...but I wouldn't worry about it if government takes over health care.Thursday, July 2, 2009
All humor is funny because it at least has a semblance of truth...
...but I wouldn't worry about it if government takes over health care.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
CT enacts "keepsake ultrasound" ban
Josh Mercer at CatholicVote.com has this post about the new CT law banning the use of prenatal ultrasounds except for medical reasons and under the care of a licensed physician. The bill was touted as addressing the "keepsake ultrasound boutiques" that allow women to have high quality ultrasound imaging of their unborn child for early bonding, souvenirs, and other purposes. I read the text of the bill here, which was signed into law by Governor Rell two weeks ago. (Yes, I only heard about it after it was made law-- big surprise.)
Considering the apparent vagueness of the wording of the bill, I was concerned that this might affect the operations of crisis pregnancy centers in the state. I contacted the director of a local CareNet branch, who forwarded me this article from Lifenews.com:
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
June 30, 2009
Hartford, CT (LifeNews.com) -- Now that Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell has signed a bill into law that would ban ultrasounds not done for medical reasons, some pro-life advocates are concerned about the effect it will have on pregnancy centers, which rely on ultrasounds to help women consider abortion alternatives.
Kristin Hansen, the vice president for communications at Care Net, a national organization with more than 1,100 affiliated centers, says the bill doesn't adversely affect its affiliates.
Hansen says abortion advocates sometimes wrongly believe that pregnancy centers perform ultrasound for non-medical reasons.
"Care Net pregnancy centers follow all FDA guidelines related to ultrasounds and all ultrasounds are performed by trained medical professionals under the direction of a licensed physician," she told LifeNews.com late Monday.
Hansen added, "We are not concerned about the Connecticut bill having a negative impact on Care Net pregnancy centers."
Unlike the "ultrasound boutiques" the bill is targeting, Care Net pregnancy centers are required to only perform ultrasounds for a medical reason.
"We require this of our centers because we insist that they uphold the best medical practices," she explained. "Not only has the FDA said that entertainment or keepsake ultrasounds may be dangerous to the unborn child, but a number of medical professional associations have done the same."
Hansen says most pregnancy centers perform a “limited ultrasound” to confirm a viable pregnancy and determine gestational age.
There are three types of ultrasounds as defined by the professional groups that meet the medical requirements: Targeted (intended to find a fetal problem when there is reason to believe there is a problem); Basic (no reason to suspect a problem, but performed to find any problems) and Limited (to determine viability or search for specific information -- i.e. gestational age, etc).
Hansen says Care Net has greater issues with legislation in New Jersey and New Mexico "which would potentially prevent centers from purchasing ultrasound equipment and from using trained nurses to perform ultrasounds."
I was also in contact with Linda Cochrane, executive director of Hopeline, who informed me that their organization, which currently has 3 locations in CT (with a fourth soon opening in Bridgeport) that offer pregancy resources, including ultrasounds for pregnancy diagnosis and checkup, is connected with CareNet and operates under the same guidelines.
I said to Ms. Cochrane that my concern is that, even though this law doesn't affect CPC's in the state immediately, this may be the first step in an ongoing strategy. She shared that concern and said that we must continue to fight, though, she said, "we do our fighting on our knees, and with our voices."
As the Lifenews.com article pointed out, other states already make it difficult to purchase or operate ultrasound equipment. What's to say that the next step in CT isn't to change the state guidelines of proper medical use of ultrasound equipment, as in, only medical facilities that will offer or refer for abortion services can be considered as adequate facilities?
While we can still breathe for now in CT, I do share Josh Mercer's concern that CPC's performing ultrasounds constitutes a target that pro-abortion advocates will seek to limit however possible to continue to undermine the truth that the child in the womb is a child, living and breathing, and responding to its environment.
In the meantime, check out Josh's post and drop him a line congratulating him on the baby in the pictured ultrasound--it's his!
Please visit CareNet's and Hopeline's websites to learn more about their services and offer your assistance if you can!
A full list of CPC's in CT that offer a range of services and referrals for women in crisis pregnancy can be found here.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Gather 'round children and I'll tell you a story.
