NBC's Superstore Sitcom Review: Where anti-Christian attacks are "comedy".

I started watching the NBC sitcom "Superstore" with my wife a couple of weeks ago. It's about employees who work in a supermarket called Cloud 9. There isn't any major plot, it's your standard sitcom format. There is obviously plenty of good potential in a show based in a store similar to Walmart. Unfortunately instead of taking advantage of hundreds of possible comedic situations which could arise, the show has become more and more anti-Christian, devolving into unfunny but vicious attacks on Christians. Of course, there is absolutely no balance whatsoever. Christians and Christianity in the show are always made to look bad. I guess this is why it was picked up by Netflix. I will stop watching the show. It has no value to me anymore. Let me get into some detail.

[Warning: contains spoilers up to Season 2: Episode 2. I haven't watched beyond that.]

So I was watching the show and from the start I noticed that the overtly Christian store manager Glenn Phillip Sturgis (played by Mark McKinney) comes across as very stupid. He has a high-pitched ridiculous voice and he just seems extremely naïve about the world. I wasn't surprised to see this though. Many sitcoms now feature an extremely naïve Christian character such as Shirley Bennett in Community (played by Yvette Nicole Brown) or the assistant on 30 Rock Kenneth Ellen Parcell played by Jack McBrayer.

It has become a tired and pathetic trope. "Haha, look at the stupid, naïve Christian. No need to take that person seriously." These characters seem to know nothing of the "real world". They have been sheltered their entire lives from the reality and grittiness of the world. They are essentially portrayed as adult children with no street knowledge. Yet, the other "woke" characters have such a nuanced and compassionate, non-judgmental view of people. That's because they've seen things and know the world is a complicated place, unlike Christians who think it's just all black and white.

So enough talking in general. How exactly does the show Superstore push its left-wing secular agenda while vilifying people of faith?

First of all, in general, there is really only one overt Christian. Not a single other person on the show ever mentions their faith or that they are Christian. Plus from their opinions and words it would certainly seem they are not Christian.

The show seems to take issues one and a time and show why the conservative opinion on that topic is outdated, immoral, and offensive. It's no longer subtly worked into the plot, it's shoved in your face and rammed down your throat. They have completely sacrificed all comedic value in order to simply bash Christians. It's like shock humor. The audience laughs simply because of sheer surprise.

In one episode, Glenn, the Christian manager, finds out that they sell the morning-after pill in the pharmacy. To be clear, the morning-after pill is an abortifacient - it causes an abortion. Of course, as a Christian, he opposes these pills. Is his view that abortion is wrong because you are killing an innocent human being ever shown? Nope! He's just this outdated dinosaur who believes things for no particular reason but because that's just what his religion told him. Of course, the others are so much more relatable and down-to-earth. They get that life is messy and that they don't let arbitrary morals get in their way of helping people.

I'm actually not doing a good job of describing it, because they make him look even worse. In fact, the show was not satisfied to show Glenn as being opposed to these pills, they went further and portrayed him as a hypocrite. After he attempts to stop others from buying the pills by buying them all himself, he realizes how much it costs. He tries to immediately return them but the pharmacist stubbornly refuses to let him (they never leave the sight of the pharmacist who actually brags about getting women pregnant then giving them these pills). When Glenn is not allowed to return the pills, he goes from person to person trying to sell them. When a couple tries to tell him why they want them (they had "unprotected" sex), he stops them from speaking and makes up the dumbest other "reasons" why they might want these pills (plates for a dollhouse, etc.).

In another straight-from-the-headlines "joke", there is a woman campaigning against allowing men into women's bathrooms. What opinion should we have about this NBC? Well, apparently people who think this are backward bigots, irredeemably evil people, so much so, that the character who is interested in her in a sexual way, can hardly bring himself to pursue her, even though he has absolutely no qualms about doing so in any other situation. No, her evil thought that men should stick to men's washrooms is beyond the pale, it makes her irredeemable.

Other non-specifically moral issues arise as well such as gun control. One of the workers is assigned to work at the firearms counter against his will. He continually indicates why he thinks selling firearms is evil and wrong. The people buying the firearms are portrayed as unreasonable crazy people. Because one of them could not buy a gun on the spot despite implying he would do something violent, the store is besieged by dozens of rifle-totting men and women fighting for their rights. They are portrayed as over-the-top and completely unreasonable, while the voice of reason emanates from the anti-gunners.

Glenn, the manager, will often bring up Bible verses or sing hymns. He tries to read the Bible in a break room one day. But he's always mocked, derided or otherwise portrayed in a negative light for doing so or attempting to do so.

Other issues also arise in the show which highlight various left-wing causes and points of view: white people are racist, free universal healthcare is a human right, capitalism is bad, etc, etc.

It's just become pathetic and boring at this point. There is no more subtlety left at all. So I will be not watching any more. Unfortunately this isn't just something that's happening in this show. Pushing a left-wing agenda has become a mainstay of shows on Netflix. They have a clear agenda. I may cancel the service but my wife still watches it so I have to consult with her on it.

To any Christian who has considered watching Superstore. My advice quite simply is to not bother.

Fr. Casey Says Republicans Care Only About Abortion: Why I Disagree

I like a lot of what Fr. Casey Cole OFM has to say about the Catholic Faith. He recently put out a Twitter video saying he agrees with the dogmas and doctrines of the Church which is good.

I had an issue with a recent video of his where he speaks about abortion. He seems to basically be saying that people have their faith and politics mixed up, that they place politics above their faith. The example he gives is regarding abortion. Essentially he seems to be saying that because people are opposed to abortion, they side with the Republican party, but then they put that political party above their faith and use their faith as a sort of justification for doing that.

He says people will support the Republican party while overlooking the bad aspects of the party which are also threatening to life issues. 

Since there is no Catholic Party as such in Canada or the US which aligns perfectly with Catholic values, you probably will not find a party which fully supports the Church. However, I think the reasoning that he provides is faulty. It could come from the fact that in several studies, it showed that people who are left-leaning do not empathize with the viewpoints of those who are right-wing. When asked to explain the position of someone they oppose, conservatives were much better able to do so than liberals.

