Another defeat was made today for the lives of countless thousands. Canada, a bastion of pre-born murder, has made access to the early-stages abortion pill even easier. The pill I am referring to is Levonorgestrel, marketed as Plan B, and colloquially known as the "morning-after pill". This pill causes the woman's body to produce a high level of hormones which prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.
It is important to remember that the egg is already fertilized, a person has been conceived. A living person will be murdered with this pill, yet people call it the morning-after pill. First of all, what does this mean, the morning after what exactly? Obviously, this refers to the morning after "unprotected" sex. Perhaps it refers to a morning after a one-night stand, or a fling, or possibly a "committed" relationship. But the only thing this relationship is committed to is the image of the two partners, and nothing, not even the life of another human being, trumps that commitment.
The decision by Canadian "courts" is devastating. The holocaust of innocent children will continue to expand. Thousands will die. One of the sadest things is that this "product" is being marketed as a form of birth control. It should be considered abortion at least. People who are not aware of what they are doing could be unknowingly killing their very own child, and for what? Convenience?
People may not care about unborn children, but how we treat them indicates how we feel about everyone else. We should care for them the most because they are innocent. If we do not care for the most vulnerable in our society, who will we care for? Every day, that question is being asked, because every day, our culture of death finds new victims. First it is the unborn, then it is the unable, then it is the undesired. We are living in a society where your value as a human person is determined by how everyone else feels about you. This is truly a sad situation.
Let us pray for Canada that it may protect its most vulnerable, that it stands on guard for its citizens. Young and old, weak and strong, rich or poor.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Why are Christians (specifically Catholics) the only ones held responsible?
Last night I flicked on The Hour with George Stromboulopoulos. He had Sue Johanson as one of his guests last night and of course they were talking about sex. Sue's show runs in the United States now, where people call in for all their questions about sex, contraception, and everything along those lines. She doesn't care if they're gay, straight, bisexual; married, not married, extra-marital, etc. To her, sex is sex, and nothing else matters.
At one point, George asked how it's different in the U.S. compared to here, and Sue mentioned that she quivers at the thought. She derided the sex education system of the United States saying they only teach abstinence-only programming and that that's the fault of George W. Bush. They seem to easily be able to laugh about these "conservatives" who are afraid of sex and ask themselves rhetorically why they don't just accept it.
Sue at one point posited that "well, it's going to happen anyway, you might as well teach them about it", and that she's helping people to avoid pregnancy, which according to her is such a terrible thing. But let's look at what's really going on.
In 1968, when Humanae Vitae was published by Pope Paul VI, he said that the widespread use of contraception would cheapen sex, turn people into sex objects, increase promiscuity and infidelity, break up marriages and relationships, and have major negative impacts on the world in general. He was completely correct in these things. He didn't even mention however the increased incidents of STIs. The dire consequences of the increased use of contraception has been felt.
It also paved the way to abortion. Pregnancies were now something people had control over. We stopped asking God his plan, and started asking ourselves. We were in control. So when people became pregnant, dispite the availability of contraception, it didn't fit into their view of how things should go. They demanded FULL control, not partial control. Women, and their male partners, demanded the ability to end whatever was happening inside her womb. Since contraception, people tried to separate sex from childbirth, intimacy from procreation. Contraception doesn't decrease unwanted pregnancies, it increases them. It increases abortion also. In fact, it legitimized it. Once people demanded full and utter control over anything happening in their bodies, they realized there was an unintended side-effect of guilt, and horror at the realization of what they've done. No one ever questioned if what was in their womb was a child, but that denial was necessary to perform this act. Just as the Nazis declared Jews to be nonhuman, so too did the abortionists declare the unborn.
This brings my point full circle. As a Catholic, I am forced to offer an explanation for how I could kill so many innocent people during the Crusades, yet proponents of contraception and abortion would not even be asked to justify their own act. The Crusades ended over 500 years ago, was a defensive war to protect innocent civilians, was far less brutal than most people imagine. As well, the cowardly acts perpetrated by a few for their own bloodlust and greed were not authorized by the Catholic Church, and in fact were condemned by it. Yet, somehow I have to justify these people. I even have to justify outlaws, people who broke the commands of my religion, to whom I have no relation, no shared heritage.
