This is the best of the best and is changing lives.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-13503-St-Louis-Catholic-Living-Examiner~y2009m9d6-Theology-of-The-Body-For-Teens--A-must
Come Out of Babylon! – Mission Talks 2026
36 minutes ago
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Don't We Have The Right to Die?
What About the Right to Die?
Here's how to answer the common arguments of the culture of death.
By Fr. Frank Pavone
This Rock
Volume 16, Number 8
October 2005
Frontispiece
By Karl Keating
Letters
What About the Right to Die?
By Fr. Frank Pavone
Common Myths
By Fr. Frank Pavone
The Role of Deacons: Then and Now
By Tim Drake
What Can and Can't Deacons Do?
By Tim Drake
The Restoration of the Permanent Diaconate at the Second Vatican Council
By Tim Drake
Who Were the "Great" Popes – and Why?
By Fr. William Saunders
What's in a Name?
By Carl E. Olson
Soteriology: Catholic v. Protestant
By Carl E. Olson
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant
By Steve Ray
Mary the Ark As Revealed in Mary's Visit to Elizabeth
By Steve Ray
Inside the Ark
By Steve Ray
Step by Step
Google versus the Pope
By Kenneth J. Howell
Fathers Know Best
The Real Presence
Brass Tacks
The Complex Relationship between Scripture and Tradition
By Jimmy Akin
Damascus Road
Reincarnation Meant My Loved Ones Would Cease to Exist
By Joanna Bogle
Classic Apologetics
The Authenticity of the Gospels
By Walter Devivier, S. J.
Quick Questions
Subscribe
Permissions
When people ask me about the "right to die," I say: "Don’t worry: You won’t miss out on it."
The truth is that there is no such thing as a "right to die." A right is a moral claim, and we have no claim on death—death has a claim on us. Some people see the "right to die" as a parallel to the right to life, but this is based on faulty reasoning. The right to life is based on life being a gift we can neither destroy nor discard, whereas the "right to die" is based on the idea that life is a thing we possess and may discard when it no longer meets our satisfaction.
The culture of death, which chants, "My body, my life, my choice" also chants—by the same logic—"My body, my death, my choice." Just as pro-abortion groups use the word choice in their names, pro-euthanasia groups call themselves by names such as "Choice in Dying." In both cases, death is being sold as a product, and its salespersons have to make it look better than the alternative. Pro-abortion groups make childbearing seem more dangerous and burdensome than abortion. And recently, in the case of the murder of Terri Schiavo, her estranged husband’s attorney painted her death as peaceful, dignified, and beautiful. I was there for hours in her room, and her death was as far from beautiful as I have ever seen.
The task of the culture of life, then, is to rip the veil off of these acts of violence. To change the way our society treats the vulnerable, we must begin by changing the way we speak about them. Below are some tools to do precisely that. We will start by explaining a few key terms and then answer some common arguments.
What is euthanasia?
Euthanasia, from the Greek words meaning "good death," is something we do or fail to do that causes, or is intended to cause, death, in order to remove a person from suffering. This is sometimes called "mercy killing" (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 2277).
What is assisted suicide?
This refers to an act by which one person assists another in taking his own life. For example, a physician who engages in "assisted suicide" would, upon the patient’s request, provide the deadly drugs for the person to use.
What is the difference between "active" and "passive" euthanasia?
Active euthanasia refers to an action one takes to end a life, such as a lethal injection. Passive euthanasia refers to an omission, such as failing to intervene at a life-threatening crisis or failing to provide nourishment.
It is important not to confuse passive euthanasia with the morally legitimate decision to withhold medical treatment that is not morally necessary. Foregoing a treatment that we are not required to use is not euthanasia in any form and should not be called by that name, even if death is hastened as a result.
Does a person have the right to refuse treatments, or do we have to use every possible medicine and machine to keep him alive?
No matter how ill a patient is, we never have a right to put him to death. We have a duty to care for and preserve life. But to what length are we required to go to preserve life? No religion or government requires us to use every possible means to prolong life. The means have traditionally been classified as either ordinary or extraordinary.
Ordinary means include any treatment or procedure that provides some benefit to the patient without excessive burden or hardship. Ordinary means must always be used.
Extraordinary means are those that present an excessive burden. Extraordinary means are optional. "Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of ‘over-zealous’ treatment" (CCC 2278).
The distinction here is not between "artificial" and "natural." Many artificial treatments are ordinary means in the moral sense, so long as they provide some benefit without excessive burden. Of course, whether a particular treatment is ordinary or extraordinary depends on the specific case, with all its medical details.
I can think of many people with terrible suffering or in conditions where they cannot talk. I would never want to live that way!
I can think of the poor living in slums: I wouldn’t want to live like that! I can think of the homeless: I wouldn’t want to live like that! I can think of those with terrible emotional or financial burdens: I wouldn’t want to live like that!
But what does that mean? Does it mean that we should kill them or treat them like garbage? When people are suffering, that’s a reason to help them, not kill them.
In other words, who is to say that the suffering of a teenager who has just flunked his most important class in school, lost his girlfriend, and been kicked off the football team isn’t too great for him to bear? What if he thinks it is? Do we allow him to commit suicide because he has the right to determine the end of his life, or do we call a crisis hotline?
What about people who are unable to communicate?
What about them? That, indeed, is the question for the pro-euthanasia forces. People who cannot communicate are people. This gets to the heart of the problem. A person’s inability to function does not make his life less valuable. People do not become "vegetables." Children of God never lose the divine image in which they were made.
A key distinction that needs to be made here is between a patient who is dying and one who is not. If the patient is dying, we try with all reasonable means to sustain life. As we have noted, some interventions are necessary and some are not. But if the patient is not dying, there is no question about whether to provide treatment. There is such a thing as a useless treatment, but there is no such thing as a useless life.
Must we always provide food and fluids to a patient?
When we come back from lunch, we do not say that we just had our latest medical treatment. Food and drink are a normal part of taking care of life and health, not an extraordinary intervention. As part of normal care, therefore, they are morally obligatory.