Once upon a time, New England was beseiged by forty days and forty nights of rain. (OK, only 30, but June was a complete washout--pun completely intended!) Children, cooped up inside, their faces bleached from lack of Vitamin D, began to drive their mother crazy. There was much wailing and nashing of teeth. And lo, the heavens opened. The clouds parted and mother threw the children out the door to seek out an olive branch. (They're rare in New England, so they'd be busy for a while.) But along the way, the scout team was distracted- easily done- by the most common of pastimes. The garden hose lay, tempting all passers by.
Let's play a game! (You and I know this won't end well.)
We'll work together.
Ooops, I slipped.
Got you, too!
Curses! I will get him back for his treachery!
Psst, we can gang up on him! You fill my bucket carefully and I'll dump it on him.
Hey! That's not what I asked you to do!
Meanwhile, the angry older brother turns off the water, befuddling the smallest combatant.
The middle child decides to hide and wait this battle out.
Fiend! I repay you the injustice you served upon me! Ground water, a dish served best really, really cold!
Oh, the humanity!
We'll work together.
Ooops, I slipped.
Got you, too!
Curses! I will get him back for his treachery!
Psst, we can gang up on him! You fill my bucket carefully and I'll dump it on him.
Hey! That's not what I asked you to do!
Meanwhile, the angry older brother turns off the water, befuddling the smallest combatant.
The middle child decides to hide and wait this battle out.
Fiend! I repay you the injustice you served upon me! Ground water, a dish served best really, really cold!
Oh, the humanity!Monday, June 29, 2009
Prayer Request
Hey Everyone,
Please pray for a family I know? They’re 11 weeks pregnant and the baby just went through its first ultrasound. The prognosis is not good, and the family is asking for prayers, as their first born was diagnosed with the same thing and was miraculously healed, details follow. Here’s an email excerpt, I changed names for privacy:
The prognosis is bad, as it was for Jerry. It’s called cystic hygroma which basically means that the the lymphatic system isn’t working right so fluid is collecting inside the baby, if it doesn’t resolve the baby’s heart will fail. We don’t know yet if the fact that Jerry had this and it resolved (through a lot of prayer) changes the outlook, it is such a rare, rare thing to happen that it is hard for us to imagine that they aren’t related but the yale doctors (we will have an appointment probably this week or next up at Yale) maybe can tell us that. The causes of this are either genetic (various disorders) or just something went wrong in development. As best we can tell Jerry’s wasn’t genetic (unless extreme stuborness is a genetic disorder). There isn’t very much known about this because something like 90% of people that find out they have this abort (which obviously we would never even consider), except that most babies die. We would just be very thankful to all of you if you could include us in your prayers.
Everyone is doing okay here, Jerry is really concerned but we are trying to help him through this, there aren’t alot of answers, not really a whole lot the doctors can tell us either (especially since I won’t do invasive testing). I am assuming they will put us on the same regimen as with Jerry which is ultrasounds every two weeks to check on the baby until I can feel movement and then just once a month to see if anything is getting better, and then an echocardiogram to check the baby’s heart at 25 weeks (this one is at Yale as well) since heart problems can be associated with the genetic disorders we are talking about (Turner’s syndrome if it is a girl, Newnann’s syndrome if it is a boy, or trisomy 18, which is fatal, and occassionally Downs syndrome).
Cap and Trade means...
* that I should start making candles
* that we should bring ice down from Canada this winter and pack it in sawdust for the summer
* that I should move the whole fam-damily into the back room at work so I can afford to travel to my job
* that welfare will be expanded to include utility bills for many more Americans, which will then mean also...
* that the government will not only tell utility companies how much tax they have to pay to operate, but how much they can charge for services, which will mean profit margins untenable for private companies, which means also...
* that it's only a matter of time until the government takes over utilities as well
* that the current number of people in this country cannot be sustained if our utility infrastructure and economy is turned back to 1800's levels, so expect child quotas
You think I'm crazy, don't you?
But I'm right.
* that we should bring ice down from Canada this winter and pack it in sawdust for the summer
* that I should move the whole fam-damily into the back room at work so I can afford to travel to my job
* that welfare will be expanded to include utility bills for many more Americans, which will then mean also...
* that the government will not only tell utility companies how much tax they have to pay to operate, but how much they can charge for services, which will mean profit margins untenable for private companies, which means also...
