Medpundit has some information on how post-natal abortions (i.e., infanticides) are performed in India, especially in rural areas, along with other information about the India sex-selection problem.
GOOD CAUTIONARY INFORMATION FOR PRO-LIFERS TO USE WHEN ARGUING THEIR CASE.
Archbishop John Myers (Newark, NJ) has an article in the Wall Street Journal on what Ratzinger said regarding proportionate reasons for voting for a pro-abort candidate. Excerpts:
What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong. Then we must consider the scope of the evil of abortion today in our country. America suffers 1.3 million abortions each year–a tragedy of epic proportions.
Thus for a Catholic citizen to vote for a candidate who supports abortion and embryo-destructive research, one of the following circumstances would have to obtain: either (a) both candidates would have to be in favor of embryo killing on roughly an equal scale or (b) the candidate with the superior position on abortion and embryo-destructive research would have to be a supporter of objective evils of a gravity and magnitude beyond that of 1.3 million yearly abortions plus the killing that would take place if public funds were made available for embryo-destructive research.
Frankly, it is hard to imagine circumstance (b) in a society such as ours.
Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
Well, now . . . that just sounds awfully . . . familiar.
GO, ARCHBISH!
I can’t believe it, but Planned Parenthood is marketing shirts that say “I had an abortion.”
Are they NUTS???
Are they so wrapped up in their warped, anti-life rhetoric that they can’t see how HORRENDOUS this idea is?
Putting this message on a T-shirt creates at minimum a defiant message and possibly a boastful one.
I can only conclude that PP has gone downhill since the days when Faye Wattleton was president of it. I remember her admitting that women know that there is a life within them and that it is a sad thing to end it. That kind of fuzzy “compassionate abortion” rhetoric contained enough acknowledgement of the truth to be dangerous. People might fall for it.
But THIS! This is simply beyond belief. It is up there in the same league as their inflammatory “Choice On Earth” campaign last Christmas.
If anybody is stupid enough to wear these things, Planned Parenthood will only be hurting its own cause.
That, of course, is a good thing. I just don’t want to see women destroy their own reputations by broadcasting such hate-filled, pride-filled messages to those around them.
A new imaging technique goes far beyond conventional ultra-sound in revealing the early life of each of us in the womb. New images reveal babies “walking,” yawning, and rubbing their eyes in the wombs of their mothers.
More evidence upon more evidence for the humanity of pre-born babies.
Share it with your friends who doubt these points.
A new imaging technique goes far beyond conventional ultra-sound in revealing the early life of each of us in the womb. New images reveal babies “walking,” yawning, and rubbing their eyes in the wombs of their mothers.
More evidence upon more evidence for the humanity of pre-born babies.
Share it with your friends who doubt these points.
Some Catholics report that they feel unable to support President Bush in his re-election bid on the grounds that he would allow abortion in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life. These positions are wrong and contrary to the Church’s teaching, but do they from the Church’s perspective place him in the same category as an ardent supporter of abortion like Clinton, Gore, or Kerry? Or does the fact that Bush opposes the vast majority of abortions make a difference and allow Catholics to form a different moral estimation of him?
During the Clinton administration, when President Clinton met with the pope, John Paul II was known for bringing up the topic of abortion and stressing the need to end it, which was widely recognized as a deliberate–if diplomatic–public scolding of the American president.
What has John Paul II said regarding President Bush when they have met? Has he similarly scolded Bush for failing to be 100% pro-life, or has he recognized that–though Bush (who is not a Catholic) is imperfect–that his position regarding abortion is nonetheless pariseworthy?
When the two met earlier this month, the pontiff had this to say to the president:
I also continue to follow with great appreciation your commitment to the promotion of moral values in American society, particularly with regard to respect for life and the family (source).
Though the pope does not issue political endorsements of candidates for office, his remarks might be taken to as an attempt to recognize and reward the fundamentally different, if still imperfect, approach taken by President Bush to this issue.
Saw press accounts about this a while back, so it may be old news to some, but is still worth repeating. Once again, a bishop speaks with refreshing clarity. Bishop Thomas Wenski, coadjutor of Orlando, writes:
Today, some self-identified Catholic politicians prefer to emulate Pontius Pilate’s “personally opposed but unwilling to impose” stance. Perhaps, they are baiting the Church, daring an “official sanction” making them “bad Catholics”, so as to gain favor among up their secularist, “blue state” constituencies. Such a sanction might turn their lack of coherent Catholic convictions into a badge of courage for people who hold such convictions in contempt.
But if the whole of point of being a Catholic is to grow in holiness –admittedly by practicing a whole lot and making some errors along the way – then it would be as John Paul II reminds us “a contradiction to settle for a life of mediocrity, marked by a minimalist ethic and a sentimental religiosity”. You cannot have your “waffle” and your “wafer” too. Those pro-abortion politicians who insist on calling themselves Catholics without seeing the contradiction between what they say they believe and their anti-life stance have to do a lot more of “practicing”. They need to get it right before they approach the Eucharistic table [Source].
Saw press accounts about this a while back, so it may be old news to some, but is still worth repeating. Once again, a bishop speaks with refreshing clarity. Bishop Thomas Wenski, coadjutor of Orlando, writes:
Today, some self-identified Catholic politicians prefer to emulate Pontius Pilate’s “personally opposed but unwilling to impose” stance. Perhaps, they are baiting the Church, daring an “official sanction” making them “bad Catholics”, so as to gain favor among up their secularist, “blue state” constituencies. Such a sanction might turn their lack of coherent Catholic convictions into a badge of courage for people who hold such convictions in contempt.
But if the whole of point of being a Catholic is to grow in holiness –admittedly by practicing a whole lot and making some errors along the way – then it would be as John Paul II reminds us “a contradiction to settle for a life of mediocrity, marked by a minimalist ethic and a sentimental religiosity”. You cannot have your “waffle” and your “wafer” too. Those pro-abortion politicians who insist on calling themselves Catholics without seeing the contradiction between what they say they believe and their anti-life stance have to do a lot more of “practicing”. They need to get it right before they approach the Eucharistic table [Source].