Food and water keeps us alive. Failing to feed someone introduces a new cause of death, namely, starvation.
Pope John Paul II addressed this question in the following words:
I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering (Address to the International Congress on Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas, March 20, 2004).
Shouldn’t politicians stay out of these personal decisions?
The first purpose of government is to defend and protect the lives of its citizens. Both euthanasia and assisted suicide contradict that fundamental purpose.
Pope John Paul II wrote that when the right to life is denied by a state, the state itself disintegrates:
To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom (Evangelium Vitae 20).
Didn’t Mother Teresa assist people to die?
Blessed Teresa of Calcutta assisted many people in dying and helped many people to die: She was present to them, assuring them that they would not die alone; she helped them find the courage to face death, gave them the conviction that their dignity had not been lost, and offered them the serenity borne of receiving love from people and God. This is the legitimate meaning of "death with dignity" and "helping people to die." This is the gospel response to the dying members of the human family. It is very different from killing them.
Should I sign a living will?
Living wills are both unnecessary and dangerous.
They are unnecessary because they propose to give rights that patients and doctors already possess. People already have the right to make informed-consent decisions telling their family and physicians how they want to be treated if and when they no longer can make decisions for themselves. Doctors are already free to withhold or withdraw useless procedures that provide no benefit to the patient. Some people fear that medical technology will be used to torture them in their final days, but it is more likely that the "medical heroics" people fear are the very treatments that will make possible a more comfortable, less painful death.
Living wills are also dangerous because they try to predict the future. We do not know in advance what form of sickness or disease we may be afflicted with in the years ahead. We do not know what treatments we will need or what will be available. We do not know if we will need a respirator indefinitely or perhaps for just a few hours to get back to normal health.
Moreover, if the living will indicates that one does not want "to be kept alive by medications" or "artificial means," what does that mean? An.aspirin is medication, is it not? Drinking through a straw is artificial. People can construe meanings for these words that the signer of the document never intended.
What are the alternatives to a living will?
A safer route is to appoint a health care proxy who can speak for you in those cases when you are not able to speak for yourself. The proxy should be a person who shares your moral convictions and will be able to apply them to specific medical situations that may arise for you in the future. The "Will to Live" is a document whereby you can appoint a proxy and expressly indicate your desire for life-sustaining treatment if the need arises. Contact Priests for Life for a "Will to Live" consistent with the laws of your state.
Fr. Frank Pavone is founder of the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life, a new society of apostolic life dedicated to the formation and training of priests, deacons, brothers, and seminarians who will devote themselves fully to the proclamation of the gospel of life. He is also the national director of Priests for Life, an officially approved association of Catholic clergy who give special emphasis to the pro-life teachings of the Church.
Contact Priests for Life at P.O. Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314; Tel: 888-PFL-3448, 718-980-4400; Fax: 718-980-6515; e-mail: mail@priestsforlife.org; web: www.priestsforlife.org
Here's how to answer the common arguments of the culture of death.
By Fr. Frank Pavone
This Rock
Volume 16, Number 8
October 2005
Frontispiece
By Karl Keating
Letters
What About the Right to Die?
By Fr. Frank Pavone
Common Myths
By Fr. Frank Pavone
The Role of Deacons: Then and Now
By Tim Drake
What Can and Can't Deacons Do?
By Tim Drake
The Restoration of the Permanent Diaconate at the Second Vatican Council
By Tim Drake
Who Were the "Great" Popes – and Why?
By Fr. William Saunders
What's in a Name?
By Carl E. Olson
Soteriology: Catholic v. Protestant
By Carl E. Olson
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant
By Steve Ray
Mary the Ark As Revealed in Mary's Visit to Elizabeth
By Steve Ray
Inside the Ark
By Steve Ray
Step by Step
Google versus the Pope
By Kenneth J. Howell
Fathers Know Best
The Real Presence
Brass Tacks
The Complex Relationship between Scripture and Tradition
By Jimmy Akin
Damascus Road
Reincarnation Meant My Loved Ones Would Cease to Exist
By Joanna Bogle
Classic Apologetics
The Authenticity of the Gospels
By Walter Devivier, S. J.
Quick Questions
Subscribe
Permissions
When people ask me about the "right to die," I say: "Don’t worry: You won’t miss out on it."
The truth is that there is no such thing as a "right to die." A right is a moral claim, and we have no claim on death—death has a claim on us. Some people see the "right to die" as a parallel to the right to life, but this is based on faulty reasoning. The right to life is based on life being a gift we can neither destroy nor discard, whereas the "right to die" is based on the idea that life is a thing we possess and may discard when it no longer meets our satisfaction.
The culture of death, which chants, "My body, my life, my choice" also chants—by the same logic—"My body, my death, my choice." Just as pro-abortion groups use the word choice in their names, pro-euthanasia groups call themselves by names such as "Choice in Dying." In both cases, death is being sold as a product, and its salespersons have to make it look better than the alternative. Pro-abortion groups make childbearing seem more dangerous and burdensome than abortion. And recently, in the case of the murder of Terri Schiavo, her estranged husband’s attorney painted her death as peaceful, dignified, and beautiful. I was there for hours in her room, and her death was as far from beautiful as I have ever seen.
The task of the culture of life, then, is to rip the veil off of these acts of violence. To change the way our society treats the vulnerable, we must begin by changing the way we speak about them. Below are some tools to do precisely that. We will start by explaining a few key terms and then answer some common arguments.
What is euthanasia?
Euthanasia, from the Greek words meaning "good death," is something we do or fail to do that causes, or is intended to cause, death, in order to remove a person from suffering. This is sometimes called "mercy killing" (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 2277).
What is assisted suicide?
This refers to an act by which one person assists another in taking his own life. For example, a physician who engages in "assisted suicide" would, upon the patient’s request, provide the deadly drugs for the person to use.
What is the difference between "active" and "passive" euthanasia?
