I Am Not a Rug!
July 29, 2014

The World Wildlife Fund has been placing billboard ads all over America. One of the most attention grabbing is a close-up of a tiger’s face. The tag line is quite simple: “I am not a rug.”

According to the WWF website, these tigers are in danger of extinction. The text reads: “Every part of the tiger—from whisker to tail—is traded in illegal wildlife markets. Poaching is the most immediate threat to wild tigers. In relentless demand, their parts are used for traditional medicine, folk remedies, and increasingly as a status symbol in some Asian cultures.” The WWF depicts the practices that endanger such tigers as inhumane, and its campaign receives a wildly amazing amount of financial support, as do most animal rights groups.

When I first saw the billboards, a tragic thought crossed my mind. It occurred to me that the pitiful eyes of endangered or abused animals appear to be the sort of thing that tugs at the heartstrings of many Americans. Advocates of the organization describe the violent actions against such animals as vicious, violent, and unbelievable. But when it comes to a preborn baby, there is no such reaction. On the contrary, Americans demonstrate with picket signs in favor of killing children. The majority of Americans actually support the killing. Of course, such folks do not consider abortion to be an act of murder, but rather one choice on the cafeteria line that may be selected by the pregnant woman. This is why abortion advocates never say the words “expectant mother.” These two words would give away the undeniable fact that, when a woman is pregnant, she already is a mother! And that is a truth no properly indoctrinated abortion advocate would ever want to admit!

Planned Parenthood and others in the abortion business argue not that the act takes the life of a fellow human being, but rather that aborting your child may be the best “choice” for you. At the very least, it is an “option” when you are deciding what to do about a pregnancy!

Here rests the dichotomy between the advertising that engenders sympathy for the tiger that could become a rug and the public apathy toward the preborn human being who is not even thought of as a fellow human being. The wild animal would seem to have a corner on human emotion, whereas the preborn child is just an “issue” that should be dealt with either in a positive or a negative way. The emotion appears to be absent for many, if not most, of us.

Perhaps this is why academics seriously discuss whether or not animals like the tiger noted above should actually be granted the status of having “personhood,” whereas human babies who are not yet born don’t seem to garner the same level of support when it comes to their protection as persons deserving of equal rights under the law. 

And it is not only academics who pose such arguments, but the common man as well—including the fellow who suggested that Fido is a “person” too.

Far be it from me to suggest that every animal rights activist should take a time out. They have every right to argue their case, as do the hundreds of thousands who argue for the rights of the innocent human being prior to birth. It’s just that, while it does happen that a tiger can become a rug, it should never happen that a person could become a piece of trash. 

Human beings are created in the image and likeness of God. Each individual is unique and has an unrepeatable DNA code at his creation; he is a message from God that He loves all of us equally and eternally.

Why can’t our fellow Americans get that? 

God forbid that the day might come when there would never be another tiger skin rug produced, but there would be more babies killed by inhumane acts of abortion than there are babies who are born alive.

It’s time to stop the destruction of the human race! 

Click the button to subscribe to the American Life League Podcast in iTunes.

God Is Not Welcome Here
July 25, 2014


“A small error in the beginning leads to a multitude of errors in the end”Aristotle, De Coelo 

The small error in this case is the assumption made long ago by the members of the United States Supreme Court that they had the power to play God. First, the court ignored the science on the subject of how birth control chemicals work and removed all barriers to the sale of such drugs. 

Next, the court chose to relegate certain human beings into the category of trash, ignoring scientific facts and dismissing anyone prior to birth as nothing more than tissue mass. This is how the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions came to be decided.

Since then, the small errors have become one enormous abyss of evil.

Today, for example, Planned Parenthood in York, Pennsylvania, tells women that medically induced abortions are not abortions at all. They are “voluntary miscarriages.” Such blatant lies are nothing new at Planned Parenthood, but the arrogance of such comments is indicative of what happens when a culture loses respect for the Creator of the human person.

