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!
NEW VATICAN INSTRUCTION ON BIOETHICS: ‘DIGNITAS PERSONAE’ Posted: Friday December 12, 2008 at 3:47 pm EST by Judie Brown
American Life League is grateful to the Vatic an Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for today’s release of its new document, Instruction Dignitas Personaeon Certain Bioethical Questions. While we are concerned that the document does not clarify the word “conception” immediately after the first time it is used, upon reading further, we do appreciate the fact that the Vatican has made it clear that “conception,” as used in this document, refers to all human beings irrespective of the method of reproduction employed. The clarification is evident in the document’s language, though not explicitly stated at the outset. For example, in Section 5, the document states,
Indeed, the reality of the human being for the entire span of life, both before and after birth, does not allow us to posit either a change in nature or a gradation in moral value, since it possesses full anthropological and ethical status (emphasis added). The human embryo has, therefore, from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person.
On the subject of embryo adoption, with reference to those thousands upon thousands of human embryonic children who are currently living in a frozen state, the Vatican has set forth an honest answer to this most tragic situation. In Section 19, the document states,
All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved (emphasis added). Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons.”
While it is heartbreaking to realize the truth of this statement, it is yet another reason why American Life League will work with diligence to assure personhood for these and all innocent human beings.
We would be remiss if we did not quote from the document yet again, to remind our fellow Americans that the entire practice of embryo reduction, based on “quality control” notions, is indeed a heinous crime and a violation of the rights due to each innocent embryonic child. In Section 21, the document states,
From the ethical point of view, embryo reduction is an intentional selective abortion (emphasis added). It is in fact the deliberate and direct elimination of one or more innocent human beings in the initial phase of their existence and as such it always constitutes a grave moral disorder.
We are grateful as well that the Vatican has drawn attention to the “interceptive” and “contragestative” actions of many so-called contraceptive chemicals and devices, making it crystal clear that “the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral” (emphasis added).
The document Dignitas Personae is a welcome statement that clarifies, in nearly all cases, the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the human person, his identity, his value and his integrity.
I'm not Catholic, but this is great!
Chantell Chantell | December 12, 2008
Mrs. Brown,
I understand that the creation of the embryo by in-vitro fertilization is immoral, but I have difficulty understanding why the embryo cannot be adopted by a married man and woman. Do you understand that it is the Church's teaching in this document that the embryo is to forever remain in liquid nitrogen, or must rescuers develop an artificial womb so that the embryo can grow to infancy? I find the situation similar to war: the Church teaches that murder is wrong, but killing does take place when one is defending one's self against an aggressor. Do you think the frozen embryo presents "an exceptional situation"?
Thank you for your pro-life work. Paul Bergeron | December 13, 2008
Dear Paul
As you know, I have been an advocate of embryo adoption, but frankly, when I sit down and think through what this new document states, I am left agreeing with it.
I would have to say, in all honesty, that based on the text of Donum Vitae, which is now 21 years old, there is nothing else that the Vatican could say on this subject. First and foremost, though the world waxes cold to it, the truth is that IVF is gravely immoral and unethical. What the practice has literally created is a mentality of farming children in order to weed out the undesirables, have spares in waiting in case a cycle fails and so forth. This commodification of children has led, as the Holy Father said years ago, to a grave injustice. Now that this document has come out, there will be complaints about what it states regarding the fate of these embryonic children, but the real question is why are they there? Why were they produced/manufactured? The answers to those questions support the Church teaching that IVF should never be practiced. IF society had listened to the Church years ago, this question would not now be upon us.
Each of those frozen embryos is a person; each deserves to be taken home by their own parents and each deserves to have a home, that is, if they survive the thawing process.
What's wrong with their parents? These parents have indeed orphaned their own children because their self interest has been satisfied and, to my mind, they could care less about their children yet to be welcomed into the family, yet to be given a chance at life. This is not the Church's fault.
This is the result of a cultural attitude that denigrates the worth and dignity of the being. The plight of these embryonic children must be addressed by their parents.
JUNK JARGON Posted: Thursday December 11, 2008 at 3:17 pm EST by Judie Brown
Contemporary sloganeering, coupled with biased reporting, is a sure recipe for misinformation. Recent writings prove the point far better than I ever could on my own.
This article is not about scenes outside abortion mills where clients are trampling each other in order to be first in line to kill their baby. The reporter is writing about actual traffic in the streets and the accidents that occur when vehicles collide with each other or immovable objects such as telephone poles. The report tells us, "Nearly a million children worldwide die every year as a result of unintentional injuries, and the biggest killer is traffic accidents, according to a report from the World Health Organization."
This report is erroneous. The number of children murdered by abortion worldwide every year numbers more than 50 million! This fact should be, overwhelmingly, the top news story worldwide. But lest we forget, in order for that to occur, reporters would have to recognize preborn children as persons rather than political issues or blobs of cells.
This refusal to face reality is revealed repeatedly in the language of abortion proponents. When the New York Times published letters responding to Ross Douthat's commentary, "Abortion Politics Didn't Doom the G.O.P.", we glimpsed how our foes cower behind cute phrases and idiotic words.
