Obama’s Prayer Breakfast Remarks (with commentary!)

I couldn’t help but notice obvious contradictions in the President’s remarks as I read them earlier today. His remarks, which can be found at the White House website are in quotes (with my own emphasis), and my commentary is underneath (or simply visualized by photo).

We know that part of living in a pluralistic society means that our personal religious beliefs alone can’t dictate our response to every challenge we face.

He contradicts himself about 4 sentences later…

… the majority of great reformers in American history did their work not just because it was sound policy, or they had done good analysis, or understood how to exercise good politics, but because their faith and their values dictated it, and called for bold action — sometimes in the face of indifference, sometimes in the face of resistance.

We can’t leave our values at the door.  If we leave our values at the door, we abandon much of the moral glue that has held our nation together for centuries, and allowed us to become somewhat more perfect a union.

And yet this is EXACTLY what the President is asking US Catholics to do with the HHS mandate requiring Catholic institutions to violate the very principles they were founded on, and the very values and consciences of those who run and work for these institutions by forcing them to pay for ‘health’ coverage which is morally wrong. He wants Catholic hospitals to ‘leave their values’ at the door and provide abortions, cover such disgusting murderous procedures, and cover contraceptives (the use of which has led our society to embrace heinous practices (like the slaughter of children in the wombs of their mothers as legal). All of which the Catholic Church and institutions run by the Church greatly object to precisely because of her values and religious beliefs…

But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”

Uhh… Our Lord wasn’t talking about money… (and how many times is this now that Obama has placed himself in the position of Jesus???  Instead of it being Jesus–the Just Judge–requiring [x] of said person, Obama himself is going to tell you how much you’ve been given and how much is thus ‘required’ of you– through the eyes of the government. What a way to twist the words of Sacred Scripture!)

 But part of that belief comes from my faith in the idea that I am my brother’s keeper and I am my sister’s keeper; that as a country, we rise and fall together.

It’s also about the biblical call to care for the least of these –- for the poor; for those at the margins of our society.
To answer the responsibility we’re given in Proverbs to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.”
Treating others as you want to be treated.
Living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper.  Caring for the poor and those in need.
how we ensure opportunity for every child,

Obama says, "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves"

I’m more than certain that these “unwanted children” who are murdered through abortions are truly the “least of these” in our society, they are the poorest, and they are the marginalized. They cannot speak for themselves, they are destitute and their God-given inalienable rights have been ignored by the government of the United States with the full support of President Obama. He is his brother’s keeper–except for those in the womb. We must ensure opportunity for every child–unless they’ve yet to be born.

Does he even think before he writes his speeches (or I guess I should be asking if his writers think things through before allowing him to speak such contradictions openly!)?!

Advertisements

When does a person become a person?

When does a person become a person?

It seems like a silly question, yet the entire abortion debate hinges on this. Abortion is permitted because in the United States(and elsewhere) a human being is not considered a person until birth. Legally. (Of course, we must also recognize and remember that this is the same country whose courts defined black persons as property (Dred Scott v. Sanford) until the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and the Slaughter-house cases)

But unfortunately even many intelligent people (too many) accept this idea that personhood begins at birth without question. Without looking at the issue from a reasoned, scientific perspective and that’s a problem.

So, I invite every person to consider these questions: What makes a person a person? When does a person become a person?

Our constitution grants citizenship (legal personhood) at birth. Is this a scientific truth? I don’t think so. In fact, I think it needs amending—desperately, because innocent lives hang in the balance.

What is it about birth that could possibly bestow personhood on another? What is the fundamental change that takes place in that instant one moves from a fetus to an infant that transforms one into a person?

Is it the air? Does the air contain magical effects that bestow personhood the moment one touches it? No, this cannot be logical since animals and insects and rocks are all touching the air and they are not persons. Thus, it is not the air. Nor is it something else about the environment into which one enters upon birth, changing your environment does not change who you are.

