Category Archives: Abortion

Would I have met you today?

Posted on by
10

aborted

(This map represents states which have a combined population of  57 million, the number of babies aborted in the United States since 1973. Will the map someday all be blacked out?)

I’m so sorry that I didn’t get to meet them…the 57 million who were slaughtered before they were even born. No doubt they would have been much like all of us….some brilliant and gifted, bringing wonders to the world:  another Louis Pasteur or Steve Jobs (almost aborted) or Albert Einstein for example.. I’m sure there were Saints among them too…maybe like Blessed Mother Teresa, or perhaps St. Augustine or our beloved St John Paul.

Surely there were priests as well…priests who will never offer the Holy Mass or raise their hands in blessing, priests called by God from all eternity and yet, never ordained.

Probably, most of the 57 million were destined for ordinary lives like me, and maybe you…but called to holiness all the same. Called to become God’s dream of them, invested with talents, and a mission which no one else can ever fulfill.  Called to leave a unique footprint upon the earth which no one else can match.

But we will never know. We will never know if heart disease could now be prevented, or if cancer would have been cured in our lifetime. There are so many beautiful faces we will never see….so many smiles, so much laughter never heard. And, we have lost not only the 57 million, but the countless millions who would have been their descendants…denied to us and the ages to come
What wonders had God planned for us….He Who only desires our good?  Who was He sending that we threw back into His face?  And who are we to play God? Adam and Eve tried that, and we know what happened to them, and to us.

I am haunted by the immense impact of destroying 57 million lives before they could even draw a breath. I am missing friends, neighbors, maybe even family members, for all I know. I would like to have met them, known them, seen their gifts and talents flourish, rejoice as they learned about God and His Love for them, prayed with them, held them….my fellow human beings, my sisters and brothers of our Heavenly Father.

Dear ones whom we remember on this dreadful anniversary,  I am so sorry that you are lost to us….so tearful that this earth is soaked with your blood.   We are so much poorer for your absence, for all the gifts God intended for you to spread in our pathways….for your brightness, your inspiration, your genius which we will never know.

But there is one thing you can still do:

PRAY FOR US, FOR WE ARE THE CULTURE OF DEATH!

.

Weep with me…..

Posted on by
3

jesusbaby

 

I have been spending some time on a pro-life Facebook page. The “other side” is participating to defend their viewpoint. I try to respond to their comments, but there is no logic…no sanity…no humanity…no shred of compassion. How do you debate such twisted remarks?  The entry below is only a sample of dozens of others.

Truly God alone can touch these hearts so convoluted and darkened by the enemy’s shrewdness and deception.

There is no longer the argument that “it’s not a baby…” They KNOW it’s a baby and they could care less!

God help us!

Just one comment from a pro-choicer:

Laura Pier There’s no such thing as legal murder. Murder is a legal term by definition so, if it’s legal, it’s not murder.

You’re probably looking for the word “homicide”. Even in the bible homicide is not always wrong. Scholars have found that “Thou shalt not kill” in the 10 commandments is actually more closely translated to “Thou shalt not murder” because there are examples of people killing people that God condones. One example is self defense.

Personally, I believe that I have a right to defend my life, liberty, and property with deadly force if necessary. A fetus/unborn baby seriously threatens all three.

If I accidentally leave my window open (analogy to unprotected sex) and an innocent person wanders into my house, I don’t have a right to kill him.

However, if that person wandered into my house without realizing there was a ticking bomb on his back (he remains innocent because he doesn’t know he’s doing anything wrong) and that bomb could take away my property, liberty and possibly life, the fact that he is on MY property to begin with and that he is threatening MY future, I think, gives me the right to defend myself with deadly force.

All I did was leave a window open because it feels good. I don’t think that requires me to sacrifice my needs for another’s even if I was aware that a person could fit through the window. This is self-defense 101.

A baby threatens your time (liberty), money (property), and very often your life. You have a right to defend yourself from anyone on your property (body) who is threatening those three things.

9 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Killing babies no different from abortion…..

Posted on by
6

I am interrupting my “no blog Friday” to share this important and chilling article:         

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

A group of ethicists has argued that killing young babies is no different from abortion

A group of ethicists has argued that killing young babies is no different from abortion Photo: Alamy
 
Stephen Adams
By , Medical Correspondent
1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012
 
 
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.
The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.
They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.
Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.
“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.
They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.
Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.
Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled ‘What is the problem with euthanasia?’
He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.
Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.
What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.
While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” – a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”
He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.
Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary’s University College, said: “If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say ‘it’s doesn’t matter, she can get another one,’ is that what we want to happen?
“What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new.”
Referring to the term “after-birth abortion”, Dr Stammers added: “This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide.”
___________________
 
 

Will they come for you next, because you are old, infirm, handicapped, too much of a burden on the “health-care” system? Just think about it. Do some research on what happens in other countries which long ago embraced “universal health care.”
 
Please join with Catholics and people of all faith and no faith in fighting the HHS mandate. (http://stophhs.com) While it is being presented by the administration as an issue of “women’s health,” it is actually a first amendment issue. Have you noticed that Freedom of religion is now being carefully referred to as “freedom of worship,” which is very different. Worship can be confined to your church, synagogue, etc. Freedom of religion is a much broader term which allows free expression of religion in the marketplace. Remember the clever semantics to force-feed abortion to the masses: termination of pregnancy, reproductive rights, pro-choice, etc. Carefully chosen words can persuade others to accept what they would otherwise never accept.
 
BTW, have you asked yourself why contraceptives, abortifacient drugs (morning after pill, etc.), and sterilization should be absolutely free (no co-pays or other patient responsibility.) Why not “free” cancer treatment, or free treatment for heart problems, etc? These are actually true diseases.
 
Once rights are surrendered to the government, it is almost impossible to reclaim them. Just think about it…..

” …for to such belongs the kingdom of Heaven.”

Posted on by
13

 In loving memory 

 of the 55 million precious unborn babies who have been slaughtered in the United States since January 22, 1973…precious and innocent, newly infused with the very Breath of God, Who sent them into our world with unique and unrepeatable gifts to use for His Glory and our Good.  And when each life was snuffed out, so were the countless generations who would have followed that child…..

We shall never know these little ones in this life, and we, our country and our world have lost Saints, geniuses, healers, peacemakers, priests, nuns, scientists, mothers, fathers, friends, and yes, people we wouldn’t have liked, but who would have helped us to become holy through their presence.  We have tossed God’s priceless gifts back into His Face and wreaked gruesome horror on His plans for us.

We are all guilty because Roe vs. Wade is still law in this country.  After almost 40 years, this crime is still legal.  How can this be?  Is there any issue more important in our government today than overturning this law which has made killing the most innocent among us a “right?”

God help us.  And God help me, for I have done so little to right this unspeakable horror.

The video below has been played often on EWTN, but if you have never seen it, please take a moment to watch.  It is beautifully done, and based on the Truth of Christ giving His Body for us, in response to the pro-abortion claim, “It’s my body.”   The video is in no way offensive.

[youtube.com/watch?v=DCmLmZDpB4I}]