One Connecticut woman writes, "The leaders of the anti-choice movement need to understand that pro-choice Republicans are not absolutists."
Oh my, what a grand buffet of slippery slogans in that line! All of a sudden, defenders of human beings, each of whom should have an equal right to life outside the womb as well as inside are labeled "anti-choice." The reason is clear: Those who are "pro-choice" are the good guys, even though the choice to which she refers is the decision to execute an innocent human being simply because of where he resides at the moment.
Such nonsense should make Americans think twice about how the pro-aborts' twisted logic works, but first they would have to think. That seems to be an entirely different problem for far too many, even among our friends. But I digress.
The lady from the Constitution State tells the readers that pro-abort Republicans "are not absolutists," and she support her thesis by citing polls that, she claims, show that most Republicans and pro-life voters believe "the issue of abortion should be decided by a woman, not the government." In other words, the fate of an innocent person should be left in the hands of his mother, not the law of the land.
That might be true in a sane society, but in America, there is now a ravenous desire to kill that which is inconvenient, so her statement flies in the face of what we know is true.
In the same letters column, another commentator writes, "An unexpected, unwanted pregnancy can be mentally, emotionally and physically devastating for a woman. It can be a financial catastrophe (more than half of all teenage mothers end up on welfare) and can result in a woman's death. Exactly which part of this agonizing ordeal is Ross Douthat willing to compromise on?"
Notice the emphasis on the negative once again. But this time it is the child himself who becomes unacceptable. Any time I see the phrase "unplanned" or "unwanted" pregnancy, I immediately wonder quite the opposite of what this New Yorker is telling her fellow readers. I wonder why the supporters of abortion are so fearful of using the accurate terms that apply to pregnancy, such as "child in the womb," "baby" and "mother." It would seem that those words stir feelings of indignation and rage in such people, rather than helping them see, through the eyes of reason, that their perspective is in error. Funny how such simple truths can make a pro-abort come unglued, isn't it?
But you cannot deceive the public if you choose your words honestly, so that accurate visions of motherhood and children come into focus. Why else would someone describe a little baby as a "financial catastrophe" or his mere existence as a possible threat to life and limb?
Fear tactics are the framework in which pro-abortion logic works best. This is why a mother who is experiencing pregnancy at a time in her life when she least expected it is frequently described as a woman with a crisis pregnancy, rather than an expectant mother in need of support – be it emotional, spiritual, financial or all three. Why muddy the waters with reality?
But the most outrageous line in Ms. Herzmansky's letter, hands-down, is this one: "President-elect Barack Obama and the Supreme Court must continue to protect the lives of women by maintaining pro-choice laws. On this there can be no compromise."
Never mind what might happen if the president-elect and the Supreme Court justices chose to protect every single human being's life! Don't think about the possibility of these political powers finally telling parents that it is their moral obligation to accept responsibility for their decision to become sexually involved and choose life for the children they have indeed procreated themselves. God forbid that the nation would witness return to civility after the barbarism of the past 35 years.
"No compromise," says she. Well on that, we agree. The only difference is that we will never compromise the truth; we will never settle for death, and we will never manipulate words, scientific facts or Christian principles to achieve victory.
American Life League exists specifically to insist on personhood, and that is why we will not condone, agree to or otherwise buy into any proposal that omits even one baby from the total protection that each and every human being deserves.
No compromise, no apologies and, most importantly, no junk jargon. We speak the truth, and sooner or later, the people will listen.
Dear Judie, you respond well to the pro-abort letters at this site. The one pro-life letter, from Michael J. Burke, expresses my voting rationale. David Volk | December 11, 2008
'EMBRYOS ON ICE' … AND OTHER ABSURDITIES Posted: Wednesday December 10, 2008 at 3:56 pm EST by Judie Brown
Of all the now familiar terms we have seen and heard applied to preborn children, perhaps the most heartless is "Embryos on ice." While the term was coined by a Raleigh, North Carolina News & Observer reporter covering fertility clinics, the idea reappeared just a few days ago in a New York Times article entitled "Parents Torn Over Fate of Frozen Embryos."
The underlying idea in both articles is that parents are faced with a dilemma involving "extra" embryos that were not needed for the in vitro fertilization procedure they underwent in order to have a child. These parents – loving and well meaning, I am sure – have unwittingly contributed to the ongoing growth of the culture of death by agreeing with the hypothesis that there are embryonic children who are somehow less human than those who were implanted in their mom and brought to term. It is as if there are some embryonic children who are really children and others who are not.
In the News & Observer article, published in July 2007, Tim and Kelly Jo Vancelette had embryos created to "start a family when they could not conceive on their own." In 2004, their twins, conceived through IVF, were born. Subsequently, "the Vancelettes were faced with an increasingly common dilemma: what to do with their unused embryos." The report states,
Their choices are limited. With a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, they have few avenues for scientific donations. They could give the fertilized eggs to another couple, they could have the embryos destroyed, or they could freeze them.
