HuffPo, Mother Jones Claim Pro-Life Group OKs Killing Abortionists

LifeNews:

AUL’s “Pregnant Woman’s Protection Act” does not allow the killing of abortion practitioners but, as written, provides that a pregnant woman may use force to protect her unborn child when she reasonably believes that unlawful force is threatening her unborn child and that her use of force is immediately necessary to protect her unborn child. The language explicitly limits the permitted use of force to a pregnant woman and does not expand it to third parties. Thus, under the express terms of AUL’s carefully crafted and narrow language, the “Pregnant Woman’s Protection Act” could not be used to justify criminal violence against abortion providers or anyone else.

Pro-aborts don't get why they're losing people on abortion (Walk for Choice pics)

The pics from the Walk for Choice says it all.
They think they're being clever! They think that brandishing signs with adolescent slogans is a form of serious political activism.

They think a lack of gravitas is an asset.

Hey folks, you're in the business of defending the killing unborn children.

You'd think there would be a little more sérieux to your undertaking.

I guess not. Dismembering babies is all smiles and chuckles for them.

Here's a sample:

An irreligious approach to abortion

Andrew Brown:

Still, for the sake of argument, let's say that we are all agreed that infanticide is wrong, and not to be used as a tool of policy by anyone in peacetime. So what is it about the infant which makes it wrong to kill one? I'm looking for a non-religious answer here, as the rules of the debate demand.

I am not sure that I can come up with a wholly convincing reply except that it just is wrong, in the same kind of way that torture is simply wrong. But I am pretty certain there is something wrong with an answer which is often heard in these debates: the idea that the crucial quality that makes for a proper human is autonomy.

This comes up in the context of abortion when discussing time limits. It is felt – and argued – to be grotesque that a baby can be aborted who might survive given sufficiently intensive care. In that case, it is said to be capable of independent existence. But of course it isn't. This doesn't change much at birth, either.

Anyone who has ever handled a new-born baby knows that they are incapable of independent life. Even the Greeks, who thought it virtuous to expose all new-born infants on a mountainside and raise only those who survived, did not leave the babies for more than a couple of hours to survive by themselves and when they did the results were invariably disastrous, as the story of Oedipus shows.

This dependence doesn't materially change at birth. It just becomes wider and more general. Even in the womb, and even an embryo or foetus never depends only and entirely on the mother, since the mother also depends on other people to feed her and keep her alive. That kind of mutual interdependence is part of what being human means.

This interpretation runs against the whole current of reasoning about rights. Interdependence can't be described or defined by contracts because the whole point of a contract is that it has conditions. But getting away from rights talk is surely a good thing. And it does offer one kind of answer to John Harris's question about what changes in the moral status of a baby when it is born. It's nothing in the baby itself. There's no special privilege to breathing air. But once it has been born, it has a claim on more than care. It has a claim on love.

Atheistic thinking can't come to terms with human beings having intrinsic value.

They also can't appeal to a higher law. There are no higher values. Values are just the product of subjective thinking, not what reality actually is (because reality doesn't actually have any transcendant laws).

It's amusing that the author says the newborn has a claim on love. If birth and autonomy doesn't change moral status, why doesn't the unborn have a claim on love?

VIDEO: Jacquie Stalnaker Speaks About Her Abortion

It's babies, not discrimination, that's holding back women in the workplace

Says feminist.

Look, everything has an opportunity cost. If you want to raise junior yourself (which you should) then you will probably not be on track to be a CEO.

But guess what? You get to bear and breastfeed beautiful babies, which men don't get to do.

Across all professions, women’s careers take a nose dive the moment they reproduce. The full-time pay gap more than trebles for women in their thirties (from 3 per cent to 11 per cent), while the part-time pay gap increases from 23 per cent to 32 per cent.

For a certain kind of reactionary, this just proves that women aren’t cut out for the top jobs. Pop a baby in her arms and even the most ball-breaking career woman will suddenly find she longs to be at home all day, making organic finger food and mopping up organic vomit. It’s biology, innit?

Well, not exactly. What happens is this. From the moment you deliver your first child, and your husband is booted out of the hospital while you get on with the business of bonding, it is made very clear that child-rearing is women’s work.

Yeah because...women are programmed for it? Who has the boobs? Who has the maternal instincts? Who grows eyes in the back of their heads?

Sorry, women are wired to be the main caregiver.

Because you are at home, it makes sense for you to take on the endless admin: health checks, vaccinations, nursery registrations, interviewing nannies or childminders. It is up to you, too, to keep the little critter fed, clothed and entertained – and while you’re at it, you might as well do the shopping, cooking and tidying-up.

By the time your maternity leave is up, you’ll find you have been zapped back to the 1950s. You are something perilously close to a housewife,

Horrors!!! SHRIEK

while your man has become an old-fashioned, long-hours breadwinner. Splendid, if that’s how you like it – but not so good if you need, or want, to work.

Lady, that's what you sign up for. It's biology.

The division of duties, once established, is extremely hard to alter, so it is almost invariably the woman who scales back her career:

And is it their choice? YES. So butt out.

The working woman’s enemy is not some pinstriped, misogynistic boss, cackling evilly as he slams the boardroom door. Nor, in fact, is it men in general.

Men, how original!

UK: Mum of 16 tells of benefits gravy train

I'm glad she never had an abortion.

But the idea is not to have sixteen kids with five different dads.

It is not mentioned whether her current spouse is supporting her.
If the current spouse is supporting her, I don't see the problem. She has the right to her benefits like anyone else.

If she's using baby-making to support her lifestyle, I have a big problem with that. Not that I'd want her to get an abortion, but babies should not be commodities used to suck money out of the government.

And lastly: maybe she is a crappy mom but...why is this news?

Family Coalition Party's Communique on Baby Joseph

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Baby Joseph Maraachli: Ontario’s Anti-Family Health‘Care’

February 26, 2011, London, ON London Health Sciences Centre’s dealing with baby Joseph is disrespectful of the family!

Thirteen-month old Joseph Maraachli has a rare neurological disease. He is currently in at the London Health Sciences Centre in London, Ontario receiving medical treatment. Joseph’s parents, Sana Nader and Moe Maraachli, had requested that hospital perform a tracheotomy on Joseph so that he could go home to pass away in his home under the care of his parents. The parents believe with a tracheotomy, their son could breathe and live out the remainder of his little life from the comfort of his home. The hospital denied them this request.

Health care officials determined that Baby Joseph should be taken off his ventilator. A judge then compelled Moe Maraachli to comply with the decision to remove his son from the ventilator. Moe Maraachli did what every loving father would do, and would not consent. Joseph’s parents fear that without the ventilator, Joseph will suffocate and die. The hospital moved, then, to have an approval to remove the ventilator without parental consent.

Joseph’s parents tried to get him transferred to a Michigan hospital. On Wednesday, The Children’s Hospital of Michigan contacted the London Health Sciences Centre denying the transfer. The London hospital had been waiting to see if the boy could be transferred before pursuing the option of removing breathing tubes without parental consent. The hospital filed a request to remove the breathing tubes with the Ontario’s Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee.

This story is full of twists and turns. sounds like it comes out of an ethics textbook. But it doesn’t; it is a real story with real consequences for a real family. Phil Lees, Leader of the Family Coalition Party is most concerned about the disregard of the input of the parents, “The infringement on parental rights in this case is astounding. That a hospital would seek permission to bypass parents’ wishes and remove their baby’s ventilator is unbelievable. The family accepts that baby Joseph’s condition is terminal, but to actively seek legal support to go against the wishes of the family for a natural, unassisted death is anti-family.”

The family fears Joseph will suffer a painful choking death if the ventilator is removed. They have requested that doctors perform a tracheotomy on Joseph so they can take him home to die surrounded by family – the hospital has refused. The family’s Baby daughter, Zina, had a similar condition eight years ago; doctors performed the tracheotomy and Zina lived for six months after being taken home.

This issue will set a frightening precedent. The result could encourage other health care providers to disregard the life-respecting requests of patients, their families, and those with power of attorney for personal care. We must re-set the moral compass of the health care system. This issue matters to all Ontarians!



