with him so that I could explain the reasons why his thinking was off – way off. But since I only had a few hours, I decided it best to listen, closely, and try to absorb the contradictions.
You see, he was our tour guide and so well versed on the past 2,000 years of history that I could not understand why he could not connect the dots.
I say this because his description of the OTTOMAN empire, and the two attempts they made to conquer Austria, should have given him a clue! He expressed pride over the fact that twice the Austrians had driven them back and, in fact, the OTTOMAN empire had never taken Austria.
It boggled my mind that he could not see the contrast. In the earlier centuries, the OTTOMANS had tried by force to take Austria. Now in the 21st century, the Muslims were going to do it simply by having more babies! The OTTOMAN empire was, in case you did not know, MUSLIM.
But how do you explain this to a young man with little to no faith in God and no confidence in his ability to be a provider? My husband has often said to me the real problem with young people today is that they really have no grounding principles. They have nothing upon which to rely in order to shape their perspectives. They may claim a religion as part of their identity, but that is not the same as having a strong faith.
Our tour guide proved that this is precisely what the problem is. There is a forest; there are trees; and then there is self-interest. Quite a combo! Oh yes, and there are also two kittens.
I think it strange that we should feel a sense of urgency to have children merely because we must 'defeat the Muslims' There are many peaceable Muslims, people of strong family values. noel | August 14, 2008
It is not surprising, to here of the dilemma of the couple, though I would argue that for a job to deote a woman for having a baby, is incorrect, and I am one who firmly believes in the man being the maitainer and provider for the family.
As the reality of a secular/godless society becomes more emminent, we can only expect more of the same, particularly in the European nations and those, so-influenced. The codification of a mindset that relates having kittens to children, is a result of a culture that has for years, glorified the unneccessay cessation of human life in the womb and the confusion of sexuality and its ultimate purpose, thus, we have a great push to legitimize same-sex "marriage".
Both the Holy Qur'an and Bible, provide clear definitions to the meaningful purpose of our creation and why we come together, to manifest His Will, which is expressed through the propagation of our species. We are indeed in the time of testing, but God-willing, the faithful/doers of good deeds will prove successful and victorious. Blackman | August 17, 2008
Hi Judie, I just read in the book, 'Abortion: an eternal social and moral issue' (2008) published by Gale CENGAGE.com, that certain sects of Muslims believe abortion is permissible before "ensoulment." Muslim belief of when a preborn baby is a human is when the baby is "ensouled." However, Precious Children of Portland have Muslims who do not want Planned Parenthood in their neighborhood. Praise God! Nina | August 19, 2008
Dear Noel;
We should be having children to welcome God's gift, not to defeat some other religious group. My point about the Muslims was to help the young man with whom I was talking to understand that his concerns are ill served by his own reluctance to have a family.
BABIES ARE A DRAG? Posted: Wednesday August 13, 2008 at 1:48 pm EST by Judie Brown
The title of this blog reflects the title of a recent article in Australia's Daily Telegraph.
It seems, if you took this article seriously, that couples having children and thus increasing the Australian fertility rate is cause for concern, if not alarm, at least among those who keep statistics and appear dedicated to preserving the country's ecological balance.
This analysis is so astounding to me that I would prefer to first quote it and then make my comments on what appears to be the latest twist in the culture of death's ongoing efforts to rid the world of babies. The article states,
FORGET those plans to have a third child for the country because further increases in the birth rate could harm the economy, the nation's productivity watchdog has warned.
A major analysis of the nation's increasing fertility rate said it was at its highest level for 25 years – but the Productivity Commissionyesterday warned further increases may aggravate rather than solve the problem of the ageing of the population.
This is because it will shift women out of the workforce while they care for babies, depressing labour supply and reducing the taxation base as our population ages, the Daily Telegraph reported.
The small number of extra babies born would make little difference to the rate of population ageing, the commission said.
I have seen many tactics employed by the architects of the culture of death, but this is one of the most incredibly arrogant mind games I have seen. And the problem with it is that this article presents no alternative perspective. For many, particularly those in the aging population, the article could fuel the idea that population control is the only way to care for the elderly. Such an oxymoronic concept should not be worthy of ink in anyone's newspaper, but in fact the opposite has happened in more countries than just Australia.