For now, they're freezing them. The Vancelettes think they may want one more child, though they probably won't need five embryos for that.
Faced with a similar dilemma, the Bests, featured by the New York Times, are perplexed. The report states,
Although the couple, who live in Brentwood, Tenn., have known for years that they wanted no more children, deciding what to do with the extra embryos has been a dilemma. He would have them discarded; she cannot.
"There is no easy answer," said Ms. Best, a nurse. "I can't look at my twins and not wonder sometimes what the other nine would be like. I will keep them frozen for now. I will search in my heart.'"
Clearly, there is suffering, in one way or another, for those parents facing the very same questions that these two couples are facing. Perhaps they hoped IVF would be a magic bullet and that they could somehow resolve this quandary without paying dearly, both emotionally and spiritually. No matter how they deal with their embryonic children who were not fortunate enough to be chosen for possible birth, a difficult decision will have to be made.
But what disturbs many of us most of all is the manner in which these children are discussed, even by their parents. It is difficult to conceive of a mother who could reflect on her entire family and not be torn, at some level, by the reality of her babies left in a sort of cryogenic limbo.
It is my humble opinion that regardless of the praise that many, even in the Catholic community, give to the "miracle" of reproductive technologies like in vitro fertilization, there is a dehumanization taking place that is unhealthy for the parents, the children who have been welcomed and the children who may be killed, dissected and killed, or simply left in a tray somewhere to die.
Yes, we are talking about children. We are not talking about "fertilized eggs" or "leftovers" or rejects tossed off an assembly line. Even though the media would like us to think of these children as nothing but cells with no identity and no humanity, we know that quite the opposite is the case.
And what is perhaps most surprising about these parents, according to a recent survey of 1,020 fertility patients at nine clinics, which will be published in the Fertility and Sterility medical journal, is that there is a disconnect – between what they have chosen and what they hope for – that defies logic. The Times reports,
Among patients who wanted no more children, 53 percent did not want to donate their embryos to other couples, mostly because they did not want someone else brining up their children, or did not want their own children to worry about encountering an unknown sibling someday.
Forty-three percent did not want the embryos discarded. About 66 percent said they would be likely to donate the embryos for research, but that option was available at only four of the nine clinics in the survey. Twenty percent said they were likely to keep the embryos frozen forever.
Obviously, some of these parents don't view their embryonic children as "their own children." Perhaps the problem is that among these parents there is a twisted view of when their children are actually children and when they are something less than children. Perhaps they really don't want to face the fact that, regardless of what their future may hold, they are the parents of every one of their children – embryonic and otherwise. Maybe they find it hard to fathom their own decision to suspend some of their children in a time warp.
It is appalling, is it not, that embryonic children are really not perceived as children even by their own parents? I will list but a few of the ideas that arise when researchers and reporters ask the parents what they might do with their "unused" children. Perhaps this list will give you some idea of how incredibly inhumane our culture has become as preborn babies continue to be perceived as property with expiration dates.
• Donate a child.
• Agree to allowing the child's body to be sliced up so a stem cell can be harvested.
• Discard the embryonic child as though he were nothing more than a rotten egg.
• Thaw the child out and watch him die so that he can then be disposed of.
• Have the child placed in the womb during a time in the woman's cycle when she is not likely to become pregnant so the child can die there instead.
Note: I use the word child because that is who we are speaking about, despite the fact that the articles' authors and the parents quoted therein don't use that word when referring to human embryos.
When the Catholic Church issued Donum Vitae (Instruction on Respect for Human Life) in 1987, many decried the document as heartless. To my mind, it is among the most prophetic teachings ever promulgated. I dare not quote it in its entirety here, but I will provide an excerpt that summarizes perfectly what I have just explained to you:
Fertilization is licitly sought when it is the result of a "conjugal act which is per se suitable for the generation of children to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh." But from the moral point of view procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not desired as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say of the specific act of the spouses' union [emphasis in original]…
Such fertilization entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.
This quote exposes the tragedy that is inherent in the medicalized manufacture of embryonic children. In vitro fertilization and other such techniques are not miracles. They are practices that are morally illicit. They are practices that have resulted in the deaths of millions of preborn children whose fate was decided by people who refused to understand that they were in fact sanctioning the murder of human beings with characteristics not unlike their own at the same stage of human development.
Such practices are among the best arguments for personhood . By restoring the legal recognition of personhood to every innocent human being from his beginning, practices such as IVF will cease, because every human embryo will have the very same rights you and I have. Personhood now!
Things like this aren't only horrible, they are ridiculas!
Chantell Chantell | December 10, 2008
Thank you, Judie. Your post helps me appreciate all the more the horror of commonly accepted practices. Also, the beauty and treasure of our Church's wisdom. David Volk | December 11, 2008
An article posted on EWTN's website says, "In a report published at the end of last November, the IPF estimated that at present, abortion has become the leading cause of death in Spain, with 1.2 million deaths since 1985." Imagine, intentional killing is the leading cause of death in a "civilized" society. Where does abortion rank in our country's causes of death? David Volk | December 11, 2008
http://www.ncbcenter.org/FrTad_MSOOB_42.asp
Models other than ours, here in the U.S., exist. David Volk | December 12, 2008
David
The Embryo Protection Law would be a wonderful addition to the legal framework in the United States, but as you know, the argument that these children need protection begs the question of personhood, which thusfar has been denied by lawmakers, judges and the white house.
