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!
THE MEDIA, THE POPE AND THE CONDOM Posted: Thursday March 26, 2009 at 1:21 pm EST by Judie Brown
Pope Benedict XVI shocked the world on Tuesday, March 17, when he told a French reporter, in answer to a question about the Catholic Church's position on fighting the spread of AIDS by using condoms,
I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome with advertising slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness – even through personal sacrifice – to be present with those who suffer. And these are the factors that help and bring visible progress.
No sooner had he articulated this fact than the Vatican press office decided that he really did not say what he did say, but rather said something else. The Vatican backtracked by editing the pope's comments by replacing the phrase "we risk worsening the problem" with "we risk aggravating the problems."
That's one version of what the media is saying the Vatican press office did in an effort to literally put words in the mouth of the Holy Father, or in this case, take them out. But whatever Father Lombardi and the press office thought it was doing, the heat on the Church for opposing condoms in the treatment of AIDS has definitely not ceased. It's getting hotter by the minute.
On Monday, the President of the World Health Assembly, Guyana Health Minister Lesie Ramsammy
described the pope's stand as "absolutely and unequivocally wrong" and "inconsistent with science."
He warned that the pontiff was "sowing confusion" and trying to hinder strategies that had been proven correct in the fight against the disease.
Asked by reporters in Maputo on Monday for his reaction to the pope's claim, Garrido stressed that condoms remain part of the government's strategy to reduce the level of HIV infection in Mozambique.
"I don't know in what context the pope said this, but we in the Mozambican government live in the real world, not the world we would like to live in," said Garrido. "In the real world, we know that people have sexual relations with more than one partner."
And yesterday the editorial in the New Zealand Post entitled "The Flat Earth Church" argued that
Condoms inhibit the spread of AIDS. Normalizing their use is in everyone's interests. It is irresponsible of the pope to argue otherwise.
But the church's opposition to most forms of birth control does even more harm than that. The planet is overpopulated. There is not enough food to feed those who already live on it and, in our attempts to feed and clothe ourselves, not to mention fill our homes with flat-screen televisions and other luxuries, we are devouring scarce resources. Human activity is also contributing to global warming.
The planet needs fewer, not more, people. Given that so many Catholic priests have been unable to adhere to their own vows of celibacy, it is nonsensical for the church to argue that abstinence will protect the rest of the population.
My goodness, how those anti-Catholic writers do rant when a kernel of truth is shared with a suffering people, which is exactly what the pope was doing in his comments. Contrary to what those in media la-la land want to tell us, the planet is not overpopulated, condoms do not prevent the spread of AIDS and the Creator of the planet does not need an editorial board to assist him in carrying out His master plan for mankind.
On the subject of AIDS and condoms, Harvard University's director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project, Edward C. Green, commended the pope, reports Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online
"The pope is correct," Green told National Review Online Wednesday, "or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope's comments. He stresses that "condoms have been proven to not be effective at the 'level of population.'"
"There is," Green adds, "a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded 'Demographic Health Surveys,' between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction 'technology' such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by 'compensating' or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology."
Father Vincent Twomey, writing in the Irish Times, applauded the pope,
[W]e Europeans are prone to simplistic technical solutions for humanly complex problems, indeed tragedies. We fall for trite slogans such as "Condoms help reduce AIDS." As a result, the church is attacked as though it were guilty of the deaths of millions in Africa.
The facts teach us otherwise. The percentage of non-Catholics in non-Islamic Africa is about 80 per cent. Irrespective of what the church preaches, it would not be heard by them. Likewise, it is unlikely that those Catholics who ignore the church's teaching by having multiple sexual partners – one of the main ways of contracting HIV – would listen to the church, even if it were to endorse condoms, which it won't.
The millions of condoms flung at Africans for a quarter of a century have increased not reduced the rate of infection…."
Dallas Morning News published a commentary by Mark Davis, who is not Catholic and does not agree with Catholic teaching on contraception. But Davis admires consistency and writes
"What a paper-thin sham Catholicism would be if the pope were to cave and conclude: 'You know those centuries we've spent teaching against anything that obstructs the sacred method by which life is created? Well, we've thought about it, and because millions are engaging in behavior that spreads a fatal disease, we've decided to shelve that basic belief and instruct people' to do something we've considered a moral abomination pretty well forever."
"Anyone repelled by a pope who refuses to buckle this way should remember that no one is forced to be Catholic. If this bar is too high, there's the door. But if Catholicism has withstood anything, it's expectations that doctrine should bend to public will. …
In a world where morality shifts with the seasons and almost any absolute is corruptible by public whim, constant aspiration to a worthy standard should be valued, not mocked."
Clearly there is a clash of values between those who will bend to the hedonism of the current age and those, like Pope Benedict XVI and the magisterium of the Catholic Church, who love the truth and realize that the road less travelled is the best way to go. On the one hand we observe suffering, death, and hatred while on the other hand we observe charity, morality and hope. Which one would you choose?
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The prefect of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature issued an apology to his fellow U.S. bishops March 26 for how comments he made in a videotaped interview were used. The videotape was released to the press in Washington a day earlier by anti-abortion activist Randall Terry.
In the videotaped interview, U.S. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke told Terry that bishops, priests, deacons and extraordinary ministers of holy Communion should refuse Communion to Catholic politicians who insist on supporting legislation to keep abortion legal, and said U.S. President Barack Obama "could be an agent of death."
Terry, 49, founder of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, showed the videotaped interview during a press conference, at which time he called for two U.S. bishops to be removed as bishops because he said they had not instructed ordinary and extraordinary ministers to refuse holy Communion to Catholic politicians who support laws that keep abortion legal. In a statement released in Rome, Archbishop Burke said Terry told him the videotaped interview, conducted in Rome March 2, would be used to encourage pro-life workers in their cause and had no idea Terry would be showing it at a press conference. Pat | March 26, 2009
Dear Pat
We are painfully aware of what Mr. Terry has done.
JUDGING WITHOUT JUSTICE Posted: Wednesday March 25, 2009 at 2:11 pm EST by Judie Brown
Those Americans who have a true grasp of what justice meant to our founding fathers must be a bit perplexed by the actions of Eastern District Court of New York Judge Edward R. Korman who has ordered the U.S. government’s Food and Drug Administration to permit the dispensing of Plan B to 17-year-old girls!
