If Baby Killers are “Abortion Providers,” Then Stalin and Hitler Were “Population Adjusters?”

Featured

Euphemisms, when used properly, convey a civilized description of something distasteful without attempting to mislead the receiver into believing the subject is acceptable.

For example, while eating a meal, we could respond to the question why a fellow diner left the table was that he “went to the restroom.” There would be nothing incorrect in using the technically accurate “urinate,” but the euphemistic phrase is used out of respect for the appetite of diners within earshot.

Then, there is a euphemism which begins to cross the line into deception: “ethnic cleansing.” This is the forcible expulsion, and sometimes murdering, of people with a different ethnicity from an area to give the offending group a majority. It would be safe to assume that the newscasters using this term do not approve of this process. Still, use of the word “cleansing” does not evoke anything remotely resembling disapproval.

Now we find the ultimate misuse of a euphemism: “abortion provider.” Abortion by itself stands for a heinous action which is abhorrent to anyone who understands the dignity of human life. Yet, to some, it seems as natural as brushing one’s teeth. But to add “provider” to the person who mortally uses chemicals to “end a pregnancy” (there’s another detestable euphemism) or applies torturous dismemberment to the unborn baby, is completely uncivilized.

Even a person who sells addictive materials is called a “drug dealer.” That individual is not given the dignified title of “drug provider.” At least the term “dealer” gives the profession a less-than-respectable tone.

Adding “provider” to abortionist’s label is an amazing attempt to link this form of murder to the honorable designation of “health care provider.” True, many are fond of putting abortion under the umbrella of “women’s health.” Sadly, there’s no concern for the baby’s health when he/she is destroyed.

Advertisements

Today’s “Progressive” U.S. is No Holier Than the Confederate States It Claims to Surpass

Featured

Sure, we have reason to be pleased that the #MeToo movement is making progress toward the elimination of the sexual oppression which has been so ingrained in business and other areas of life.  And if we are able to remove the racism found in different degrees in all races, this would be wonderful, too.

But, how can we feel superior to the Confederate States of America?  Certainly, upholding slavery as they did, was a serious evil because it’s contrary to divine law.1 The fact that it reappeared in Europe twice after it had been banned through efforts of the Church in the so-called Dark Ages2 shows how pernicious this abhorrent practice has been throughout history (including by some northwest American Indian tribes before Columbus’ arrival3). 

We can eliminate vestiges of the Confederacy all we want, but it won’t cleanse us of the moral responsibility of our own great evil:  Abortion.

To rationalize its practice is a grievous affront to the same divine law which requires us to condemn slavery.  The dignity of all human life must be upheld.  Besides being something no one can own, it cannot be taken except in self defense.4   As we remove those statues which are believed to legitimize slavery, we must also remove those images from public squares and museums which remind us of those who support infanticide and other unjustified killings.  Margaret Sanger and Presidents Clinton and Obama come to mind immediately.  And it’s a disgrace to elect any person to Congress, especially those claiming to be “Catholic,” who professes support for “reproductive rights.”

Perhaps they’re trying to disprove the movie quote:  “Nobody ever invented a polite word for a killing yet.”5  In doesn’t matter, those  with well-formed consciences will see through it.

Let’s purify our present before we try to decontaminate ourselves of past generations’ wrongs.

1 – “As the ninth century dawned, Bishop Agobard of Lyon thundered:  ‘All men are brothers, all invoke one same Father, God: the slave and the master, the poor and the rich man, the ignorant and the learned, the weak and the strong…. None has been raised above the other …. There is no… slave or free but in all things and always there is only Christ.’q  Soon, no one ‘doubted that slavery in itself was against divine law.’b” Taken from Pierre Bonnassie (“From Slavery to Feudalism  in South-Western Europe, Cambridge University Press, 1991, 54) and Marc Bloch (“Slavery and Serfdom in the Middle Ages, University of California Press, 1975, 11) in “Bearing False Witness,” by Rodney Stark, Templeton Press, 2016, page 82.  