FATHER JOSEPH ILLO: "GOD REQUIRES THIS OF ME" Posted: Tuesday December 9, 2008 at 2:20 pm EST by Judie Brown
I have been awestruck by the heroic Catholic priests who have asserted Catholic teaching without apology, particularly on the subject of Obama and those Catholics who voted for him. In fact, one might say that there is a new breeze blowing through the Church, and it is so refreshing that I can only pray it becomes a full-force wind.
Father Joseph Illo, pastor of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Modesto, California, first came to my attention the week after Thanksgiving, when someone sent me a live news report about him. The remarkable capacity of the internet makes it possible, as you know, to see the news and listen to it instead of merely reading it. The particular news report I saw was from KDKA in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The accompanying photo caption states, "The Rev. Joseph Illo sent a letter on Nov. 21, 2008, to 17,000 parishioners of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Modesto, Calif., saying those who voted for a pro-abortion candidate on Nov. 4 need to repent."
What I found most interesting about the televised news report was the reporter's claim to have spoken with parishioners who, in her words, said that his message "was not necessarily appropriate"! What?
Rather than commenting on this amazing letter, I am using this column to reprint it so that you can read it for yourself. It is so rich in theology, love of truth and the stuff of which great messages of hope are made. Enjoy it.
Recently I said at Mass: "If you voted for a pro-abortion candidate on November 4, and you knew what you were doing, you need to go to confession before receiving communion." Have I spoken out of turn? I will answer that question, as best as I can, at the end of this letter.
All Catholics have the grave obligation to defend every innocent human life, but in particular the poorest and neediest. Jesus said: "What you did to the least of my brothers and sisters, you did to me." There are many kinds of poor in Stanislaus County. The homeless, the incarcerated, the elderly poor, the infirm and those in nursing homes all need our special love. I am privileged to pastor a parish that lovingly serves all of these types of needy people. But there is an entire class of Americans who are targeted for focused attack, a people with no rights, whose very lives are at the whim of judges and politicians. I of course speak about Americans before they are born. The abortion industry, and our legal system, refuses to recognize the humanity of the human fetus. But if a human fetus is not human, what is it?
We Catholics, and all people of good will and sound reason, must defend the lives of these poorest of the poor. Protecting unborn people from abortion is the defining issue of our time, as constantly clarified by our Church: "Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable," wrote John Paul II in the Gospel of Life (1995). "Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name."
Many Catholics voted for candidates on November 4 who stated clearly that they would promote abortion. President-elect Obama, for example, promised Planned Parenthood that the first thing he would do upon taking office is to sign the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act," which would grant unlimited access to abortion in all 50 states up until the moment of live birth. Many Catholics voted for such pro-abortion candidates thinking that their good positions on other issues, such as the war or health care, outweighed their deplorable stand on abortion. Many discount "one-issue voting," but if the issue is grave enough, no one would object to "one-issue voting." For example, if the issue were legalizing slavery, no one would hesitate to vote against a candidate on this one issue. In fact, this election was a largely one-issue vote anyway, and that issue was the economy. What we Catholics, and all people of sound reason, must understand is that a refusal to protect all human life is a deal-breaker. Abortion is a much graver issue than slavery.
My dear brothers and sisters, I know many were confused about the issues. It is a difficult time for us all, and we are facing new social and cultural issues. Neither have your pastors and bishops spoken clearly and with one voice on these issues. But one thing is clear and certain: we can never vote for a candidate who promises to promote abortion. No one who promotes the killing of unborn people can be entrusted with the public good. "The greatest destroyer of peace in the world today," wrote Mother Teresa, "is abortion." It is not the economy, war, health care, poverty, or terrorism. It is abortion. "Human life," according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception….the inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of civil society and its legislation." In other words, this is a civil rights issue, We have to speak for those who have no voice. We must demand honesty from our public officials, who are clearly dishonest when they pretend that the human fetus is not human.
If you are one of the 54% of Catholics who voted for a pro-abortion candidate, you were clear on his position, and you knew the gravity of the question, I urge you to go to confession before receiving communion. Don't risk losing your state of grace by receiving sacrilegiously. I appeal to your conscience, grounded in Church teaching. To some degree we all have the blood of these children on our hands. I myself have confessed sacramentally, and I confess to you now, that I have not done enough to defend these children. Their blood is on my hands too. We will see them in the next life, and they will ask us why we let them die.
Pope Benedict wrote in 2004 (as Cardinal Ratzinger) that Catholic public officials who "consistently campaign and vote for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws" are guilty of grave evil. If they have been warned to abstain from Holy Communion and persist in promoting abortion, he wrote, "the minister of holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" to them. In
2002 he had written that "a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program … that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals."