Active euthanasia refers to an action one takes to end a life, such as a lethal injection. Passive euthanasia refers to an omission, such as failing to intervene at a life-threatening crisis or failing to provide nourishment.
It is important not to confuse passive euthanasia with the morally legitimate decision to withhold medical treatment that is not morally necessary. Foregoing a treatment that we are not required to use is not euthanasia in any form and should not be called by that name, even if death is hastened as a result.
Does a person have the right to refuse treatments, or do we have to use every possible medicine and machine to keep him alive?
No matter how ill a patient is, we never have a right to put him to death. We have a duty to care for and preserve life. But to what length are we required to go to preserve life? No religion or government requires us to use every possible means to prolong life. The means have traditionally been classified as either ordinary or extraordinary.
Ordinary means include any treatment or procedure that provides some benefit to the patient without excessive burden or hardship. Ordinary means must always be used.
Extraordinary means are those that present an excessive burden. Extraordinary means are optional. "Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of ‘over-zealous’ treatment" (CCC 2278).
The distinction here is not between "artificial" and "natural." Many artificial treatments are ordinary means in the moral sense, so long as they provide some benefit without excessive burden. Of course, whether a particular treatment is ordinary or extraordinary depends on the specific case, with all its medical details.
I can think of many people with terrible suffering or in conditions where they cannot talk. I would never want to live that way!
I can think of the poor living in slums: I wouldn’t want to live like that! I can think of the homeless: I wouldn’t want to live like that! I can think of those with terrible emotional or financial burdens: I wouldn’t want to live like that!
But what does that mean? Does it mean that we should kill them or treat them like garbage? When people are suffering, that’s a reason to help them, not kill them.
In other words, who is to say that the suffering of a teenager who has just flunked his most important class in school, lost his girlfriend, and been kicked off the football team isn’t too great for him to bear? What if he thinks it is? Do we allow him to commit suicide because he has the right to determine the end of his life, or do we call a crisis hotline?
What about people who are unable to communicate?
What about them? That, indeed, is the question for the pro-euthanasia forces. People who cannot communicate are people. This gets to the heart of the problem. A person’s inability to function does not make his life less valuable. People do not become "vegetables." Children of God never lose the divine image in which they were made.
A key distinction that needs to be made here is between a patient who is dying and one who is not. If the patient is dying, we try with all reasonable means to sustain life. As we have noted, some interventions are necessary and some are not. But if the patient is not dying, there is no question about whether to provide treatment. There is such a thing as a useless treatment, but there is no such thing as a useless life.
Must we always provide food and fluids to a patient?
When we come back from lunch, we do not say that we just had our latest medical treatment. Food and drink are a normal part of taking care of life and health, not an extraordinary intervention. As part of normal care, therefore, they are morally obligatory.
Food and water keeps us alive. Failing to feed someone introduces a new cause of death, namely, starvation.
Pope John Paul II addressed this question in the following words:
I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering (Address to the International Congress on Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas, March 20, 2004).
Shouldn’t politicians stay out of these personal decisions?
The first purpose of government is to defend and protect the lives of its citizens. Both euthanasia and assisted suicide contradict that fundamental purpose.
Pope John Paul II wrote that when the right to life is denied by a state, the state itself disintegrates:
To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom (Evangelium Vitae 20).
Didn’t Mother Teresa assist people to die?
Blessed Teresa of Calcutta assisted many people in dying and helped many people to die: She was present to them, assuring them that they would not die alone; she helped them find the courage to face death, gave them the conviction that their dignity had not been lost, and offered them the serenity borne of receiving love from people and God. This is the legitimate meaning of "death with dignity" and "helping people to die." This is the gospel response to the dying members of the human family. It is very different from killing them.
Should I sign a living will?
Living wills are both unnecessary and dangerous.
They are unnecessary because they propose to give rights that patients and doctors already possess. People already have the right to make informed-consent decisions telling their family and physicians how they want to be treated if and when they no longer can make decisions for themselves. Doctors are already free to withhold or withdraw useless procedures that provide no benefit to the patient. Some people fear that medical technology will be used to torture them in their final days, but it is more likely that the "medical heroics" people fear are the very treatments that will make possible a more comfortable, less painful death.
Living wills are also dangerous because they try to predict the future. We do not know in advance what form of sickness or disease we may be afflicted with in the years ahead. We do not know what treatments we will need or what will be available. We do not know if we will need a respirator indefinitely or perhaps for just a few hours to get back to normal health.
Moreover, if the living will indicates that one does not want "to be kept alive by medications" or "artificial means," what does that mean? An.aspirin is medication, is it not? Drinking through a straw is artificial. People can construe meanings for these words that the signer of the document never intended.
What are the alternatives to a living will?
A safer route is to appoint a health care proxy who can speak for you in those cases when you are not able to speak for yourself. The proxy should be a person who shares your moral convictions and will be able to apply them to specific medical situations that may arise for you in the future. The "Will to Live" is a document whereby you can appoint a proxy and expressly indicate your desire for life-sustaining treatment if the need arises. Contact Priests for Life for a "Will to Live" consistent with the laws of your state.
Fr. Frank Pavone is founder of the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life, a new society of apostolic life dedicated to the formation and training of priests, deacons, brothers, and seminarians who will devote themselves fully to the proclamation of the gospel of life. He is also the national director of Priests for Life, an officially approved association of Catholic clergy who give special emphasis to the pro-life teachings of the Church.
Contact Priests for Life at P.O. Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314; Tel: 888-PFL-3448, 718-980-4400; Fax: 718-980-6515; e-mail: mail@priestsforlife.org; web: www.priestsforlife.org
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Let’s Get our Facts Straight about Tiller and Anti-Abortion Violence
Wednesday June 3, 2009
Commentary: Let’s Get our Facts Straight about Tiller and Anti-Abortion Violence
Commentary by Brian Clowes, PhD - Human Life International, Research Manager
June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Along with everyone else at Human Life International and throughout the legitimate pro-life movement, I strongly condemn the murder of abortionist George Tiller in Kansas. The Fifth Commandment does not read "Thou shalt not kill, except for abortionists."