2 – “But the very first time slavery was eliminated anywhere in the world was not during the Renaissance or the Enlightenment.  It was during the Dark Ages.  And it was accomplished by clever Church leaders who first extended the sacraments to all slaves, reserving only ordination into the priesthood.  Initially, the implications of Christianization of slaves went unnoticed, but soon the clergy began to argue that no true Christian (or Jew) should be enslaved.  Since slaves were Christians, priests began to urge owners to free their slaves as an ‘infinitely commendable act’ that helped ensure their own salvation.”  Ibid.

3 – Ibid. page 81.

4 – “Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality.  Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life.  Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow…. Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.  The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.  For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.”  From paragraphs 2264 and 2265 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, twenty=fifth printing, November 2013.

5 – By Thelma Ritter’s character of Nurse Stella in the 1954 movie “Rear Window,” directed by Alfred Hitchcock, written by John Michael Hayes based on Cornell Woolrich’s 1942 shirt story, “It Had to Be Murder.”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_Window

Women Are “Hurting and Fearful” of Trump? — What About Babies’ Anxiety Toward “Pro-Choice”?

Featured

Reactions to the defeat of the Left’s darling, Hillary Clinton, are becoming borderline psychotic.Today, the day after Trump’s inauguration, many thousands are protesting in the streets of Washington D.C. because women are “hurting and fearful” of him according to a Fox News report.

True, the new President’s public behavior toward women has been less than gentlemanly in numerous instances over the years.  Such words and actions were unjustifiably commonplace for generations including the early Baby Boomer years.  Could it be that they anticipate Trump would be a greater threat to women in the White House than fellow 1946-born President Clinton and his abuse of women while in office?

Unlikely.  From outward appearances, the Trumps’ marriage is a faithful one, not born out of political expediency.  It is this writer’s opinion that if there were infidelity, Melania would not stand for it and cover it up as others have said Hillary Clinton did for her husband.2, 3

The concern for having Trump in the White House is unreasonable.  What IS reasonable, would be the unborn’s justified fear of the “Pro-Choice” crowd, led by the Clintons, who support of legalized murder via Roe v. Wade.  Chemical death and/or dismemberment are the ultimate abuse.  Protecting those who hide behind the shield of a Supreme court decision as flawed as the Dred Scott decision4, is the reality that none of the targeted victims will ever be able to have their own protest march for the nation to see.  That is something to be upset about.

 

 

1 – “Psychotic disorders are a group of serious illnesses that affect the mind. They make it hard for someone to think clearly, make good judgments, respond emotionally, communicate effectively, understand reality, and behave appropriately.

“When symptoms are severe, people with psychotic disorders have trouble staying in touch with reality and often are unable to handle daily life. But even severe psychotic disorders usually can be treated.”  http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/mental-health-psychotic-disorders#1

2 – “Here’s The Story On The Bill Clinton Rape Allegation,” by Jonathan Cohn and Ryan Grim, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-clinton-broaddrick_us_57fae930e4b0e655eab54dee, 10/16/2016.

3 – “A Brief History Of Juanita Broaddrick, The Woman Accusing Bill Clinton Of Rape,” by Eydar Peralta, http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/497291071/a-brief-history-of-juanita-broaddrick-the-woman-accusing-bill-clinton-of-rape, 10/9/2016.

4 – “In March 1857, in one of the most controversial events preceding the American Civil War (1861-65), the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford. The case had been brought before the court by Dred Scott, a slave who had lived with his owner in a free state before returning to the slave state of Missouri.  Scott argued that his time spent in these locations entitled him to emancipation.  In his decision, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, a staunch supporter of slavery, disagreed: The court found that no black, free or slave, could claim U.S. citizenship, and therefore blacks were unable to petition the court for their freedom.  The Dred Scott decision incensed abolitionists and heightened North-South tensions, which would erupt in war just three years later.”  http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/dred-scott-case

Liberals Should Be in Favor of Sanctuary Cities for the Innocent Unborn

Featured

The mayors of two sanctuary cities, Chicago and San Francisco, have spoken recently about continuing to defy federal law when Trump takes office.