I'm not saying this to bash or mock anyone. But it's a fundamental mistake that I see often. Liberals assume that their position is the "right" one. It's not that there are other positions with which they disagree. There's is simply the right and good opinion and then all the others are bad ones. For instance, minimum wage. To liberals, you either support the minimum wage and workers or you don't. But if they were asked why a conservative may not support the minimum wage, they may say things like they don't think people deserve that much money, or that because conservatives are more racist, they don't want minorities to get ahead, etc.

I don't know if liberals think these things about conservatives, but that's how things come across. To be more specific to Fr. Casey Cole, he mentions a few examples in his video. He says people support the Republican party because of its opposition to abortion despite their bad economic and social policies.

He presupposes that Republican economic policies are bad for poor people and that anyone who supports the Republican party must be doing so while holding their noses about all the other issues. It's as if the Democratic platform is good for poor people and the Republican one is bad, and that there isn't even any disagreement on this. This, however, is untrue.

Often the people who support the Republican party on abortion, also support the basic economic policies of the party. The Democratic party tends to favor a large interventionist government that enacts many policies with good stated intentions.

The Republican party, on the other hand, favors individual efforts and less government intervention. The US began a "war on poverty" back with Lyndon B. Johnson and since then poverty, which had previously been decreasing, started going up. The policies with good intentions had the opposite effect.

Another example is minimum wage. To some, the minimum wage is a simple straight-forward question: Should people make $10 per hour or $15 per hour. Should people work and still not make enough money, or should we pass a law that people are compensated fairly?

Sounds simple. If there were no unintended consequences or negative side-effects, all people would be in favor of this. In fact, many would say the minimum wage should be higher in that case. Why not $40 per hour?

The difference is that right-wing people would say that the real minimum wage is $0, and if someone cannot get a job, that's how much they will receive. Minimum wage isn't designed to be peoples' full-time salary to support a family. It's meant to get people into the workforce and then they hopefully move into better positions. By removing the lower rungs of the economic ladder, you aren't helping people, you are preventing them from ever entering the job market. If someone's work is really only worth $12 per hour, no one will hire that person for $15 per hour. Are they really better off?

Taxing companies and wealthier people is another issue. To some it's simple. More taxes = better. The truth is though that higher tax doesn't have its economic impact after the money is earned but before. It comes into play when someone is deciding to start a business, invest, or carry out some other economic activity. If taxes are too high, the expected income from a venture is lower and thus the venture is riskier. All else being equal, if business startup is risky, then fewer will be started and fewer people will be hired and less money will be made.

Again, it's a complex issue. There is definitely room for debate. But to simply characterize one party's policies as "good" and the other's as "bad" and to say the bad one is only focused on abortion is incorrect. There are people with opinions on both sides of economic issues. The same thing goes for various other policies.

Another point is that many commentators seem to want to mix subjects all up together and create the appearance that they are equivalent. Abortion is the pre-eminent issue in our society at the moment because abortion involves killing thousands of innocent children. This simply cannot be compared to disagreements on economic policy.

Although I disagree with people who say economic issues are irrelevant, I do not think they are the very most important thing. The right to life trumps all other secular issues.

Overall, I think it's a huge leap to assume that Republicans care only about one thing. I would suggest asking them what they think and why. Let's be clear, I am NOT a Republican, I'm not even American. But the left must learn to listen to the right. As for Fr. Cole Casey, I think a lot of what he says is good. I commend him on his position of siding with the Church on matters of faith and morals. I simply felt this criticism was necessary. I am open to anyone's comments.

[Video] Pro-Abortion Activists Storm St. Joseph's Catholic Cathedral in Columbus, Ohio

You never really know what pro-abortionists will do next. This time they stormed into a Catholic church in Columbus, Ohio yelling and screaming (like they normally do) about abortion. They had placards and were yelling some incoherent thing about the church teaching hate.

Here is a video of the incident. (Warning: Viewer discretion is advised):

Here's the teaching: Life is valuable, including unborn children, and they should not be killed.

Please let me know where the hate is there.

Catholic Diocese of Columbus Bishop Robert Brennan said: “Today during our Respect Life Mass at St. Joseph Cathedral, a group of protesters entered this sacred space in an attempt to disrupt our worship. I am deeply thankful to the Columbus Police, assisted by diocesan staff, for the quick response without injury to anyone present.

“I want to express my great admiration and thanks to all those attending the Mass whose respectful and prayerful response reflects the joy, hope, and mercy that marks our pro-life witness. I also apologize to the families present whose children were exposed to this," Brennan said.

These people burst into a holy place and caused massive disruption. For what? Even if everyone agreed with them in that church, it wouldn't change the Catholic Church's position. In reality, no one changed their minds but were affirmed in them when they witnessed these psychos doing what they did.

Whatever negative feelings pro-lifers had about pro-choicers, it was only intensified and made much worse.

To the "protesters":

As someone mentioned, these people who are so obsessed with the right to kill a child in the womb were themselves allowed to live.

Breaking into a holy place, a sanctuary like this is simply wrong. If they want to engage in a discussion, I am sure there are many Catholics willing to do this. They are hurting no one but themselves by doing these antics.

Let's pray for respect for all life and thank God for his gift of life to us.

Have a great day.

What People have to say about National Day of Prayer for the Unborn - Catholic

Today is the National Day of Prayer for the Unborn in the United States. It marks the 48th anniversary of Roe v. Wade which magically discovered a new right to abortion.

What did national leaders and well-known Catholics have to say today? Here are a few:

USCCB:

Cardinal Dolan of New York:

It's a somber day as we remember January 22, 1973 and the disastrous Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade. It has led to the brutal abortion license here in the country we love. We bishops have designated today a national day of prayer for the legal protection of the unborn.

Phoenix Diocese:

Today is the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion and has been recognized as a National Day of Prayer for the Legal Protection of Unborn Children. Join us in prayer and fasting for the protection of the most vulnerable of our brothers and sisters.

Society of GK Chesterton:

Fr. Frank Pavone:

On this day that we remember the terrible Supreme Court decision in 1973 that legalized the killing of unborn babies, We must not remain silent. 

We are their Voice!

Fr. Frank Pavone

Does it take seeing the baby girl in the womb to make you want to defend her? She has no voice yet. Will you be her voice? #prolife

I want to celebrate the Day we ENDED LEGAL ABORTION!