At the same time man’s embrace of technology can literally control when and how a pregnancy actually occurs, we see yet another arena where the public remains unaware of the small errors such “experts” are passing off as credible scientific advancement. For example, the business of females donating their eggs so that other women might become pregnant has become dangerous to the babies that come to be as well as their mothers. One recent clinical study exposes the fact that, “Women who become pregnant using donated eggs have at least three times the risk of developing serious complications.” The article continues, “Such cases are four times as likely to suffer pre-eclampsia and have a threefold risk of high blood pressure in pregnancy.”

Did God intend that women who produce eggs in their fallopian tubes during their fertile time make a decision to donate those eggs for the use of others? Of course not! This is about as far from the natural design for procreation as the idea that, by using surrogate mothers, two people of the same sex can adopt a child into their “family.” 

On this subject Elise Hilton writes

We have no business being in the baby business. Surrogacy harms women and children. While surrogacy may appear to be altruistic, its bottom line is money. Rather than being a “perfect solution” for infertile or gay couples who desire a child (or heaven forbid, a woman who wants a baby but also wants to keep her size 0 figure), it takes what should be a moment of co-creation with God and turns it into a business transaction. It preys on the most vulnerable: the infertile, the poor, the baby, taking a family relationship and creating a contractual obligation. Babies aren’t business.

So the question is, where will this end? When will the abyss of deception finally be exposed and eliminated? 

Our culture is ill, having drifted further and further from God and His plan for each of His children. This erosion has taken decades. Today the result is as clear as the crystal blue waters of the Caribbean. 

Man has become his own god. 

In the process of his ascent to power over life and death, man has devolved into a sea of selfish interests and instant gratification. The law has followed suit and embraced this in ways we could never have imagined. This is why today we legally protect the killing of babies, the maiming of expectant mothers, the degenerate same-sex lifestyle, and the clinical manipulation of human beings. When will this end?

It will end when God is once again welcome.


Click the button to subscribe to the American Life League Podcast in iTunes.

The Not-So-Great British Influence
July 22, 2014

Many who refer to the British homeland call it Great Britain. But in various cultural ways, the country could be described as anything but great.

Just prior to Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to England in 2010, Edmund Adamus, the director of pastoral affairs for the Diocese of Westminster, said in an interview:

Whether we like it or not as British citizens and residents of this country—and whether we are even prepared as Catholics to accept this reality and all it implies—the fact is that historically, and continuing right now, Britain, and in particular London, has been and is the geopolitical epicenter of the culture of death. 

Our laws and lawmakers for over 50 years or more have been the most permissively anti-life and progressively anti-family and marriage, in essence one of the most anti-Catholic landscapes culturally speaking than even those places where Catholics suffer open persecution.

Following on the heels of the Adamus interview, Edward Pentin wrote a complete analysis of Britain’s involvement in sanctioning deadly acts against the innocent, stating

When it comes to core life issues, ones that concern the most weak and vulnerable, Britain has an enormous blind spot. Why this is so was neatly summed up by Robert Moynihan, publisher of Inside the Vatican, in a recent e-mail bulletin. “Great Britain is the home of utilitarianism, of a pragmatic, problem-solving, technological view of human affairs,” he wrote. Justice and generosity, he added, are “secondary” to “the main business” of life, which, in the utilitarian view, is business.

And, indeed, the rush toward abusing human beings continues to be problematic in that nation. Just this past week, the British House of Lords debated Lord Falconer’s assisted dying proposal—a bill that would allow “medical complicity in suicide.” Lord Falconer’s proposal is supported by various pro-euthanasia groups in England, and has the support of a growing number of prominent individuals as well. As of this past Friday, the bill has moved one step closer to passage. 