-30-





Phil Lees, Leader of the Family Coalition Party

Phone - 905 538 5327 (office) 869 6334 (cell)

email – mailto:mainoffice@familycoalitionparty.com
http://www.familycoalitionparty.com/

The pro-abort said it

I've said it before, and I'll said it again. The feminist attitude towards fetuses is as follows: if a fetus has to suffer and die in the name of female empowerment, tough luck fetus!

Well, pro-abort Frances Kissling more or less confirmed my saying:

The pro-abortion mindset, warned Kissling, is increasingly being seen as callously indifferent to the unborn child, in contrast with the pro-life culture. “We can no longer pretend the fetus is invisible,” she said. “We must end the fiction that an abortion at 26 weeks is no different from one at six weeks. The fetus is more visible than ever before, and the abortion-rights movement needs to accept its existence and its value.

“It may not have a right to life, and its value may not be equal to that of the pregnant woman, but ending the life of a fetus is not a morally insignificant event.”

In my 5 years of writing this blog, I don't think I've ever seen any feminist object to what I said.

But to tell the truth, I think feminists understand the abortion debate better than Kissling. They understand that if they grant one iota of value to the fetus, they've lost the battle. Kissling is a bit of a useful idiot for the pro-life movement.

Still, the feminists are in between a rock and a hard place because they do look completely callous and uncaring towards the unborn child, but they prefer that reputation than giving any value whatsoever to the unborn child. 

Diocese of Joliette publishes Fr. Raymond Gravel's Homily for Sunday, Feb. 27

We were waiting for the response from the Diocese of Joliette on the case of Raymond Gravel suing LifesiteNews and Campaign Life Quebec. Well, we got it.


I guess the Diocese of Joliette is not exactly fazed by one of its priests settling scores by lawsuits.

Lifesitenews and Campaign Life didn't seem to to hurt his cred too badly with the Diocese.

Oh yeah, in case anyone needs them, I got screen shots.

(PS: I'm still fighting the flu.)

VIDEO: The women Language Translator - Manslator

Should be mandatory with every marriage:

VIDEO: Denise is Silent No More

Pro-abortion whackjob arrested ("Operation Counterstrike")

In the wake of George Tiller's assassination, a troll who went by the name of "Operation Counterstrike" started going around the pro-life blogs and threatening to kill pro-lifers. Including me.

I never really took the guy seriously. Like yeah, bud, I really believe you're going to come all the way to Canada to kill me.

Well, his antics have come to a halt.

His name is Theo/Ted Shulman. As Kathy Shaidle says, he's too stupid to be Jewish.

Here's his blog.

UPDATE:

Wow, he's a bigger nut than I thought.

Study: Family planning in sub-Saharan Africa: progress or stagnation?

Just an interesting abstract:

FINDINGS: In western Africa, the subjective need for contraception remained unchanged; about 46% of married or cohabiting women reported a desire to stop and/or postpone childbearing for at least two years. The percentage of women who approved of contraception rose from 32 to 39 and the percentage with access to contraceptive methods rose from 8 to 29. The proportion of women who were using a modern method when interviewed increased from 7 to 15% (equivalent to an average annual increase of 0.6 percentage points). In eastern African countries, trends were much more favourable, with contraceptive use showing an average annual increase of 1.4 percentage points (from 16% in 1986 to 33% in 2007).

Question: does no one see an imperialist agenda here?

The majority of these women DO NOT WANT contraception. (Just because they want to postpone doesn't mean they want condoms!)

The majority of these women do not approve of contraception.

Why are we trying to push contraception on a population that, as a whole does not want it?

Aren't we supposed to trust women?

Oh right, we can't if they don't support the pro-choice ideology.

VIDEO: Fr. Bill Casey on Superficial Preaching

Watch it. Then blog it. Do it now.

Catholic clergy: if you haven't mentioned a Catholic doctrine, a Catholic saint, a papal document, a Church Father or a Thomistic concept in your last Sunday homily THIS IS FOR YOU:

Another abortionist caught dealing drugs

Says the Sun Sentinel:

Among those charged with racketeering and drug trafficking in Wednesday's pain clinic raids is Dr. Zvi Harry Perper, son of Broward Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Joshua Perper, who is among the leaders of the region's ongoing battle with prescription drug abuse.

Authorities say Dr. Zvi Harry Perper, 49, ranked 22nd in the nation among medical practitioners in ordering oxycodone, which he dispensed at the pain clinic where he worked, Delray Pain Management.

According to Forerunner.com, Dr. Zvi Harry Perper:

was the killer on duty at the EPOC clinic in Orlando in 1995 when Baby Rowan was born alive and left to die. He was disciplined for performing a botched abortion in 2003

Christina Dunigan says:

Rowan's mother, Angele, reported that the place was filthy, speckled with old blood, and staffed by callous, uncaring people.


Sound familiar?

But under NO CONDITION must abortion clinic regualations be legislated or enforced.[/sarcasm]

VIDEO: People Saved From Abortion

Sidewalk counselling is a woman's right, pro-lifers. Remember that if a woman wants to talk to a sidewalk counsellor, that is her reproductive right.

Pedopilia declared a “sexual orientation” by witnesses in House Justice Committee

We knew this was coming.

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem (Psychologist and Professor (retired), University of Montreal, As an Individual): When we speak of therapy or when individuals get therapy and we feel as though everyone is pacified, the good news is often illusory. For instance, it is a fact that real pedophiles account for only 20% of sexual abusers. If we know that pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offence from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality, and if we agree on the fact that true pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation, everyone knows that there is no such thing as real therapy. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may however remain abstinent.

...

Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ): I will try to focus on this subject. I have to admit that I was not expecting, on this Valentine’s Day, to be talking about this inappropriate type of love. It is not really love. It has more to do with violence and control. I am concerned, Professor Van Gijseghem—and I know you well as I have heard you testify on a number of other subjects—because you say, if I am not mistaken, that pedophilia is a sexual orientation.


Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem: That is what I said.

Mr. Marc Lemay: Should it therefore be compared to homosexuality?

Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem: Yes, or heterosexuality. If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.

Mr. Marc Lemay: In my opinion, society and no one around this table will accept pedophilia, even if it is a sexual orientation. I recall a period, not too long ago, when homosexuality was treated as an illness. It is now accepted, society has accepted it, and even if some refuse to recognize it, it is accepted. However, I cannot imagine pedophilia being accepted in 2011.(...)

Give it ten or twenty years.

But see, YOU CANNOT DISCRIMINATE  WITH REGARD TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

So if a pedophile wants to move into you apartment building where you live with your three kids, you cannot deny him.

If pedophilia is a sexual orientation like any other.

Sure, this is only coming out now. NAMBLA will be on this any time soon, making the apology for man-boy love.

But now leftists will be in a quandry. They will either have to accept pedophilia or accept that Christians can question homosexual behaviour and discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

I predict they will accept pedophilia. Maybe not now. But give it twenty years. There's a reason nobody in the artistic world gives a damn about Roman Polanski's crime against a 13-year-old. That kind of laissez-faire morality is chic.Getting a moral high horse about anything sexual would ruin their self-image.

H/T:  No Apologies

Lying in the pro-life movement must not go mainstream. It must be eradicated

Father Jerabek wrote a very thoughtful comment in response to Mark Shea's excellent column Augustine vs. the Priscillianists:

There have always been people in the pro-life movement who used immoral means to obtain what they perceived to be good ends. For example, in the 80s there were groups like Randall Terry’s “Operation Rescue” that routinely broke justly-enacted and enforced civil laws, in order to make statements, raise awareness, stop abortion, etc. In the 80s and 90s there were also bombings of clinics by pro-life madmen. In the 80s, 90s, and 00s, there were abortion doctors murdered by the same types of characters.

In all of these cases, what was involved was someone or some group of people, who saw themselves as fighting the pro-life cause, embracing a vigilante-sort of justice and using illicit means to achieve their goals. BUT IT MUST BE NOTED: it was also always possible to write off these individuals/groups as “extremists”, “fundamentalists”, “wackos”, etc. In other words, it was always clear, to one degree or another, that “this is not what the pro-life movement stands for”, that these people were on the fringe.

Now, while it was once possible to write off immorality in the pro-life movement as belonging to the fringe, it has now become mainstream, because it is being cloaked in America’s favorite guilty pleasure: lying. (Further cloaked by another favorite pasttime: consequentialism.) Live Action (and its imitators) is a mainstream group; they are being greatly hailed by pro-lifers all around. And they are using the tools of evil to obtain perceived good ends.

