http://www.theday.com/article/20100222/OP02/302229957
The Associated Press article "Genetic testing curbs some inherited diseases," published Feb. 18, is fraught with disastrous consequences.
The author does not understand that good ends don't justify evil means. She also clearly cannot distinguish between a morally good action and a morally bad action as she doesn't hold in her excitement for the reduction of deadly diseases precipitated by killing off babies in the womb who have a deadly disease.
Is this the future of health care? Instead of treating sick people and attempting to cure disease, the medical profession will identify the sick and recommend them for elimination?
In the future, will those in the medical profession recommend abortion, not just for babies with fatal illnesses but for anything that categorizes them as genetically inferior?
I already know the answer, for that is not the nightmare of some far-off distant future, but is already a reality now.
And it seems that we've been down this path before.
You can also read my post on this subject (in more detail) at CatholicVoteAction.org or comment at CMR's post as well.
Showing posts with label letter to editor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label letter to editor. Show all posts
Monday, February 22, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
March for Life video
Well, as of yet, The Day hasn't printed my letter. They usually hold my pro-life submission off until Saturday, when fewer people read the paper. And I do have some videos and interviews that my wife and I did with a few people we met on the March. This video below, however, is a great indication of the magnitude of the March for Life, both in numbers and its importance. I've gotta say, the line at the end is especially significant.
Thanks to Leticia for posting it.
Thanks to Leticia for posting it.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Letter to Editor, March for Life 2010
With no ill will toward Elissa Bass or the Algiere family, I find it interesting that the Day ran a 500 word, front-page article with large pictures about a missing goat, yet this story doesn't even get mentioned:
Hundreds of area residents joined hundreds of thousands of Americans from across the country to join the largest, longest-running grassroots march on Washington to stand in defiance of the Roe v. Wade decision which enabled approximately 50 million state-sanctioned deaths since 1973.
This is an especially shocking journalistic oversight considering: 1. Current health care legislation dominating news this year has been effectively derailed in part by objections over abortion and other right-to-life issues. 2. Recent polls show that the majority of Americans for the first time since 1973 consider themselves "pro-life" and 3. A federal study released in the April 2009 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention confirmed a strong link between breast cancer and both abortion and oral contraceptives.
Is there a reason for the Day's oversight? If staff funding is a problem, I would be happy to give a reporter a ride to next year's March for Life. Until then, wait for the call when my cat goes missing.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Planned Parenthood caught lying...
The White House and its political allies are on a heated campaign to dispel “myths.” One such myth cited is that the current health care legislation would not cover abortion. An August 14th letter in the Day by Vice President of Public Affairs and Communication for Planned Parenthood of Connecticut, Susan Yolen, reiterates such a clarification by stating, “It is a myth that abortion care coverage will be mandated in health care reform.” The problem is, however, that she is dead wrong. While the text of the bill (which I have read) did not state definitively either way, Senator Barbara Mikulski admitted to other Senate committee members that it would, in fact cover abortions and refused to consider including text which would forbid the coverage of abortions under the new plan.
If that seem inconclusive, then consider the Capps Amendment to the bill, passed in The Committee on Energy and Commerce on July 30th, two weeks before Ms. Yolen’s letter. It not only states that private plans in the Health Exchange must have at least one plan that covers abortion but that the public option shall provide coverage for abortions. This amendment can be read here: http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1721:energy-and-commerce-markup-on-hr-3200-the-americas-affordable-health-choices-act-of-2009&catid=141:full-committee&Itemid=85
If this health care legislation were to pass in its current form, it would mean that taxpayer dollars would be used to kill babies in the womb. This is not a myth, it is a fact, and no amount of repetition by the White House and Planned Parenthood can change that.
If that seem inconclusive, then consider the Capps Amendment to the bill, passed in The Committee on Energy and Commerce on July 30th, two weeks before Ms. Yolen’s letter. It not only states that private plans in the Health Exchange must have at least one plan that covers abortion but that the public option shall provide coverage for abortions. This amendment can be read here: http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1721:energy-and-commerce-markup-on-hr-3200-the-americas-affordable-health-choices-act-of-2009&catid=141:full-committee&Itemid=85
If this health care legislation were to pass in its current form, it would mean that taxpayer dollars would be used to kill babies in the womb. This is not a myth, it is a fact, and no amount of repetition by the White House and Planned Parenthood can change that.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Letter to the Editor, The Day
Dear Editor,
Was I the only one that noticed that in the article on Monday, May 18, regarding President Obama's speech at Notre Dame, the headline on the front page, above the fold, read "Obama takes on abortion debate," while the continuing headline on page A6 read, "Obama avoids specifics of abortion debate"?