His decision is 52 pages long, but the pertinent quote is this:
The FDA is also ordered to permit Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. the Plan B drug sponsor, to make Plan B available to 17 year olds without a prescription, under the same conditions as Plan B is now available to women over the age of 18. The latter order should be complied with within thirty days.
Since when is it just, let alone logical, for one judge to have the final word in a matter that could affect the health and well-being of millions of women, not to mention the lives of countless preborn children? The answer is obvious: those who have fostered the culture of death in this country have always gone to the courts when they could not have their way in the court of public opinion or in the halls of Congress. This is but another in a long line of judicial actions designed to set aside health and well being in favor of politics, bank accounts and death for the preborn.
The Gestapo-like tactic by this District Court judge is troublesome nonetheless. If this judicial order stands, we will have witnessed a second act within the past few weeks that literally compromises the ethics of men and women of the medical profession who refuse to dispense any chemical that can abort a preborn child. Since Plan B does have the capacity to act as an early-days abortion, what will this “order” mean to these nurses, doctors and pharmacists? Will they have the opportunity to say “no” without making a referral? If not, they will be forced to either act in a manner that makes them complicit or they will have to find work elsewhere.
Conscientious objection will become a sure-fire road to a pink slip!
What about those parents who would be contacted if a daughter required any other type of seriously complex medication, but won’t even know if their 17-year-old ingests the pills until it is too late. There are, after all, females who have complicated health problems that would prohibit them from taking this drug, but no doctor need be involved in the dispensing of the drug if our reading of this decision is accurate and it is!
Suppose that a 17-year-old acquires the pills for her 13-year-old sexually active sister! Will their parents know?
Clearly there is nothing even remotely resembling sound medical practice in the decision this judge handed down with apparent impunity. Who is going to hold him accountable for practicing medicine without a license? Nobody will of course, because judges have the power to make decisions that can destroy human beings … Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton proved that years ago.
How did this judge have the opportunity to even consider this matter in the first place? Here’s the story. In 2005, the Center for Reproductive Rights along with other groups filed a lawsuit because the FDA had decided against providing Plan B over the counter without a prescription. According to their press statement issued shortly after the Korman order on March 23,
Today, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that the Food and Drug Administration decision to limit access to the emergency contraceptive Plan B to women over 18 violated its established rules. The agency was ordered to reconsider its decision based on scientific evidence alone. The agency’s decision was made under the Bush administration.
The suggestion here is, of course, that had the FDA made its decision under Obama, as it obviously will now, nobody would be concerned about the ethical questions I have already raised in this commentary. After all, there is a huge difference in the perspectives of the two men and their administrations, at least on some subjects.
Nancy Northup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said, “Today’s ruling is a tremendous victory for all Americans who expect the government to safeguard their health not undermine it.”
Excuse us for being so apparently uninformed, but since when does a government “safeguard health” by doling out dangerous birth control chemicals in the same way Walgreen’s sells chewing gum?
Northrup continued,
The court recognized that the FDA favored politics over science, ideology over women’s health, and violated the law in the process.
Emergency contraception is proven safe and effective and today, we have succeeded in expanding access to 17-year-olds and are one step closer to making it fully available to all women, including young women for whom the barriers – and the benefits – are so great.
Well, Ms. Northrup, as usual, you and your cronies are blowing smoke.
Emergency contraception is not safe for preborn children and it does have a lengthy list of side effects. According to RX List, the Internet Drug Index, there is a laundry list of side effects and a comment or two about conditions and medications being taken for other ailments that might complicate matters.
Under “drug interactions,” it states
Theoretically, the effectiveness of low-dose progestin-only pills is reduced by hepatic enzyme-inducing drugs such as the anticonvulsants phenytoin, carbamazepine, and barbiturates, and the antituberculosis drug rifampin. No significant interaction has been found with broad-spectrum antibiotics. It is not known whether the efficacy of Plan B® would be affected by these or any other medications.
The words, “it is not known,” should have been enough to forestall the judge’s order. But who’s paying attention to the facts?
Clearly the last thing on anyone’s mind during this media frenzy has been the health and well being of the female, regardless of her age. Facts don’t seem to make good public relations for these people, never have and never will.
It is probably no coincidence that just one day before this judge handed down his decision, I received a heart wrenching e-mail from an anonymous nurse who asked whether or not it was ethical for her to be involved in the dispensing of Plan B in the hospital where she was working.
I gave her question to our medical expert, Anthony Dardano, M.D. who wrote her as follows:
[T]his is a difficult problem that affects all health-care professionals. One must remember that formal cooperation is wrong as well. Physicians have it the easiest. They are autonomous. They can say they morally object to something and that's it. They cannot however say they can't do something and refer you to someone who does. This is formal cooperation and is equally unacceptable.
Nurses, pharmacists, etc., must follow the same path even though their practice is not autonomous. When they morally object to a procedure or prescription, they must simply say they are declining on the basis of a moral objection. They must also make it clear that they can do no more and to assist is morally objectionable as well. This is our right. …
What Dr. Dardano has said should give every one of us pause to reconsider the sobering effect the Korman decision will have. We should be asking what parents could do to protect their children from the drug abuse that will occur due to this judge’s decision, if indeed the Obama FDA concurs in that decision. We should acknowledge that the drug culture just expanded and it may not stop there.
Susan F. Wood, a former F.D.A. director of women’s health who resigned in 2005 to protest the handling of Plan B, said Monday that the judge’s decision to send the drug back for reconsideration signaled hope of the agency’s ability to act independently under a new administration.
There is a new chance to “restore the scientific integrity of the F.D.A.,” said Ms. Wood, now a professor of public health at George Washington University.
Wood’s statement is a tragically incongruous. Scientific integrity begins with a complete willingness to be totally transparent about complications, side effects including the possibility of aborting a preborn human being and requirements that protect those women of any age who have serious medical problems that could well create a tragedy if such a chemical is ingested after having received it over the counter. None of these requirements have been met by Wood and her allies.
Scientific integrity, like justice, cannot coexist with deceit, denial and deliberate distractions.
I propose that the Feast of the Annunciation, which we celebrate today, be a Holy Day of Obligation. The Church celebrates the Incarnation of Jesus, not something which will become Jesus. The Feast is a celebration of a woman accepting the gift and responsibility of an unplanned pregnancy. In this day and age, the Feast of the Annunciation should be a Holy Day of Obligation. David Volk | March 25, 2009
I fully agree.