So perhaps it can be said that there has always been a cancer in the “movement”, but it was also always possible to defend ourselves against it—UNTIL NOW, when immoral means are threatening to become part of “the new norm”, or as Mark has called it, The New Hotness.

And I don’t hesitate to say that it is “mainstream” now, because I see that it is poisoning an entire generation. There are many fine young men and women on college campuses right now who see the truth about abortion, are very eager to do something, and are also energized about what Lila Rose and others are doing. They see her as a heroine and—like many people on these pages, on Dr. Kreeft’s combox, and in other fora—they reject out-of-hand the notion that what she is doing is wrong, in the final analysis. They might even admit that what she is doing is morally evil, but they also maintain that such evil can be justified in these circumstances.

It is urgent that we help people to see the truth of this matter and so prevent this cancer from metastasizing in the mainstream. Mark has easily shown how this “Faustian Bargain” that is being transacted in our time is already having deleterious effects (see his final paragraph). I shudder to think what it will produce in the long run. Mark’s raising the example of Holland should be a salutary warning for us all.

As we approach the season of Lent, perhaps it falls to us to rethink our role in the fight against evil, particularly the battle against abortion. Our primary weapon must be the truth and we must cloak ourselves with the armor of Light. Could it be that our weariness over a 40-year battle has resulted in an idolatry of success? Our desire for results has led us to give in to temptations to do evil, or at least to support others in so doing.

Let’s not simply drive this “cancer” back to the fringe. Let’s eradicate it completely: first, through humble prayer and supplication; second, by holding high standards for ourselves, in dependence upon God’s grace; third, by exhorting others to do the same, primarily by a shining example, but also, when necessary, by our charitable words.

This fight to eliminate lying in the pro-life movement is of extreme importance.

Because we will never win without moral purity. The pro-life battle is first and foremost a spiritual battle.

That means our most important weapons are of a spiritual nature, and moral purity is a necessary part of that.

When you're a Christian, when you're a Catholic, you do not live unto yourself. Your sin affects everyone else. When you sin and put barriers in the way of the Holy Spirit's operation in your heart, you're stopping the Holy Spirit's operation in the whole Church.

People say that lying is okay as if committing this evil were of no consequence, as if the operation of the Holy Spirit were some paltry consideration.

No it's not.

When the Holy Spirit is stopped in its tracks, that's how we become ineffective, and that's how we stop changing hearts. Our own holiness, regardless of our planned actions, changes hearts. We don't always know how that happens. We don't need to know.  It's a mystery. When you're full of the Holy Spirit, you don't necessarily need to think of fancy words or strategize about everything, because the Holy Spirit does that for you through your own holiness. Better than you can.

Yes, it's all very mysterious. We hate the thought of another baby aborted. The subjective emotion of thinking of that experience is more than many of us can bear.

But there's more to morality and truth than what our emotions can bear. And yes, the lack of a lie can mean that another mother goes to the abortion clinic and has her child slaughtered, but it is an evil we must tolerate in the short term for the greater good.

God does this all the time. He could violate free will and stop racial genocide. But he doesn't. He tolerates levels of evil above and beyond abortion. He does it  because the greater good is that human beings need to choose moral acts in order to be good and loving. Nothing else can substitute. So horrible consequences have to be tolerated for the big picture.

If God can tolerate the evil in the name of the big picture, we can tolerate the evil, in the short term, for the big picture. We can't make our laudable goal of saving babies so important that it trumps Truth, in every sense of that word. It almost becomes a false idol. We make the lives of human beings more important than God's law. We can't. God's law is everything. It's reason we are pro-life, and so we can't act like it's not important. It's contradictory.

I'll probably have more to say about this. I suspect this controversy is going to go on for a while. There are so many things many Catholics don't get-- Catholics who are otherwise faithful to the Magisterium. There are things that need to be said not just to correct them but because they are essential to the very cause we espouse. They're essential to understand the moral order. And they're essential because holiness is what will ultimately win this battle, and it is difficult to be holy in ignorance, especially on so basic a concept as lying.

VIDEO: Kathy is Silent No More

Abortion “From the Victim’s Vantage Point”

Ex-abortionist and pro-life activist Bernard Nathanson recently died at the age of 84. National Right to Life News re-published an interview with him concerning his most famous movie, The Silent Scream, which depicts a fetus being aborted. The interview took place in 1984.

Many pro-aborts have attempted to debunk the movie as some kind of fake creation.

All they'd have to do to show this is all fake is show an abortion on ultrasound.

In the age of 4-D ultrasound, the image quality would be better than ever.

They'll never do it.

Here is an excerpt of the interview with National Right to Life:

News: What was your personal reaction to this ghastly scene?

BN: I suppose I knew what to expect, after all I’ve done thousands of these. In my thinking about abortion when I changed my point of view I was doing a great deal of ultra-sound, but not of abortions. So I was prepared, but it still stunned me and nauseated me. But I was prepared to do what I had to do [film the abortion]. The abortionist was not. When he was actually doing the abortion and watching the screen, he said he felt nauseated. He turned away. He didn’t want to see the film again. He did at my urging when we edited the film to tell me exactly what was happening. The ultra-sound technician needed a tremendous amount of persuasion to come back and see the film to do the editing. I had to pay her the moon. But she was essential; she had to show me the subtleties on the ultra-sound.

VIDEO: The Third Rail

Why reports of "ethicial concerns" about pregnancy issues bug me

Because in Canada, nobody really gives a damn about them.


Nobody gives a damn about eugenics or sexism or any other conern when it comes to abortion in this country.

If you want a certain kind of abortion, you can get it. Oh, there might be guidelines to prevent sex-selection abortion.

They're not worth the pixels they're printed with.

This is how it works in our society. Scientists develop the means without really caring about the ethical issues. We're so big on autonomy, we just treat like what every couple wants is correct.

Now if these debates actually produced regulations that stopped eugenics, then there might be something to them.

But nobody really cares. Couples will continue to abort Down babies rationalizing "it's best for him" and other BS. Nobody will object because "it's their choice".

If nobody is willing to object, ethical debates are of no avail or importance.

VIDEO: Suann is Silent No More

ATTENTION AMERICAN READERS: The 13 Senators who must vote to de-fund Planned Parenthood

Names, phone numbers, talking points---> *** HERE ***

Please pass on the link from CatholicVote.org. Retweet it, share it on facebook, just make sure all your pro-life contacts see this and call, call, call.

Mark Shea hits it on the nail again re: lying

Why do I go on so much about the morality of lying?

Because it's that important.

If we don't understand these basic points of morality, we will set ourselves back in the fight for life. Lying sounds like a good idea. Until you do it over and over again. And then no one trusts you anymore. Let's not go there folks. Every single word that comes out of our mouths must be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Mark Shea:

But I have *grave* misgivings about the prolife movement embracing, as a core pillar of its thought, the new enthusiasm for actively running around and lying to people we deem unworthy of the truth. If we clasp that to our bosom we will be indistinguishable from Muslim apologists for taqiyya. Jesus does not need us to lie for him. The Light of the World is not another taqiyya sunrise.

...

In sum, I greatly fear that Lying for Jesus is rapidly revealing itself as a classic Faustian Bargain. C.S. Lewis once remarked that the devil is quite happy to concede a little ground if he can win the battle, to cure our chillblains if he can give us cancer. Embarrassing PP for a few days—indeed, passing a defunding bill (good as that is)—is curing chillblains (for, of course, the bill will either die in the Senate or most certainly be vetoed by Obama) and our feel-good moment will pass. Embracing the notion that ordinary resistance to abortion is “not taking any real action” and that the prolife movement can only survive by Lying for Jesus is cancer. Precisely the problem with placing our hopes on things the Church calls intrinsically immoral is that you tend to lose your soul and, as Screwtape gleefully notes, get nothing in return. In the same way, what is increasingly troubling to me is that the short term gain of Lila Rose’s action has been to temporarily embarrass Planned Parenthood (which I celebrate) and induce a sort of moral giddiness among prolifers. But the long term effect will be to give Planned Parenthood the extremely effective tool (already being deployed to good effect in their fundraising letters) of being able to say, “Now those evil prolifers are resorting to lies to attack us” and, as this very controversy demonstrates, is to transform the prolife movement into a huge number of people whose top priority is to staunchly defend the notion of Lying for Jesus. Added Screwtapian bonus: while latching on to lying as the New Hotness more and more prolifers are speaking of those in their ranks with moral qualms about lying who support more traditional forms of resistance as contemptible Do Nothings, Pharisees and legalists. It’s only going to end in disaster and sorrow, I fear.