* that it's only a matter of time until the government takes over utilities as well
* that the current number of people in this country cannot be sustained if our utility infrastructure and economy is turned back to 1800's levels, so expect child quotas
You think I'm crazy, don't you?
But I'm right.
Ministry of Truth not necessary
George Orwell had his hands tied. He imagined the Ministry of Truth would have to daily check all history books and newspaper articles for consistency with the current Party policy. He didn't realize that their job would be much easier than that.
The constant 24-hour news bombardment and the eternal present of the Internet numbs us to all sense of history and makes us susceptible to the snake charmer's song, ready to believe whatever we are told. The way I say it is today, it always was that way. What I say today is exactly consistent with what I said yesterday. And the view I take tomorrow is not contrary, as it would seem, but actually the fulfillment of what I say today, don't you see?
Don't bother with what they tell you is truth; you believe those radicals?
The constant 24-hour news bombardment and the eternal present of the Internet numbs us to all sense of history and makes us susceptible to the snake charmer's song, ready to believe whatever we are told. The way I say it is today, it always was that way. What I say today is exactly consistent with what I said yesterday. And the view I take tomorrow is not contrary, as it would seem, but actually the fulfillment of what I say today, don't you see?
Don't bother with what they tell you is truth; you believe those radicals?
Catching up
Well, Exultet has been collecting dust for some time, as Big Brother may or may not have noticed. Work has been busy, I've been finishing getting the house ready to put on the market, looking for a nighttime job, preparing for my friend's bachelor party and wedding, in which I was an usher, my son was ring bearer, and my lovely (and very talented wife) was vocalist and music director. I'm just now catching my breath before the Canada family reunion coming up and hopefully moving! Whew!
Check out Fric (founding member of Fric, Frac and Fred) showing off the bling for the bride and groom. Catch phrase of the day while wearing tuxes: "Totally wicked!"
Because of all this, I don't have a lot of time to research all the details, but I wanted to quick blog some things that have caught my attention over the last few weeks.
This is a bit old, but here's a bit of news that got little coverage and no notice, around here, anyway. CT joins other states in awarding its electoral votes, not to the winner of the state, but to the winner of the national popular vote. Message to all: only New York, California, Texas, Florida, Massachusetts and Ohio are important.
Nancy Pelosi's flailing changing gasping story regarding the CIA briefings about waterboarding are as disingenuous as Hilary Clinton's implication that General Petraus lied to the Senate regarding conditions in Iraq. Here's the hint: if you are in a position of authority and you think a subordinate is lying to you, you fire them (or make a big stink for the President to do so). Otherwise, no one believes you.
And don't forget all those of you who swore to me that Obama really was pro-life and that he would work to reduce abortions. Oh, wait, that's not right. Looks like he lied to you, too.
Check out Fric (founding member of Fric, Frac and Fred) showing off the bling for the bride and groom. Catch phrase of the day while wearing tuxes: "Totally wicked!"Because of all this, I don't have a lot of time to research all the details, but I wanted to quick blog some things that have caught my attention over the last few weeks.
This is a bit old, but here's a bit of news that got little coverage and no notice, around here, anyway. CT joins other states in awarding its electoral votes, not to the winner of the state, but to the winner of the national popular vote. Message to all: only New York, California, Texas, Florida, Massachusetts and Ohio are important.
Nancy Pelosi's flailing changing gasping story regarding the CIA briefings about waterboarding are as disingenuous as Hilary Clinton's implication that General Petraus lied to the Senate regarding conditions in Iraq. Here's the hint: if you are in a position of authority and you think a subordinate is lying to you, you fire them (or make a big stink for the President to do so). Otherwise, no one believes you.
And don't forget all those of you who swore to me that Obama really was pro-life and that he would work to reduce abortions. Oh, wait, that's not right. Looks like he lied to you, too.
Homeschooling Diplomacy
I write this post both to ask the question and also in the hopes that in writing it, I'll be more sure of my own grasp on the big picture.
To get to it, for those of you who are homeschooling your kids, how do you discuss it with family and friends? And the corollary to that is, how do you explain it to your kids?