Not only is it wrong to respond to people like Tiller with the ultimate anti-life act of murder, it also sets the entire pro-life movement back as good, committed leaders have to scramble to distance themselves from an act that they never called for and which is obviously antithetical to their philosophy and work. Pro-abortion legislators seize on the opportunity to call for laws restricting legitimate pro-life activities such as sidewalk counseling and picketing, knowing the whole time that such legislation will do nothing to hinder a maniac with a gun. And, worst of all, thousands of people who would otherwise have joined the pro-life movement will continue to sit on the sidelines, believing the media lie that we are violent.
Pro-lifers should indeed condemn the murder of George Tiller. But we should not play permanent defense as the nonsense snowballs and the unfair attacks against the pro-life movement multiply. Here are some facts that should be taken into consideration by all people of good will, especially those whose responsibility it is to report on this story.
1) George Tiller is the first abortionist to be killed in eleven years. If you think that's a "trend,” or an “epidemic” as some have said, you're just not a serious person.
2) All of the posturing going on in the pro-abortion movement over the safety of abortionists is a ruse. There are four times as many hairdressers and 150 times as many convenience store clerks murdered as there are abortionists. Where is the “pro-choice” grieving over them?
3) George Tiller made his money performing late-term abortions, which often involves the killing of a viable human being. According to Kansas state statistics, he killed 395 viable third-trimester babies in one year – 2001 – all for “mental health” reasons (which, as we know, is the category for all elective abortions). Not one of those abortions was for a mother’s physical health or for a medical emergency. Americans overwhelmingly believe this disgusting practice should not be legal. If any objective journalist were to look into his practice they would see that most people, and all sane people, are appalled by what happened in his clinic every day.
4) Tiller has been tried on criminal indictments for multiple abuses of his practice, including breaking state laws requiring another medical doctor to verify that certain patients' lives were at risk before performing late-term abortions. This man was no hero or saint, and his being held up as a martyr says more about pro-abortionists than it does about those they are trying to condemn.
5) Abortionists are not only widely considered an embarrassment to the medical profession, but they are much more likely to commit violence than to suffer violence. You may be surprised to learn that more than a dozen abortionists have been convicted of murder and manslaughter ― of their wives, of their patients, and even of other abortionists. Yet you never hear about these killings in the press (see http://www.abortionviolence.com/ for documentation). Abortionists are more likely to kill than to be killed.
6) Whenever an abortionist mutilates, kills or molests a woman, the “pro-choice” movement always rushes to his defense, as they did for Brian Finkel, the Arizona abortionist who was sent to prison for 35 years for 22 counts of sexual abuse. So much for caring for women!
7) The pro-life movement is the most peaceful social movement in the history of this country. Most other social movements, including the unionization movement, the pro-abortion movement, the homosexualist movement, the animal rights movement, and the environmental movement have all demonstrated much greater violence. So where is the outcry over the violence committed by these movements?
During the predictable surge of publicity over Tiller's murder, we must remember that abortion itself is the most cowardly form of murder, committed against the most helpless and innocent of all of God's people, the unborn. We must also remember those who have died, but who are ignored by the media and the pro-abortionists ― the hundreds of women who have died of so-called "safe and legal" abortion, and the hundreds of other women who have been murdered by their boyfriends or husbands because they would not abort their children (see http://www.abortionviolence.com/ for documentation).
Let's not be bullied or silenced by those who are trying to tar the whole pro-life movement by cynically exploiting the murder of George Tiller. Let's instead reply with facts which add context to the "abortionists are heroes, pro-lifers are violent" narrative that the "mainstream" media seems too willing to parrot.
Not that I expect the media to suddenly start reporting the truth of abortion. If they did that, there would be no legal abortion in the first place. But we can try, and the facts are on our side. Let's pray, too, for the soul of George Tiller, his family, and his murderer, as well as for the conversion of all pro-aborts that they see how destructive abortion is for all human life, not just the child who is killed and the mother who is wounded.
One thing you can do is forward this information and the address of the abortion violence Web site to your friends so that we can reach those of good will ― those who aren't just mindlessly screaming bloody murder but who can actually think and listen to reason ― and show them that the story they've been told about supposedly "violent" pro-life activists is just that ― a story.
+++++++++
Commentary: Let’s Get our Facts Straight about Tiller and Anti-Abortion Violence
Commentary by Brian Clowes, PhD - Human Life International, Research Manager
June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Along with everyone else at Human Life International and throughout the legitimate pro-life movement, I strongly condemn the murder of abortionist George Tiller in Kansas. The Fifth Commandment does not read "Thou shalt not kill, except for abortionists."
Not only is it wrong to respond to people like Tiller with the ultimate anti-life act of murder, it also sets the entire pro-life movement back as good, committed leaders have to scramble to distance themselves from an act that they never called for and which is obviously antithetical to their philosophy and work. Pro-abortion legislators seize on the opportunity to call for laws restricting legitimate pro-life activities such as sidewalk counseling and picketing, knowing the whole time that such legislation will do nothing to hinder a maniac with a gun. And, worst of all, thousands of people who would otherwise have joined the pro-life movement will continue to sit on the sidelines, believing the media lie that we are violent.
Pro-lifers should indeed condemn the murder of George Tiller. But we should not play permanent defense as the nonsense snowballs and the unfair attacks against the pro-life movement multiply. Here are some facts that should be taken into consideration by all people of good will, especially those whose responsibility it is to report on this story.
1) George Tiller is the first abortionist to be killed in eleven years. If you think that's a "trend,” or an “epidemic” as some have said, you're just not a serious person.
2) All of the posturing going on in the pro-abortion movement over the safety of abortionists is a ruse. There are four times as many hairdressers and 150 times as many convenience store clerks murdered as there are abortionists. Where is the “pro-choice” grieving over them?