EWTN:

Not sure when this was written, but this is:

Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer For The Unborn

Lord Jesus, 

You who faithfully visit and fulfill with your Presence the Church and the history of men; You who in the miraculous Sacrament of your Body and Blood render us participants in divine Life and allow us a foretaste of the joy of eternal Life; We adore and bless you.

Prostrated before You, source and lover of Life, truly present and alive among us, we beg you.

Reawaken in us respect for every unborn life, make us capable of seeing in the fruit of the maternal womb the miraculous work of the Creator, open our hearts to generously welcoming every child that comes into life.

Bless all families, sanctify the union of spouses, render fruitful their love.

Accompany the choices of legislative assemblies with the light of your Spirit, so that peoples and nations may recognize and respect the sacred nature of life, of every human life.

Guide the work of scientists and doctors, so that all progress contributes to the integral well-being of the person, and no one endures suppression or injustice.

Give creative charity to administrators and economists, so they may realize and promote sufficient conditions so that young families can serenely embrace the birth of new children.

Console the married couples who suffer because they are unable to have children and in Your goodness provide for them.

Teach us all to care for orphaned or abandoned children, so they may experience the warmth of your Charity, the consolation of your divine Heart.

Together with Mary, Your Mother, the great believer, in whose womb you took on our human nature, we wait to receive from You, our Only True Good and Savior, the strength to love and serve life, in anticipation of living forever in You, in communion with the Blessed Trinity.

What does Joe Biden's Presidency Mean for Catholics?

First we must get something straight. Catholic politicians cannot simply put aside their beliefs as a Catholic when entering into the political arena. That is simply not an option. For major moral issues that everyone agrees on, this is an obvious statement of fact. If a politician were to say "I'm personally opposed to killing innocent people for no reason, but I'm not going to try to pass a law outlawing it!" most people would be shocked and dismayed.

Yet when it comes to controversial issues, there seems to be confusion. This is because of several distortions, but basically our morality comes from God, and God established his one true Church which is the Catholic Church and therefore the moral law is complete within the Catholic Church. Purposely violating any of these moral laws is a sin. It doesn't matter if an issue is controversial or whether or not others agree with you. You either believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church and follow them no matter what your role or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose.

We must now look at Joe Biden and some of the things he has promised with regards to being president. We will see that his presidency will not be good for the Catholic Faith. On top of the commitments that Biden has already made, we can conjecture as to other paths this president may take. Remember, some people are accused of slippery slope thinking, but who would have thought a year ago that the actual president of the United States would be banned from virtually all forms of social media while still in office? Who would have thought that credit card companies would stop conservative groups from using their payment system? If anyone had predicted these things, they'd be termed a conspiracy theorist, and an extreme one at that. So to just simply notice where things are heading isn't some kind of reckless activity.

Now on to the specifics. Much of the information that I will use for this article comes from a great article written by Peter Wolfgang for the Catholic Herald, which can be found here. I highly encourage you to check it out. But, as a loyal fan of this blog (obviously!) I would love for you to keep reading!

In the linked article from Mr. Wolfgang, he says the following:

He moved heaven and earth to put three originalist judges on the U.S. Supreme Court in four years and appointed hundreds more to other federal courts. He allowed states to defund Planned Parenthood, he defunded the pro-abortion U.N. Population Fund, he restored and expanded the Mexico City policy, he protected groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor against oppressive Obamacare rules, and he supported the nuns in their Supreme Court fight. He implemented the Protect Life Rule, which prohibits federal funds from going to facilities that perform on-site abortions.

Those are positive actions taken by Mr. Trump during his presidency which Joe Biden will seek, to the best of his ability, to undo as soon as possible. Donald Trump was the most pro-life president the United States has ever had. How can I make such a bold statement? Well I think it's probably true since prior to the 1970s, practically everyone thought abortion was wrong anyway. So to say they were anti-abortion or pro-life prior to that would simply mean they were normal people with normal morality.

The difference with Donald Trump is that he was pro-life in an era when doing so is politically and socially dangerous. It's not a topic for which there is automatic agreement among the masses. If he wanted to advance his political career more, he could have been a more standard pro-life-by-default Republican. But he wasn't. He went out of his way to speak about life issues, to defend the innocent. He spoke, in person, at the March for Life - the first time ever for a president.

With Biden, this goes out the window. He is blatantly ignoring his Church's teachings and will seek to increase access to abortion, rather than limit it.

Biden says he will not allow an exception for the Little Sisters of the Poor in the case of paying for abortion and artificial contraception. Think about that for a minute. He will not let a group of nuns with a vow of poverty to not pay for something they are morally opposed to. I can't believe anyone thinks that's okay.

Biden is obviously looking to end the Mexico City Policy which is an American policy of not giving foreign aid to groups in other countries who perform abortion. Basically not funding abortion abroad. If you read the misleading critics, they will claim that by banning this funding you are doing all kinds of other harm. That's an invalid moral argument and meant to muddy the moral waters.

Trump has done innumerable good things when it comes to preventing or slowing down abortion. Biden seems set to abandon them all.

When it comes to free speech and freedom of religion, Trump was one of the best modern-day presidents. Biden, in line with Democrat policies, will crack down on speech he disagrees with and will be a major threat to religious freedom.

In virtually any area that a serious Catholic cares about, Biden is set to make things much worse.

Some people bring up the detention camps on the border and the overall policies concerning refugees as reasons why Catholics should favor Biden. There are many issues with this proposition. First of all, the camps on the border (that were set up by Obama) are not torture chambers, they are processing facilities for people illegally entering into the country without permission.

Think what you will about these facilities, it is not a specific Catholic moral issue. There is legitimate debate about immigration policy. Catholic teaching has things to say about it, but it's not a cut-and-dry case such as with abortion, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. Some people seem to think unless the US allows anyone and everyone into the country without question, Catholics must oppose it. This is simply not the case which is affirmed by centuries of writings by saints and theologians.

We have no idea how bad things can get. The plans which have already been announced by Biden are frightening and it will only get worse from here. Catholics have good reason to not be welcoming to a Joe Biden administration.