Most modern day theories contain more assumptions than they do experimental support. The problem is that the conclusions are based upon these assumptions (biased at times) and not the facts alone. Our modern day justice system needs to be more intelligent, responsible and less political.
I am amazed at the ignorance and defiant behaviours of our society. I believe that when a human egg and a human sperm get together that the product is human (not a tree, elephant, bee, etc...). I also believe that it is a life. This can be proven by the mere fact that you have to kill it. So, when you tally the facts up, it is a human life.
With the above said, I was curious about the some studies I have heard about. Particularly the ones about the responses from the womb. Like playing classical music, talking to the womb, etc... Ironically I have seen movies where pro-killers have embraced these ideas. I am just looking for more information. John P Stewart | March 26, 2009
Thank you for any and all defense of human life. The slow degredation of American public moral culture is accelerated by Judge Korman: girls 17 are now enabled to abuse sex without repercussions. Thanks, America, we need more of this. More will come when young girls will be able to ask mom if she has an extra pill because daughter is going out with a new boyfriend tonight and they want to get acquainted. PParenthood, Naral, women for choice: all have degraded immensely our highest moral standards, and it is up to the few to counterattack. Dr. Robert N. Schwartz | March 26, 2009
IF I WERE A BLASTOCYST WOULD YOU STILL LOVE ME? Posted: Tuesday March 24, 2009 at 1:01 pm EST by Judie Brown
Egregious as it is, not to mention arrogant and evil, there are still people in this world who either refuse to admit that if not for their first days of life, they would not be who they are today, or who do know what they once were, but still insist that those who are today what they themselves once were must die anyway! I just read a commentary by one of those people and it shocked me! After all these years, you would think that I would be numbed by all that has gone on within the shadowy underworld of the culture of death, it still stuns me that some people are so ignorant of basic truth and fundamental scientific fact.
Eric Mink is the commentary editor for the St. Louis Post Dispatch and he writes for other publications as well. I am sure he is a fine man but his opinions on human embryonic stem cell research are so far off base that I can only surmise that he has forgotten his roots.
But let's begin at the beginning, with the blastocyst stage of a human being's life. According to the Carnegie Stages of human development, the blastocyst exists from about the fourth day of a human being's life until the sixth or seventh day.
This single-cell embryo is totipotent, that is, capable of forming all the cells, tissues, and organs of the later embryo, fetus, and adult. The cells (blastomeres) of the early developing human embryo will also exhibit a range of totipotency, that is, if separated from the developing embryo, these totipotent cells are capable of forming new human organisms (as in natural and artificial monozygotic identical "twinning"). This totipotent capacity also applies to the cells of the developing embryo from 2 cells (about 1/2-3 days) until the first formation of the free floating blastocystic cavity (about 4 days), to the cells of the inner cell mass of the implanting blastocyst (about 5-7 days), and to the diploid primitive germ-line cells (future haploid sex gametes) (as early as 2 1/2 -12 weeks) of the later blastocyst….
This may sound Greek to you but it is extremely important in view of what Mr. Mink is attempting to tell the naïve public in his recent commentary. Mr. Mink has asked his readers
Would it be right for society to treat the five-day-old blastocyst — which has no body, no brain, no heart, no spinal cord, no nervous system, no placenta — as the legal and moral equivalent of the baby, the young student and the older woman?
Would it be right, Mr. Mink, to have killed you for your stem cells at this stage in your life? Hmmmm! Probably would cause you a bit of angst right now, don't you think? Oh, I forgot, if you had been killed at five days of age, you would not have been able to think, even though all that your body needed to be what you are today was present and accounted for at that time.
Mr. Mink is one of those people who, having survived the actual preborn cycle of growth for human persons, has decided that he has the right to suggest that other human beings at the earliest stages of their lives should be deemed less than human, less than persons, less valuable, but valuable enough to rob them of their lives in order to acquire their stem cells for research. It has always fascinated me that everybody who favors this research has survived their earliest period of life unscathed and obviously alive!
Mr. Mink quotes from a special report that emanates from the pro-human embryonic stem cell research National Institutes of Health, an arm of the federal government:
The principal ethical and religious objection to hES [human embryonic stem] cell research is that the derivation of hES cells involves the destruction of the blastocyst, which is regarded by some people as a human being….Like all scientific work involving human embryos, hES cell research raises profound questions about the status of the human embryo, the extent to which it is justifiable to use human embryos to expand knowledge and ameliorate human suffering, and the conditions under which these goals may be pursued. Throughout its deliberations, the committee was keenly aware that some view human embryos as morally equivalent to born human persons....
In contrast, many religious traditions — Islam, Judaism, and numerous Protestant denominations — do not recognize the human embryo before 40 days after conception as an entity that should be accorded the same moral status as a person.... To be sure, in these traditions, the human embryo may have greater moral status than other collections of cells, but not so much that its cells may not be respectfully applied toward the other goals to which the faithful are committed.... This diversity of deeply held views must be respected. However, that respect does not require that we, as a society, prohibit hES cell research, but rather that our society create institutions for the oversight of this research that, with due moral seriousness, take into account the special status of the human embryo.
Note that the sum and substance of this quote from the scientific arm of the federal government sets forth a type of moral relativism that literally equates the value and dignity of the human being with the results of a poll. In this case, according to NIH and apparently Mr. Mink, the moral status of the human embryo is in question and therefore even though some views to the contrary are "respected," society can go right ahead and murder these people anyway!
This is the equivalent of stating that the residents of a nursing home who have a particular condition could at some future date be relegated to less than human status if a diversity of opinion were to arise among a certain group of policy makers regarding whether or not these patients were human enough to be cared for any longer. Such bunk is ludicrous and inane yet at the same time the obvious basis for arriving at public policy statements.
It is enough to make one shudder!
When I was younger, I remember fondly listening to June Carter and Johnny Cash sing "If I were a Carpenter." One of the lines of that song goes like this: "If I worked my hands in wood, would you still love me?"
I thought about that today as I read Eric Mink's commentary and wondered how many lawmakers, writers, scientists or policy makers ever sat down and contemplated the question, "If I were a blastocyst, would you still love me?"