Does Sue Johanson get blamed for reducing sex to an action between any two people with no consequences no different than a pat on the back. Do we blame her for the increase in infidelity, sexual addiction, lust, marriage breakups, infidelity, and abortion? No. If everyone practiced abstinence before marriage, which Sue and George laugh at, there would not be many of the things I mentioned above. Although people like Sue have a direct impact on the degredation of society and values, we do not blame her or anyone like her.
Why the double standard? In fact, it is not even a double standard, for this implies equality. I would argue that the Crusades were mostly a positive thing, which have little impact on our current lives, besides allowing us to be as free as we are today, especially to be Christians. However, the sexual "revolution", or sexual degredation as I call it, is having a devastating and unquestionably negative impact on our society.
At one point, George asked how it's different in the U.S. compared to here, and Sue mentioned that she quivers at the thought. She derided the sex education system of the United States saying they only teach abstinence-only programming and that that's the fault of George W. Bush. They seem to easily be able to laugh about these "conservatives" who are afraid of sex and ask themselves rhetorically why they don't just accept it.
Sue at one point posited that "well, it's going to happen anyway, you might as well teach them about it", and that she's helping people to avoid pregnancy, which according to her is such a terrible thing. But let's look at what's really going on.
In 1968, when Humanae Vitae was published by Pope Paul VI, he said that the widespread use of contraception would cheapen sex, turn people into sex objects, increase promiscuity and infidelity, break up marriages and relationships, and have major negative impacts on the world in general. He was completely correct in these things. He didn't even mention however the increased incidents of STIs. The dire consequences of the increased use of contraception has been felt.
It also paved the way to abortion. Pregnancies were now something people had control over. We stopped asking God his plan, and started asking ourselves. We were in control. So when people became pregnant, dispite the availability of contraception, it didn't fit into their view of how things should go. They demanded FULL control, not partial control. Women, and their male partners, demanded the ability to end whatever was happening inside her womb. Since contraception, people tried to separate sex from childbirth, intimacy from procreation. Contraception doesn't decrease unwanted pregnancies, it increases them. It increases abortion also. In fact, it legitimized it. Once people demanded full and utter control over anything happening in their bodies, they realized there was an unintended side-effect of guilt, and horror at the realization of what they've done. No one ever questioned if what was in their womb was a child, but that denial was necessary to perform this act. Just as the Nazis declared Jews to be nonhuman, so too did the abortionists declare the unborn.
This brings my point full circle. As a Catholic, I am forced to offer an explanation for how I could kill so many innocent people during the Crusades, yet proponents of contraception and abortion would not even be asked to justify their own act. The Crusades ended over 500 years ago, was a defensive war to protect innocent civilians, was far less brutal than most people imagine. As well, the cowardly acts perpetrated by a few for their own bloodlust and greed were not authorized by the Catholic Church, and in fact were condemned by it. Yet, somehow I have to justify these people. I even have to justify outlaws, people who broke the commands of my religion, to whom I have no relation, no shared heritage.
Does Sue Johanson get blamed for reducing sex to an action between any two people with no consequences no different than a pat on the back. Do we blame her for the increase in infidelity, sexual addiction, lust, marriage breakups, infidelity, and abortion? No. If everyone practiced abstinence before marriage, which Sue and George laugh at, there would not be many of the things I mentioned above. Although people like Sue have a direct impact on the degredation of society and values, we do not blame her or anyone like her.
Why the double standard? In fact, it is not even a double standard, for this implies equality. I would argue that the Crusades were mostly a positive thing, which have little impact on our current lives, besides allowing us to be as free as we are today, especially to be Christians. However, the sexual "revolution", or sexual degredation as I call it, is having a devastating and unquestionably negative impact on our society.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Hippocratic Oath Not Alone in Condeming Abortion
The Hippocratic Oath, written in the 4th century BC by the Father of Medicine Hippocrates, is an oath that all Western doctors took until very recently. It tells how doctors should care for their patients. It says a physician should not abuse his patient, physically or sexually, he should not take too much money, he should keep his patients' information private, etc. For years this was practiced by doctors. One of the imperatives of the Oath was to not commit abortion.
But the Hippocratic Oath is one of several world-wide medical oaths taken by doctors and physicians. What was their stance on abortion?