If you voted for a pro-abortion candidate, I cannot say for certain if you should refrain from Holy Communion. I don't know what you were thinking. But voting for a candidate, who promises "abortion rights," even if he promises every other good thing, is voting for abortion. It is a grave mistake, and probably a grave sin. No issue can compare with the legalized destruction of a mother's child. I am writing to you because I love you and I care about your relationship with God. I am also writing because God requires this of me as a Catholic priest….
We do not have to settle for "pro-abortion" candidates. We can and must demand that our public officials protect the inalienable right of all Americans to live and flourish. If every Catholic in his district told Congressman Dennis Cardoza, for example, that we support him and most of his policies, but that we will not vote for him unless he defends all human life, he would change his position. All of us Catholics, all people of sound reason and good will, can and must simply require our public officials to act reasonably and responsibly in respect to human life.
If you need to go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, our priests hear confessions on Fridays from 6:30-7:30pm, and Saturdays from 8:30-9:30am and 4-5pm. May God bless you, our families, our parish, and our nation.
Yours sincerely in Christ, Fr. Joseph Illo, Pastor
Bishop responds to priest advising confession for Obama voters
STOCKTON, Calif. (CNS) -- A Modesto pastor urged his parishioners to receive the sacrament of penance if they voted for President-elect Barack Obama, who supports legalized abortion, but Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton said the sacrament was not obligatory for Catholics who supported Obama. "Requiring all Catholics who voted for a candidate with a pro-abortion record to go to confession is not in accord with the moral guidelines set out in 'Faithful Citizenship,'" said the bishop, referring to the U.S. bishops' 2007 document on political responsibility. Bishop Blaire, in a statement released Dec. 1, said that "determining the moral culpability of an individual Catholic who votes for a candidate with a pro-abortion record is a very complicated matter." He said that if a Catholic voted for a candidate "with a pro-abortion record with the motivation of supporting that abortion stance, then that is a grave moral matter." The bishop's statement came in response to a Nov. 21 letter sent to parishioners by Father Joseph Illo, pastor of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Modesto, that urged parishioners to "go to confession before receiving Communion" if they were among "the 54 percent of Catholics who voted for a pro-abortion candidate" and had a clear understanding of the candidate's abortion stance. Paul | December 9, 2008
Hello Judie,
This letter renews one's dedication in praying for our priests everywhere. I hope his Bishop supports him.
Thank you for printing the entire letter.
Tim TimO'Malley | December 10, 2008
May the Spirit moving through Fr. Illo move us all. Please God. David Volk | December 11, 2008
PAY-GRADE SOPHISMS Posted: Monday December 8, 2008 at 2:55 pm EST by Judie Brown
Recently, during a visit to Boise, I had the honor of speaking at a Christmas banquet hosted by Idaho Chooses Life. My theme was "Obamaism versus Truth," and I segued into the president-elect's "above my pay grade" statement at the Saddleback Church presidential candidates' forum to make a salient point that must be addressed repeatedly.
You will recall that Obama's "above my pay grade" statement was made in this context:
Asked at what point a baby gets "human rights," Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: "… whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade."
He tried to clarify that silliness a few days later on ABC's This Week:
What I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into … It's a pretty tough question. And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.
Obama's statement rings as false today as it did when Supreme Court Justice Blackmun wrote, in Roe v. Wade,
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theologies are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
My point in Boise, which American Life League has been making for 30 years now, is that scientists do know when a human being begins, philosophers do know when a person begins and theologies based on the Word of God support what is undeniable according to science: A human being begins at his beginning. This is why the personhood effort is gaining ground, and this is why, at the end of the day, those who make flippant statements similar to the above-cited "Obamaism" are people who will say or do anything to deny that abortion kills an innocent human being.
But it is these sophisms of denial that place the personhood goal directly in the headlights of the careening pro-abortion machine. Just a couple of days ago, pro-abortion blogger Wendy Norris wrote,
Despite a crushing 3-to-1 loss of a pioneering, but controversial, state constitutional amendment to confer civil rights on fertilized human eggs, an American Life League spokesperson made a curious slip of the tongue in a weird silver-lining statement about the organization's future plans to ban abortion.
Norris apparently thinks that American Life League communications director Katie Walker's brilliant comment during an interview was actually an admission of defeat. Walker is quoted as saying,
The idea of personhood in this movement is really the only thing, the only option left to us [emphasis in original], and it's one of the best options and one of the most beautiful concepts I've heard in a long time… We're very excited about it.
But let me clue you in on why Norris is really nearly apoplectic about Walker's accurate assessment and the future of the personhood movement. Norris, like Obama, has the strange perspective that when pro-life America speaks of personhood, we are attempting to assign human dignity to a "fertilized egg." Norris is in denial, and she chooses to avoid being honest enough to tell her readers that the human being whose life begins at the union of sperm and egg is immediately a human being. By using the term "fertilized egg," Norris attempts to dehumanize the baby, thus giving her the opportunity to deny that scientific fact has anything whatsoever to do with the personhood of individual human beings.
She may think she is clever by making such a statement, but in fact, she is as dishonest at her "pay grade" as Obama is at his. But that is the way sophisms grow and flourish. We all know this and have taken great care because of it.