3) George Tiller made his money performing late-term abortions, which often involves the killing of a viable human being. According to Kansas state statistics, he killed 395 viable third-trimester babies in one year – 2001 – all for “mental health” reasons (which, as we know, is the category for all elective abortions). Not one of those abortions was for a mother’s physical health or for a medical emergency. Americans overwhelmingly believe this disgusting practice should not be legal. If any objective journalist were to look into his practice they would see that most people, and all sane people, are appalled by what happened in his clinic every day.
4) Tiller has been tried on criminal indictments for multiple abuses of his practice, including breaking state laws requiring another medical doctor to verify that certain patients' lives were at risk before performing late-term abortions. This man was no hero or saint, and his being held up as a martyr says more about pro-abortionists than it does about those they are trying to condemn.
5) Abortionists are not only widely considered an embarrassment to the medical profession, but they are much more likely to commit violence than to suffer violence. You may be surprised to learn that more than a dozen abortionists have been convicted of murder and manslaughter ― of their wives, of their patients, and even of other abortionists. Yet you never hear about these killings in the press (see http://www.abortionviolence.com/ for documentation). Abortionists are more likely to kill than to be killed.
6) Whenever an abortionist mutilates, kills or molests a woman, the “pro-choice” movement always rushes to his defense, as they did for Brian Finkel, the Arizona abortionist who was sent to prison for 35 years for 22 counts of sexual abuse. So much for caring for women!
7) The pro-life movement is the most peaceful social movement in the history of this country. Most other social movements, including the unionization movement, the pro-abortion movement, the homosexualist movement, the animal rights movement, and the environmental movement have all demonstrated much greater violence. So where is the outcry over the violence committed by these movements?
During the predictable surge of publicity over Tiller's murder, we must remember that abortion itself is the most cowardly form of murder, committed against the most helpless and innocent of all of God's people, the unborn. We must also remember those who have died, but who are ignored by the media and the pro-abortionists ― the hundreds of women who have died of so-called "safe and legal" abortion, and the hundreds of other women who have been murdered by their boyfriends or husbands because they would not abort their children (see http://www.abortionviolence.com/ for documentation).
Let's not be bullied or silenced by those who are trying to tar the whole pro-life movement by cynically exploiting the murder of George Tiller. Let's instead reply with facts which add context to the "abortionists are heroes, pro-lifers are violent" narrative that the "mainstream" media seems too willing to parrot.
Not that I expect the media to suddenly start reporting the truth of abortion. If they did that, there would be no legal abortion in the first place. But we can try, and the facts are on our side. Let's pray, too, for the soul of George Tiller, his family, and his murderer, as well as for the conversion of all pro-aborts that they see how destructive abortion is for all human life, not just the child who is killed and the mother who is wounded.
One thing you can do is forward this information and the address of the abortion violence Web site to your friends so that we can reach those of good will ― those who aren't just mindlessly screaming bloody murder but who can actually think and listen to reason ― and show them that the story they've been told about supposedly "violent" pro-life activists is just that ― a story.
+++++++++
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Pop Can Baby Miracle Baby 12.5 oz.
June 2, 2009
The "Pop Can" miracle baby
taylorrideout.jpgWPXI in Pittsburgh reports on the smallest baby ever to survive at Magee Women's Hospital:
At birth baby Taylor Rideout weighed just 12.5 oz. and was just 10 inches long....
"She's a fighter," said Taylor's mother Brittany Rideout.
Please see the rest of the story at http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/06/miracle_baby_su.html
The "Pop Can" miracle baby
taylorrideout.jpgWPXI in Pittsburgh reports on the smallest baby ever to survive at Magee Women's Hospital:
At birth baby Taylor Rideout weighed just 12.5 oz. and was just 10 inches long....
"She's a fighter," said Taylor's mother Brittany Rideout.
Please see the rest of the story at http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/06/miracle_baby_su.html
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Boy, 8, tells Texas lawmakers how stem cells cured him
Please see: http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/txcn/austin/stories/052108kvuestemcells-cb.15973e44.html for a video of this young child explains how adult stem cell treatment has cured him.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Notre Shame, For Shame Obama, For Shame Media
Never have I ever heard more obvious double-speak than I have heard during Obama's speech at Notre Dame commencement. Never. Also, never have I heard more shameful an attitude toward life. It is equal only to the Pres of Iran saying there was no such thing as a Jewish holocaust. Pathetic and even more pathetic that so many people have bought into these lies about what pro-life is and the absolute scientific and psychological damage to the mother, not even considering the torture to the child. TORTURE !
Example...
The media as well as President Obama *deliberately* say "stem cell research* to make people believe that Catholics are against stem cell research which is a complete and total lie and anywhere on the internet can you find that out. There is a deliberate effort to eliminate the word "embryonic" by the media, by Obama, and by Father Jenkins in his allowing this lie to be said at Notre Dame.
The facts of the futility of embryonic stem cell cures is also available on the internet easily found. As well, the cures from regular stem cell research not only is in excess of SEVENTY cures but also easily found on the internet.
Shame on Obama for lying and shame on Fr. Jenkins for assisting in this lie. They BOTH know the truth and they are bought and sold. One thing they both have very much in common....lies.
And another lie...I am anti-abortion, Obama says, but yet now wants us to pay for abortion in other countries including the one child policy in China. Of all the money Obama promises he excludes any type of program that will help mothers of unwanted pregnancies. Obama pulled the funds for the mothers! Hello...are you listening?
If ever there were a forked tongue, Obama and Jenkins have exactly that.
I have to really wonder how educated our educated really are that people believe what was said by Obama at Notre Dame as truth. Our educated at one of the most notable universities have absolutely no clue what double speak is or how to recognize it. Obama has the cattle prod and the young people seem to be ready to to buy into it. Time to take a much closer look at "education."