The New Law Journal analyzed the impact this proposed change in British law would have, pointing out, 

The sick, the terminally ill, and the disabled are invariably the first to be regarded as proper subjects for medically assisted suicide. The logic of active euthanasia endangers the vulnerable by inviting one of the gravest of crimes in law. The practice undermines the dignity of those who may indeed be a burden.

Once enshrined in law, the practice invariably involves a move towards the elimination of those who have not asked to be killed, those who are unwanted, those who are lonely and low-income (KNMG Dutch Physicians Guidelines, position paper, 23 June 2011), and those whose deaths offer some advantage to third parties controlling the process. It does so because it involves a radically altered mindset.

Clearly the drive toward assisted suicide, or as some accurately call it, medical homicide, seems to be picking up steam. 

Thankfully, disability rights activist Mark Pickup sees through this onslaught of legislative maneuvers in Britain, and in our nation as well. He recently wrote about Baroness Grey-Thompson’s vocal opposition to the Falconer proposal while reminding us once again that the ultimate question, regardless of which nation is addressing ways to legally protect killing, is “whether every life is equally valued and worthy of protection, nurture, and care even at the end of life.” 

The conflict in the not-so-great Great Britain is the very same one America faces again and again and again. In truth, the instant we decriminalized aborting a child in America 41 years ago our nation began the identical decline to that in Britain. The solution is the same—stop the legal killing of the innocent! 

In view of such calamitous challenges, we are obligated to press on. So let us pray for our British comrades in this struggle as well as pro-life soldiers the world over. Never surrender, never tire of teaching truth, and never stop thanking God for our commitment in these dire times and always.


Click the button to subscribe to the American Life League Podcast in iTunes.

Wireless Birth Control Is No Fantasy
July 18, 2014

Recent reports announcing the era of remote-control contraception herald the very real but slightly horrifying prospects for the future for those who believe that man can literally transform himself into a machine. This phenomenon is known as the cult of transhumanism.

One news report calls the remote dispensation of contraception “creepy.” Another explains how this may come to fruition: “A challenge from Bill Gates two years ago has put science on the cusp of a revolutionary, remote-controlled method of birth control.”

Technology Review says the wireless implant, if approved for safety and efficacy, could make it possible for a woman to turn her birth control on and off at will by using a remote-control device. The implanted chip contains the chemical levonorgestrel—the same ingredient in Plan B One-Step (emergency contraception). So a woman would literally be able to abort children by remote control.

CBS News states, “The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed funding to a preclinical trial on a user-controlled microchip that can effectively prevent unwanted pregnancies for up to 16 years. The futuristic birth control method could make it to the general market as early as 2018.”

Upon hearing of this latest Gates Foundation venture, Professor Dianne Irving sent this comment to her e-mail list on July 10:

Well, if Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” is accurate, then the majority of women today who succumb to this “remote contraceptive” lure for “family planning” being promoted by MIT will be rendered infertile, thus significantly reducing the number of such women in the future. Have to give Bill Gates “credit” for advancing this creative eugenics pop control agenda—especially for women in Third World countries. And while “chemical” control is bad enough, what happens when someone else gains physical access to the woman’s remote control??? Human traffickers and rejected former lovers rejoice!

This valuable insight should give each of us pause. The truth of the matter is that even among Catholic communities, there are growing numbers of men and women—young and old—who have never heard Catholic teaching on contraception, do not understand why the Church defines it as evil, and consistently balk at being told the truth. Catholics like these have no problem with the government mandating taxpayers like you and me to pay for contraception. 

This is but one reason why it may well come to pass that this latest freaky discovery may grow into something so popular that the negative effects it is destined to have will be noted too late. 

On the other hand, SALON’s Sarah Gray cautions that, as of today, 

There are, of course, large kinks to work out before this could become a viable contraceptive method (not including political battles over birth control). A commenter on MIT Technology Review worries about who could potentially control such a device without the woman’s consent. It is a rather scary prospect.