When American Life League developed the language of the Federal Personhood Amendment, we worked with astute scientists and attorneys in order to carve out language that could not be misinterpreted by the likes of Obama and Norris. This is why the FPA clearly defines a "human being" as
any organism, including the single-cell human embryo, irrespective of the method of reproduction, who possesses a genome specific for and consistent with an individual member of the human species.
It goes on to define "personhood" as
the legal recognition of a human being's full status as a human person that applies to all human beings; irrespective of age, health, function, physical dependency or method of reproduction; including their unborn offspring; at every stage of their biological development.
American Life League's goal is to help Americans of every "pay grade" understand the basic science of the human being and, from there, recognize why restoring personhood is, as Walker said, the only option left to us. In fact, personhood is the only option that pro-lifers should have been pressing for during the past 35 years.
We cannot go back and undo history, but we can begin now to make history. Pro-life Americans have a golden opportunity to take each and every sophism that we encounter, and shed the light of truth on it for all to see and understand. There is absolutely nothing that would do the babies more good than for each of us committed to this struggle to address personhood whenever there is an opportunity to speak about the reasons why we are pro-life.
One of my favorite examples of doing precisely this is sidewalk counselors, who never pass up an opportunity to share the truth with an expectant mother who is about to permit the killing of one person and the devastation of another in ways she cannot possibly imagine. Sidewalk counselors know the truth, and that is why they plead with expectant mothers to keep their babies. It is also why they offer to help the expectant mother in whatever way is necessary so that the baby need not die and the mother therefore need not suffer the loss of her baby by such a tragic decision.
While I know very well that sidewalk counselors certainly do not have a "pay grade," I know they possess the truth. Let us hope that people like President-elect Obama and Wendy Norris take a moment to think about the simple facts of the matter, rather than run away from them and hide behind statements that only expose their ignorance.
I know I'm "nit-picking", but I have to disagree with the last word of this excellent article. Mr. Obama and Ms. Norris are NOT expressing "ignorance"! They know the scientific facts as well as you and I do. Their problem is in how they "interpret" those facts. They are part of the ZPG generation--an idea which has not gone away despite the fact that we are contracepting ourselves out of existence. They see people--all except themselves, of course--as the scourge, the detritis of the earth. The planet would be a pristine environment (oh-oh!), a happy and healthy 'home', if it just weren't for all those "nasty, filthy people" who pollute it just by our mere existence! It makes perfect sense to one whose conscience is so self-absorbed: get rid of people (starting, of course, with those who are not "people", yet....i.e. the unborn; and also those who never should have been born....i.e., the diseased, disabled, and imperfect; and also all the old, "useless eaters"), and voila!, the "happy, pristine home" of those few who should be alive (i.e., Obama, Norris, etc.). It really is quite simple when you look at it from their perspective.........simply EVIL!
Thanks. Carol Carol Luscomb | December 8, 2008
Carol's describes some folks' view, though I am not sure it is Obama's. Obama is a lawyer, who seems to accept the Supreme Court's decisions on privacy as his starting point. I suspect that people like him refuse to let themselves see reality, they are blinded to the personhood of the unborn, and the horror of legal abortion. Obama's unguarded statement during the campaign, caught on tape, denigrating religious people, informs us that religious belief is not informing his views. David Volk | December 9, 2008
Carol
Perhaps I should have written arrogance rather than ignorance. I see your point.
Your comments are excellent. God bless you.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | December 9, 2008
Abortion supporters argue that the Church should stay out of people's lives. Conversely, others argue, " do not support abortion for the record, but I feel that if a woman decides to abort her baby, it will be something they have to answer to God, not you or I." They want to abdicate governmental responsibility to protect its citizens, to God! David Volk | December 9, 2008
David
I think his statements also inform us that, as did the U. S. Spureme Court in 1973, the president elect refuses to accept the scientific evidence that a human being exists and that abortion therefore is an act of murder.
He is in denial, and as we all know, dangerous.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | December 10, 2008
David
We live in an upside down culture and the definition of freedom has been perverted by the commitment too many have to self-interest versus self-giving.
GOING GREEN OR BLACK? Posted: Friday December 5, 2008 at 11:30 am EST by Judie Brown
In my almost 65 years of life outside the womb, I have witnessed all sorts of trends. The Beatles, color television and fast cars are among my fondest memories of the good old days when I was young and, in retrospect, very silly. Today, the trends are quite different, including the latest phrase from the automobile industry: go green!
We all know what that means. It is a nice term for being environmentally friendly, eco-balance concerned, or remedial recycling …just some of the terms I think of when someone suggests that the nation needs to go green. Well, most of the nation views it that way, but not Planned Parenthood.
Now I don't want to single them out for this piece, for they are the leaders in a large cadre of misguided organizations, but Planned Parenthood is always a good place to start. And their latest actions in Oregon are enough to make one physically ill.