It is well known that because of the developed nations' declining work force (caused in large part by so many abortions), the cost of caring for the aging is becoming very expensive. This provides arguments for euthanizing the elderly who spent their lives contributing to the tax base as they prepared for their retirement. The sacrifices of the past could well result in their early demise if attitudes toward fertility and ageing do not change, not only in Australia, but also around the world.
In a recent article, Dennis Howard, an expert in analyzing population data, explained the following:
The abortion boom is also behind the coming crisis in Social Security and Medicare. The problem is that we used to have as many as 16 people in the workforce for every person on Social Security. Soon, there will be only two. To save these programs from bankruptcy, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that tax rates may have to rise as high as 82%. As one of the survivors of the abortion boom, guess who will pay the bill? Meanwhile, the downstream loss in future tax revenues that will result from the more than 48.5 million abortions that have already occurred amounts to an estimated $18 trillion, or more than twice our current national debt. We don't have a debt crisis. We have a death crisis.
While Howard examines the problem in the United States, one could also argue that the same problems will develop and evolve into a crisis in every country where the birth rate falls below two children per family. It makes eminent sense, then, to argue in favor of married couples having more, not less, children. And yet, Australian authorities disagree, and I imagine they are joined by many, including so-called American experts.
Biill Muehlenberg, a pro-life commentator, explained the following in a commentary opposing euthanasia:
The euthanasia mentality leads to the dehumanisation of man and the desacrilisation [sic] of life. The sacredness of human life becomes viewed as mere sentimentalism, and expediency takes priority.
Consider, for example, a report issued last year by EPAC, the Economic Planning and Advisory Council, a government think-tank. The report discussed the rising costs of medical care for the elderly, and rising hospital costs in general, and actually suggested that euthanasia might be an option in dealing with this crisis. There was no mention of suffering or the humane treatment of dying human beings. Instead, cold utilitarian considerations of cost-cutting were given as the reason to consider euthanasia.
If we put this in the context of the Australian article, coupled with my recent discussions with a young man in Vienna, it is not hard to see where the culture of death is attempting to take the human race. Inhumanity towards man, as a solution to economic problems (that actually have a very simple solution) is not only an evil recommendation – it is downright idiotic.
That old saying, GROW OR DIE, has taken on new meaning. If families don't grow. the human race will die – and that's a fact.
KILLING BABIES IS REALLY FAILED SCIENCE … OR IS IT? Posted: Tuesday August 12, 2008 at 1:29 pm EST by Judie Brown
The latest news from the world of draconian science should have turned the culture of death on its ear – but so far, I have not heard a word from the human embryonic stem cell research cadre's guru – Mr. Michael J. Fox. I pray that I do, for it would be a blessing to hear Mr. Fox admit that there are better ways to research a treatment for Parkinson's than using the body parts of human embryos.
The developments of which I speak came to my attention via two articles. The first is here:
Jamie Thomson… told a theater full of UCSB students, faculty, and community members… that the real promise of this research lies in its ability to explain the human body's most guarded secrets… But he downplayed the more high-flying promises like transplantation. "It's less about transplantation than about understanding the human body," said Thomson… other nationally prominent panel members included Alan Trounson, president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine; … and Lois Jovanovic, chief scientific officer and CEO of Sansum Diabetes Research Institute… noted… that 400,000 frozen embryos are destroyed every year in California.
The fact that someone has finally admitted that more than 400,000 children are "destroyed" should have raised such a clamor in America, not to mention the worldwide community, that the headlines would have been incredibly hard to ignore. But – I am sorry to say – such was not the case.
Now if we had been discussing a report that 400,000 two-year-olds were being brutally murdered in California annually, the entire nation would have been up in arms. However, because Professor Jovanovic is discussing human embryonic children, nobody seems to be concerned about the mounting death toll.
This is perhaps shocking to pro-life Americans who have worked with American Life League to expose the grisly side of in vitro fertilization. Sadly, the vast majority of pro-lifers do not acknowledge this practice, do not oppose in vitro fertilization and will not oppose it because it is not politically expedient to do so! I will never forget the discussion I had with one Catholic doctor – yes, I said Catholic – who told me that it really did not matter what the Church teaches about IVF – it is simply too popular a practice to oppose it!
Wow! With courage like that, is it any wonder we are losing?