The reason I am asking is because up till now, our boys didn't even realize that we were doing something different. But they're now at the age to make the distinction and have latched on to the idea that fascinates them most: riding the big yellow bus, like their cousins do, and going to a school building with other kids taught by a teacher that's not Mom.
My wife and I have to deal delicately with this because we know why we're homeschooling: it's more efficient, better for the kids in terms of focus and attention, individual pace, family schedule, plus the ability for my wife and I to act as the filters for our children that we are called to be. But how do we explain this to a five year old without a.) giving him the impression that he's missing out on something fantastic, b.) running the risk that he looks down his nose at other kids who do go to school or c.)getting the impression that schools and everything associated with them are to be avoided?
How did any of you handle this discussion?
To get to it, for those of you who are homeschooling your kids, how do you discuss it with family and friends? And the corollary to that is, how do you explain it to your kids?
The reason I am asking is because up till now, our boys didn't even realize that we were doing something different. But they're now at the age to make the distinction and have latched on to the idea that fascinates them most: riding the big yellow bus, like their cousins do, and going to a school building with other kids taught by a teacher that's not Mom.
My wife and I have to deal delicately with this because we know why we're homeschooling: it's more efficient, better for the kids in terms of focus and attention, individual pace, family schedule, plus the ability for my wife and I to act as the filters for our children that we are called to be. But how do we explain this to a five year old without a.) giving him the impression that he's missing out on something fantastic, b.) running the risk that he looks down his nose at other kids who do go to school or c.)getting the impression that schools and everything associated with them are to be avoided?
How did any of you handle this discussion?
Thursday, May 28, 2009
I saw One like a son of man coming...
I've been trying to do this post for a while. Back when I was a CatholicVote junkie, one of the guys on the site, who is, I believe, an atheist, or at least cynical said something that caught my interest and I can't seem to shake it.The discussion had centered and meandered around abortion, the response of the bishops, Notre Dame, Catholic politicians; you know, non-emotional, non-controversial, non-open-to-misunderstanding kind of discussions. And of course some of the pro-lifers (rightly) quoted Scripture passages about divine judgment, wrath of God, the fate of those who do evil and call it good, etc. One poster on the site made what he thought was a profound and highly insightful comment, which I'll try to reconstruct from memory: "All you 'real Catholics' on here seem like you're filled with anger and judgment. You want to vilify Obama and pro-choice Catholic politicians and you gravitate towards those passages of Scripture that satisfy your bloodlust. It doesn't seem very loving, patient, or kind."
What he and others seem not to understand is that we cannot choose the image of God that we want, at least not completely. Yes, God is the loving Father, the Good Shepherd, the Divine Healer, the spotless Lamb and the protector of orphans and widows, Who said "Let the children come unto me." Yet we cannot forget that Jesus is also the Alpha and Omega, He Who was, and is and is to come. He is a mighty warrior, and the Just Judge (!) who is pictured with the sword of his wrath coming out of his mouth, saying that he will spit us out of His mouth if we are lukewarm.
The comfort of the afflicted, and the affliction of the comfortable is our loving God. We may see these as opposing pictures, but in God they are one.
What do the pictures above say to you?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Mr. T in all his glory...
CMR directed us to JammieWearingFool to see an hysterical clip of Mr. T singing at Wrigley field.
Here's another video my friend Dan posted on his personal blog last Mother's Day.
I laughed so hard my stomach hurt.
Here's another video my friend Dan posted on his personal blog last Mother's Day.
I laughed so hard my stomach hurt.
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
Hi. My name is Mike. (Hi Mike.) And sometimes I listen to NPR.
But yesterday I almost drove off the road remembering why I listen less and less frequently. Sure, the news and talk shows can be very informative, and the weekend shows are very funny. But when I tuned in during a commercial break from another station I heard this report, which is the most infuriating thing I've heard in a while.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: Earlier this week the president announced tougher fuel economy and emissions standards for car and truck makers. The White House figures the new rules will save almost two billion barrels of oil over the next nine years and at the same time make it easier for us to breathe. Seems like common sense. But commentator Paul Kedrosky says good economic sense is something else again.
PAUL KEDROSKY: After years of auto companies saying that higher fuel-efficiency standards would bankrupt them, the Obama administration figured out a fix. Cleverly, it wiped out the auto industry first, and then raised fuel standards.