Anybody who is reading this was a blastocyst and God loved you then as much as He does now. But that is God's way; it is clearly not man's.
It occurs to me that there is a great sadness that has invaded our land. Many no longer love those who are unseen, yet still very much alive. American culture has become utilitarian in its worldview. Human dignity is a non-sequitur to those who have placed science above all else as the supreme entity to which man owes his allegiance. Those who hold such views for the most part are more interested in self-adulation and personal acclaim than in loving others for their own sake.
If I were a blastocyst, would you still love me?
Sadly, the answer is no, not really. At least not people like Mr. Mink who claims to care very much about "all mankind" but far too little for the individual human being. And though I hate to burst Mink's bubble, there is one thing that he should be thinking about. The blastocyst that might one day have grown up and found an ethical cure for Alzheimer's could well be among the dead already.
"If I were a blastocyst, would you still love me?"
Every human being I've ever met, called father or mother or brother or sister or son or daughter or teacher or doctor or friend or foe, was once a blastocyte. I choose to love them all!
Thanks and God bless you!
Former blastocyte/aka Catherine Lemek Catherine Lemek | March 24, 2009
I am reminded of a quote by Ronald Reagan which stated that is was his observatiuon that the people interested in abortion ( and by entension cell destruction ) had already been born. Dan Byron | March 24, 2009
What makes a human being a human being? Scientifically, it's the DNA, the genetic code. It establishes that we ARE human, and that we are UNIQUE among humans. It lays out the map our bodies follow as they develop through the various stages of life. The code is there from the beginning. As one cell splits into two, the code is there. It is therefore arbitrary to claim that a bundle of cells is not human. Bill Maher says this. But he won't ever say at what stage it DOES become human, only mocking the bundle of cells for lacking parts.
If there was consistent rational argument for any one stage of development as the 'arrival of humanity', I'd love to hear it. But there isn't. Theirs is an entirely negative and scoffing argument. Dave in Dallas | March 24, 2009
Judie, I am writing about the news of Obama talking at Notre Dame College for the Graduation. I am not believe these Bishops would allow this under any reason. This President is out to kill more unborn and he needs to be stopped. Thanks for your time John L. Shore | March 24, 2009
In answer to your question-YES! Patricia | March 25, 2009
John
I am reminded when I think of this tragic scandal that is clearly an assault on the Church of what Christ told His disciples:
"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I too will acknowledge him before my Father."
What of those who mock HIM while continuing to call themselves Catholic?
Judie Brown Judie Brown | March 26, 2009
Thanks for replying back Judie! I just had a few more questions for you regarding the Prevention First Act.
First, how much money is American Life League allocating towards furthering the support of this act? How many members do you currently have supporting you? What are the future goals of the ALL regarding the passing of this bill?
- Khushboo Pelia Kushboo Pelia | March 30, 2009
Dear Kushboo
We are focusing a great deal of the funding of our organization toward exposing the Prevention First Act and other evils of Planned Parenthood's agenda, but we do not provide specifics from our budget in response to emails.
There are over 300,000 families supporting our work and the goal of this work is ultimately to achieve total protection for all innocent human beings as persons who are protected by law and in the culture.
NOTRE DAME: SOBER UP! Posted: Monday March 23, 2009 at 10:52 am EST by Judie Brown
In attempting to put a proper face on the ugly situation developing on the campus of Notre Dame University, home of the recent announcement that President Barack Obama would give the commencement address and receive an honorary degree, I fell upon an incredibly wise insight just uttered by Archbishop Charles Chaput. Speaking at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, the archbishop said,
We need to stop over-counting our numbers, our influence, our institutions and our resources, because they're not real. We can't talk about following St. Paul and converting our culture until we sober up and get honest about what we've allowed ourselves to become. We need to stop lying to each other, to ourselves and to God by claiming to 'personally oppose' some homicidal evil – but then allowing it to be legal at the same time.
When I read those words, it occurred to me that the current president of Notre Dame should have been at that speech, taking notes!
Here we have a Catholic archbishop exposing the fact that the emperor has no clothes on, when right down the road, we have the best-known Catholic university in the land reaching out to embrace the most pro-abortion president in the history of the United States. Something is wrong with this picture. Or perhaps one should suggest there is something extraordinarily evil about it.
"Do you reject the glamour of evil, and refuse to be mastered by sin?" (From the Roman Catholic Rite of Baptism)
Apparently the Catholic folks at Notre Dame University have no more respect for the Baptismal vows they renew every Easter than their invited Commencement Speaker this year has for the Presidential Oath of Office. At this moment in time, Barack Obama is the living incarnation of the glamour of evil. His smiley tones, and non-threatening manner, mask a studied commitment to the promotion of the most deadly form of evil in the world today – the cult of abortion centered on the ritual of child sacrifice. Obama has moved with impetuous determination to prove his claim to the mantle of High Priest of the Worldwide Abortion cult. With Executive orders, he has shifted the resources of the U.S. government behind the global implementation of abortion. He has declared open season on embryonic human life. He has appointed enthusiastic political and judicial acolytes of this cult of death to high positions in the Executive and Judicial branches.
The first announcement of this travesty at Notre Dame came to my attention because of the diligent efforts of the Cardinal Newman Society and its immediate response to the outrage. Its new web site inviting every concerned Catholic in America to protest the outrage at Notre Dame, Notre Dame Scandal.com, has become an overnight success. More than 10,500 have signed an open letter to the president of Notre Dame, Father Jenkins. The letter states, in part,
It is an outrage and a scandal that "Our Lady's University," one of the premier Catholic universities in the United States, would bestow such an honor on President Obama given his clear support for policies and laws that directly contradict fundamental Catholic teachings on life and marriage.
This nation has many thousands of accomplished leaders in the Catholic Church, in business, in law, in education, in politics, in medicine, in social services, and in many other fields who would be far more appropriate choices to receive such an honor from the University of Notre Dame.
Instead, Notre Dame has chosen prestige over principles, popularity over morality. Whatever may be President Obama's admirable qualities, this honor comes on the heels of some of the most anti-life actions of any American president, including expanding federal funding for abortions and inviting taxpayer-funded research on stem cells from human embryos.
We encourage you to add your name to this open letter, and take as many of the additional actions listed below as you can. In a situation like this, where a grievous insult to the Mother of God and her Son, Jesus Christ, is about to take place, there is no time to waste in enunciating the horror that should be burning in the heart of every Catholic.