Upon first glance, if this were an ordinary business erecting a new structure, we might not give that comment a second thought. But let's face it. We are quoting the media announcement of an organization that makes its money by reducing humanity to the commonly held definition of waste and assuring mothers of every age that their preborn children are not really human beings.
Give us break, Planned Parenthood. Tell the whole truth and explain why it is that your gleeful celebration of a "green" construction site is nothing more than an extension of your philosophy with regard to human dignity. For as Precious Children of Portland makes perfectly clear,
Planned Parenthood killed 289,750 precious and innocent little babies resting peacefully in the wombs of their mothers. Planned Parenthood had an income of over a billion dollars and a profit of $114 million. Even though Planned Parenthood has profits of millions they continually try and get special favors from us by way of our taxes and last year they received $336 million of our hard earned money to murder prenatal infants. Planned Parenthood kills more prenatal infants than any other corporation in our country.
And though I hate to draw associations between concepts, ideas and practices, it occurs to me that Planned Parenthood's years of influence over our children and grandchildren could be one of the reasons why the under-30 crowd in at least one city is focused on "Safe Sex on the Beach and My Choice Tai."
What's this? Well I am awfully glad you asked.
Young Professionals Council for Choice is an organization of young people who swap cell phone numbers while drinking "Safe Sex on the Beach," "My Choice Tai" and other cocktails and alcohol free beverages.
The article in the New York Post, "Sweet (Sexy) Charity," which is how I came to learn about YPCC, starts out as follows
WHAT'S that, you say? Your dating life's a desert and you've decided to focus instead on other things, like helping out people less fortunate than you? Nice excuse, but it doesn't have to be one or the other. Volunteering has its own rewards, but there's no harm in simultaneously spicing up your social calendar. Luckily, you live in a city that boasts plenty of charity groups to choose from, offering the under-30 crowd a vast array of functions where good deeds meet good fun.
The article goes on to list several organizations which have a cause and activities that make support for the cause helpful to the dating life of its young participants, or at least that’s the idea. And as YPCC explains on the home page, you can get involved in "protecting choice, one party at a time."
The organization was founded by – drum roll please – NARAL Pro-Choice New York and the National Institute for Reproductive Health, New York state's largest advocacy organization devoted to protecting women's health rights. Both organizations have a vested interest in gaining more clients for the flourishing birth control and abortion industry. And both are quite savvy about appealing to young people who have lost their way for lack of education in the basic life principles that separate the green people from the black people.
In case I have lost you, let me provide a frame of reference for you, based on my understanding of colors and how they define the situation according to Catholic tradition.
Green symbolizes in the liturgical colors of the Church, the Holy Ghost, the third person of the Blessed Trinity, eternal life and hope. Black symbolizes mourning and sorrow. I hope you are now getting the picture and understand why I chose the title of this piece—a clear distinction is being drawn and frankly it's the black aspect of all this that troubles me the most.
The fact that our nation is confronted with a culture that is so clearly defined by the activities in which people participate. The way those activities can be twisted to suit the agendas of the proponents of death and human spiritual destruction should give us all pause for concern.
There is nothing hopeful in the construction of a new Planned Parenthood facility, wherein we know killing will occur and women's bodies will be polluted with chemicals while their minds are saturated with gobbledygook.
There is nothing hopeful in parties that are hosted allegedly to bring young people together, but are actually for the purposes of filling the coffers of organizations that make their money propagandizing generations of youth with filth. This propaganda is left unchallenged because teachers and parents have chosen not to teach the principles that make a person happy, healthy, and sound of mind and soul.
The cruel hoax that is being perpetrated in all this, of course, is as I see it, hatred (black) for God and for all that is good, joyful and filled with hope of eternal happiness (green). It's time for America to wake up because her youngest generations are headed for the destruction which the people of my generation spent a lifetime constructing.
That\'s not all their doing in Oregon. It\'s the capital of assisted suicide, and it stands to reason that they would embrace the whole \"Culture of Death\", by celebrating the oppening of a new \'Abortion Facility\'.
I believe Mother Theresa is credited with the saying:\"The wages of Abortion is Nuclear War\"!!! Anyone interested in bringing back \'Bomb Shelters\'??!!! Of course the \"Generation X\" folks don\'t even know what they are.
Be Abundantly Blessed, and Be Not Affraid,
John Z (64 & catching-up to you quickly) May God Bless your work. John Zubalik | December 6, 2008
TEXAS TAKES FRIENDSHIP TO A NEW LEVEL Posted: Thursday December 4, 2008 at 12:13 pm EST by Judie Brown
The Texas state motto is friendship, a single word that is loaded with immense meaning in view of recent news from the state. It would appear that a deeper affection for the preborn child is affecting the way Texans think and act.
Just a few days ago in Corpus Christi, pro-life activists took to the streets to protest the killing of preborn children. It all started at St. Joseph's Catholic Church, and according to news reports, "hundreds of Catholics filled the streets." In fact, the news item was so heartening that that it reminded me of the old days when protests were in their prime and the media was hard-pressed to ignore them.