The chips would need all sorts of encryption to protect data and keep the device safe from hackers. As technology entwines itself more and more within the fabric of our being—quite literally in this case—we must tread carefully, especially in terms of health.

Time will tell whether or not the transition of the human being from human to a combination of human and machine will really overtake mankind. 

Transhumanists are prepared for this future. We must not forget these wise words written by Linda Kimball: 

Transhumanism is a powerfully influential planetary “elite” movement that believes man can begin a radical transfiguration of himself by merging his brain with technology with the long term goal of eventually transferring his “essence” out of his decaying body and into a highly advanced robo-machine.

Kimball concludes, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell chose it.”

And that is absolutely no fantasy!


Click the button to subscribe to the American Life League Podcast in iTunes.

Modern Day Eugenics
July 15, 2014

Refresher course: What is eugenics

Eugenics is the study of methods to improve the human race by controlling reproduction. The word was coined in 1883 by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. Galton believed that the proper evolution of the human race was thwarted by philanthropic outreach to the poor: Misguided charity encouraged the “unfit” to bear more children. This upset the mechanism of natural selection. Hence, the human race needed a kind of artificial selection, which he called “eugenics,” from Greek for good birth. Galton wanted eugenics to develop from a science to a policy and finally into a religion.

A few years ago Wesley J. Smith reviewed a book by Christine Rosen entitled Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement. Her book details how Galton’s desire to redefine eugenics as religion was not at all far-fetched. Smith writes: 

Many lay popularizers of eugenics also appealed to religious traditions to promote their agenda. The most notable, it seems, was Albert Edward Wiggam, who traveled the lecture circuit promoting eugenics as “the final program for the complete Christianization of mankind.” Wiggam even rewrote the Ten Commandments, in which “The Duty of Eugenics” replaced “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” The “Duty of Scientific Research” supplanted the proscription against making graven images, while the “Duty of Preferential Reproduction” replaced “Thou shalt not kill.”

Wiggam lived in the 1920s, so his proposed update of the Ten Commandments cannot really be viewed as ancient history. As a matter of fact, things are happening today to suggest that Wiggam’s dreams are coming true.

Let’s consider Australian Researcher Culum Brown, who wants to see human beings include fish in “our moral circle.” According to one report, his opinion is that fish “build complex structures, are capable of using tools, and use the same methods for keeping track of quantities as humans do.” He suggests that since fish are second only to mice for scientific research projects, something must change. 

Or, to paraphrase eugenicist Wiggam, man shalt not use fish in scientific research! 

The practice of in vitro fertilization can, in some ways, also be defined as the practice of eugenics. IVF expert Lord Winston recently warned, “Breakthroughs in IVF could ‘threaten our humanity’ by prompting parents to demand designer babies.” He further claimed in a recent interview that “a ‘toxic’ climate had been created by the desperation of childless couples and the pace of scientific developments in the booming IVF industry.”

In plain English, Winston is referring to the desire of some potential parents to ensure that their baby is a made-to-order version of their specific desires. This practice exemplifies a current-day version of purification of the human race. This is the practice of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). It is applied to preborn babies after IVF creation of embryos and prior to the clinician implanting them in the mother. Imperfect babies are discarded. These babies are nothing more than human waste.

As the article about Winston asserts, “The hugely controversial theory of eugenics suggests that humans can be improved by preventing people with supposedly undesirable qualities or genetic defects from reproducing.”

The same could be said about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. “Melinda Gates and her partners, including the British government and the world’s largest abortion providers, have launched a $4 billion campaign to push birth control onto poor women in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.” 

And when did Gates announce this? At none other than the 100th anniversary of the London’s first International Eugenics Conference in 2012.

This is no coincidence! Eugenics is alive and well! 

For further reading on this issue, see http://www.truthandcharityforum.org/physician-assisted-suicide-from-dominion-over-human-procreation-to-the-right-to-die/.

<—Click the button to subscribe to the American Life League Podcast in iTunes.