Killing Newborns Is Not that Serious

This is something I did not know until now. Apparently in Ontario at least, and possibly elsewhere, there are specific Infanticide laws. Basically, if a person is charged with first-degree murder, the minimum sentence is 25 years in prison, after which they may possibly be paroled. However, there is a separate law for "Infanticide" which specifically applies to women who give birth and then soon after kill this baby. The sentence for this crime is a mere 5 years in prison.

Today in Ontario, this law was upheld. Controversy arose when a woman's defense team tried to use Infanticide as a defense in her murder trial of her not one but TWO children whom she killed on separate occasions. Basically if they could argue she didn't commit first degree murder, but rather "just" infanticide, her sentence would be reduced drastically.

There is actually an organization out there called LEAF, or the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, which applauded the ruling. They say some women are under tremendous stress and therefore should not be charged with murder if they kill their babies.

This once again goes to show that Canada is not embarking on a slippery slope, it has already descended to the bottom of the moral cesspool. Newborns and little babies don't need LESS protection from the courts, but far more! How can the Canadian Court not only approve abortion, but also infanticide, by essentially valuing the life of a baby at 20% the life of an adult.

The Canadian Court has become a Kangaroo Court that no longer represents even a whiff of morality. It has just become the plaything of social engineers bent on destroying any semblance of Christian ethics.

The basis behind the ruling is that a lot of mothers are under stress after giving birth so if they kill their baby, well there was probably a good reason for it! Yes, of course, that makes total sense! My question is, what murders are ever committed by completely rational, logical, unemotional people? NONE! Murders are always committed by people who are not fully there. They are under stress or anger or fear, etc. To distinguish this murder is absurd.

Imagine a man kills his wife, and his defense is he was feeling depressed or upset or uneasy or anything like that? Do you think the court would invent a new criminal charge called uxoricide (the technical word for wife-killing) and then have a sentence of only 5 years in prison?

I do believe that in any murder case, the possibility of insanity must be analyzed. If a person is truly insane and completely incapable of understanding their actions in any way, then a more lenient or possibly no sentence may apply. However, this should be thoroughly proven, and the mere fact of a woman giving birth would not prove her insanity.

Peter Singer is one of the most despicable philosophers out there. He believes that women should have the option of killing their baby up to 6 months after birth. He sees this as a sort of "return policy" and an extension of abortion. I was always horrified when I heard about his philosophy and the thought that anyone would ever take him seriously. Well, it doesn't seem like such an impossibility anymore. The Government of Canada has already made inroads toward the legalization of killing newborns.

I really hope Canada makes at least a couple of attempts to pull itself out of its moral cesspool and starts to implement True and Good values rather than cater to the demands of the most extreme and misanthropic groups in the world.

Why Women Get Abortions

I wrote an article last week on why Planned Parenthood should not receive federal funding in the US. To read this article, click here. I received an interesting response to this article, part of which read:

Have you lost your damn mind???? A very, very small percentages of abortions are done because of a woman accidentally got pregnant and didn't want/couldn't support the baby. There are a lot done because of medical reasons too - because the mother will die, or because the baby has died or will die immediately after being born.

Maybe if this commenter knew the facts, she would not make such a claim. The reason for getting an abortion is divided into two sections:

1) Woman becomes pregnant "accidentally" and did not want to or could not support a baby

2) A woman's life is in jeopardy unless she has an abortion.

I could not find very many statistics on the reasons for which women choose to abort their babies. The only resource I could find was from Planned Parenthood's own statistics division, known as the Guttmacher Institute (named after Margaret Sanger's successor as President of Planned Parenthood Alan Guttmacher). Obviously, if any data were reported in favor of abortion, it would come from here.

The research from this organization reports the following reasons for a 10 year period:

• 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
• 21.3% Cannot afford a baby
• 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
• 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
• 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
• 7.9% Want no (more) children
• 3.3% Risk to fetal health
• 2.8% Risk to maternal health
• 2.1% Other

Remember the two categories first proposed? Here's how they would break down:

1) Woman becomes pregnant "accidentally" and did not want to or could not support a baby - 91.8%

2) A woman's life is in jeopardy unless she has an abortion. - 6.1%

3) Other - 2.1%

As we can clearly see, the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with health considerations. Instead, innocent children are killed because their mothers want to further their education, would prefer not to have children, don't have enough money to raise them a certain way, etc.

Not to begrudge the tiny percentage that went to health reasons, but I think these statistics need to be sorted out as well. What does risk to fetal health mean? I'm assuming this would include mothers who abort their babies because the baby could have a birth defect or be hard to care for. It doesn't specify the severity of the health issue, so theoretically anything could be claimed as the reason.

In terms of the mother's health, it lists 2.8%, but again, what does this mean? Not all of this is for mothers whose lives are in imminent danger unless their child is killed. It could include smaller medical issues.

It's also worth noting that if there were a case where a mother's life was in danger, the life-threatening illness or disorder can be treated even if as an unintended side-effect, the child in the womb dies. This is permissible under Catholic morals.

It is also worth noting the case where the baby would be born dead. This one seems easy morally-speaking. If someone is going to die sometime in the future, that does not give us the right to terminate his or her life NOW. If the baby truly would die upon birth, why artificially speed up the process?

And on the last point of not telling a woman (or man) what to do with their body, I do not wish to do that. I am only advocating for another person, the unborn child.

Man "euthanizes" wife

Stephan Bolton from Liverpool Nova Scotia gave his wife Barbara, 59, who was suffering with Stage 4 Breast Cancer, a lethal injection without her knowledge. Now, he has confessed his actions to the local RCMP.

The man, 56, says his motivation for going to the police is pure guilt, stemming from his actions. He said his wife only had a couple of months to live at most and that she was suffering from depression.

One of the more interesting things Stephan said was "It's been over a month. Over that month, I tried to live with it and I just can't — not without being told by (some) authority that what I did wasn't wrong," he said. "I am racked by guilt and have to somehow resolve it."

Does he believe that if someone tells him his actions were morally okay, then he will no longer feel guilty? Perhaps. I believe a lot of people seek guidance for the morality of their actions. If they are not religious, they may look to other people for information, such as the government. That's why I think it's important for immoral actions to be illegal. For example, abortion. Some say you cannot legislate morality, but I believe in the case of abortion, many people consider themselves "pro-choice" because they see it as a legitimate position since the government permits it.