Three days after this report appeared on the local news, another report came across the airwaves announcing that a $30,000 grant earmarked for Planned Parenthood would not be made. One councilwoman made it perfectly clear: "It's inappropriate to use taxpayer money." After the councilwoman made this simple statement, applause is reported to have filled the council chamber.
A local Episcopal priest, however, spoke in defense of Planned Parenthood, telling the council, "If you don't want Planned Parenthood to talk to your children about sex, then you talk to them. …To not fund Planned Parenthood, doing the job that we as a community are failing to do, puts more children in danger."
The majority of those who spoke to the council were in complete agreement with the removal of the grant. In fact the city council vote against Planned Parenthood was unanimous!
And here's the kicker!
The people of Corpus Christi who care about their children and the preborn called American Life League's Stop Planned Parenthood office to say, "I just had to call and let you know your plan works! We did everything just the way you said and we won! Thank you!"
The STOPP Report says it all:
On February 15, ALL vice president Jim Sedlak, and ALL's Rock for Life director, Erik Whittington, traveled to Corpus Christi to give pro-life talks and attend a daylong Rock for Life event sponsored by the local RFL chapter. During that visit, the pro-lifers asked how they could stop taxpayer funding of PP.
We described, in detail, our plan to defeat public funding of PP. It is section three of our overall Plan for Defeating Planned Parenthood. The plan provides a 31-step process, which begins with explaining how to obtain information on PP's funding in your local area and then describes how to activate the community to get funding taken away from PP.
Of course, the real thanks for this victory go first to God and then to the dedicated people of Corpus Christi, who painstakingly executed the plan and brought about victory in a very difficult situation. They overcame many obstacles and are still fighting to stop other taxpayer money from going to PP in the community. They are also following our plan to get PP out of the local schools.
If you want to successfully fight PP in your community, read the plan at the link above. Jim Sedlak is willing to travel to your community to help get things organized. Just contact him at jsedlak@all.org.
On the same day, we learned about the fabulous work being done by the Corpus Christi Hope House, which is a home for mothers facing crisis pregnancies. The babies who have been saved adorn the web site for this amazing ministry, which served 3,000 clients in 2007 alone! Now that's friendship!
And as if all this good news was not enough, we just learned that an appellate court in Texas has upheld a lower court ruling affirming personhood for a preborn baby who, along with his mother, was murdered. Please take note of the significant point raised and defended by the court regarding the harmony that exists between a secular law and a religious ideal:
Jacob Eguia, who was convicted of the capital murders of a woman and her nearly eight months gestation unborn child, challenged the court's ruling on several points. He argued that finding him guilty of the unborn child's death violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Art. I, Sec. 6 of the Texas Constitution, which bars giving preference by law to a religion.
In the Texas Penal Code, as the court noted, "'Person' means an individual," and "individual" may refer to "an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth"; and "'death' includes, for an individual who is an unborn child, the failure to be born alive."
According to the court's published opinion, Eguia complained that "the State's definition of 'individual' 'has the effect of endorsing religion as it is based solely upon a religious belief that life begins at conception.'"
Justice Elsa Alcala concluded that, because a statute does not violate the Establishment Clause when serving a secular purpose, "the definition of 'individual' serves the State's legitimate secular interest in protecting unborn children from the criminal acts of others."
The court also cited precedent to affirm that, "a statute is not automatically rendered unconstitutional simply because it advances ideals that harmonize with religious ideals."
Clearly, the point we have been making for years regarding the personhood of the child, based on the scientific fact that a human being exists from the point of creation is beginning to be taken seriously, at least in the friendly state of Texas.
Finally we want to publicly express our gratitude to Diocese of Tyler Bishop Alvaro Corrada, S.J. for his courageous public statement condemning the sterilizations that had been taking place in Catholic hospitals. He said, in part:
I wish to address the matter of direct sterilizations in Catholic Hospitals in the Diocese of Tyler.
Last June it was reported by anonymous researchers that a large number of tubal ligations performed in Catholic Hospitals in the state of Texas. Initially both Catholic hospitals in the Diocese of Tyler responded that they were in compliance with the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Services.
Sadly, subsequent investigation reveals that there had been a serious mis-interpretation of the ERDs and that in fact many direct sterilizations had been done and continued to be done at the time of the article.
As a Bishop, I am deeply saddened and upset by this news. As Bishop of the Diocese of Tyler, I have to admit my failure to provide adequate oversight of the Catholic Hospitals as regards their protection of the sacred dignity of each human person.
It is so encouraging to read these words and to know that Tyler is blessed with a Catholic bishop who is diligent, humble and committed to defending human dignity. A thank you can be sent to him at bishopoffice@dioceseoftyler.org.
Friendship expresses itself in many ways, but it is heartening to realize that in the great state of Texas, friends are being made with the most vulnerable people in our midst, principles are being defended, and lives are being touched through the goodness of shepherds, activists and judges. May such friendship spread across our land.
Pro-Life Story: My Angel Posted By Christina Caulfield on Apr, 30 2010 I have a beautiful granddaughter. I love her so much. I can't imagine life without her. When my daughter was pregnant, I wanted her to have an abortion. She didn't listen to me. I ... Read