Write to:
Most Reverend Archbishop Zenon Grocholewski
Prefect
The Congregation for Catholic Education
of Seminaries and Institutes of Studies
[Secretary: Archbishop Jean-Louis Bruguès, O.P.]
00120 CITTÀ DEL VATICANO
Roma, Italy
Write: Letters to the editor of the South Bend Tribune: vop@sbtinfo.com
Write, call or e-mail: President of the University of Notre Dame, Father John Jenkins, C.S.C. [Cong. of Holy Cross], President@nd.edu (574) 631-5000 or Fax: (574) 631-7428
It should be noted that Catholic bishops are obliged to take action in a situation like this. As the Church document, "Ex Corde Ecclesiae" teaches,
Bishops have a particular responsibility to promote Catholic universities, and especially to promote and assist in the preservation and strengthening of their Catholic identity, including the protection of their Catholic identity in relation to civil authorities. This will be achieved more effectively if close personal and pastoral relationships exist between university and church authorities, characterized by mutual trust, close and consistent cooperation and continuing dialogue. Even when they do not enter directly into the internal governance of the university, bishops "should be seen not as external agents but as participants in the life of the Catholic university."
Deacon Keith Fournier, in reflecting on this abominable announcement from Notre Dame, named for Our Lady, reminds us of the urgency of all that we do:
As a Constitutional lawyer, I reject the insidious efforts to hide pre-delivery killings of children behind the rhetoric of "choice" and the flawed 'reasoning' of the decisions in Roe and Doe and their legal progeny. The "Personhood" movement in the United States is gaining traction. A Federal Personhood Amendment is essential if we hope to protect the American claim of the existence of inalienable rights, including the Right to Life, as endowments and not succumb to the danger of "rights" becoming the creations of an all powerful State. Until then, any Constitutional lawyer who keeps up the facade of defending the Roe rationale to justify the so-called "Right" to kill children in the womb is engaged in sophistry not constitutional analysis, even our President.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a lot to say about "Scandal" (See, CCC 2284-2287) and the University of Notre Dame, by conferring a Doctor of Laws degree 'honoris causa' (Latin: 'for the sake of the honour') fits squarely within its definition. Yes, as our President we should respect President Obama's Office. But this invitation does more than respect his Office. It gives a platform to his effort to obfuscate the fact that every procured abortion is a heinous crime against the Natural Law. No Society which sanctions the killing of an entire class of persons and protects it with the mechanisms of the State is acting in a just manner.
THIS IS A GREAT RESPONSE. IS THERE ANY MORE TO ALLAN KEYES' RESPONSE? I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE WHOLE SPEECH IF IT IS AVAILABLE. KEEP UP YOUR GREAT WORK. PRAY FOR ME.
FR. DAVID FATHER DAVID P. BERTOLOTTI | March 24, 2009
Dear Judy,
I wonder if this might be an opportunity for the witness of the "Little Church". All those opposed to sharing the honor of the degree to be conferred upon them with the "High Priest of the Worldwide Abortion cult" might simply consider leaving their graduation caps and tassels at the altar of Our Lady and refuse the public conference of their degrees in protest of the dishonor to Our Lady and the Church. This is such a shame! Catherine Lemek | March 24, 2009
Dear Judy and Father David,
You can view Alan Keyes' full response at www.loyaltoliberty.com.
Thanks and God bless you! Catherine Lemek | March 24, 2009
Catherine
Excellent idea!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | March 24, 2009
Dear Father
You can find Alan's entire commentary on line at his web site. The article, NOTRE DAME: Promoting the Glamor of Evil is at http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com/2009/03/notre-dame-promoting-glamour-of-evil.html
Judie Brown Judie Brown | March 24, 2009
These responses are all great.
What would good Catholics unified with their friends in the Civil Rights Movement have done if George Wallace or Bull Connor had been invited to give the commencement address and receive an honorary degree from Notre Dame in the 1960s? I imagine that there would have been mass action on the day of the event among other protests. Is this possible in this situation? If only a fraction of the folks who show up for the March for Life in Washington were to show up in South Bend the weekend of commencement I think the point would have been well made. Joe Waters | March 24, 2009
Judie - where does the vatican stand on all of this. What a pity that the so called christian clergy does not take an outright stand on this.
Also do you know how one can email Dr. Keyes direct?
Thanks God Bless a j amato | August 11, 2009
Dear AJA
You can email Alan Keyes via the Renew America web site.
The Vatican does not get involved in politics, but does set forth Catholic medical ethics and Catholic principles. All the ordained in our midst have to do is teach the truth.
BRAZIL'S BISHOPS BELEAGUERED BUT BLESSED Posted: Friday March 20, 2009 at 2:11 pm EST by Judie Brown
The past few days have given all of us a bird's eye view of what it means to be a Catholic bishop who comprehends the meaning of the word sin and is not afraid to punish those who offend God by acts of murder. The case in question involves a nine-year-old girl who, according to media reports, was repeatedly raped by her stepfather. He apparently began sexually assaulting her when she was three years of age.
Ghastly seems too delicate a word for such evil acts. And yet, when she was diagnosed as being four months pregnant, and the doctors explained to her mother that she was carrying twins, the immediate decision in the case was to abort the babies. This is where Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho became involved. Upon hearing of the case, and after a thorough investigation of the matter, he announced the excommunication of the doctor who performed the abortion on the nine-year-old girl, as well as the family members who made the decision to carry out the procedure.
"The Church, in fidelity to the Gospel, positions itself always in favor of life, in an unequivocal condemnation of all violence done against the dignity of the human person," they wrote, adding that "in the face of the complexity of the case, we lament that has not been faced with serenity, tranquility, and the necessary time that the situation demanded. Furthermore, we do not agree with the final outcome of eliminating the life of defenseless human beings."
"It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated," he said.
Re, who also heads the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, added: "Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian church is unjustified."
A day later, the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life announced that he did not agree with Archbishop Sobrinho's action. Archbishop Rino Fisichella wrote a commentary for the newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano.
Archbishop Fisichella lamented the precipitous condemnation in such a morally delicate case. Referring to the excommunication "latae sententiae" [automatically incurred at the moment of the act], he said that "such urgency and publicity was not necessary."