Yeah, that sure was clever of him. (If you're not yet sure if Kedrosky is seriously patting Obama on the back for this or just being tongue-in-cheek, keep reading. It'll become crystal clear in a minute.)
The right calls the standards an unnecessary intrusion into the economic lives of average Americans. If people want to buy massive, steel-clad gunboats and race down highways at top speed, getting 5 miles per gallon, all the while padding the pockets of America-hating fuel exporters, then that should be their right.
Or, God forbid, buying a vehicle big enough to carry their larger-than-1.2-kids-per-family-family around anywhere...
Environmental sorts on the left have complaints too. Some are already saying that 39 miles per gallon is not high enough. They point to Europe, where it is common now for many popular cars to get 50 miles per gallon and more.
But a more compelling criticism comes from recent economics research. To an economist, most things come down to price. A car that gets 39 miles per gallon is cheaper per mile to drive than a car that gets 18 miles per gallon. Make iPods cheaper, and more get sold. Make the cost per mile of driving cheaper, and people will drive more.
OK, there's your first mistake, Houdini. Maybe people will just pocket the money they save to pay their BILLS! He also plays bait and switch by comparing buying a low-cost product that, once bought, is essentially free to operate with buying another product with a highly-inflated purchase price that runs more efficiently but is still expensive to maintain. Genius.
How much more? Research says it may be as much as 10-20 percent. People may not loiter on their way to work, but they will make more discretionary trips with their high-efficiency cars. And that has other effects too, like more highway congestion, and even more accidents and deaths.
More doom and gloom. But Kedrosky changes the subject here because more driving in a more fuel-efficient vehicle is still better for the enviro-crazies. Don't go out to the store to buy milk for the children, dear, that's bound to cause an accident and kill someone. (But wouldn't that in the end mean one less driver on the road polluting the environment?)
Most sane people, even economists, want more efficient cars on the roads. But is the best way to do it making cars cheaper to drive? To an economist, the answer is obvious: we need to make it more expensive to drive, not cheaper. The best way to do that? Raise fuel prices. Higher gas taxes will cause people to drive less, cause emissions to tumble and motivate companies to build and sell more efficient cars. Granted, it might not be the same auto companies doing it, but I think we're all OK with that.
IDIOT! How much discretionary driving does this guy think people do? As far as I know, the Miracle Mile is long gone, cruise nights are quaint and far between, and the driving for driving's sake like in car commercials only happens in car commercials.
I drive from home to work, to the store and back home. My commute is almost an hour. This bonehead proposal would only serve to make it more expensive for me (and millions of others like me) to go to work. It's not going to lessen people's need to drive places. It's one more way that the government would decide who should be doing what, when, how often, and in what way. And Paul Kedrowsky thinks he's the one to decide this?
And I am not OK with taking over American companies, bleeding their few remaining resources and then saddling them with regulations that they can not possibly navigate. Yet Kedrowsky seems to be gloating about it. There's a word for people like that. 3704558.
Furthermore... (sorry, I usually write better the second time) this guy must not understand the concept of taxes. See, taxes are collected in order to pay for necessary goods and services, not so that someone can conduct their social engineering experiments with my family's already stretched finances. Such grand-scheme planning may or may not have the long-term effect that Kedrowsky hopes for, but the immediate financial impact to families like mine is almost certain.
This is why the concept of limited government is so important: to protect our freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from mini-tyrants having the authority to impose their pet projects with real consequences on the rest of us.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: Earlier this week the president announced tougher fuel economy and emissions standards for car and truck makers. The White House figures the new rules will save almost two billion barrels of oil over the next nine years and at the same time make it easier for us to breathe. Seems like common sense. But commentator Paul Kedrosky says good economic sense is something else again.
PAUL KEDROSKY: After years of auto companies saying that higher fuel-efficiency standards would bankrupt them, the Obama administration figured out a fix. Cleverly, it wiped out the auto industry first, and then raised fuel standards.
Yeah, that sure was clever of him. (If you're not yet sure if Kedrosky is seriously patting Obama on the back for this or just being tongue-in-cheek, keep reading. It'll become crystal clear in a minute.)