The actions of this man were quite immoral. He took the life of another innocent human being. Although she was suffering from depression, she needed help and reassurance and love, not death. Instead of seeking someone to tell him he did the right thing, this man should seek forgiveness for his sins. I think this is also a natural tendency. People would rather be told they are doing the right thing than go to confession. In fact, because many do not believe in confession, the only option they have is to believe their actions are justified.

Having said this, I feel terrible for this man and his wife. He is suffering tremendously. In his own misguided way, he just wanted to end his wife's suffering. I will make a Pope Benedict-like comment here and say his intention to reduce the suffering of another could be the the first toward a sense of morality. I can say this without condoning his actions.

This man discovered the hard way that euthanasia is not the answer. All too often with moral decisions we make, many will try to persuade us to behave against our better judgment. Sadly, we often only realize our mistakes after they are irreversible. We are struck by guilt which cannot be explained away.

Keep this man and his wife who has passed away in your prayers. And pray for those facing difficult life situations.

Bernard Nathanson dead at 84

A story which is being underreported as of right now in the mainstream media is the death of Dr. Bernard Nathanson. Early in his career, he performed thousands of abortions. After seeing medical evidence that an embryo/fetus is an actual human life, he quit performing the procedure and became a pro-life activist. He said his decision was not based on religion. Later, however, he did become Catholic.

Dr. Nathanson was at first so in favor of abortion that he formed NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, formerly known as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. Today, this is one of the largest advocacy organization for abortion advocates in the world.

The mainstream media won't touch this story with a ten-foot pole, for the most part. In Google, if a popular story breaks, it will display a headline in the news section, and indicate the number of articles on the subject available to date. For example, the story on the Earthquake in New Zealand has 9208 articles. On the other hand, there are no news clusters for the news of Nathanson's passing. Most of the places carrying this story are Christian sites.

Many people believe the media is biased in favor of abortion, and this just provides further proof.

Abortion protester refuses to pay taxes

David Little of Atlantic Canada has refused to pay taxes since the year 2000 in protest of the Canadian Government's abortion laws. Finally today, after a long battle with the Canada Revenue Agency, charges against Mr. Little were dropped and they believe he would be unable to pay taxes anyway.

He was fined $3000 in 2007, but did not pay it.

David Little believes it is his moral right to refuse to pay taxes because some of the money he provides pays for abortion.

Apparently the man is living off the hand-outs of others and spends his time between PEI and New Brunswick.

Is there a moral basis for this man's actions? What are the impacts of this?

I have heard many times people who believed it was within their rights to refuse to pay taxes because they fund abortion. In the US, virtually all abortions are paid for privately. This makes a lot of sense since abortion is always optional. In the event that the life of the mother is threatened, civil and moral law would allow the mother's life to be saved, even if the child were to die as an unintended consequence.

Therefore, the government should not pay for an optional procedure which causes the death of at least half of those who enter the abortionist's room (the child).

But can we refuse to pay taxes because of this? When I first read the article, I wondered how he could justify not paying ANY taxes whatsoever. Obviously, not all tax money goes toward abortion. In fact, only a percentage does. By refusing to pay taxes, Mr. Little also refuses to pay for heart surgery, roads, and care for the elderly. But then I thought about it further. If he pays taxes at all, he cannot dictate where the money goes. If he owes $1000, and only pays $900, then he cannot specify that his $900 pay for non-abortion costs. Therefore, even if he pays one cent, it could potentially go to abortion.

But if this man wanted to subtract the percentage of tax dollars that go to abortion, what perecentage would it be?

According to Life Canada, a low estimate for the cost of abortion is around $80 million per year in Canada (estimated around 2001). Total tax expenditure in Canada for 2008-2009 was $238.8 billion. However, in order to compare apples to apples, let's use Canada's 2001 expenditure which was $196.5 billion. Therefore, the government spends about 0.04% of its budget killing children. If a man filed a tax return for $10,000 for the year, he would have to subtract $4.

We are not required morally to refuse to pay taxes for abortion. However, we cannot support it in any direct way. I think it's good that this man is bringing attention to this travesty. More people need to stand up for their values.

Safe, legal, and COMMON?

A common saying in the pro-choice movement is that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare". But why not "safe, legal, and common"? Why does it have to be rare? In fact, the pro-choice side should advocate abortion as a form of contraception, if they are to be logically consistent.

Why should abortion be rare? If abortion is the killing of a child, it shouldn't be rare, it should be outlawed completely. It should be non-existent. Is it possible that the pro-choice side is admitting that abortion kills a child but still say that it should be rare? This would represent a barbaric viewpoint. "Killing children should be rare". What person with any morals would advocate this?

So let's assume the pro-choice side believes a fetus is not a child and is only a "blob of cells". Then why would they say abortion should be "rare". Eliminating unwanted blobs of cells should be rare? Why? I don't hear them protesting liposuction or tumour-removal. Again, this does not make sense.

Is abortion safe? According to the abortion industry, it is extremely safe. So then why would a safe procedure need to be rare, if it involves no moral dilemma?

Obviously, this saying, which makes absolutely no sense and is logically self-refuting simply uses keywords and contradictions to appeal to all groups. Pro-life people will see this message and say "well, looks like the abortion industry is with us. they want to make abortion rare." while at the same time they appease the pro-choice side.

Is it possible that the Pro-choice side by using this slogan is actually logically consistent. Yes! Here are some possible ways:

1) Abortion should be rare because driving all the way to the abortion facility and getting the procedure takes a few hours, which I could be using for the spa.

2) Abortion should be rare because it costs too much. Who has that kind of money to spend on something?

3) Abortion should be rare because I hate having unnecessary blobs of cells removed from my body.

These possibilities may sound flippant, but there are not many. The only moral question is whether what is growing inside the mother is a baby or not. If it is, then nothing can justify its murder. If, however, it is not a living person, no justification is necessary. The commonality of a non-moral issue is not important.

In order to justify an evil, logical inconsistencies must be used. Good morals are logically consistent.

Nancy Pelosi gets abortion award

Nancy Pelosi who somehow styles herself a Catholic has received an award from the largest provider of abortions in the United States, Planned Parenthood. There was cheering and fanfare over this when she received it. It was for being a "Champion of Women's Health". Somehow killing babies falls under that category.