What is most needed at this time, he explained, "is the sign of a testimony of closeness with the one suffering, an act of mercy that, even while firmly maintaining the principle, is able to look beyond the juridical sphere."
It is true that the girl "carried within her innocent lives like her own, though the fruit of violence, and they have been done away with; however, this is not enough to pass a judgment that weighs as a condemnation," he added.
However, since those events of early this week, we have learned two things. The first is that the abortion, at least according to two medical authorities was uncalled for in the first place. LifeSite News interviewed Dr. Paul Byrne, a world-renowned neonatologist.
Byrne told LSN that it is certainly medically possible for a young girl safely to carry a pregnancy of twins to term. He acknowledged that the circumstances are unusual, but said that the problem of giving birth with an undeveloped pelvic structure could be safely avoided by a caesarean section.
Dr. Byrne cited the case of Lina Medina, a Peruvian girl from the Andean village of Ticrapo who made medical history when she gave birth to a boy by caesarean section in May 1939 at the age of five years, seven months and 21 days.
But he emphasized that no matter what the situation in the case, "abortion is not the solution." The girl, he said, "was sexually abused" and needed treatment. "Someone should have tried to help this girl."
And now, Fr. Berardo Graz, a Brazilian priest and medical ethics expert, has denounced the statements by Archbishop Fisichella.
Fr. Berardo Graz of the Diocese of Guarulhos has issued a statement asserting that "if Msgr. Fisichella had received more correct and detailed information about what happened in the case he would not have written what he wrote." Graz is on the board of directors of Stela Maris Hospital in Sao Paulo, and was trained as a physician in Italy.
Through all this controversy, however, the Brazilian bishops have kept their wits about them and simply moved forward, knowing that there is never a reason to execute an innocent human being and that everything should have been done to protect this very young mother and her two babies. They broke their silence on March 18, responding to Archbishop Fisichella. That statement reads in part,
1. The fact [the rape of the little girl] did not happen in Recife, as the article states, but in the city of Alagoinha (Diocese of Pesqueira).
2. All of us – beginning with the parish priest of Alagoinha (undersigned) – treated the pregnant girl and her family with all charity and tenderness. The Parish priest, making use of his pastoral solicitude, when aware of the news in his residence, immediately went to the house of the family, in which he met the girl and lent her his support and presence, before the grave and difficult situation in which the girl found herself. And this attitude continued every day, from Alagoinha to Recife, where the sad event of the abortion of the two innocent [babies] took place. Therefore, it is quite evident and unequivocal that nobody thought in "excommunication" in the first place. We used all means at our disposal to avoid the abortion and thus save all THREE lives. The Parish priest personally joined the local Children's Council in all efforts which sought the welfare of the child and of her two children. In the hospital, in daily visits, he displayed attitudes of care and attention which made clear both to the child and to her mother that they were not alone, but that the Church, represented by the local Parish priest, assured them of the necessary assistance and of the certainty that all would be done for the welfare of the girl and to save her two children.
3. After the girl was transferred to a hospital of the city of Recife, we tried to use all legal means to avoid the abortion. The Church never displayed any omission in the hospital. The girl's parish priest made daily visits to the hospital, traveling from the city which is 230 km [140 mi] away from Recife, making every effort so that both the child and the mother felt the presence of Jesus the Good Shepherd, who seeks the sheep who need most attention. Therefore, the case was treated with all due care by the Church, and not 'sbrigativamente' [summarily], as the article says.
4. We do not agree [with Archbishop Fisichella] that the "decision is hard... for the moral law itself". Our Holy Church continues to proclaim that the moral law is exceedingly clear: it is never licit to eliminate the life of an innocent person to save another life. The objective facts are these: there are doctors who explicitly declare that they perform and will continue to perform abortions, while others declare with the same firmness that they will never perform abortions. Here is the declaration written and signed by a Brazilian Catholic physician: "...As an obstetrician for 50 years, graduated in the National Medical School of the University of Brazil, and former chief of Obstetrics in the Hospital of Andarai [Rio de Janeiro], in which I served for 35 years until I retired in order to dedicate myself to the Diaconate, and having delivered 4,524 babies, many from juvenile [mothers], I never had to resort to an abortion to 'save lives', as well as all my colleagues, sincere and honest in their profession and faithful to their Hippocratic oath. ..."
The statement, which is presented in full on the LifeSite News web site is signed by five priests and diocesan officials intimately involved in the case. In fact, I would encourage anyone who is concerned about the apparent discrepancies reported in the media regarding what some view as soft peddling on the part of at least one Vatican official, to read the official statement from the diocese where this occurred in Brazil.
No wonder faithful Catholics get confused, frequently feel betrayed and then wonder what shoe will drop next! Well, that's why we put our faith in God, not man. And it is also why…
Our hats are off to the Catholic leaders in Brazil for standing true to the faith and the Magisterium of the Church and not buckling under pressure. Praise God for each of them!
Bravo, Brazilian Church leadership. "the moral law is exceedingly clear: it is never licit to eliminate the life of an innocent person to save another life." The moral law may be exceedingly clear. The difficulty comes with grasping for things we "want", rather than submitting ourselves to what is right. David Volk | March 20, 2009
What a sad case, but we cannot allow anyone to murder those twins for the sake of the young mother. Theresa Smith | March 21, 2009
This article is an excellent example for Catholics, like me and my family, to grow in pro life strength, because it shows that we must all be like the Brazilian priests who couragessly and compasionatly tried to help the young girl and her twin unborn babies.
It is however, a sad depiction, as well, of other Roman Catholic priests that are clouded and confused. I pray for all priests and lay people to seek an understanding of the heart and mind of God. The poor young girl now will face the torment of being raped by her father and also raped again by the abortionist. I will be keeping all in my prayers. JUdy, thank you for all the many years of bringing truth into a world that somehow bypasses it.
Sincerely, David and Lori Kleist lori kleist | March 22, 2009
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT COMPASSION Posted: Thursday March 19, 2009 at 10:44 am EST by Judie Brown
Though not widely publicized, the case of 35-year-old Air Force Captain Michael Fontana brings to light the tentacle of the culture of death that is snake-like and sneaky. That tentacle is euthanasia, which has come to be known in recent times by a myriad of names, none of which is designed to expose the horror of what it actually means.