Let's not go there, people. It's a losing strategy in the long-term.

CARTOON: The Values Gap

By Mike Shelton:

VIDEO: Steven Crowder on Unions

Ontario bishop calls on Knights of Columbus to show up en masse at March for Life

Oh I hope the Knights heed the call.

Now I'm wondering if the Quebec bishops will do the same. I'm not holding my breath.

Fr. Raymond Gravel's faculties suspended?

I've read in many places that Fr. Raymond Gravel supposedly had his priestly faculties revoked.

However, his website says that he celebrated Mass on Sunday at the notoriously dissenting parish of St-Pierre Apôtre in Montréal. It is notorious because it has been a centre of support for Montreal's gay community and gay pride.

I just wanted to give you that little update.

Peter Kreeft: Wrong On Lying

Peter Kreeft wrote a defense of LiveAction's sting operations that was so bad, I'm not even going to link to it. I'm shocked that such a brilliant Catholic mind could write something so paltry.

Steven Kellmeyer says it all for me.

Steve suspects it was someone playing a prank at Boston College who published it. I wish so much that were true.

Folks, let's get things straight: why do we exist? Do we exist to save souls, save lives or do what God wants?

It's the latter of the three.

So that's number one. Everything else is secondary. If you don't get that, you don't get faith. You don't worry about practical consequences first. You worry about spiritual consequences first.

Raging Feminist Pastor a Throwback to the 70's

This is why people don't want to become feminists.

This is a classic example of a foaming ball-buster who can't understand anyone's point of view except her own and casts disagreement with her position as some kind of conspiracy of oppression in order to play the victim.

Good luck with that. It's done your movement so much good.

Then they come back and smear Christians as blind dogmatists.

VIDEO: Mary Jane is Silent No More

Just remember: your sins are not bigger than God's Mercy.

Why I never liked the neurodiversity movement

From an abstract:

Neurodiversity has remained a controversial concept over the last decade. In its broadest sense the concept of neurodiversity regards atypical neurological development as a normal human difference. The neurodiversity claim contains at least two different aspects. The first aspect is that autism, among other neurological conditions, is first and foremost a natural variation. The other aspect is about conferring rights and in particular value to the neurodiversity condition, demanding recognition and acceptance. Autism can be seen as a natural variation on par with for example homosexuality. The broad version of the neurodiversity claim, covering low-functioning as well as high-functioning autism, is problematic. Only a narrow conception of neurodiversity, referring exclusively to high-functioning autists, is reasonable. We will discuss the effects of DSM categorization and the medical model for high functioning autists. After a discussion of autism as a culture we will analyze various possible strategies for the neurodiversity movement to claim extra resources for autists as members of an underprivileged culture without being labelled disabled or as having a disorder. We will discuss their vulnerable status as a group and what obligation that confers on the majority of neurotypicals.

Expect the neurodiversity movement to demand of the wider society that disruptive autistic behavior be tolerated and eventually embraced. Expect autistic people to demand that the the majority accommodate their environment so that loud noises and other things don't bother them.

Many handicaps can have a silver lining. People with Down Syndrome are known to be happy and loving. Autistic people can be highly intelligent and interesting in their own quirks.

That shouldn't mean that we don't treat their handicap as a handicap, or their inappropriate behaviour as inappropriate behaviour.

The Human Rights Complaints are not far behind.

Sexual Health, HIV, and Sexually Transmitted Infections among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men in the United States.

Just an interesting abstract:

The sexual health of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States is not getting better despite considerable social, political and human rights advances. Instead of improving, HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) remain disproportionately high among MSM and have been increasing for almost two decades. The disproportionate and worsening burden of HIV and other STIs among MSM requires an urgent re-assessment of what we have been doing as a nation to reduce these infections, how we have been doing it, and the scale of our efforts. A sexual health approach has the potential to improve our understanding of MSM's sexual behavior and relationships, reduce HIV and STI incidence, and improve the health and well-being of MSM.

Here's the  deal.

When you're a guy, fuelled by testosterone and you have sex with other men full of testosterone and you don't have to worry about pregnancy, your safe-sex message is going to go out the window at least a good part of the time. A large proportion of that population will sleep around indiscriminately. Larger than among straights, for sure.

But keep throwing condoms at the problem. It keeps your industry going, right?

I have the flu today so I'm a bit inactive. Comments moderation may be slow

Thomas Aquinas: Should we spank children?

Canterbury Tales:

In the last few years, there have been several spoof versions of scholastic arguments in the manner of Saint Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae. Here's another spoof that I came up with - What Saint Thomas would have said regarding "Whether we should spank children."

You know you're Catholic when...

Mark Shea Says It All for Me on Lying

I almost feel like quoting the whole thing.

Here's an excerpt:

The problem with saying “We can lie for Jesus to save lives” is that it’s also an argument that we can lie for Jesus to save souls. There are plenty of religious zealots who have no desire for self-advancement and no intention of personal monetary gain who would argue that if you can fake a miracle for Jesus that will “win souls” then you should do it. Paul says “their condemnation is deserved”. That’s because, as he says, you cannot live by the principle “Let Us Do Evil that Good May Come of It.” That is, in the end, what is being argued for when you say that you can lie in a good cause.

...

But I also note that the attempt to deny that consequentialism (such as the theory that lying is not a sin when done by Our Team for a Good Cause) is wrong destroys Catholic moral teaching down to its very foundations. That’s what’s at stake here. That’s why it’s extremely important to be careful what we say. Again, consequentialism is The Favorite Moral Heresy of Americans (including the majority of American Catholics). As long as something “works”, Americans are typically fine with it. The problem is, this thinking undergirds not just the people who support Lila Rose, but the people Lila Rose opposes. Abortion “works”. It solves a problem. Embrace ends-justifies-the-means thinking and you destroy the logical basis for opposition to abortion (and all other Catholic morality) too.

I knew when I brought up this topic in my first post, I would get annoyed.

There are too many faithful Catholics who don't get the basics of Church teaching.

They don't understand St. Thomas Aquinas-- at least at a rudimentary level-- they don't understand the language of moral theology.

And then they try to tell you BS that lying is sometimes acceptable.

It's a big pet peeve of mine.

If you want to understand not what the Church says, but what the Church means, then you have to understand the basic language of St. Thomas Aquinas.

If you don't get Aquinas you don't get anything. If you don't understand words like nature, intrinsic, disordered and the like, you'll never be able to follow the Magisterium's logic.

And the Magisterium is plain: lying, by its nature, is to be condemned.

So don't do it. Ever.

It annoys me to no end that people who get that contraception is never acceptable don't understand that lying is never acceptable. Because the same logic you can use to justify lying, you can use to justify contraception. Condoms are said to save lives. If your husband is seropositive, then shouldn't you be able to have consensual sex without death? It's for a good cause.

You might say: don't have sex. You'll save your life.

And I say: there are other strategies we can use to save lives and expose Planned Parenthood. For example, Operation Rescue has been known to call women who've been harmed by such-and-such an abortionist. Are there any former child prostitutes or minors who've been badly treated by Planned Parenthood? Why not put out a call for them. I'm sure we can think up of other methods.

The question I think we should ask ourselves is: what does God think? Because he's ultimately the only one whose opinion counts.

Pleasing God is the most important thing. It's more important than saving unborn children from death. No really, it is. If pleasing God is not your number one goal, you're in the wrong religion. God has said, through his Church, he does not want us doing evil so that good may come.

So why are we trying to justify evil? He doesn't want us to do that. He' smade it plain. So let's not. Any opinion that contradicts Church's teaching isn't his.

These physicians don't have to heal themselves

Another interesting abstract from a study done in Nigeria:

Sexual behavior of medical students: A single institutional survey.
Daniyam C, Agaba P, Agaba E.