The Seventeen Rules of Enjuin, a Japanese Oath from the 16th century states: "you should not give abortives to the people."
The Oath of Asaph, the oldest known Hebrew medical oath, dating to the 6th century, states: "Do not make a woman [who is] pregnant [as a result of] of whoring take a drink with a view to causing abortion"
After the world realized the atrocities of Nazism, the Declaration of Geneva was drafted in 1948. Part of this document stated: "I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."
The International Code of Medical Ethics was put together the following year in 1949, and read: "A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception."
As you can see, Hippocrates was not unique in his statements against abortion.
But the Hippocratic Oath is one of several world-wide medical oaths taken by doctors and physicians. What was their stance on abortion?
The Seventeen Rules of Enjuin, a Japanese Oath from the 16th century states: "you should not give abortives to the people."
The Oath of Asaph, the oldest known Hebrew medical oath, dating to the 6th century, states: "Do not make a woman [who is] pregnant [as a result of] of whoring take a drink with a view to causing abortion"
After the world realized the atrocities of Nazism, the Declaration of Geneva was drafted in 1948. Part of this document stated: "I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."
The International Code of Medical Ethics was put together the following year in 1949, and read: "A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception."
As you can see, Hippocrates was not unique in his statements against abortion.
"I'm personally against abortion, but I wouldn't enforce my beliefs on anyone else."
Have you ever heard this sentence? It is all too common. But its commonality does not give it veracity. If you ever hear someone say this, be thankful, because as a person of God, you can easily convert this person to the pro-life side. Here's why.
People who make this statement have often not considered its logical impossibility. Abortion is the only case where someone would make such a statement. For example, people do not say, I am against rape, but I would not enforce my belief on others. This is illogical.
The reason the assertion that someone is against abortion but will not tell others what to do is impossible is because there is a reason why someone is against abortion, namely because it is murder, and if you are against murder, you oppose it as a concept, the application of which you believe is universal.
People are not personally opposed to murder. Rather, they are opposed to anybody murdering anyone else. No one says, I wouldn't kill my grandmother, but if a thief broke into my home and murdered her, I would be ok with that. No one would even say they support a stranger's right to kill another stranger. When someone opposes murder, they oppose it in absolute and objective terms, not just for themselves personally.
If someone does not consider abortion murder, the question arises - why do they oppose it then? The only possibility is that they personally do not enjoy partaking in abortions themselves, in the same way as certain people dislike sushi. They do not like sushi, but they do not make a universal declaration that everyone must dislike it as well.
The question remains as to why they do not like partaking in abortions. Maybe they feel it's messy or they are afraid of blood. Perhaps they disagree with surgery in general. But if these were the case, these people would be against all surgery or operations. Rest assured, you could speak to a million people and not one person would be opposed to abortion for this reason.
The best way to get someone with this point of view to convert to a pro-life person is to ask them questions. Ask them what they specifically oppose. If they say they believe it's murder, tell them they must oppose it in general if they believe that. If they disagree, ask if it would be ok for someone to kill their neighbor without consequence. If they are being honest they would say no and they will realize their error.
Finally, they may say that abortionists do not consider abortion murder, even though they themselves do, and therefore, it is a matter of opinion. At this point suggest to them that Hitler did not consider the Jews to be human, therefore he was not committing murder in his opinion, therefore you would not consider what Hitler did to be wrong. In the same sense, if a psychopath considered all humans to be inferior to him and killing them to not be murder, then he should have the right to do this unabated.
No honest person would agree to this logic. Suggest they are using the same fallacy to justify their position, which hopefully they will see is completely untenable.
People who make this statement have often not considered its logical impossibility. Abortion is the only case where someone would make such a statement. For example, people do not say, I am against rape, but I would not enforce my belief on others. This is illogical.
The reason the assertion that someone is against abortion but will not tell others what to do is impossible is because there is a reason why someone is against abortion, namely because it is murder, and if you are against murder, you oppose it as a concept, the application of which you believe is universal.
People are not personally opposed to murder. Rather, they are opposed to anybody murdering anyone else. No one says, I wouldn't kill my grandmother, but if a thief broke into my home and murdered her, I would be ok with that. No one would even say they support a stranger's right to kill another stranger. When someone opposes murder, they oppose it in absolute and objective terms, not just for themselves personally.