For the past decade, Advanced Cell Technology Inc. has claimed one spectacular success after another. The Worcester biotech firm said it… pioneered research that could one day be used to reverse the aging process and grow replacement body parts. And ACT said it cloned the first human embryo, a discovery that sparked headlines worldwide. But all the publicity likely backfired… Some scientists said some of ACT's claims were overstated. And a former ACT executive said the company's work in controversial areas such as [human embryonic] stem cell research and cloning scared away pharmaceutical firms and life sciences investors that traditionally fund young promising biotech companies.
Now, ACT could be on the verge of shutting down. In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing Tuesday, the company warned that it doesn't have cash to continue operating after July 31 without raising additional money or drastically slashing operations. It reported $17 million in current liabilities, but only $1 million in cash and other current assets, an indication it could be forced to file for bankruptcy protection.
ACT is one of the world's leading advocates of scientific research that uses "surplus" embryos – that is, human children who are viewed as expendable commodities. The lack of respect for the integrity of the human embryonic child is why they can pompously proclaim their success in cloning, replicating or otherwise dehumanizing the human person.
When I read that this company is near bankruptcy, I said a silent prayer of thanks to God, our Father, Who is also the author of human persons. To Him is due the glory, praise and gratitude for making a spectacle out of an arrogant group determined to make money from the bodies of dead human embryonic children.
It occurs to me, dear friends, that we may be on the cusp of witnessing a restoration of moral sanity in the United States. Perhaps it may happen that, as those who led the fight to dehumanize embryonic children suffer agonizing financial and ethical problems because of their "choices," others – even politicians – may come to see the value of respecting human dignity – unapologetically.
I have a suggestion for you! Why not e-mail or call ACT to congratulate them on their financial failure, encouraging them to accept this as a lesson in morality? The lesson is really a simple one: Destroying innocent human beings while treating them as mere objects carries a heavy cost.
That is why those who respect life and do so with joy are grateful to God for helping the ACT management see the error of their deadly ways. Or as famed pro-life physician/scientist Karl F. Gunning once said,
"Once you accept killing as a solution for a single problem, you will find tomorrow hundreds of problems for which killing can be seen as a solution."
Awful! I wonder why do they insist on using embryotic stem cell research, if adult stemcell research is better?
Chantell
Chantell | August 12, 2008
Dear Judie,
Here is what I sent Catholics for Choice...
Dear Catholics for Choice, I am Catholic. But I recently read that you lost a complaint against Catholic Answers, and their booklet, "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics".I say, "THANK GOD". I passed out 7,000 of them in the swing state of Nevada in 2004, and this year, we will be passing out 24,000 of them. You obviously have never read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, because if you did, you would know that killing a child in the womb, and even supporting it, is a mortal sin. So, since you do not follow the teachings of the Church, (the pillar and foundation of TRUTH, as it says in 1 Tim 3:15), you are PROTESTANTS. Yep. that is exactly what you are. So, please don't call yourselves Catholic, because cafeteria Catholics are Protestants. Period. You can only change back, if you go make a good sacramental confession, and change your attitudes. If you have never seen an abortion, (technology today is incredible with the new 3D/4D ultrasound machines), you can see the baby's face, see it laugh, get scared, worried looks, play with his or her fingers or toes - amazing), then you will see the sheer terror on the face of the baby in his or her mother's womb. It breaks your heart to see them try desperately to get away from the killer vacuum as it rips their arms and legs off. Oh My! IF you saw that, you too would change your heart as I did. And when you see the baby just wince with pain as scissors are thrust into her skull to crush it to get it out of the womb- it makes you want to get sick. You have never seen one, otherwise you would not push abortion as you do. It is plain and simply MURDER. I won't even tell you where in the Bible it supports the Church's position. It does many times. You really have to see what this is doing to your souls. As it says in Deuteronomy - Choose Life. You are choosing death. Your leading the culture of Death and our past Pope John Paul II said. That is the side of Satan. We will pray for you - to someday see an abortion, and be moved by that little face with terror in their eyes as its arm is being ripped off. That is my prayer. Praying for you, Ed GravelineLas Vegas, NV Ed Graveline | August 13, 2008
Dear Ed;
Bravo and thanks for sharing.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | August 24, 2008
Chantell;
You have asked the million dollar question, and by that I mean that it's all about money, not cures.
Pro-Life Story: Choosing life Posted By Kayla Marie Backlund on Feb, 19 2008 I never knew my real mom. I just know some things about her.
I am 19 years old and I'm proud to say that I am adopted. My biological mom was 16 when she had me. She had ... Read