Rahm Emanuel of Chicago: “Now, administrations may change, but our values and principles as it relates to inclusion does not.” and Ed Lee of San Francisco: “Being a sanctuary city, for me, is the DNA of San Francisco.”1,2

Granted, it becomes a matter of compassion and practicality to even consider trying to deport all “illegals.”  HOWEVER, these cities create an indefensible morality of their own when they also fail to detain undocumenteds with criminal records:

“In a recent column published in the Omaha World-Herald, Michelle Root called on the Nebraska legislature to bar sanctuary city policies that allowed a drunk illegal alien driver to kill her 21-year old daughter, Sarah, on January 31.
Prosecutors reported that the 19-year-old was charged with motor vehicular homicide, but was released on just a $5,000 bond – and then quickly disappeared.”3

And it’s not a recent phenomenon (12 years ago):

“In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law.
The LAPD’s ban on immigration enforcement mirrors bans in immigrant-saturated cities around the country, from New York and Chicago to San Diego, Austin, and Houston. These ‘sanctuary policies’ generally prohibit city employees, including the cops, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities.”4

—  With all of this “compassion” in opposition to federal laws which protect the innocent, the next natural step would be for these rogue cities to stop the killing of unborn babies who have not broken any laws!… You’re right.  No chance of that in this upside-down culture.

 
1 – “Mayor says Chicago will ‘always be a sanctuary city’ in face of deportation threats,” by http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/15/mayor-says-chicago-will-always-be-sanctuary-city-in-face-deportation-threats.html, 11/15/2016.

2 – “Mayor Lee: SF will remain sanctuary city despite Trump presidency,” by Michael Barba, http://www.sfexaminer.com/mayor-lee-sf-will-remain-sanctuary-city-despite-trump-presidency/, 11/10/2016.

3 – “Illegal aliens in sanctuary cities getting away with murder,” by Chad Groening, http://www.onenewsnow.com/national-security/2016/11/10/illegal-aliens-in-sanctuary-cities-getting-away-with-murder, 11/10/2016.4 – “The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave,” http://www.city-journal.org/html/illegal-alien-crime-wave-12492.html, winter 2004.

4 – “The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave,” http://www.city-journal.org/html/illegal-alien-crime-wave-12492.html, winter 2004.

Parallel: Overlooking a Candidate’s Stand on Abortion or Concentration Camps

“Litmus test” issues have been denigrated by the press for so long that most citizens are reluctant to suggest that some legitimate ones exist.

There is one foundational right without which all other rights cannot emanate.  It is one which the Supreme Court tied itself in knots in 1973 using bizarre logic regarding privacy to take away the Right to Life and legalize abortion.

Without protecting life at its very beginning, every other cause is irrelevant.

“It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop.” –Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life1

A certain way to raise a liberal’s ire is to say a particular judge should not be considered for the Supreme Court unless he/ she is pro-life.  They would rail against such a “litmus test.”

But suppose a candidate for Congress was asked for an opinion about the concentration camps in Germany during World War II.  What would the Left say if that individual passed on that by saying those killing camps were the business of the Germans and we should not have taken a stance at that time because their legal system allowed it?  Would the secular news channels have enough hours in a broadcasting day to declare that this candidate was unqualified?

Both the right to life and concentration camp issues are legitimate “litmus tests.”  It defies logic that only the second one is acceptable.  The only conclusion which can be drawn is that, to most “progressives”, all lives are not created equal.

 

1http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/living-the-gospel-of-life.cfm

 

Send Planned Parenthood Federal Funds to Help the Fight Against Zika

Many debates have surprisingly simple resolutions if we would just step back and identify the priorities.  We would often find that two supposedly separate issues can easily be merged into one solution.

Such is the case of the Senate battle involving a bill to fund research in the fight against the Zika virus. Democrats are currently fighting it because, while the bill would allocate $40 million to community health centers to assist in this endeavor, it does not send funds to one of the Democrats’ favorite social agenda provider, Planned Parenthood.1

Their support for the organization which kills 300,000 unborn babies annually is legendary.2  In a way, it’s not surprising that they are willing to hinder Zika research in favor of one of their pet projects.

Their argument is that Planned Parenthood can provide contraception which would prevent the creation of any babies which might display the damage caused by Zika.  However, those willing to accept the use of artificial means to prevent conception do not have to be reliant on Planned Parenthood.