The right calls the standards an unnecessary intrusion into the economic lives of average Americans. If people want to buy massive, steel-clad gunboats and race down highways at top speed, getting 5 miles per gallon, all the while padding the pockets of America-hating fuel exporters, then that should be their right.
Or, God forbid, buying a vehicle big enough to carry their larger-than-1.2-kids-per-family-family around anywhere...
Environmental sorts on the left have complaints too. Some are already saying that 39 miles per gallon is not high enough. They point to Europe, where it is common now for many popular cars to get 50 miles per gallon and more.
But a more compelling criticism comes from recent economics research. To an economist, most things come down to price. A car that gets 39 miles per gallon is cheaper per mile to drive than a car that gets 18 miles per gallon. Make iPods cheaper, and more get sold. Make the cost per mile of driving cheaper, and people will drive more.
OK, there's your first mistake, Houdini. Maybe people will just pocket the money they save to pay their BILLS! He also plays bait and switch by comparing buying a low-cost product that, once bought, is essentially free to operate with buying another product with a highly-inflated purchase price that runs more efficiently but is still expensive to maintain. Genius.
How much more? Research says it may be as much as 10-20 percent. People may not loiter on their way to work, but they will make more discretionary trips with their high-efficiency cars. And that has other effects too, like more highway congestion, and even more accidents and deaths.
More doom and gloom. But Kedrosky changes the subject here because more driving in a more fuel-efficient vehicle is still better for the enviro-crazies. Don't go out to the store to buy milk for the children, dear, that's bound to cause an accident and kill someone. (But wouldn't that in the end mean one less driver on the road polluting the environment?)
Most sane people, even economists, want more efficient cars on the roads. But is the best way to do it making cars cheaper to drive? To an economist, the answer is obvious: we need to make it more expensive to drive, not cheaper. The best way to do that? Raise fuel prices. Higher gas taxes will cause people to drive less, cause emissions to tumble and motivate companies to build and sell more efficient cars. Granted, it might not be the same auto companies doing it, but I think we're all OK with that.
IDIOT! How much discretionary driving does this guy think people do? As far as I know, the Miracle Mile is long gone, cruise nights are quaint and far between, and the driving for driving's sake like in car commercials only happens in car commercials.
I drive from home to work, to the store and back home. My commute is almost an hour. This bonehead proposal would only serve to make it more expensive for me (and millions of others like me) to go to work. It's not going to lessen people's need to drive places. It's one more way that the government would decide who should be doing what, when, how often, and in what way. And Paul Kedrowsky thinks he's the one to decide this?
And I am not OK with taking over American companies, bleeding their few remaining resources and then saddling them with regulations that they can not possibly navigate. Yet Kedrowsky seems to be gloating about it. There's a word for people like that. 3704558.
Furthermore... (sorry, I usually write better the second time) this guy must not understand the concept of taxes. See, taxes are collected in order to pay for necessary goods and services, not so that someone can conduct their social engineering experiments with my family's already stretched finances. Such grand-scheme planning may or may not have the long-term effect that Kedrowsky hopes for, but the immediate financial impact to families like mine is almost certain.
This is why the concept of limited government is so important: to protect our freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from mini-tyrants having the authority to impose their pet projects with real consequences on the rest of us.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
While other bloggers hold their nose in the air,
I am not above the occasional sophomoric cheap shot.
When I saw this picture above, I couldn't help but think of this one.
I'll get to what he said at Notre Dame later on...
Friday, May 8, 2009
Did you ever have to paint around furniture?
In our attempt to cash in on house prices and interest rates being as low as dirt right now, we're trying to get our sardine can ready to sell so we can upgrade it to a shoe. For that reason, blogging is very light lately, as every waking moment at home follows in this regular pattern: compound, sand, paint; compound, sand, paint; compound, sand, paint. The fun part is painting without taking the furniture out of the room, and making sure not to drip paint on the carpet beyond the hastily laid out dropcloth, while holding on to the bed's headboard and not losing balance, stepping into the tray of fresh antique white paint; meanwhile trying to scratch the itch on my nose, as I'm allergic to the dust jackalopes I've kicked up under where the bed used to be...