Case in point. You can show a 3 year old a picture of a pre-born baby at 3 months and that 3 year old child will say, "that's a baby!" I have much more confidence in the intelligence of my 4 year old grandson than I now have in Obama or in Jenkins or in anyone who applauded the lies at Notre Dame.
It's a hard hard decision women have to make, says Obama. And he is really heart felt about what they go through. Really? And that's why he refers to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy as being "punished?" Hello? Are you listening? Punished? A child is a punishment for what? So...kill it ? Kill what we don't want is the answer?
Great...let's use that as a rule for society. Let's kill what we don't want. OH?? You don't think that's ok? Why? Because you can't actually see the person you kill in the womb? Is it any less killing because you cannot see the baby? Ok...the answer is NO and not just "no" but "hell no." Believe it or not, rationalize it to fit your needs, describe your sad situation...it's the killing of a human being.
A pepperoni pizza is a pepperoni pizza no matter how badly you want it to be a NY strip steak. And abortion is murder no matter how badly you wish to dismiss that fact.
It's your body you can do what you want? Really. Let's think about that. There is a test that is given to see if someone in an accident is brain dead. No brain waves? The person is dead. So tell me exactly WHY the pro-aborts put all the money they can into preventing these same tests from being done on the pre-born baby EVEN.....EVEN....at the earliest stages of pregnancy. Ok, you guessed it. Because there ARE brain waves.
Your body? Is there one heart or two? Is there one nervous system or two? Are there only 2 legs and 2 arms and no head because it's YOUR body you want to kill? Ah, no...don't think so. Another lie...the heart beats at THREE weeks. Wanna know the double speak given about that? "It's not a heart beat..it's heart "motion". Hello? Are you listening?
The media...........if you don't hear it, you think it isn't happening? Oh, think again. You think when they say that Catholics object to stem cell research that that is true? You are being lied to 100%. And it is deliberate. So, think again. Catholics DO promote stem cell research because it is NOT the destruction of human life. I challenge you to find the truth of "adult stem cell cures" and the futility of embryonic stem cell research.
Check out the Discovery Channel and any other programs that like to walk us through surgeries. Check the made-for-TV-movies/CSI programs/etc to see every kind of gory detail of blood and guts but do you EVER see an abortion? Why is that? It's the most common surgery in the United States...in fact, the world...but you have never seen it ! Are you listening?
Forget religion? If that bothers you then just check the scientific facts about the unborn. I challenge you to do just that. Not convinced? Go to the website of http://www.priestsforlife.org and look at the pictures of aborted babies.
Look, if you don't want to look, you already know it's murder. If you do look, and you are pro-abort, then I am convinced you won't be after you see it. America won't outlaw abortion until America sees abortion. And that, my dear, is a fact. If you don't want to look because you already know it's murder, then you are desperately trying to rationalize some type of genocide as "ok" as long as it doesn't interrupt your life. Hey...I know a lot of 2 year olds who disrupt life. Should we kill them? No?? Why not?? Just because you can SEE them? Oh. Listen. Up. You can see the unborn.
Look at the pics and you will see the reality of genocide.
It's not YOUR body being pulled apart limb from limb. It's not YOUR body being burned to death. It's not YOUR body that has the brain sucked out of your head. So, it obviously is NOT your body that you choose to kill. And...do you value your freedom more than you care about murder? Ok then..................do this........
Have the baby and let the baby live !!!!! Let the baby live with an adoptive family who can't have a baby that you so desperately want to kill to be rid of.
SHAME on Obama. SHAME on Jenkins. SHAME on anyone who chooses to abort when adoption is ALWAYS an option.
Wait !! Saving you the trouble of searching for pictures of aborted babies ! I knew you would thank me for this so here is the link: http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.aspx#galleries
If you already know abortion is murder, you won't look. If you are convinced that abortion is ok.. I dare you! And then come back after you see the pics and leave me a comment on what you saw. Please do that. I will look forward to your pro-abortion ideas after you look.
Example...
The media as well as President Obama *deliberately* say "stem cell research* to make people believe that Catholics are against stem cell research which is a complete and total lie and anywhere on the internet can you find that out. There is a deliberate effort to eliminate the word "embryonic" by the media, by Obama, and by Father Jenkins in his allowing this lie to be said at Notre Dame.
The facts of the futility of embryonic stem cell cures is also available on the internet easily found. As well, the cures from regular stem cell research not only is in excess of SEVENTY cures but also easily found on the internet.
Shame on Obama for lying and shame on Fr. Jenkins for assisting in this lie. They BOTH know the truth and they are bought and sold. One thing they both have very much in common....lies.
And another lie...I am anti-abortion, Obama says, but yet now wants us to pay for abortion in other countries including the one child policy in China. Of all the money Obama promises he excludes any type of program that will help mothers of unwanted pregnancies. Obama pulled the funds for the mothers! Hello...are you listening?
If ever there were a forked tongue, Obama and Jenkins have exactly that.
I have to really wonder how educated our educated really are that people believe what was said by Obama at Notre Dame as truth. Our educated at one of the most notable universities have absolutely no clue what double speak is or how to recognize it. Obama has the cattle prod and the young people seem to be ready to to buy into it. Time to take a much closer look at "education."
Case in point. You can show a 3 year old a picture of a pre-born baby at 3 months and that 3 year old child will say, "that's a baby!" I have much more confidence in the intelligence of my 4 year old grandson than I now have in Obama or in Jenkins or in anyone who applauded the lies at Notre Dame.
It's a hard hard decision women have to make, says Obama. And he is really heart felt about what they go through. Really? And that's why he refers to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy as being "punished?" Hello? Are you listening? Punished? A child is a punishment for what? So...kill it ? Kill what we don't want is the answer?
Great...let's use that as a rule for society. Let's kill what we don't want. OH?? You don't think that's ok? Why? Because you can't actually see the person you kill in the womb? Is it any less killing because you cannot see the baby? Ok...the answer is NO and not just "no" but "hell no." Believe it or not, rationalize it to fit your needs, describe your sad situation...it's the killing of a human being.