Pelosi even had the nerve to defend her position as compatible with Catholicism. That's kind of like saying you're a Nazi who loves Jewish people! I hope Pelosi goes back to her original Catholicism.

For more, please go here.

Bad Argument Type #1: Practical or Pragmatic Considerations

I wanted to analyze some argument types that I find unappealing. Today I will focus on practical or pragmatic arguments. They are quite popular, but ultimately they are quite weak. Since this subject is rather abstract, I will attempt to use examples to help clarify.

Practical or pragmatic arguments typically ignore moral or ethical considerations and focus on more immediate considerations. But without a moral basis, the arguments are on shaky ground as new evidence could potentially remove their validity. In other words, the nature of the practical considerations could change to something favourable and thus eliminate it as an opposing factor.

As I said in the beginning, I think examples will be essential. A popular topic on this blog is abortion. I will show here how a practical or pragmatic approach to this question is a poor choice, even though at first it may seem appealing.

One approach to the abortion debate has been to show the harm it causes to women. Pro-life activists will say abortion causes emotional distress on women which can last for many years. They say the guilt can be very difficult to bear. On top of these emotional issues, they point out the physical ramifications, including the possibility of a "botched" abortion, or effects in the future such as increased cancer risk. While these may be true, I believe this approach may ultimately fail.

There are several reasons why this is not the best approach. First of all, abortion is very common. It is in fact the most common medical procedure out there, or something along those lines. A lot of people know women who have had abortions. Many of them do not experience physical or psychological issues after their abortion. I do not believe even the majority do. It could be as low as 10-20%. Therefore, by presenting those as arguments against abortion, someone would only have to be reassured that such effects are rare. The person would then be an advocate for abortion once again.

On top of this, as medical science advances, it would perhaps become possible that even fewer women would experience negative effects, thus weakening the arugment even further. Further, people who use this argument are in a precarious situation. I've heard people say that all women experience negative effects after an abortion. They say that those who claim not to are simply denying the truth, or being dishonest. But this position reeks of conspiracy theory. It cannot be disproven because those in the know are presumed to be lying.

Another weakness of this argument is that it makes women the absolute focus, without considering the baby. This is exactly where the pro-choice side wants people to be. Once the focus is exclusively on the women considering an abortion, the pro-life side cannot win. The focus must remain on the unborn child.

The best argument is a moral one from the point of view of the life of the child. There is a unique, individual child with all his DNA indicating his hair colour, personality, and other characteristics, etc. Often by the time women realize they are pregnant, the child is advanced in development including heart beat and brain waves. But most of all, there is a unique individual being considered. This fact cannot be lessened through medical science. Science will never find a way to reduce the personhood of this child through some objective means in the same way as the negative impacts on a woman can be.

The sanctity of life is a philosophical and theological argument that maintains its full force in any circumstance.

There are other areas as well where using practical or pragmatic arguments can be advantageous but often are unsustainable into the future.

A second example is pornography. I was reading some newspaper articles from the 1960s about pornography. Back then it was a VERY shady undertaking. It was thoroughly illegal and there was great public fear about it. At the same time, it was already a big business. One of the fears that came about was that if men were exposed to pornography, they would become violent, perhaps killers or rapists. Therefore, it was said, pornography must be stopped.

This again is a poor argument. It is in fact even used today, but some are claiming the opposite is true. They say that because of the availability of pornography, men who would ordinarily be rapists have instead fulfilled their illicit desires through pornography. Thus, violent sexual crime has decreased because of porn. If this is true, the original argument is completely destroyed. Does this now mean that pornography is neutral or even good? Well, according to the pragmatic approach, then yes. That's why it's a bad argument.

It may be more immediately impactful to say that porn will turn men into violent rapists, but in the long run, it is a rather ineffective argument. A better argument is again a philosophical one. Porn is bad because it strips the good of sex and instead of being used to unify spouses, it is used for personal gratification, thus rendering the user selfish. It also makes women into objects and men forget about reciprocal love. This selfishness then leads to a deterioration of intimacy and love. That argument cannot be eliminated because it remains true.

There are many more situations where we are tempted to use pragmatic or practical arguments when defending a truth, but it is very important to know the philosophical basis behind a viewpoint. This is not to say practical considerations should not be used. I think if the information is correct, then it can be quite valuable. However, I think it is always essential to know the basis behind a moral argument.

Top 6 reasons Quebec is wasting resources on IVF

Quebec's health care system is currently struggling. Important surgeries are sometimes postponed for months or years because of lack of funding. For example, in 1997, in a 4-3 decision in the province, the court ruled that making someone wait for a year for hip replacement violated the patient's rights. Because of this, private health care has been allowed in some cases.

The average wait time for medical procedures in the province of Quebec is around 18.7 weeks. That's about 4 months. People often wait in misery for these procedures, which in the United States could possibly take just a week on average.

Despite the constant strain on Quebec's medical system, they are now opting to provide a completely unnecessary medical procedure at taxpayers' expense. The Quebec government wants to start paying for in-vitro fertilization. This is a big mistake and here are six reasons why:

1. It is unnecessary
In-vitro fertilization procedures are ALWAYS optional. No one's life is going to be put at risk because they cannot have an embryo implanted in their womb. Therefore is it superfluous and unnecessary for people's health.

2. Those seeking IVF can afford it
The typical candidate for in-vitro fertilization are older women who have placed their priority for a career first and now that they are established are seeking to have a child to complete the picture. I'm not saying this is always the case, but it often is. Most of the people in this category can afford to pay for this procedure, and if it's going to be legal, it should be kept private like it already is.

3. Wasting Resources
The main point of my article is that resources are being wasted on this procedure. Money is being spent on IVF when it could be used to save lives through transplants, important surgeries, etc. The budget is already very thin, and with IVF being funded wait times will only increase for life-saving procedures. I heard that a single round of IVF costs at least $10,000. I'm not sure how many rounds the government of Quebec is planning on covering, but as you can see it is rather expensive.

4. It is immoral
There are many reasons why IVF is immoral. First of all, it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality. A child is no longer conceived in the loving embrace of his parents, but in a glass petri dish of a scientist's lab. On top of this, since gay marriage is recognized in Quebec, as is sperm and ovum donation, many gay people will be availing of IVF treatments to get pregnant and taxpayers will have to support it. We will be creating so many families where children are not raised by their real parents but by intruders.