Say a prayer for me.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Today in History
As a Catholic I don't think it's appropriate to celebrate it, but today in 1945 Adolf Hitler's last thoughts included the Soviet Army, Eva Braun, cyanide, and a handgun.
What do Joe Biden and Judge John T. Noonan have in common?
They are both famous this year for receiving the honor for which they weren't the first choice.
A Pertinent question with Prom season coming up...
Will the Plan B pill be available for purchase by 17-year old guys, too?
Alternate post title: "Guys, why store those bulky condoms in your pocket when you can carry these little pills?"
Alternate post title: "Guys, why store those bulky condoms in your pocket when you can carry these little pills?"
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Review of Heaven's Song
Well, I'm finally getting around to an earlier promise here and here to review Heaven's Song, by Christopher West.
There have been few books I've read recently that have proved to be so captivating as this one. Heaven's Song explores John Paul II's Theology of the Body in light of two recently discovered sermons on the topic not previously published in English.
The book is in two basic parts, the first linking Mary with the beloved in Song of Songs and showing how the poetic and erotic language of that book is essential to understanding the passion with which God loves us and wants to be united with us. That unity came through Mary.
The second part of the book centers on the marriage preparation of Tobias and Sara in the book of Tobit and shows how, step by step, our suffering, united to the suffering of Christ on the cross, enables us to love in the marital bond in the fullness of Christ. Our humility towards our own sinfulness and our complete gift of self to one another give us the power in Jesus to live a love stern as death.
This treatment refines and makes more complete this understanding of human love, human sexuality, and God's eternal plan, but I would recommend that those unfamiliar with JPII's Theology of the Body not start with this book. TOB for Beginners or TOB Explained will provide a more foundational context for Heaven's Song.
We as Catholics need to understand better and live better God's plan for human sexuality. God created this gift for freedom, but mankind always tries to pervert this gift, which leads to self-slavery.
Heaven's Song is a must-read for those preparing for marriage, as well as married couples who wish to grow deeper in their love for God and for one another, and who wish to better know what a great sex life is supposed to be.
There have been few books I've read recently that have proved to be so captivating as this one. Heaven's Song explores John Paul II's Theology of the Body in light of two recently discovered sermons on the topic not previously published in English.
The book is in two basic parts, the first linking Mary with the beloved in Song of Songs and showing how the poetic and erotic language of that book is essential to understanding the passion with which God loves us and wants to be united with us. That unity came through Mary.
The second part of the book centers on the marriage preparation of Tobias and Sara in the book of Tobit and shows how, step by step, our suffering, united to the suffering of Christ on the cross, enables us to love in the marital bond in the fullness of Christ. Our humility towards our own sinfulness and our complete gift of self to one another give us the power in Jesus to live a love stern as death.
This treatment refines and makes more complete this understanding of human love, human sexuality, and God's eternal plan, but I would recommend that those unfamiliar with JPII's Theology of the Body not start with this book. TOB for Beginners or TOB Explained will provide a more foundational context for Heaven's Song.
We as Catholics need to understand better and live better God's plan for human sexuality. God created this gift for freedom, but mankind always tries to pervert this gift, which leads to self-slavery.
Heaven's Song is a must-read for those preparing for marriage, as well as married couples who wish to grow deeper in their love for God and for one another, and who wish to better know what a great sex life is supposed to be.
Friday, April 24, 2009
For the fifth time...
Lila Rose exposes Planned Parenthood staff covering up statutory rape in order to provide abortion services, despite state laws to protect young girls.
Nope, no problem here. No investigation necessary.
And at Creative Minority Report, the story goes that PP is now trying to smear Lila Rose, calling her a liar, despite the full and unedited video she has provided to legal authorities.
Nope, no problem here. No investigation necessary.
And at Creative Minority Report, the story goes that PP is now trying to smear Lila Rose, calling her a liar, despite the full and unedited video she has provided to legal authorities.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
follow up to abortion question
Hello Fr. A.,
Ave Maria.