Department of Medicine, Jos University Teaching Hospital, Jos, Nigeria.

Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the sexual practices of medical students as they are positioned to serve as peer educators in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

METHODS: This was a cross sectional study, where self- administered questionnaires were distributed to consenting 4(th) to 6(th) year medical students in Jos, Nigeria with a view of elucidating information regarding sexual practices and condom utilization. Safe sex practice was defined as the use of condoms and being in a monogamous relationship.

RESULTS: Of a total of 400 questionnaires distributed, 365 respondents (249 males and 116 females) had adequate data for analysis. A large proportion (62%) of our students have never had sex before and less than 30% of them are sexually active. [Question: how many are married-- did they ask that question?] Only 6.1% had multiple sexual partners and homosexuality was uncommon (1.9%). Condom utilization amongst the sexually active was high (65%) and similar among male and female students (71.3% vs. 51.9% respectively, p = 0.08). [It makes a difference whether the couples were married or not-- condoms can serve a different purpose in various contexts]

CONCLUSION: There exists safe sexual practice among medical students in our setting. This group could be recruited as peer educators in the war against HIV/AIDS.

Especially the abstinent ones.
But people can't be abstinent! Impossible! No way!

VIDEO: God and the Clergy

My one question: do the clergy hear us? One wonders.

As a pro-life aside: folks, just remember that although pro-life strategy and politics is very important, our personal sins inhibit the Holy Spirit from making inroads in the Church and the greater society. If our hearts don't change and grow holier, than those of the rest of the world won't change and grow holier, either.

Nightmare IUD Insertion

Poor-choicer Pedgehog has the story.

The things people don't tell you about contraception...I bet they don't cover this in sex ed. :)

This might explain why governments won't reign in their spending

Average Canadian family's debt hits $100,000

If the average Canadian doesn't reign in their debt, why would they expect their government to do so?

I note that the article does not address consumer debt, which is a much bigger problem than mortgage debt. If you can't afford your house, you can at least sell it. You can't build up equity with most consumer items.

Staff file claims against chair of Human Rights Tribunal

This system is so f***ed.

The whole article is funny.

OTTAWA — Recent staff departures and internal turmoil, including a series of harassment complaints against chairwoman Shirish Chotalia, are paralyzing the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, lawyers charge.

“It’s a complete mess right now,” human rights lawyer Paul Champ told the Ottawa Citizen. “The entire human rights system is in gridlock — it’s in crisis.”

More than half the tribunal’s staff has left for other public service jobs or has been sidelined by stress since the appointment of Ms. Chotalia, an Alberta lawyer named to the post by the Harper government in late 2009.

According to the Public Service Alliance of Canada, five employees — roughly a quarter of the staff — have filed harassment-related complaints against Ms. Chotalia.


...

Mr. Gloade defended Ms. Chotalia’s record as chairwoman, saying she had introduced streamlined methods, including “different forms of mediation” that had “often entirely eliminated the need for costly and time-consuming full hearings.”

Now check out the mediation methods:

Key among her changes is “evaluative mediation,” a front-end effort to deal with complaints before they go to a hearing. The process involves a judge or quasi-judge assessing the evidence and telling both sides what their chances are in front of a tribunal hearing.

A trial before a trial. How nice!

Another knee-slapper:

Lawyers with expertise in human rights cases fear the measure is a blunt instrument that will intimidate complainants without legal representation and who are almost always up against well-funded government departments or federally regulated industries such as banks or telecommunications firms.


The lawyers also say that “evaluative mediation” comes too early in the process.

“The parties don’t even know the strength or weaknesses or full details of their cases,” said veteran human rights lawyer Peter Engelmann. “Complainants carry the burden of proof, so it has a particularly onerous impact.”

Oh no, they have to prove their case! That's awful! [/sarcasm]

Other lawyers point out that tribunal cases are often won or lost during the actual hearing when witnesses give evidence.

No way! You mean the hearing rested on the evidence. For shame!

Exorcism

From the Archdiocese of Toronto Blog

In the Archdiocese of Toronto, we have two priests appointed as exorcists, should they ever be needed. Their identity is kept anonymous; not because we’re being secretive but to allow these men to focus on their priestly duties instead of being the speed dial exorcists on call.

That's good to know. The way the Canadian Church runs away from anything traditional, you'd wonder if they even acknowledged the existence of the devil.

I wonder if other dioceses have exoricsts on their roster...

VIDEO: RealCatholicTV Takes On the Raymond Gravel Lawsuit

My fellow Catholics, whether you are Canadian or not, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post this video on your blog and and your social media accounts. The whole Church must know about this. We have to get the bishops to react.

QUOTATION: Mortification

The more one mortifies his natural inclinations, the more he becomes capable of receiving the divine inspirations, and the more he gains in virtue.

--St. Francis de Sales

Feticide in the UK

While I was surfing the internet, I came upon The Handbook of Fetal Medicine, published by Cambridge University Press. It posted some interesting information regarding feticide in the UK (click on the image to make it bigger):

How awful is that? So at 22 weeks, the baby has a needle jabbed into his heart, then the abortionist sucks out a little bit of the blood (that's gotta hurt!) then he injects potassium chloride, which kills the baby through cardiac arrest, i.e. a heart attack.

This is humane?

And consider the maternal indications. Aneuploidy is a fancy word having an extra chromosome or missing one-- such as the case with Down Syndrome.

Kids are killed for that? When you consider how far we've come in treating DS and helping people with DS have full lives, it's ridiculous.

And the maternal indications are also interesting. Heart disease is one of the permissible reasons for late-term abortion. If they're going to risk an abortion in any case, why not deliver the baby live? That would be much more humane than jabbing a needle in his heart.

It's funny because I was having this argument with a poor choicer who insisted that healthy third trimester babies are not killed in Canada.

But it's clear that if such babies are killed in the UK, they're probably killed in Canada.

And feminists are fine with those babies suffering and dying. Women are the victims after all, not the defenseless babies.

More details on Fr. Raymond Gravel's lawsuit against LifeSiteNews

BC. Catholic Paper:

OTTAWA (CCN)--Father Raymond Gravel, a Quebec Catholic priest who served as a Bloc Quebecois MP from 2006-8, is suing LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) for defamation.

“We’ve been online since 1997, but this could indeed shut us down,” said LSN editor John-Henry Westen.

Father Gravel, who is incardinated in the Diocese of Joliette, is seeking $300,000 for the attack on his reputation and consequent pain and suffering, and another $200,000 in punitive damages for what he calls a voluntary, intentional and malicious attack.

“I am against abortion but LifeSiteNews.com says always I am for abortion,” Father Gravel said. “The LifeSiteNews presents me, a priest, as pro-abortion.

Father Gravel added he does not think the best method to combat abortion is through the Criminal Law, but through education, and teaching young people to be responsible about sexuality.

“I am not pro-abortion,” he said. “I am against abortion.” He noted that he did research on countries where abortion is forbidden and said some 70,000 women died of illegal abortions. “It is horrible.”

“We must work with women, not against women,” he said.

(...)

In a 31-page statement filed with the Quebec Superior Court in Joliette, Father Gravel asserts that he has been a Catholic priest for 25 years and has always been faithful to the magisterium of the Church.

Fr. Gravel is labouring under some grave misconceptions.

He thinks his position on abortion (i.e. decriminalization) is consistent with Church teaching.

Is it?

From the Catechism:

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.

...

When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....

As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."

Fr. Raymond Gravel has consistently spoken out against granting the right to life to unborn children.

Father Gravel also said he blamed LSN for his having to give up his job representing the Repentigny riding in the House of Commons.

“I was a member of Parliament,” he said. “I had to abandon this because of what they wrote.”

Or maybe you had to leave because of what YOU wrote.

Here's the problem folks.

When did the bishops correct him?

They didn't.

That's why he thinks what he believes is okay.

In the statement, Father Gravel contends in his statement that the smear campaign against him began in 2003 when he wrote an open letter criticizing a Vatican document that said respect for homosexual persons cannot lead to approval of homosexual behavior or legal recognition of homosexual union. Father Gravel disagreed, saying the position of the Church is discriminatory and hurtful.

But he's totally faithful to the Magisterium...