A pepperoni pizza is a pepperoni pizza no matter how badly you want it to be a NY strip steak. And abortion is murder no matter how badly you wish to dismiss that fact.
It's your body you can do what you want? Really. Let's think about that. There is a test that is given to see if someone in an accident is brain dead. No brain waves? The person is dead. So tell me exactly WHY the pro-aborts put all the money they can into preventing these same tests from being done on the pre-born baby EVEN.....EVEN....at the earliest stages of pregnancy. Ok, you guessed it. Because there ARE brain waves.
Your body? Is there one heart or two? Is there one nervous system or two? Are there only 2 legs and 2 arms and no head because it's YOUR body you want to kill? Ah, no...don't think so. Another lie...the heart beats at THREE weeks. Wanna know the double speak given about that? "It's not a heart beat..it's heart "motion". Hello? Are you listening?
The media...........if you don't hear it, you think it isn't happening? Oh, think again. You think when they say that Catholics object to stem cell research that that is true? You are being lied to 100%. And it is deliberate. So, think again. Catholics DO promote stem cell research because it is NOT the destruction of human life. I challenge you to find the truth of "adult stem cell cures" and the futility of embryonic stem cell research.
Check out the Discovery Channel and any other programs that like to walk us through surgeries. Check the made-for-TV-movies/CSI programs/etc to see every kind of gory detail of blood and guts but do you EVER see an abortion? Why is that? It's the most common surgery in the United States...in fact, the world...but you have never seen it ! Are you listening?
Forget religion? If that bothers you then just check the scientific facts about the unborn. I challenge you to do just that. Not convinced? Go to the website of http://www.priestsforlife.org and look at the pictures of aborted babies.
Look, if you don't want to look, you already know it's murder. If you do look, and you are pro-abort, then I am convinced you won't be after you see it. America won't outlaw abortion until America sees abortion. And that, my dear, is a fact. If you don't want to look because you already know it's murder, then you are desperately trying to rationalize some type of genocide as "ok" as long as it doesn't interrupt your life. Hey...I know a lot of 2 year olds who disrupt life. Should we kill them? No?? Why not?? Just because you can SEE them? Oh. Listen. Up. You can see the unborn.
Look at the pics and you will see the reality of genocide.
It's not YOUR body being pulled apart limb from limb. It's not YOUR body being burned to death. It's not YOUR body that has the brain sucked out of your head. So, it obviously is NOT your body that you choose to kill. And...do you value your freedom more than you care about murder? Ok then..................do this........
Have the baby and let the baby live !!!!! Let the baby live with an adoptive family who can't have a baby that you so desperately want to kill to be rid of.
SHAME on Obama. SHAME on Jenkins. SHAME on anyone who chooses to abort when adoption is ALWAYS an option.
Wait !! Saving you the trouble of searching for pictures of aborted babies ! I knew you would thank me for this so here is the link: http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.aspx#galleries
If you already know abortion is murder, you won't look. If you are convinced that abortion is ok.. I dare you! And then come back after you see the pics and leave me a comment on what you saw. Please do that. I will look forward to your pro-abortion ideas after you look.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Thousands More, 12 Bishops, and 18 Politicians Join in Regional Marches for Life Across Canada Total Number of Bishops: 24
Tuesday May 19, 2009
By Alex Bush
May 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The 12th annual March for Life in Ottawa may have drawn a record number of participants; but the pro-life show of strength this past week was not just limited to the national March, with numerous regional events taking place across the country. In addition to the 12,300 people and 12 bishops that participated in the Ottawa March for Life, approximately 4,000 people, including 12 bishops, participated in regional Marches For Life.
All told, more than 16,000 Canadians participated in pro-life demonstrations last week, and the number of bishops involved totaled 24.
In addition to the multitude of marchers and bishops, 18 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) from New Brunswick joined in the New Brunswick March for Life, including the PC Opposition Leader David Alward and the Liberal Minister of Health Mike Murphy.
Marches took place coast to coast across Canada, setting numerous records for attendance. 40 people from Newfoundland, 140 from Manitoba, 350 from Nova Scotia, 400 from New Brunswick, 400 from Alberta, 700 from Saskatchewan, and a mighty 2,000 from British Columbian took part in various local marches.
The Bishops that participated at the Marches across Canada were, in New Brunswick, Archbishop Robert Harris; in Alberta, Archbishop Richard William Smith, Bishop Frederick Henry, Bishop Joseph Luc André Bouchard, Bishop Gérard Pettipas; in British Columbia, Archbishop Michael Miller, Bishop Richard Gagnon, Bishop David Monroe; in Saskatchewan, Archbishop Daniel Bohan, Bishop Albert LeGatt, Ukranian Bishop Bryan Bayda, and Ukranian Bishop Kenneth Nowakowski.
The Liberal MLAs from New Brunswick also used the March for Life as an opportunity to throw their support behind a PC bill that would allow distraught women to give their newborn babies to hospital staff. The "Safe Haven Bill" was introduced after the public mourning of a baby boy, known as Baby Taylor, who was left to die of exposure near Moncton, New Brunswick over the winter and was only found during the spring thaw.
The marchers from New Brunswick also placed 250 Roses at the Legislature and at the three main abortion facilities in the province (which includes two full-fledged hospitals) to commemorate the 25,000 unborn babies who have been aborted in New Brunswick since 1969.