Is it a level of self-awareness? Does birth suddenly grant one the ability to be self-aware? No, this is neither logical since no one remembers their infancy with a clear constancy of “I” (persons claiming to remember ‘bright lights’ etc. are not demonstrating a level of self-awareness), much less the instant of their birth. Furthermore, a two-year old has a lesser level of self-awareness than a twelve-year old, or a twenty-year old. Does personhood admit of degrees? No. Not even legally. It either is a person, or it is not; there is no half-person. Also, there are legal adults with a very low level of self-awareness, if at all, due to mental conditions. Plus, according to some studies done in fetal psychology (who’d have ever thought there’d be such a thing!) fetuses in the third trimester are very similar to newborn infants, and infants apparently are able to retain some sort of memories of being in the womb—preferring the sound of mom’s voice, the voice of relatives or anyone else who was frequently around when they were in the womb, preferring to hear the same stories/music they heard while in the womb, etc. Thus, self-awareness cannot make one a person.

Is it dependency? Does birth make one completely independent? No. The baby is still reliant on the mother (or someone) to feed him, change his diaper, etc. –his very life still depends upon someone else. Toddlers and children are still pretty dependent too. For that matter, so are most adults! Dependency, then, cannot be the criteria for personhood either.

What else could it be?

Could it be size? Does a baby grow a bit bigger the second he emerges from the birth canal? No… in fact, most babies usually even drop their weight after birth before gaining the pounds. Besides, once we start talking size, we’d end up with degrees again since we (typically) grow bigger as we get older. Personhood cannot admit of degrees.

So then, perhaps some people are willing to grant now that a fetus is at least a person. But what about an embryo (or a zygote)? Surely I can’t be expecting everyone to grant personal status to “a bunch of cells”? …Or can I? According to our current study of medicine, from the moment of conception the zygote/embryo has everything it needs to live and grow. Pregnancy is simply a matter of growth and development. An embryo has measurable brain waves at about 43 days after conception. Foundations of the brain, spinal cord, and nervous system are laid after a mere 20 days of existence. The embryo posses a beating heart after about 24 days (though you can’t hear it on a Doppler until about the second trimester)… that “bunch of cells” truly does have amazing capabilities: that zygote needs nothing added to it to develop into a complete human body—compete with personhood! And it possessed all of this, as our medical science admits, from the moment of conception.

Our science will admit it, why won’t our courts?

What Really Constitutes Extraordinary Means?

Life issues are always at the forefront simply because they are life issues. Life and death are serious events that demand reflection.

I’m sure most people remember and are familiar with the Terri Shiavo tragedy from 2005… though the news media (fueled by her  demonic husband, Michael) painted her death as “merciful” and “peaceful”– it was anything but that. It was, at the very least, inhumane. In her final moments, Terri’s skin was flaking off, her eyes sunken, and blood leaked from her eyes and mouth because her body was so dried out because of dehydration. Her death was full of suffering and intense, agonizing pain. It’s not a quick process; a person who starves to death doesn’t die instantly. It’s a long, slow, painful process that takes weeks.

Why do I bring up Terri Shiavo today? Because the same thing is happening to another unfortunate victim. Only this time, instead of taking 14 days to die from dehydration (like Terri did), the patient has been clinging to life for over 55 days. Trisha Rushing Duguay has been fighting for her life, without nutrition or water, for 55 days. Almost 8 weeks. 2 months. Have we become the Nazis? Or worse? Feeding a person is not extraordinary means. Trisha, like Terri, needs no machines to keep her body functioning. She needs, as we all do, food and water. To strip a person of a feeding tube and refuse them fluids to let them die of dehydration is not humane or merciful… it’s vicious and demonic. This is euthanasia. The fruit of the culture of death. We kill our children in their mother’s wombs, and now we kill anyone who is unable to speak for themselves.

Trisha Rushing Duguay was married and within 48 hours diagnosed with a brain tumor. Within 10 days of her marriage, she’d fallen into a coma. What were her last words?

“I am going to beat this,” she told [her husband], then joked: “You are not going to get rid of me this easy.”

And still here she is, clinging to life while being starved to death as doctors, nurses, and family members look on: unwilling to care for her most basic needs: food, and water. Her husband who promised to love and care for her “in sickness and in health” etc. and explicitly promised her before her surgery that he would always take care of her if she became disabled has broken those promises. Broken his wedding vows. He’s killing his wife, not caring for her.

Pray for Trisha Rushing Duguay, her family, friends, and those who sit idly by while she dies an agnozing and painful death. Pray for those are starving her, and consenting to her starvation.

What is the world coming to?

Pray for Trisha Rushing Duguay facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=128342343885221&v=wall&ref=ts

UPDATE: I learned that Trisha died Friday September 24 a little after 9am. 56 days to starve and dehydrate to death…  she fought hard for her life.

Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon her. May her soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Independence Day

I saw a shirt a few years ago with a big American Flag on it, it read, “In America we’re born to be free, too bad we aren’t free to be born!” and was followed by several statistics on abortion. It’s the perfect t-shirt slogan about abortion in this  country.  How ironic. Abortion is a travesty of “freedom”.

In truth, we have lost the meaning of freedom. Our modern world has completely forgotten the truth. Instead of reality, we seek only convenience.

There is no world in which the pursuit of the common good can allow for the death of anyone, no matter how young or helpless. Murder is senseless, even more so as a ‘solution’. However, abortion is not merely murder. I don’t think there’s a word to describe the utter horror of abortion. A mother slaughtering her offspring–in the womb. No woman, no person, has the ‘right’, the “freedom” to kill anyone. To decide who lives and who dies. Especially a mother. A mother is charged with the sacred duty of protection. It’s her job to protect, defend, and love her child. Murder is a gross denial of motherhood. A dross denial of the dignity of being a woman. To murder your own child is the most abhorrent act possible.

The late Pope John Paul II once said, “a nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope.” This Independence Day, we, as a nation, celebrate our freedom and the hope of the “American Dream”. Abortion is the destruction of freedom, the destruction of hope, and the destruction of the American Dream.

More pictures

End abortion. Fight it. Pray for God’s mercy and justice.

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray, and do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God cast into Hell Satan and all evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

I don’t support Race for the Cure…

… but I do support authentic breast cancer research!

I do not support “Race for the Cure” because I do not support the Susan G. Komen foundation. I do not support the Susan G. Komen foundation because they give to/support Planned [Barren]hood. Planned [Barren]hood is the nation’s largest provider (/enforcer) of abortions. Abortion is statistically relevant to the increased risk for breast cancer. Thus, I don’t support any organization or foundation that supports actions that increase the problem for which they are supposedly trying to find a cure.

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/The_Link.htm

“Recently, we found that a first-trimester abortion, whether spontaneous or induced, before the first full-term pregnancy is actually associated with an increase in the risk of breast cancer.”  [Henderson, B.E., Ross R., Berstein, L.; “Estrogens as a cause of human cancer,” The Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Foundation Award Lecture, University of Southern California School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California: Cancer Res 48:246-253, 1988]

Dr. Janet Daling, an abortion supporter, and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center were commissioned by the National Cancer Institute to conduct a study to determine if induced abortion raises breast cancer risk.  The study found that, “among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women.”

The American Cancer Society has stated in its fact sheet that abortion “may be associated with increased breast cancer risk.”  [American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts & Figures — 1996, at 12 (1996)]    

Vatican to fund adult stem cell research

This caught my eye yesterday as I was giving a quick perusal to the news headlines: “Vatican to fund adult stem cell research

Such a headline may be surprising to the confused. Especially to those who don’t pay attention to what the Catholic Church actually teaches. The news media gets that wrong all the time. The article starts out, “The Catholic Church may be the last organization you’d expect to fund stem cell research, but that’s precisely what they’re planning to do.”

See, the thing is, not many people understand that there are two types of stem cells. Adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. The Catholic Church has been outspoken (alongside many pro-life groups) against the grave immorality of using embryonic stem cells– stem cells that require the death of the baby in the womb in order to be harvested.

Further entrenching this common misunderstanding is the current portrayal of stem cell research. Keep reading the article… it starts off sounding pretty favorable towards the Catholic Church. After all, the Church is taking a great step in funding adult stem cell research. But the media can’t resist taking a pot shot at the Church, quoting a doctor’s opinion that “this is another attempt to pit adult stem cells against embryonic [ones]” when the two are used in very different ways and have potential for different conditions.” And praising the ‘potency’ of embryonic stem cells.

‘Potency’, huh? That’s a very interesting word. You see, in abortion discussions that word comes out. Usually. And usually it’s the pro-life side bringing it up and being dismissed by the pro-abortion advocate. Pro-aborts are only in favor of a particular kind of ‘potency’. The ambiguous potential of potency. A fantasy world where all things can be fixed so long as we can use whatever means we desire, whether they be morally permissible or not. It’s a potency based on fiction and not on reality. When pro-lifers talk about the ‘potency’ of an embryo in the womb, it’s a proven and demonstrated potency. We know that embryo is a human person (or, at the very LEAST it is ‘potentially’ a person). Not simply because we (pro-lifers) believe and desire that an embryo has this power and capability, but because since the beginning of the human race this FACT has proven itself. No woman has ever given birth to anything but a human person. There is no evidence for the ‘potency’ of embryonic stem cells as therapy. NONE.