In the case of Air Force Captain Michael Fontana, a nurse formally accused of ending the lives of three patients in his care by giving them overdoses of medication, the military has acted with due diligence in formally charging the officer and is currently pursuing a rigorous investigation. Fontana, who is continuing to work in the hospital where his deeds occurred, though not allowed contact with patients or records, will be handled with a presumption of innocence until all of the evidence is gathered and a formal military trial is held. That is how the hospital's spokesperson explained it to the media a couple of days ago.
In a just society, this is the way such allegations should be handled. But the actions allegedly taken by this male nurse do not represent justice toward those entrusted to his care. On the contrary, if proven to be true, Fontana will be another example of a growing, socially acceptable, yet sordid view of those who are facing death. It could well be that each of the three victims in this case were "end-of-life terminally ill patients."
However, a condition like that does not rob a human being of his personal dignity, nor should it be reason to hasten death by a direct act of killing.
In Georgia, a similar case is being played out. The victim in the Georgia case was a 58-year-old man suffering from cancer of the throat and mouth. The accused individuals who "helped" the man kill himself are members of an alleged assisted suicide ring known as the Final Exit Network. According to news reports, the network's president, its medical director and two other members of the group facilitated the death of the cancer patient.
While some have argued that no crime was committed, in this case others have given the case an appropriate definition.
"How is this not murder?'' asked Stephen Drake of the group Not Dead Yet, an advocacy group for the disabled that opposes assisted suicide and euthanasia.
"This is predatory. These are people who get off on being there for death. They target certain types of people,'' he said. "And when we make laws, when we talk about people who want to commit suicide, we're getting into very dangerous territory.''
Though the accused have been arrested, one can be assured that this case, like others, will drag on and in the final analysis it is highly unlikely that justice will be served. For as the newspaper has already reported, "People convicted of assisting in suicide in Georgia can be sentenced to up to five years in prison."
Where the law protects assisted suicide, as in the states of Oregon and Washington, there are other problems that are faced with honesty only by those who labor night and day to defend human dignity and fend off those who would euthanize while calling it something else.
A pro-euthanasia group monitoring how the Oregon law is working, recently issued a press release in which they claimed the following:
Compassion & Choices today noted that nearly 100% of terminally ill individuals using the law in 2008 were enrolled in hospice. Hospice enrollment among those using the Act increased to 98%, with 59 of the 60 individuals enrolled. Over the prior ten years of the Act's existence, 86% of patients using the Act were enrolled in hospice, in itself a very high rate of use.
The Death with Dignity Act has contributed to the increased use of hospice, and high quality of end-of-life and palliative care in Oregon. ... Nearly universal hospice enrollment among patients using the Act is a direct result of the increased communication that legal aid in dying prompts.
Please take note that the protection of a law provides a shield for the very acts that result in premature death, or death on demand, as I prefer to call it. The promoters of euthanasia, in other words, want the same legal safeguards that abortionists have!
We applaud the Oregonian's recommendation that Washington voters reject I-1000, the physician-assisted suicide measure.
We must comment on two realities: first, the group controlling assisted suicide in Oregon is also the group controlling what the public is told; second, the claim that Oregon is a leader in improved end-of-life care because of assisted suicide is inaccurate.
The editorial board correctly notes "a coterie of insiders run the program, with a handful of doctors and others deciding what the public may know".
The group promoting assisted suicide, so-called "Compassion and Choices (C&C)", are like the fox in the proverbial chicken coop; in this case, the fox is reporting its version to the farmer regarding what is happening in the coop. Members of C&C authored and proclaim they are the stewards of Oregon's assisted suicide law. They call it "their law". They have arranged and participated in 3/4ths of Oregon's assisted suicide cases. Their medical director reported she'd participated in more than 100 doctor-assisted suicides as of March 2005. A physician board member reported in 2006 that he'd been involved with over forty such patients. Their executive director reported in September 2007 that he has attended more than 36 assisted suicide deaths. He has been involved in preparing the lethal solution. Yet, he is not a doctor.
In 2006, C&C's attorneys intimidated the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) to change to euphemisms in referring to Oregon's assisted suicide law. The limited DHS reports of assisted suicides is another indication of this organization's influence. Information that is damaging to the "good public image" of Oregon's assisted suicide law is hidden or glossed-over in the DHS reports. As such, we believe the initials "C&C" of this organization more properly reflect its repeated public behavior—that is, "Conspiracy & Control".
Regardless of one's perspective on assisted suicide, all citizens should be concerned about the controlling influence of this death-promoting organization. In all other areas of medicine, we are striving for increased transparency—not conspiracy and control.
What about assisted suicide causing improved end-of-life care?
There is improved end-of-life care in Oregon. In training physicians, we have sought to improve patient-physician communication, and improve patient care at many levels. We have made improvements. However, similar improvements have occurred in other states that have not legalized assisted suicide. Many states do better than Oregon in this area. The latest data ranks Oregon ninth (not first) in Medicare-age hospice-utilization; four of the top five states have criminalized assisted-suicide. The Wisconsin Pain Policies Studies Group issues grades regarding states' pain-policies.
While Oregon & Washington both have high grades on their pain-policies, an OHSU study documented that after four years of assisted suicide in Oregon there was a decline in end-of-life pain-control. This doesn't prove that the pain-control decline was due to assisted suicide. At the same time, the data doesn't support the claim that legalization of assisted suicide improved care at the end-of-life.
In summary, we should all be wary of the false "C&C" claims.
Clearly, those who have a vested interest in imposed death by demand; rather than serving the dying with love, appropriate pain management and unconditional commitment to comfort; are most successful when they are in charge and can spin the story their way. Sound familiar?
Captain Fontana, the Final Exit Network folks and the "C&C" leadership all have something in common. They firmly and perhaps sincerely believe that their agenda, rather than God's, helps more people.
Their sort of "compassion" almost always results in a planned, premature death.
For my money, I'll stick with Pope John Paul II and his profound message regarding genuine compassion.
The parable of the Good Samaritan belongs to the Gospel of suffering. For it indicates what the relationship of each of us must be towards our suffering neighbor. We are not allowed to "pass by on the other side" indifferently; we must "stop" beside him. Everyone who stops beside the suffering of another person, whatever form it may take, is a Good Samaritan. … Sometimes this compassion remains the only or principal expression of our love for and solidarity with the sufferer.