Gravel said he had informed his bishop about the lawsuit but that he was acting on his own. Joliette Bishop Gilles Lussier was away and a spokesman said the diocese had no comment.

WHAT???

Too scared to say anything?

LifeSiteNews is being sued

It is with great concern that we have to inform our readers that LifeSiteNews Canada has been hit with a lawsuit – by a Catholic priest of all things!

Regular readers of LSN will need no introduction to Fr. Raymond Gravel – he’s the Quebec priest and former Member of Canada’s Parliament who, as we reported, said on a radio interview in 2004: "I am pro-choice and there is not a bishop on earth that will prevent me from receiving Communion, not even the Pope."

Then, in 2008, he defended the awarding of Canada’s highest civilian award to the country’s ‘father of abortion’ – arch-abortionist Henry Morgentaler! During his political career he was rated as ‘pro-abortion’ by the political arm of the pro-life movement. He has also repeatedly and publicly criticized his church’s teachings on homosexuality and abortion.

Even though LifeSiteNews reports have overwhelmingly reported on what Fr. Gravel himself has publicly said, he is suing us for libel. Among other things, he argues that he isn’t pro-abortion, but he has said in the past that he is “pro-choice.”

He’s demanding $500,000 in damages – which, coincidentally, is a full year’s budget for us. That would put LifeSiteNews out of business!

It is difficult enough for LifeSiteNews to keep afloat financially, even at the best of times. But with the downturn in the economy it has become harder than ever. Fighting this lawsuit adds a potentially very large and currently impossible extra financial burden.

...

This lawsuit also comes at the same time that attacks on the free speech rights of pro-life, pro-family and Christian citizens and media have been increasing all across the West.

It is vitally important that LifeSiteNews win this case – not just for our sake, but for the sake of the whole movement. We simply cannot let the opponents of life and family shut down one of the few media voices that upholds the right to life and the sanctity of marriage and the family.

The very fact that Fr. Gravel feels he has to sue LSN is proof-positive of just how much LSN is needed. Writing about LifeSiteNews.com in Le Devoir on April 20, 2009, Fr. Gravel said that when his bishop received a letter from the Vatican "which forced me to retire from political life," attached to the letter "was a file almost exclusively in English made up of negative comments about me … which came from those ultra-conservative media." He even complained about LifeSiteNews during a speech on the floor of the House of Commons!

And then, more recently, Fr. Gravel was removed from a position as a chief catechist for his diocese. In his motion Fr. Gravel suggests that the articles by LSN caused him to lose this responsibility.

Despite the fact that LSN has made it clear that we wish no harm to Fr. Gravel, and that, in fact, we are concerned for his wellbeing, he has launched a suit that could severely, even permanently disrupt our life- and culture-saving work.

Already our staff have had to dedicate several full days’ work just to responding to his charges – and that’s before the case has even really begun. The first preliminary hearing is this Thursday in Joliette, Quebec.

While the amazing Thomas More Society of Chicago has offered to help us in this case, there is only so much they can do. The case will have to be fought in the Quebec courts, and the Thomas More Society is a U.S.-based organization.

Thus, we have been forced to hire professional Canadian legal help. And as anyone who knows the first thing about lawsuits knows, legal fees can mount…fast.

At this difficult time, we must once again turn to our ever-faithful supporters. The only way we can withstand this attack is with your help.

We are confident about the truthfulness and professionalism of our reporting on this matter and are determined to fight and win against this unjust lawsuit. Will you join us?

Will you also appeal to others that you know to help us at this time of extra special need?

Positively shameful.

How can the Diocese of Joliette allow this to go on?

How can the Vatican allow this to go on?

Somebody stop this madness!

 A Catholic priest suing for being criticized?

If you can't criticize the Catholic Church or its clergy, who can you criticize?

I hope that Canadian bishops out there step out to the plate and make a statement. They cannot allow this madness to continue. They should be speak out against Fr. Raymond Gravel and his SLAPP suit tactics.

By the way, who is funding Fr. Raymond Gravel? He's not funding this by himself.

---

Update: I'm getting a lot of searches for "Raymond Gravel" all of a sudden.

I Am In Awe of Such Faith: Afghan Christian sentenced to death for his faith

An Afghanistan Christian and father of six, is imprisoned and scheduled to die. His crime? He believes Christ is his Savior. And he is scheduled to die because of it. No defense lawyer will take his case for fear of retribution. And he has been told that if he renounces Christ things would go easier. But he doesn’t. He won’t.

I urge you to read the rest.

Characteristics of Latino MSM who have sex in public settings.

Abstract:

Many men who have sex with men (MSM) have sexual encounters in public places

No! Can't be! That's-- That's-- That's a negative stereotype! How dare you write that!!! :)

But seriously folks, when gay men walk in the gay pride parade, a certain category of them celebrates this. Not mere tolerance or acceptance of gay people and their partners-- they celebrate these very seedy aspects of gay culture.

Don't believe me? Look at the images from the gay pride parade. I'm not linking to them. Just Google it.

some data suggest that this behavior is more common among Latino than non-Hispanic white MSM in the USA.

*Gasp* Racist, too! OMG, file a human rights complaint!

The findings:

Results indicated that those individuals with unknown serostatus were more likely than those with HIV-negative serostatus to have had sex in a public setting, as were men with lower self-efficacy for safer sex. These findings suggest that the partner pool may pose some risk to men who have sex in public sex venues, and therefore, low-risk sexual practices and condom use should be promoted in such settings.

I notice two things.

One is that once again, politically correct researchers want to throw condoms at the problem.

It will only lull these men into a false sense of security and probably encourage risk-compensating behaviour.

And come to think of it, the whole point of having sex in the public settings is the thrill of the risk. Do you think these men are really putting a whole lot of thought into safe sex? While having sex with a stranger in a bathroom or park? I don't think so.

But here's what I notice they don't suggest as a solution:

Greater surveillance of public areas and greater police presence.

Public sex is a crime, remember?

Does anybody treat it as a crime?

Of course not!

Never mind that people have to fear for their safety and for their sense of decency to be offended in these areas.

If you happen to catch two men humping, tough luck, homophobic prudes!

No. Nobody thinks that stopping these men from having sex in public (and forcing them to get a room!) is a good idea.

Nobody treats them like criminals, but just guys out for a good time.

There used to be a name for people like this: perverts.

And this is the kicker:

Contrary to expectations, higher education was related to sex in public settings, but neither depression nor more recent immigration was. Greater involvement in the gay community was also associated with having sex in public places, which may reflect the larger social function served by gay venues such as bathhouses and bars.

I don't know what "higher education" means this context, but it's just kind amusing that men whom you would think would know better just don't give a crap.

And yes, there are perverts among straights. Straights don't celebrate their perverts with pride parades.

Ukrainian Seminaries Full, Turning Away Candidates

Zenit:

SAMBIR, Ukraine, FEB. 4, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Ukrainian seminaries are having to turn away up to half of the young men seeking to become priests due to a lack of space.

Coadjutor Bishop Jaroslav Pryriz of the Eparchy of Sambir-Drohobych reported to Aid to the Church in Need that in some places, there are three candidates vying for every place in the seminary.

Is it me, or do you never hear of liberal Ukranian Catholics demanding the ordination of women?

I always thought Eastern Churches pretty no non-sense about doctrine (and especially liturgy!)

Perhaps this could explain the abundance of vocations.

Quebec: Plastic surgery clinics get permits after failed inspections

If this is how they inspect plastic surgery clinics...how are we expected to trust the government with regard to abortion clinics?

Quebec's Health Ministry said it granted permits to clinics that failed inspections only after the province's college of physicians promised to ensure any operational or equipment gaps were corrected.


Under Quebec's current regulations for private surgery clinics, all facilities will eventually have to be inspected by Accreditation Canada, a non-profit, independent organization.


But that requirement doesn't take effect for another three years.

It's somewhat reminiscent of the Kermit Gosnell case.

Forced sterilization rears its ugly head in Britain

A woman with a learning disability could be forcibly sterilised after she gives birth this week to stop her becoming pregnant again.

The secretive Court of Protection will rule on the woman’s treatment on Tuesday, in a rare open hearing scheduled because of the overwhelming “public interest” in understanding the case.