If someone does not consider abortion murder, the question arises - why do they oppose it then? The only possibility is that they personally do not enjoy partaking in abortions themselves, in the same way as certain people dislike sushi. They do not like sushi, but they do not make a universal declaration that everyone must dislike it as well.
The question remains as to why they do not like partaking in abortions. Maybe they feel it's messy or they are afraid of blood. Perhaps they disagree with surgery in general. But if these were the case, these people would be against all surgery or operations. Rest assured, you could speak to a million people and not one person would be opposed to abortion for this reason.
The best way to get someone with this point of view to convert to a pro-life person is to ask them questions. Ask them what they specifically oppose. If they say they believe it's murder, tell them they must oppose it in general if they believe that. If they disagree, ask if it would be ok for someone to kill their neighbor without consequence. If they are being honest they would say no and they will realize their error.
Finally, they may say that abortionists do not consider abortion murder, even though they themselves do, and therefore, it is a matter of opinion. At this point suggest to them that Hitler did not consider the Jews to be human, therefore he was not committing murder in his opinion, therefore you would not consider what Hitler did to be wrong. In the same sense, if a psychopath considered all humans to be inferior to him and killing them to not be murder, then he should have the right to do this unabated.
No honest person would agree to this logic. Suggest they are using the same fallacy to justify their position, which hopefully they will see is completely untenable.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
One of Canada's worst days
Today is probably one of the worst days in Canadian history. For me, it will go down in infamy. Morgentaler, Canada's premier abortionist was given the Order of Canada. This was a unilateral decision by the Governor of Canada, and went against the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians. It is a truly sad day.
Today Canada is honoring a man whose hands are drenched in the blood of innocent children. He wasn't satisfied to perform abortions on his own, he recruiter others and started "clinics" to do his grim deed.
I will go to Mass today to grieve this event and ask God to forgive Canada. I will pray for this Nazi victim turned Nazi war criminal. This will truly be a sad day for the whole world.
Today Canada is honoring a man whose hands are drenched in the blood of innocent children. He wasn't satisfied to perform abortions on his own, he recruiter others and started "clinics" to do his grim deed.
I will go to Mass today to grieve this event and ask God to forgive Canada. I will pray for this Nazi victim turned Nazi war criminal. This will truly be a sad day for the whole world.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Eucharistic Congress 2008 in Quebec
I had an awesome time at the Eucharistic Congress. In attendance were over 1,000 priests, hundreds of bishops, and over 20 cardinals. This was truly an event of huge proportions.
During the congress, we attended the largest mass in the world every day. These were beautiful ceremonies. The procession itself took over 10 minutes, by the time all the bishops had been seated.
The event was attended by over 20,000 people. This was truly awe-inspiring. No extraordinary ministers were needed for Eucharist. There were plenty of priests on hand. I've been to mass when there's less than 50 people there, and extraordinary ministers will be employed. This is simply unnecessary and possibly wrong.
I met my cousin Fr. Roy Farrell. I actually ran into him several times during the Congress. That was a good surprise.
I met a lot of great people as well. Many people my age who have devotions to the Blessed Sacrament, to Christ, and to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
One of the emphases of the congress was Eucharistic Adoration. Spending an hour with our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. This can be a very powerful devotion.
All in all, this was a very powerful experience. We will look forward to the next event in 2012 in Dublin, Ireland!
During the congress, we attended the largest mass in the world every day. These were beautiful ceremonies. The procession itself took over 10 minutes, by the time all the bishops had been seated.
The event was attended by over 20,000 people. This was truly awe-inspiring. No extraordinary ministers were needed for Eucharist. There were plenty of priests on hand. I've been to mass when there's less than 50 people there, and extraordinary ministers will be employed. This is simply unnecessary and possibly wrong.
I met my cousin Fr. Roy Farrell. I actually ran into him several times during the Congress. That was a good surprise.
I met a lot of great people as well. Many people my age who have devotions to the Blessed Sacrament, to Christ, and to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
One of the emphases of the congress was Eucharistic Adoration. Spending an hour with our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. This can be a very powerful devotion.
All in all, this was a very powerful experience. We will look forward to the next event in 2012 in Dublin, Ireland!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)