SPLITTING HAIRS SO WE CAN KILL 'EM AND USE 'EM! Posted: Wednesday March 18, 2009 at 1:38 pm EST by Judie Brown
Like everyone else who first saw the CNS headline, "Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Two Days After Signing Executive Order to OK It," I was very confused. We had people at American Life League scrambling in an effort to understand precisely what was actually going on regarding human embryonic children and their susceptibility to murder. And after a great deal of reading, reviewing and re-reading the matter began to clarify for us.
Now I think we have solved the riddle. But before we get into the details, allow me to say that there is evil afoot in all this, not to mention deception, delusional thinking, demented goals and downright dirty politics.
Get this:
Federal funds cannot be used to create human embryos for research purposes and cannot be used to destroy or harm human embryos, but federal funds may be used to conduct human embryonic stem cell research as long as those stem cells were taken from human embryos killed by private sources and/or with private funding.
This is so because several years ago, two members of Congress authored what is now known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.
As someone involved with the actual writing of the original Dickey-Wicker Amendment in 1996, I understand its limited value and I understand how a devious mind could work around it. According to the Genetics and Public Policy web site,
In the United States there is no federal legislation prohibiting cloning for either reproductive or therapeutic purposes. However, under the 1996 Dickey-Wicker Amendment it is illegal to use federal funds to support research "in which human embryos are created, destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204 and 46.207, and subsection 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act." Moreover, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment defines a human embryo as "any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of enactment of the governing appropriations act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells."
In essence, then, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment prohibits the use of tax dollars for the purpose of killing.
But it does not prohibit research on those human embryonic children killed with private funding. And that is where the devious details reside … by splitting hairs, Obama could have it both ways, eat his cake and have it too, or as I prefer to describe it, put himself an arm's length away for the first gruesome act of killing so he can authorize funding for the second grisly act of using human embryonic cells to advance the work of those who refuse to acknowledge their own failure.
When the New York Times reported on Obama's executive order a couple of days ago, they made a rather astute observation. Yes, I did say that the New York Times was perceptive because you have to give the devil his due. At any rate, the editorial began by stating
No sooner had President Obama lifted the Bush-era restrictions on financing embryonic stem cell research than critics began urging that any federal support be limited to work with stem cells derived from surplus embryos at fertility clinics. That would be a mistake. The guidelines should define the eligible research as broadly as possible to allow the greatest potential for advances.
This is an astute observation because the New York Times is not being disingenuous; it is being brutally honest, which is more than one can say for the shrewd plotters within the Obama camp. The New York Times wants no limits on the killing of human embryonic children, and as you can see, discusses these human beings as if they were french fries left over from lunch at the local deli.
Isn't it a shame that throughout this discussion, that has occupied many hours of reporting over the past week, very few have pinpointed the obvious fact that to kill one innocent person for the sake of allegedly helping another innocent person is gravely immoral and must never be done under any circumstance?
Note, for example, the comments of Republican Congressman Mike Castle, who relegates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to the trash heap of history in the way one might toss out an outdated suit coat, "[t]hat was passed in 1996, before we realized the full potential of embryonic stem cell research. Some researchers are telling us now that that needs to be reversed."
But you know what? The end game in all this is never addressed, and perhaps it won't be since the vast majority of politicians favor winning over moral principle. The sad fact is that regardless of who is paying for the research or who is doing the research, the practice is going to move forward and it is going to grow unless and until America bites the bullet and moves to ban in vitro fertilization, period!
The Catholic Church has warned from the early days before the practice began to yield freezer children, octo-moms and the like, that nothing good would come of this practice.
Pope John XXIII taught that since the "transmission of human life is entrusted by nature to a personal conscious act, and as such, is subject to the all-holy laws of God," in assisted human procreation " ...one cannot use means and follow methods that could be licit in the transmission of the life of plants and animals." The Church has condemned in vitro fertilization between husband and wife (homologous in vitro fertilization) because it is in itself illicit, and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union. It has also condemned in vitro fertilization in which sperm or ovum of a third person is used (heterologous in vitro fertilization) because, in addition, it violates the reciprocal commitment of the spouses and shows a grave lack of regard for that essential property of marriage which is unity. Furthermore, it deprives the child of her or his filial relationship with parental origins, can hinder the maturing of personal identity, can damage personal relationships within the family, and has repercussions on civil society.
In vitro fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as an expression and fruit of a specific act of conjugal union. The human embryo is treated as a product of technology and not as a gift of God. In its use and in the use of many other techniques of genetic engineering, a human person is objectively deprived of his or her proper perfection. Such fertilization establishes the domination of technology over the origin or destiny of the person. This domination is contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children. Therefore, in vitro fertilization is morally unacceptable.
Obviously one of those "repercussions on civil society" is the debate regarding who pays for the murder of the embryonic child versus who gets to use his or her body parts. How much more utilitarian can it get?
When will our fellow human beings wake up and see this tragedy for what it really is?
At its core, and regardless of alleged safeguards such as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, as long as artificial reproductive technologies are practiced, human embryonic children will be slaughtered. As Shea explains
The whole truth is that the immediate product of fertilization or cloning is a cell, but it is also a single cell organism, a human being, and a human person. In short, in order to prevent research on human embryos from occurring, in vitro fertilization by all methods must be generically prohibited in both public and private domains by law. It is not enough simply to oppose abortion and research on human embryos. If we are ever to succeed in outlawing those two crimes against humanity, we must lay the axe to the root of the tree. We must vigorously and persistently oppose contraception (both surgical and chemical) and all forms of in vitro formation of human embryos, both by fertilization and by all [other] techniques.
Send that message to your local congressman, stand back and watch the dust fly. Being a politician who is "pro-life" has become a political gambit with no moral teeth! If I were wrong, at least one member of Congress would have already echoed Dr. Shea's accurate statement within the last couple of days.
That sound is clapping.....great article and anaysis. ESC research and applied therapy has resulted in the death's of about 10 "human guinea pigs". Adult SC therapies have yielded over 70 cures. and no adverse side effects...so why push the dangerous route and killing of embryonic stage humans?? G Smith | March 18, 2009
Pro-Life Story: The Lost Child Posted By Nancy Addie on Jul, 14 2007 April 1976.....
It's almost midnight and I am sitting in the bathroom wringing my hands and wiping away tears. I am waiting to see if my life is going to change or if I am ... Read