I wonder, how is it possible that he both confronted the debate on abortion and yet avoided it at the same time?
I suggest that the headline should have read, "Obama exploits dissident Catholic school president's folly and arrogance in an attempt to further divide Catholics from their bishops over 1.7 million dead babies per year to appear as a moderate hero." Granted, that's a bit long, but it's much more accurate, and not contradictory.
Update: published by The Day May 27, 2009
Was I the only one that noticed that in the article on Monday, May 18, regarding President Obama's speech at Notre Dame, the headline on the front page, above the fold, read "Obama takes on abortion debate," while the continuing headline on page A6 read, "Obama avoids specifics of abortion debate"?
I wonder, how is it possible that he both confronted the debate on abortion and yet avoided it at the same time?
I suggest that the headline should have read, "Obama exploits dissident Catholic school president's folly and arrogance in an attempt to further divide Catholics from their bishops over 1.7 million dead babies per year to appear as a moderate hero." Granted, that's a bit long, but it's much more accurate, and not contradictory.
Update: published by The Day May 27, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
"A Modest Proposal" letter to editor, The Day sub. 3-15-09
Let's see if this one gets published...
In 1729 Jonathan Swift satirically wrote “A Modest Proposal,” suggesting that the plight of the Irish could be improved if they sold off their infants as food, for “a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled.”
In 2009, Professor Sir Richard Gardner, an Oxford University stem cell expert, suggested that aborted babies should be used to increase the availability of organs for adult transplant. “The use of aborted foetuses ‘is something that could be done but it’s not something that’s talked about much’, Sir Richard said. He added: ‘It is at least a temporary solution.’” (Daily Mail, March 11)
Well I guess I’ll breath a sigh of relief that he’s not yet talking about it as the Final Solution.
Even though this is not satire, we Americans are not yet harvesting babies for their organs. We’re just harvesting them for their stem cells.
In 1729 Jonathan Swift satirically wrote “A Modest Proposal,” suggesting that the plight of the Irish could be improved if they sold off their infants as food, for “a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled.”
In 2009, Professor Sir Richard Gardner, an Oxford University stem cell expert, suggested that aborted babies should be used to increase the availability of organs for adult transplant. “The use of aborted foetuses ‘is something that could be done but it’s not something that’s talked about much’, Sir Richard said. He added: ‘It is at least a temporary solution.’” (Daily Mail, March 11)
Well I guess I’ll breath a sigh of relief that he’s not yet talking about it as the Final Solution.
Even though this is not satire, we Americans are not yet harvesting babies for their organs. We’re just harvesting them for their stem cells.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Letter to the Editor, The Day, submitted 2-22-09
The focus of abortion often falls on the individual making the decision, yet society at large encourages abortion.
The Safe Haven law, while well-intentioned, is all but unknown. There was a case locally of a woman who, ignorant of the Safe Haven law, wrapped her baby in a blanket, placed it in an abandoned car and went to the nearest payphone to inform the police, who picked up the baby within minutes and brought it to the hospital immediately. The mother was arrested. The story in the Day indicated that the State of CT didn’t have funding to print pamphlets about the Safe Haven law.
It used to be that when a woman couldn’t keep her child, she could bring it to an orphanage so that the baby would be cared for until someone could adopt the child. Orphanages don’t exist anymore and the current foster care program is overwhelmed.
What is the obvious cause of this indifference? Long-term care costs money and abortion has a one-time fee. It is cheaper, faster, and easier.
This is also true of euthanasia. I hope as seniors enter long-term care en masse and we hurtle toward single-payer universal health care, that people will realize this connection before it is too late.
The Safe Haven law, while well-intentioned, is all but unknown. There was a case locally of a woman who, ignorant of the Safe Haven law, wrapped her baby in a blanket, placed it in an abandoned car and went to the nearest payphone to inform the police, who picked up the baby within minutes and brought it to the hospital immediately. The mother was arrested. The story in the Day indicated that the State of CT didn’t have funding to print pamphlets about the Safe Haven law.
It used to be that when a woman couldn’t keep her child, she could bring it to an orphanage so that the baby would be cared for until someone could adopt the child. Orphanages don’t exist anymore and the current foster care program is overwhelmed.