Check out the scoreboard:73 to 0. ZERO embryonic stem cell success. It’s not even a competition anymore. Scientists are not only uselessly murdering babies, but they are wasting their time. Adult stem cells have proven their worthiness, morally and scientifically. The truth is plain for all who have eyes to see.

The list run by stemcellresearch.org:

Adult Stem Cells

Embryonic Stem Cells

    Cancers:

  1. Brain Cancer
  2. Retinoblastoma
  3. Ovarian Cancer
  4. Skin Cancer: Merkel Cell Carcinoma
  5. Testicular Cancer
  6. Tumors abdominal organs Lymphoma
  7. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
  8. Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
  9. Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
  10. Acute Myelogenous Leukemia
  11. Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia
  12. Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia
  13. Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia
  14. Cancer of the lymph nodes: Angioimmunoblastic Lymphadenopathy
  15. Multiple Myeloma
  16. Myelodysplasia
  17. Breast Cancer
  18. Neuroblastoma
  19. Renal Cell Carcinoma
  20. Various Solid Tumors
  21. Soft Tissue Sarcoma
  22. Ewing’s Sarcoma
  23. Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia
  24. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis
  25. POEMS syndrome
  26. Myelofibrosis
  27. Auto-Immune Diseases

  28. Diabetes Type I (Juvenile)
  29. Systemic Lupus
  30. Sjogren’s Syndrome
  31. Myasthenia
  32. Autoimmune Cytopenia
  33. Scleromyxedema
  34. Scleroderma
  35. Crohn’s Disease
  36. Behcet’s Disease
  37. Rheumatoid Arthritis
  38. Juvenile Arthritis
  39. Multiple Sclerosis
  40. Polychondritis
  41. Systemic Vasculitis
  42. Alopecia Universalis
  43. Buerger’s Disease
  44. Cardiovascular

  45. Acute Heart Damage
  46. Chronic Coronary Artery Disease
  47. Ocular

  48. Corneal regeneration
  49. Immunodeficiencies

  50. Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome
  51. X-linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome
  52. X-linked Hyper immunoglobulin M Syndrome
  53. Neural Degenerative Diseases and Injuries

  54. Parkinson’s Disease
  55. Spinal Cord Injury
  56. Stroke Damage
  57. Anemias and Other Blood Conditions

  58. Sickle Cell Anemia
  59. Sideroblastic Anemia
  60. Aplastic Anemia
  61. Red Cell Aplasia
  62. Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia
  63. Thalassemia
  64. Primary Amyloidosis
  65. Diamond Blackfan Anemia
  66. Fanconi’s Anemia
  67. Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection
  68. Wounds and Injuries

  69. Limb Gangrene
  70. Surface Wound Healing
  71. Jawbone Replacement
  72. Skull Bone Repair
  73. Other Metabolic Disorders

  74. Hurler’s Syndrome
  75. Osteogenesis Imperfecta
  76. Krabbe Leukodystrophy
  77. Osteopetrosis
  78. Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy
  79. Liver Disease

  80. Chronic Liver Failure
  81. Liver Cirrhosis
  82. Bladder Disease

  83. End-Stage Bladder Disease
NONE

Earth Day 2010… what REALLY matters

Catholic Vote’s newest ad campaign for Earth Day 2010 (today) is great. Very creative. This is what we need to get people thinking:

… and I’m all for making people think.

Don’t get me wrong, Fr. Frank Pavone at Priests for Life has a point when he says that, “America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion“. But those graphic images are best left for adults/older children in an appropriate setting. Advertisements  that younger children might see should preserve their innocence and instead provoke thought and/or celebrate life in a positive way. Associating abortion with pictures of cute newborns/young children (i.e., a “fetus” is a scientific name for a baby in the womb) is just as effective as showing an adult/mature child the gruesome reality of abortion. Either way, the message [that abortion is the murder of a baby] comes across– but in an age appropriate manner.