Another big issue is that usually more embryos than necessary are created. These "unnecessary" embryos are then either destroyed or used for experimentation. Embryos are human lives and must be treated with respect, not killed or experimented on.

5. IVF is Risky
We know from research that IVF is far more risky than normal pregnancy. Think about it. A man ejaculates millions upon millions of sperm and only one reaches the egg and fertilizes it. There is a reason there are so many sperm. It is to make sure only the very best reaches the egg. But how can a scientist looking through his microscope determine which is the best? He cannot. Nature has perfected the procreative process and we do not know better. That is why there are more risks for medical issues associated with IVF babies than those in the general population.

6. Adoption is a better option
There are many kids out there without a home, including in Quebec. The government should be spending its money on increasing the efficiency of the adoption process so more of these children can find good homes.

Conclusion:
Many people are living in a me-me-me frame of mind. They create an image in their head of the ideal family and go to any length to achieve it. Maybe a better idea would be to ask what God's plan is in their life and go by that.

The following article gives some good insight into the moral dilemmas of In-Vitro Fertilization:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0059.html

Response to "The New Traditional Family Gets Respect"

Psychology Today writer Susan Newman is noticing that the single child family is getting more respect than in the past. She claims the traditional notion is that families should have multiple kids. She believes this is a good step because raising children is much more expensive, and she discusses the fact that many parents are choosing to have fewer children.

I agree but also disagree with her assessment. First of all, I do not believe single child families are discriminated against very much. It is indeed rather normal for a family to opt to have but one child. On the other hand, families with 4 or more children are often looked upon with suspicion and possibly disdain. The mother is seen as an oppressed baby-making factory that is the result of a domineering patriarchal subgroup. Sometimes they are even compared to parasites who are beset on overloading the fragile earth with offspring.

Most often, two children is considered the responsible number. Three is reluctantly accepted, but go beyond that and you open yourself to ridicule. I do agree that perhaps people look down on single-child families. The child is seen as selfish, as is the family. It is also seen a cruel to refuse a sibling for this young person.

I think we must have respect for single-child families. Often they have very good reasons for having only one child. Perhaps financial, medical, or other issue. We ought to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Another area with which I take issue in this article is the idea that parents decide how many children they will have based on financial considerations and lifestyle choices. Children are seen as additions to a marriage, like a two-car garage vs. a one-car garage. People try to "engineer" their family. Many say they want one boy and one girl. That they say will complete their "image" of a family. This of course leads to other abuses of fertility.

Couples who achieve their two child limit will often have permanent sterilization performed on themselves. In extreme cases, they may even opt for in-vitro fertilization as they seek to engineer their boy-girl family. On the other side of the equation, many couples who have fertility problems will resort to any means to have two children, whether these methods are morally licit or not.

I believe we must renew our understanding of fertility. It is a gift from God and does not fluctuate between a blessing and a curse depending on the desire of those using it. Rather than manipulating and controlling our bodies, why not seek what God and nature has intended. Contraceptives are the only medical tool used to prevent a properly-functioning system from doing what it is meant to do.

Because of our contraceptive mentality, our society is suffering. Most Western nations are at below-replacement level fertility rate, meaning if this trend continues, our populations will continue to decline. This has many negative consequences. Because people are living to an older age, we need more workers to support them. With not enough young people around, the system becomes top-heavy with many elderly but few young people. Also, young working people pay taxes, which is used to provide services for elderly people. Right now there is a lot of risk for social services, including pension.

Because Western countries are dropping in fertility, so too does their influence drop. Those with ideas which are radically different than ours flood into these countries to keep them alive. Our democracy, ideas of equality, religious freedom, and other issues are affected negatively.

Let us stop putting our bodies at risk by sabatoging natural processes. Children are not accessories or ego-boosts, they are gifts from God. There are good, valid reasons for refraining from seeking to have another child, so we can never judge anyone's motivation. But if someone can properly support them, I implore them to joyfully follow God's plan.

The article to which I was responded is located here.

Death from unsafe abortions. Solution: Don't have one.

Many people are critical of the Canadian government because it has pledged billions of dollars in funding for maternal care, along with other G8 nations, but it has not included funding for abortion in third world countries. Many are outraged that the government has not done this. But I would like to present another possible point of view.

There are many scientific reasons to believe an embryo is a real live human being. Science is constantly showing more reasons that this preborn child is indeed a child. Therefore, abortion is killing a child. Once we realize what is actually happening, we can intelligently discuss the issue.

One good way to discuss this issue is to substitute any theoretical scenario involving an embryo with one involving a 3 year old child. For example, in Africa, a woman may have two children and one on the way, and wants to have an abortion because she is concerned she cannot afford an education for this third child. Well, if this child was a three-year-old, would it be alright for her to kill that child because he may not have access to a good education? No.

Let's take an even more extreme situation. A mother has 2 children and is afraid she does not have enough to feed a third child. This is a very tragic situation. Imagine that third child is 3 years old. Would it be alright for her to kill that third child so that the others may have enough food? No.

Of course, these are the most extreme circumstances. Most abortions do not occur for this reason. Abortion is always optional, in that it is the direct killing of an unborn child. If people realize that the unborn child is indeed a child, then funding the killing of these children does not seem like such a great idea, much less something that's a human right.

Some may ask about a situation where the life of a mother is at risk. Even if abortion is legal, the mother in this situation would not have to die. For example, if the mother developed a cancer on her fallopian tube, which necessitated its removal. This would cause the death of the child, however it would be permissible even in countries where abortion is illegal because the death of the child is an unintended consequence of the treatment of the mother. In most cases, if a continued pregnancy is putting the mother's life at risk, the unborn baby would end up dying before birth anyway. I remember hearing an experienced doctor say that in all his decades of medical practice in obstetrics, he has never come across a real case of choosing between the life of the mother or the life of the baby. It simply doesn't happen that way in real life.

Many of the situations that poor women face can be truly heartbreaking, and we ought to support them as much as possible. It is a very difficult situation, and even for women who choose abortion, they must be loved because they are children of God. But I do not believe that killing children is the solution. It is only a terrible tragedy.

Peter Gabriel wrong about abortion.