She is due to give birth by caesarean section the following day and could undergo an operation to sterilise her at the same time if the court agrees.

This is so wrong.

I thought the age of forced sterilization was over.

I'm astonished. I shouldn't be, but I am.

And oh:

The patient’s NHS trust and council have made an application to the Court of Protection to decide whether she is incapable of making decisions about contraception herself and if so, whether she should be sterilised by means of “tubal ligation”.

So much for women's autonomy.

More info:

Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Court has the power to decide on medical treatments for individuals judged by psychiatrists to lack mental capacity.

Cases that come before the court include proposals to withhold or withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from a person in a permanent vegetative state.

The court can also order “terminations of pregnancy” for women who lack capacity to consent, as well as “experimental or innovative treatment” and medical procedures that require the use of force to restrain the patient

.
That is so scary.

Here's what I want to know:

What exactly is the nature of the mother's incapacity?

And how does she feel about being pregnant? Does she understand she's going to give birth?

The secrecy surrounding this case makes you wonder what's going on.

Maybe she's okay with being pregnant. Okay, she may not be able to take care of her children, but perhaps a relative is willing to takeon the task, and there are plenty of couples waiting to adopt.

And here's another thing I want to know: if she lacks the ability to consent to a sterilization, how is it that she has the ability to consent to sex? Who's sleeping with her? Why isn't she sufficiently supervised on this matter?

Hmmmm......So many questions.

H/T: Media dis&dat


 

Will Tim Hudak set Linda Gibbons Free? Is he a real conservative or not?

Gotta love it.

Linda Gibbons' crime is to try to communicate with women who are on their way to have abortions.

That's it.

Feminists call that "harassment". As if offering a pamphlet was akin to stalking.

And so Linda Gibbons is put in jail longer than some violent thieves.

Watch the femininsts defend their lobbying for bubble zones. They will use hysterial and inflated language to make saying a rosary the equivalent of assault.

It's outrageous.

I wonder: if a PC government is elected, will Tim Hudak remove the injunction that prevent Linda Gibbons from counselling women outside of clinics. Someone should put the question to him.

Let's see if he's for real or if he's just another PC Red Tory who calls himself pro-life.

Seen at the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Facebook Page

But we're the violent ones!

But you know, in that case, we could finally test to see whether women belong in combat. I think they would be sorely disappointed.

Do others have the right to define what’s ethical for me?

In today's Ask the Religion Experts column on the Ottawa Citizen, the theme of the column was:

Do others have the right to define what’s ethical for me?

Rev. GEOFFREY KERSLAKE is a priest of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Ottawa.

This week’s question is based on the erroneous belief that morality or ethics is something relative: in other words, what you regard as right might not be right for me. The Catholic Church rejects the idea of relative morality because we believe that there are divinely revealed morally absolute laws that are true always and everywhere. Jesus summarized divine law when he shared the greatest commandment “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Matt 22:37-39). We can see that society today has adopted many of God-given absolutes: for example, we believe that it is wrong to lie, to steal, and to commit murder and we see that laws based on these rules from the 10 Commandments are universally applicable. If morality depends only on each individual’s personal preferences we have no common ground to have a discussion about universal human rights because we cannot appeal to a standard “beyond” or “above” our own individual preferences. An ethical system that is grounded on moral absolutes, however, provides the structure for an agreement about fundamental values. In following the God-given revelations of the Ten Commandments we have a common, true and eternally applicable basis on which to build society. But if society’s ethics were to be based solely on personal preference where everyone decides for herself or himself what is right or wrong, not only do we ignore God’s wisdom and authority, we would have no common basis for a shared morality and laws would become merely opinions.

The fact that one is asking whether one can "impose" presupposes a higher law that does not allow one to impose.

If there is no higher law that does not allow one to impose one's ethical values, then no one can judge any imposition as morally worse than non-imposition.

Civil? My A**

Vanderleun at American Digest makes a good point about the calls for civility.

What Medved and the other consolers of the left are doing these days in their engagement with this strawest of dogs is elevating the left’s fallacious premise that the right is most uncivil to an infallible argument. That argument is that the Right really has been (without really knowing it) most uncivil and needs to clean up its act if “our politics” are to return to a level and “civil” playing field.

I try to be civil. I try to be civil in the comments area.

I try to be civil on other blogs and discussion forums.

I try to be the change that I want to bring to people.

There are right-wing loons who spout off ridiculous non-sense.

But there are left-wing loons who do the same.

That is the thing we must not let the left forget. They're no better than anyone.

I don't think the uncivil discourse had anything to do with the shootings in Tucson, Arizona.

But I do think continual incivility and coarseness is bad for the soul.

That's all. Reading in it and engaging in it just tends to make one more subject to the passions, or in Catholic-speak: concupiscence.

But the blogger has a point: trying to be nice, just to placate the general population or maybe stop the next shooter is stupid.

It does give the left the idea that they are right, that it's all our fault.

So should we not be civil? Should we continue to treat every leftist as a potential minion of the anti-Christ?

Here's an idea: just choose civility for oneself, and if it works, people will copy it.

No doubt, not everyone will. And that's okay. Not everyone has to.

But you will be the oasis of polite dissent and debate. You will engage those people who are attracted to arguments and discussions based on facts and ideas, not ad hominem.

And other people will follow.

That's all.

You don't have to make it look like you're putting the left on a higher moral plane. Because they're not.

And political discourse will be elevated, focusing on truth instead of peronalities.

Via: Free Canuckistan

Teenage boy who wanted to join Girl Guides accuses organisation of sexual discrimination after he is turned away

You knew this was coming.

Well, if he were Canadian, all he'd have to do is claim he was a girl, and they couldn't turn him away, thanks to Bill C-389.

And if they did, he could file a human rights complaint and win loads of money.

Why vocation programs don't work

Fr. Damian J. Ference:

Millions of dollars have been spent by vocation offices on prayer cards, lesson plans, vocation week activities, homily helpers, discernment brochures, websites, and an array of other vocation promotion materials, but have these approaches really made a significant impact on our young people? Sadly, the answer is no. For all the effort that has been put into vocation awareness in recent history, our returns have not been very good, but it is not for lack of effort. Bishops, vocation directors, DREs, catechists and parents, have been working diligently to address the lack of vocations in the Church, but very little has changed. Sure, there are some orders and some diocesan seminaries that are doing better than others, but the overall vocation picture remains the same. It seems to me that the real problem is that we’ve misdiagnosed the vocation situation, and therefore, we’ve been spending all our time, effort and money on the wrong things. In other words, we’ve been treating the symptoms without ever recognizing the disease.


The root of our current vocation problem is a lack of discipleship. Of course, a disciple is one who encounters Jesus, repents, experiences conversion and then follows Jesus. All too often those of us in positions of Church leadership presume that all the folks in the pews on Sundays, all the children in our grade schools, high schools and PSR programs, all the kids in our youth groups, all the men in our Men’s Clubs and all the women in our Women’s Guilds, and all the members of our RCIA team are already disciples. Many are not. (The same can be said of staffs and faculties of Catholic institutions.) Our people may be very active in the programs of our parishes, schools and institutions, but unfortunately, such participation does not qualify for discipleship.

If the root of our vocation problem is a lack of discipleship, then the remedy is to make more disciples, just as Jesus commanded. But how is this accomplished?

First, an important principle to keep in mind is that disciples beget disciples. In other words, if we are really serious about fostering better marriages, holier priests, more devoted religious, and generally a more faithful and dedicated Church, then those of us who are already married, ordained, and consecrated, and who identify ourselves as Catholics must take a good, hard look at our own lives and evaluate how our discipleship measures up. How long has it been since we last experienced real conversion and transformation? How often to we repent of our sins? Do we really allow Jesus to rule our lives, or have we fallen into the ancient trap of Pelagianism, ultimately believing that we save ourselves? Do we really know Jesus? Do we allow him to really know us? These questions are important ones, for unless we as a Church can offer true models and exemplars of discipleship with our own lives, very few will seriously consider living the kind of life we live.

When I was 20, there was no way I was going to seriously consider becoming a religious.

For one thing, all the nuns that I'd ever seen were old. Okay, call me ageist, but hanging around women who've seen better days for the rest of your life is a bit tough to contemplate at that age.