What is the obvious cause of this indifference? Long-term care costs money and abortion has a one-time fee. It is cheaper, faster, and easier.
This is also true of euthanasia. I hope as seniors enter long-term care en masse and we hurtle toward single-payer universal health care, that people will realize this connection before it is too late.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Letter to the Editor of The Day, 1-26-09
In response to my letter to the Editor of the Day, which I also posted here, is this letter. She thinks she has struck me down when she ends, "Or should we all have these babies and drop them at the door of the letter writer and those who feel the same way?"
My response is below:
Dear Editor,
The writer of the letter entitled, "Decisions On Abortion Are Not Easy To Make" mistakes me. I never said that abortion is an easy experience. I've heard too many stories from the members of Silent No More (www.silentnomoreawareness.org), men and women who have had an abortion and speak of the trauma they suffered before, during and afterwards. I've also never said that it is an easy decision; I've only said that it is the wrong one.
When the writer says, "Or should we all have these babies and drop them at the door of the letter writer and those who feel the same way?" she makes my point. She assumes that because some women do not want their babies, that no one would want their babies. Many couples who are not able to conceive a child of their own would gladly adopt a baby, but cannot because most unwanted babies in this country are not given up for adoption; they are killed by abortion.
I have a question that no one has ever given me a satisfactory answer to. Why is it morally permissible to kill an infant in the womb but it is not permissible to kill an infant outside the womb? Or a one-year old? Or a ten-year old?
My response is below:
Dear Editor,
The writer of the letter entitled, "Decisions On Abortion Are Not Easy To Make" mistakes me. I never said that abortion is an easy experience. I've heard too many stories from the members of Silent No More (www.silentnomoreawareness.org), men and women who have had an abortion and speak of the trauma they suffered before, during and afterwards. I've also never said that it is an easy decision; I've only said that it is the wrong one.
When the writer says, "Or should we all have these babies and drop them at the door of the letter writer and those who feel the same way?" she makes my point. She assumes that because some women do not want their babies, that no one would want their babies. Many couples who are not able to conceive a child of their own would gladly adopt a baby, but cannot because most unwanted babies in this country are not given up for adoption; they are killed by abortion.
I have a question that no one has ever given me a satisfactory answer to. Why is it morally permissible to kill an infant in the womb but it is not permissible to kill an infant outside the womb? Or a one-year old? Or a ten-year old?
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Letter to the Editor of The Day
Dear Editor,
This country has been grimly duped. The 1972 Roe vs. Wade decision was praised as a way to make abortion "safe, legal and rare," poised to liberate women from the bonds of motherhood. What a Pandora's box was opened.
Thirty-seven years later, abortion is the center of a network of issues that grows ever-more complex. Health care, politics, science, law, families and culture are all affected. The tentacles of this abberation are firmly entwined in our common consciousness and conscience, or what is left of it.
Abortion is tied to divorce, abuse, neglect, infidelity, mistrust, isolation and selfishness. It is used for convenience, to maintain a lifestyle, to hide an affair, to attain a career. Some use it coercively to hide their crimes, some use it for health reasons, ushering in an age of eugenics. In the hands of our government, abortion may be used for population control, political manipulation, and to fuel scientific research.
The methods for killing babies are numerous. The justification for it is weak, but is backed by a strong-willed, well-funded industry that has little or no regard for the rights of others. Contraception and abortion become harder to distinguish. And so far, fifty million people have been killed by it.
This country has been grimly duped. The 1972 Roe vs. Wade decision was praised as a way to make abortion "safe, legal and rare," poised to liberate women from the bonds of motherhood. What a Pandora's box was opened.
Thirty-seven years later, abortion is the center of a network of issues that grows ever-more complex. Health care, politics, science, law, families and culture are all affected. The tentacles of this abberation are firmly entwined in our common consciousness and conscience, or what is left of it.
Abortion is tied to divorce, abuse, neglect, infidelity, mistrust, isolation and selfishness. It is used for convenience, to maintain a lifestyle, to hide an affair, to attain a career. Some use it coercively to hide their crimes, some use it for health reasons, ushering in an age of eugenics. In the hands of our government, abortion may be used for population control, political manipulation, and to fuel scientific research.
The methods for killing babies are numerous. The justification for it is weak, but is backed by a strong-willed, well-funded industry that has little or no regard for the rights of others. Contraception and abortion become harder to distinguish. And so far, fifty million people have been killed by it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