Step  Back  to  See  the  Resolution

The debate can be boiled down to two aspects.  On one hand, we have a potential health calamity which has numerous health impacts including birth defects.  On the other, we have an organization which receives $500 million in federal subsidies annually and whose primary mission/ source of income is the indiscriminate killing of unborn babies.

This becomes simple:  stop giving the $500 million of taxpayer money to the killing organization and apply it to the $1+ billion needed to prevent the suffering of babies and their families as a result of the Zika virus.

Sure, we’ll hear how Planned Parenthood might not be applying the $500 million directly to abortions.  But what this subsidy does is free their other financial assets to the killing processes and go to the bottom line of the anti-life organization.

Not convinced?  Here’s an analogy.  Suppose there’s a Senate bill written to fund orphanages, especially those who have children with special needs.  In this theoretical case, let’s say the Mafia also had a medical arm through which it launders money via medical device companies.

Would these pro-Planned Parenthood individuals be willing to allocate federal funds to these Mafia-sponsored medical companies. After all, the money is not going directly to their criminal activities.

Does anyone NOT see the serious moral problems with such an arrangement?3

Case closed, no federal funds for any organization engaged in first-degree killing regardless of the other activities it may be involved with.

 

 

1 – “Finally, and probably most importantly, Senate Democrats are upset that the Zika appropriations bill does not allocate funding for Planned Parenthood, arguing that it leaves women without care options. But, that’s not true. The bill allocates $40 million for community health centers that are more plentiful and offer a wider range of care, plus $6 million for the National Health Service Corps and $95 million to the Social Services Grant Program that can distribute funds for preventive care to the most at-risk areas. It is simply not the job of the federal government to fund the nation’s largest abortion provider, and it is unconscionable that Senate Democrats would block funding aimed to help protect pregnant women and babies because their friends at Planned Parenthood don’t get a cut.”  “Roby: Democrats are blocking Zika funding because Planned Parenthood doesn’t get a cut,” by Martha Roby, http://yellowhammernews.com/politics-2/roby-democrats-blocking-zika-funding , 8/7/2016.

2 – “Planned Parenthood performed 323,999 abortions and received $553.7 million from U.S. taxpayers during the 2014-2015 fiscal year, according to its most recent annual report.”

“Although it saw 200,000 less patients and provided 11 percent fewer services than the previous year, its taxpayer subsidy increased by nearly $25 million.”

“Abortions are down from 2013, when the industry performed 327,653 abortions.”The stability of Planned Parenthood’s abortion count – between 324,000 and 334,000 since 2008 – is remarkable, given that national figures for abortions have been in a nosedive since 2008,” the National Right to Life Committee noted. ‘They have dropped 13 percent in just three years.’”  From “Planned Parenthood reveals its 2014 stats: 323,999 abortions, $553.7 million from US taxpayers, by Ben Johnson, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planned-parenthood-performed-323999-abortions-and-received-553.7-million-fr, 1/4/2016.

3 – Here come the objections! “Abortion is legal.” Concentration camps in Nazi Germany were legal, too… So much for blind faith in fallible human court systems.

News Flash, Pro-Choice: We Don’t Own Our Bodies, Including the Unborn

The longstanding argument rationalizing the killing of the unborn is the presumption that it solely involves the woman’s body and she can do with it whatever she wants.

Two errors here.  First of all, the chromosomes of the baby prove that a second, unique individual is also present.  Therefore, it’s not just about the woman’s body.

Secondly, we are only stewards of our bodies, not the ultimate masters of them.

“Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him.  It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life.  We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls.  We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us.  It is not ours to dispose of.”1

“The Torah states that the human body was created Bi’tzelem Elokim, in the image of God, and is the property of the Creator.  Man is given custodial rights to his body, and has no more right to harm or destroy his body than the superintendent has to ransack the building he is hired to maintain…”
“By extension a physician may not hasten the death of a patient, not only because of his duty to preserve life, but because he has no right to destroy the property of another, in this case God… Because one’s body is not his property…”2

Consequently, suggesting that we own ourselves is a position which cannot be held by those who hold to Judeo-Christian traditions.

 

1 – Paragraph 2280 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing; November, 2013.

2 – “Sanctity of the Human Body,” by Daniel Eisenberg, MD.  http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48960576.html