Peter Gabriel was in Canada recently and was interviewed. He's a singer, known for being in the band Genesis. He said abortion is a hot topic, that's correct. He believes women should be allowed to kill their pre-born children, but not only that, but Canada has an obligation to pay for this in other countries.

Then Gabriel goes on to say that the only pro-life people are religious, and that he believes in a separation of "state and religion". This is a poor argument. If I said I'm against slavery and it just so happens that my religion teaches that all men are equal, would you say I'm simply expression my particular religious belief and that the government shouldn't be forced to live according to my religion?

This is a very common argument. People will say "don't force your religion on me!", "don't force your morals on me!", etc. But every law is imposition of one group's morality on another. Being against slavery is a moral stance, being for equally is also a moral stance. Banning pornography for children is also a moral stance, etc. Everything in law reflects morality. Without morality, law would not be necessary.

It's insulting to insinuate that those who are pro-life take that position because of some arbitrary ruling, no different than announcing your favorite colour or flavour of ice cream.

Even most moral relativists would not say that murder is an arbitrary moral preference, so if people believe abortion is murder, then it is only logical that they would oppose it.

If being against abortion were just a religion's arbitrary decision, there would be no such thing as pro-life atheists, but there are. Also, one must ask why most religions forbid abortion in the first place. The reason is they believe it is killing another human being. It's based on natural law, not a peculiar religious teaching.

I'm sometimes surprised how clever people seem to think they are when they simply act as a mouth-piece to fallacious canards. In Peter Gabriel's interview, he starts off taking great efforts to show his level of expertise and knowledge in this area. He shows that he understands both sides intimately, and he understands their intentions. Then he proceeds to rehash old arguments that hold little water. While doing this, he interjects a hefty dose of condescension.

Of course, he is following the well-beaten celebrity path of liberalism which advocates the culture of death. Maybe some day soon we will see more celebrities championing the cause of life.

When Life is more opposed to than Death

The Duggars, a famous American family known for having 18 children and their own TV show, has just given birth to the 19th member and are not planning on stopping until God tells them to. But in this strange world in which we live, many people are not happy about this.

Birth and children are true gifts. Each one is unique and brings something wonderful to the world. But many people are calling the Duggars 19th child a bad decision. They say it is irresponsible to have that many children. In order to justify their objection, they make up things which may or may not be true, but fit with their narrative. They say this many children cannot be loved, they cannot be supported financially, the mother's health is at risk, etc. But there is no coherence, because these are all invented objections.

The baby, named Josie, was born prematurely, but is doing well. She is born into one of the most loving families out there. Also, the family is quite secure financially. The forces of darkness are very upset about this because it acts in accordance with God's command to "go forth and multiply". Having a large family is a blessing from God. These children are well raised, respectful, and loving. They add a lot to their communities and the world.

How can people object to such a beautiful situation? The culture of death detestes stories like this. They contradict the idea that a woman can only be happy if she has a career where she is making tons of money, is independent, and has a maximum of 2 children, preferably a boy and a girl. That's a maximum. Women who denounce their childbearing ability are commended as heroes. One woman I heard of recently felt she was helping the world by rendering herself sterile. Angry, vindictive people refuse to believe that anyone who chooses to be a mother and raise a family is anything but oppressed by a patriarchal society. When a woman does this and is very happy and joyful, it does not fit well into their vision for the world.

On the other hand, a woman who procures an abortion is seen as brave, standing up for the rights of women everywhere, a champion of femininity. The is seen as progressing the women's rights movement. But a woman who bares a beautiful child willingly and lovelingly is attacked and berated. Every article you read will approach this story from the angle of "isn't this too many kids?" Never will a positive point of view be presented.

Also, how can we look at these 19 beautiful children and say "She had too many children"? Which of the 19 would you like to see disappear? These are not numbers, these are living, breathing human beings who are loved by their family and by God. Who are we to say they don't belong?

Let's celebrate this beautiful family and show them our support.

Women with Hairy Legs at MUN: Strange fundraiser

Memorial University is sponsoring a strange event where they are asking women (and men?) to not shave their legs for nearly a month. They are raising money for Planned Parenthood. Obviously there are several problems with this.

First and foremost this event, dubbed "Feb-U-Hairy", is sponsoring Planned Parenthood. Officially the money is going towards paying for pap smears to help prevent cervical cancer. There is nothing wrong with preventing cervical cancer, and it is in fact commendable. But giving money to Planned Parenthood is not. Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger to assist with her eugenics plan. She wanted to eliminate "minorities" as much as possible, especially black people. Nowadays, Planned Parenthood is the world's largest provider of abortion, and they are trying to extend this to every corner of the Earth. True to their roots, black people are the main target of their activities, especially in the United States.

Secondly, this Febuhairy (Februhairy) event is encouraging women to not shave their legs. What is the purpose of this? They say they are encouraging men and women not to, but 99% of men don't shave their legs anyway, unless they are professional wrestlers or swimmers or something. What is the point of encouraging women to act like men? Maybe that's something Planned Parenthood encourages because it fits with their ideology. They want women and men to be the same, not equal. Then they can more easily promote their ideology that an unborn child is a parasite that inhibits a woman's progress, because women compare themselves to men who do not get pregnant.

People should give their money to more worthy causes.

Will Massachusetts end Obamacare?

Tonight Massachusetts will vote for their senator: either Democrat Martha Coakley or Republican Scott Brown. This election is being watched across America, and perhaps much of the world, because if Brown is elected, then Obamacare will not be able to pass so easily. Right now, the Democrats have 59 senators, but will need 60 in order to be fillibuster-proof and allow the bill to pass.

Many people of faith would like to see Mr. Brown elected. First of all, Obama's health care plan could involve millions of dollars of donations to Planned Parenthood, which has doctors that performs abortions. Right now, abortions are not paid for by tax-payers, but if Obamacare is passed, it may start being funded, which is a bad thing.

Also, Mrs. Coakley made some disparaging comments to people of faith, suggesting they should perhaps not work in emergency rooms in hospitals because they may be against abortion and other things. This flies in the face of legislation which guarantees the right of people of faith to work in any environment and not be forced to violate their faith and morals. Anything less is tyranny. Also under this law, medical practitioners have the right to not give contraception and other things.

Let's hope that Scott Brown is elected and that he helps reduce abortion.