The second is that all the orders were full of leftists. Why would I even consider joining a community of women-- my future home-- when they were all diametrically opposed my core religious values?

When you don't have contact with real Catholics, and real priests and religious, you don't know that a vocation is possible. It's pie in the sky.

One of my pet peeves regarding the way the Church operates now is that in certain areas, if you're not part of a marginalized group, the priests don't have time for you. There is no person-to-person contact.

I strongly felt that neglect when I was 16-20 years old. Here I was, the only person under 20 at church, but if I wanted the priest's attention, I felt like I had to capture the crumbs of time that fell off the table, that is, the main agenda.

There was time for old people. And time for the disabled. And time for the sick in the hospital.

But if you were just a normal parishoner-- there was no time for you.

The person-to-person contact between a priest and his parishoners-- especially his regular church-goers is so vital. The priest can't just be a Church bureaucrat saying Mass and dispensing sacraments. He has to be a locus of truth and wisdom in the community. And if he doesn't radiate that spiritual authority, then I think he's not doing so well in his role. And by "spiritual authority" I don't mean his ability to run a parish or tell people what to do. I mean his role as a source of Truth. He's got to know what he's talking about and look like he knows what he's talking about. He's got to have it so together on the spiritual front that he oozes the wisdom of the ages without even trying and give us Magisterial Catholics warm fuzzies. How many times have you met a priest like that? I can't say I've met that many.

It's that person-to-person contact that makes the Catholic faith so real, that makes that wisdom come alive. If you're too busy to bring that to your "regular parishoners", how do you expect any of them to consider vocations? A church that is too busy for its regulars is a Church too busy for its future.

Another pet peeve of mine is that there is a big difference between the Church On Paper (e.g. Papal documents) and the Church in Real Life.

There should be no difference. And good Catholic priests know how to create that church so that Catholicism is not just a bunch of propositions in an encyclical, it's a real way of life that people can and are expected to live up to.

But if people don't see that, then they won't consider vocations. If being a priest is just about being a Church bureaucrat or a social worker, they can be a bureaucrat or social worker for higher pay in the secular world with the benefits of marriage.

Come on North Dakota!!!

BISMARCK, North Dakota, February 11, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A strong majority of lawmakers in the North Dakota House of Representatives on Friday afternoon passed a law that would make it illegal to murder any human being from the moment of their conception.

The Defense of Human Life Act, HB 1450, recognizes every human being at any stage of development as a person under state law with a right to protection.

“The overwhelming community and legislative support for HB 1450 proves that North Dakota could be the first state to recognize the value and dignity of every living human being,” stated Representative Dan Ruby. “The Defense of Human Life Act is just common sense. Of course every human being is a person, and every innocent person should receive legal protection. I am motivated to see women and children protected by HB 1450, and I look forward to its passage in the Senate in the near future.”

While the bill prohibits chemical abortifiacients such as RU-486, it does not apply to emergency contraception, or other “contraception administered before a clinically diagnosable pregnancy.” The bill also exempts legitimate medical procedures that may lead to the death of children in the womb when a woman’s life is in danger. The bill also exempts pregnant women seeking abortions from criminal prosecution.

The bill, supported by ND Right to Life, ND Life League, ND Family Alliance, ND CWFA, and the ND Catholic Conference, passed 68-25 in Friday’s vote.

“HB 1450 simply states that all human beings will be equal under North Dakota state law. Our law would treat all children as human beings,” said Republican Rep. Gary Paur in an email to supporters.

Daniel Woodard, a legal consultant for North Dakota Right to Life and the North Dakota Life League, told LifeSiteNews.com that the bill would put the one remaining abortion clinic in the state out of business. “This bill should shut down that clinic,” said Woodard.

While the bill also bans the killing of frozen embryos produced by in-vitro fertilization, Woodard said, it would leave the implementation of new regulations to the medical community. “In North Dakota, the legislature has confidence in its medical professional groups to regulate itself,” he said.

While pro-lifers are optimistic about the bill’s survival in the Senate, Woodard said that supporters would “be taking no chances” and continue to lobby for its passage. A vote in the Senate is expected around March 10.

North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple has not stated whether or not he plans to sign the bill.

...

If this passes...and at least one source tells me there's a pretty good chance of this happening, I long to see the fallout.

And I long to see the unborn finally recognize as PERSONS.

Conservatives discriminated against in academia

But we knew that, right?

I also think that conservatives self-select out of academia.

There are many reasons why I quit my Master's Program in English.

I felt as I were expected to take post-modernism seriously, and treat relativistic opinions as facts and actual depictions of reality.

My sense is, you could get actualy historical facts wrong (and having a history background, this grated on my nerves) so long as it was done from a post-modern perspective.

If you wanted to undermine basic tenets of post-modern LitCrit-- be subversive as it were-- then your work would not be considered up to snuff no matter how well-researched it was.

So if you wanted to say that Shakespeare promoted cross-dressing or that Thomas More favoured the ordination of women, that was A-OK. Try to root your criticism in some kind of objective philosophy, and that was a fail.

I know that the purpose of a Master's Degree in English is to show that you are conversant in all that LitCrit gobbledygook. I don't care. It's still crap. All I wanted to do was pursue my interest in literature, and to do it, I had to slog my way through LitCrit, treat their garbage opinions as realistic framework, all the while suppressing my own critical thinking. No thanks! Besides, the works I had to read were, at times, pornographic. I'm not going to read a passage involving homosexual pedophilia. Modern English writers have perverted minds as far I'm concerned.

H/T: The Politics of the Cross Resurrected, AlbertMohler.com

Rwanda to Sterilize 700,000 Men

According to the BBC and Rwandan news outlets, the Rwandan government is introducing this campaign on the heels of a large-scale effort to circumcise men (a procedure which allegedly "protects against" HIV/AIDS infection). However, as the New Times reports, the real reason circumcision was included was simply because "it allows us get to the men's reproductive system and in the process we advise them on condom use and vasectomy."

Not only this, but back in 2008, health officials informed the BBC that these "circumcision campaigns" would be practiced first on "the new born and young men in universities, the army and police." This is because, while many Rwandans balk at the idea of being sterilized, "correspondents say many in the armed forces will regard it as an order" even though it will be "nominally voluntary."

"This amounts to coercion," says Steven Mosher. "First of all, saying that circumcision 'protects against AIDS' is an abuse of semantics, as circumcision doesn't provide a barrier against anything. Secondly, if it will be regarded as an order, it doesn't matter if it actually is one or not. The men will be circumcised/sterilized because they feel that they must, or risk punitive measures."

I wonder if our "reproductive choice" advocates will have anything to say about this.

Disgusting, disgusting, disgusting.

Libertarian paternalism

In recent years, the idea that people are too thick to know what is in their best interests has influenced and shaped policymaking on both sides of the Atlantic. In one sense, this diagnosis of intellectual poverty among the masses is simply a new expression of an old idea. Nineteenth-century social engineers regarded the targets of their work - the masses - as both irrational and easily suggestible. In the twentieth century, psychologists and advertisers argued that the world would be a better place if they could successfully manipulate the public to act in accordance with the latest ‘scientific’ insights. They expressed their assumption of moral authority openly and with little concern for insulting people’s sensibilities.

...

Policy advisers frequently complain that citizens refuse to acknowledge the wisdom that they are offering and instead adopt forms of behaviour that are antithetical to expert advice. In effect, these policy advisers, along with government officials and politicians, have concluded that the time for open debate and argument is over, since arguing with people who act irrationally is pointless. They claim that what is now required are new techniques of behaviour management and motivational manipulation, in order to encourage the public to act in accordance with best practice.

That is why both the British and American governments have embraced the doctrine of ‘nudge’, as most explicitly espoused by the American academics Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. Relying on behaviour-management techniques, this doctrine, described as ‘libertarian paternalism’, aims to manipulate people into making choices which the powers-that-be consider ‘right’.

Read the whole thing.

This is a well-known childrearing technique. Instead of telling your kids what to do, you ask them if they want to do it, and often they will say yes by virtue of the fact that you're asking and making them feel like they have a say in the matter. When they actually don't. "Should we get dressed now?" might get a far better response than "get dressed!"

I thought this article was rather thought-provoking and I think people should be aware of these statist techniques.

Via: Free Canuckistan