The Complete list of bishops that participated in the various Marches for Life is as follows (to find the contact information to send the bishops a letter of thanks for their participation, see: http://www.cccb.ca/site/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,1211/lang,eng/):
1. His Eminence Marc Cardinal Ouellet - Quebec City
2. His Grace Archbishop Terrence Prendergast - Ottawa
3. His Grace Archbishop Thomas Collins - Toronto
4. His Grace Archbishop Brendan O'Brien - Kingston
5. His Grace Archbishop Sutton, OMI, emeritus archbishop of Keewatin-LePas
6. His Grace Archbishop Richard William Smith - Edmonton
7. His Grace Archbishop Michael Miller - Vancouver
8. His Grace Archbishop Daniel Bohan - Regina
9. His Excellency Bishop Paul-André DuRocher - Alexandria-Cornwall
10. His Excellency Bishop Ronald Fabbro - London
11. His Excellency Bishop Jean-Louis Plouffe - Sault Ste. Marie
12. His Excellency Bishop Stephen Victor Chmilar - Ukrainian Bishop of Toronto and Eastern Canada
13. His Excellency Bishop Michael Mulhall - Pembroke
14. His Excellency Bishop John Stephen Pazak - Byzantine Rite
15. His Excellency Bishop Robert Harris - Saint John
16. His Excellency Bishop Frederick Henry - Calgary
17. His Excellency Bishop Joseph Luc André Bouchard - Saint Paul
18. His Excellency Bishop Gérard Pettipas - Grouard-McLennan
19. His Excellency Bishop Richard Gagnon - Victoria
20. His Excellency Bishop David Monroe - Kamloops
21. His Excellency Bishop Albert LeGatt
22. His Excellency Bishop Bryan Bayda, Ukrainian Bishop of Saskatoon
23. His Excellency Bishop Kenneth Nowakowski Ukrainian Bishop of Westminster
24. Mgr Gerard Drainville, retired bishop of Amos (Quebec)
12,000: Canadian 2009 March for Life Smashes Previous Attendance Records
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09051409.html
Now 11 Bishops Confirmed: Unprecedented Promotion of March for Life from Catholic Bishops
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09051303.html
New Brunswick Right to Life Says Abortion Law Being Abused at NB Hospitals
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09051517.html
By Alex Bush
May 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The 12th annual March for Life in Ottawa may have drawn a record number of participants; but the pro-life show of strength this past week was not just limited to the national March, with numerous regional events taking place across the country. In addition to the 12,300 people and 12 bishops that participated in the Ottawa March for Life, approximately 4,000 people, including 12 bishops, participated in regional Marches For Life.
All told, more than 16,000 Canadians participated in pro-life demonstrations last week, and the number of bishops involved totaled 24.
In addition to the multitude of marchers and bishops, 18 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) from New Brunswick joined in the New Brunswick March for Life, including the PC Opposition Leader David Alward and the Liberal Minister of Health Mike Murphy.
Marches took place coast to coast across Canada, setting numerous records for attendance. 40 people from Newfoundland, 140 from Manitoba, 350 from Nova Scotia, 400 from New Brunswick, 400 from Alberta, 700 from Saskatchewan, and a mighty 2,000 from British Columbian took part in various local marches.
The Bishops that participated at the Marches across Canada were, in New Brunswick, Archbishop Robert Harris; in Alberta, Archbishop Richard William Smith, Bishop Frederick Henry, Bishop Joseph Luc André Bouchard, Bishop Gérard Pettipas; in British Columbia, Archbishop Michael Miller, Bishop Richard Gagnon, Bishop David Monroe; in Saskatchewan, Archbishop Daniel Bohan, Bishop Albert LeGatt, Ukranian Bishop Bryan Bayda, and Ukranian Bishop Kenneth Nowakowski.
The Liberal MLAs from New Brunswick also used the March for Life as an opportunity to throw their support behind a PC bill that would allow distraught women to give their newborn babies to hospital staff. The "Safe Haven Bill" was introduced after the public mourning of a baby boy, known as Baby Taylor, who was left to die of exposure near Moncton, New Brunswick over the winter and was only found during the spring thaw.
The marchers from New Brunswick also placed 250 Roses at the Legislature and at the three main abortion facilities in the province (which includes two full-fledged hospitals) to commemorate the 25,000 unborn babies who have been aborted in New Brunswick since 1969.
The Complete list of bishops that participated in the various Marches for Life is as follows (to find the contact information to send the bishops a letter of thanks for their participation, see: http://www.cccb.ca/site/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,1211/lang,eng/):
1. His Eminence Marc Cardinal Ouellet - Quebec City
2. His Grace Archbishop Terrence Prendergast - Ottawa
3. His Grace Archbishop Thomas Collins - Toronto
4. His Grace Archbishop Brendan O'Brien - Kingston
5. His Grace Archbishop Sutton, OMI, emeritus archbishop of Keewatin-LePas
6. His Grace Archbishop Richard William Smith - Edmonton
7. His Grace Archbishop Michael Miller - Vancouver
8. His Grace Archbishop Daniel Bohan - Regina
9. His Excellency Bishop Paul-André DuRocher - Alexandria-Cornwall
10. His Excellency Bishop Ronald Fabbro - London
11. His Excellency Bishop Jean-Louis Plouffe - Sault Ste. Marie
12. His Excellency Bishop Stephen Victor Chmilar - Ukrainian Bishop of Toronto and Eastern Canada
13. His Excellency Bishop Michael Mulhall - Pembroke
14. His Excellency Bishop John Stephen Pazak - Byzantine Rite
15. His Excellency Bishop Robert Harris - Saint John
16. His Excellency Bishop Frederick Henry - Calgary
17. His Excellency Bishop Joseph Luc André Bouchard - Saint Paul
18. His Excellency Bishop Gérard Pettipas - Grouard-McLennan
19. His Excellency Bishop Richard Gagnon - Victoria
20. His Excellency Bishop David Monroe - Kamloops
21. His Excellency Bishop Albert LeGatt
22. His Excellency Bishop Bryan Bayda, Ukrainian Bishop of Saskatoon
23. His Excellency Bishop Kenneth Nowakowski Ukrainian Bishop of Westminster
24. Mgr Gerard Drainville, retired bishop of Amos (Quebec)
12,000: Canadian 2009 March for Life Smashes Previous Attendance Records
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09051409.html
Now 11 Bishops Confirmed: Unprecedented Promotion of March for Life from Catholic Bishops
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09051303.html
New Brunswick Right to Life Says Abortion Law Being Abused at NB Hospitals
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09051517.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