I have a question regarding a debate I've been having online about abortion and was wondering if you could help me. The discussion turned at one point to the example of the little girl in Brazil which led to the general question about exceptions for saving the life of the mother. I did my best to explain the principle of double-effect (which even to me sounds a little like splitting hairs, but it does make sense, so onward) and used the example of ectopic pregnancy/ salpingectomy, but I think I got back up against a wall when posed with the scenario of when the life of the mother is in imminent danger and the baby must come out, even if it is unable to survive outside the womb. It seems to me that this is morally reasonable (if the mother dies, both die; but if at least one can be saved, we would have the duty to do so), but I couldn't help but wonder. If the baby must be removed with the intention of saving the mother, isn't the direct action still an abortion? The duty to save the life is there, I believe, but how do we explain this without undermining the definition of a direct, intentional abortion being morally forbidden? In other words, don't both aspects have to be negated for double-effect? And how do I explain this? Please help!
I'm still not quite resolved on this, though. It would seem that we come to the conclusion that it is not permissible to surgically remove the baby, but it is permissible if we take the whole uterus with it. I have to admit, that's a hard pill to swallow.
But I come back to Fr. A's assertion that such cases where direct abortion to save the life of the mother are rarely, if ever, necessary. I believe he is right, but in the case at hand of the girl in Brazil, there are too many unanswered questions and other options for us to be able to answer this question with certainty.
My feeble fence-sitting on such a hard case, as Fr. A called it, is a luxury I can now afford, but I pray for all those faced with such a decision. God grant them guidance, and grant us all mercy.
I'd appreciate any help on this from my fellow pro-lifers.
Ave Maria.
I have a question regarding a debate I've been having online about abortion and was wondering if you could help me. The discussion turned at one point to the example of the little girl in Brazil which led to the general question about exceptions for saving the life of the mother. I did my best to explain the principle of double-effect (which even to me sounds a little like splitting hairs, but it does make sense, so onward) and used the example of ectopic pregnancy/ salpingectomy, but I think I got back up against a wall when posed with the scenario of when the life of the mother is in imminent danger and the baby must come out, even if it is unable to survive outside the womb. It seems to me that this is morally reasonable (if the mother dies, both die; but if at least one can be saved, we would have the duty to do so), but I couldn't help but wonder. If the baby must be removed with the intention of saving the mother, isn't the direct action still an abortion? The duty to save the life is there, I believe, but how do we explain this without undermining the definition of a direct, intentional abortion being morally forbidden? In other words, don't both aspects have to be negated for double-effect? And how do I explain this? Please help!
Mike,
The principle is that no harm may be directly done to the innocent life. The position of the Church is that there are no exceptions for direct abortion, even in the case where the mother's life is in danger. Indirect abortion is permitted only when there is a proportionate reason, namely, when the life of the mother is in danger. Indirect abortion would include such things as the removal of the womb with the child intact in the case of uterine cancer, or the "salpingectomy" (which I presume is the sectioning of the fallopian tube with the embryo in it) in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. Based on the principle the "salpingectomy" would be permissible, but a chemical abortion would not, even if it is safer for the woman and if it more likely to leave her fertility intact.
Catholic tradition resolves moral questions on the basis of principle, because morality is, in fact objective. The Church always distinquishes, and rightly so. When people who are testing our moral system pose hard cases, they take the application of the principle to the smallest detail and to the most fine distinctions. Those distinctions may seem to be paper thin, but they are nevertheless consistent with the prinicple. People will take the hard case and test the principle, in the case of direct abortion when the mother might otherwise die, asserting that its application is heartless; however, once the coherence of our moral system is thus compromised, it becomes the pretext for resolving any case that one deems "hard" without a principled solution.
In fact direct abortion is rarely, if ever, necessary to save the life of a mother, and the distinctions that are involved are not as thin as our opponents assert. Those opponents often fail to distinguish between a physical act and a moral act. Since there seems to be little difference, physically, between indirect and direct abortion, especially when the end result is the same, they deem the moral act to be the same in each case; however, morality is not determined by physical factors but by metaphyscal ones: object (nature) of the act; intention and circumstances. In the case of direct abortion, namely, the direct and intentional killing of an innocent child, regardless of its physical similarities with justifiable indirect abortion, the object of the act is intrinsically evil and may never be done.
I hope this helps.
Father A
I'm still not quite resolved on this, though. It would seem that we come to the conclusion that it is not permissible to surgically remove the baby, but it is permissible if we take the whole uterus with it. I have to admit, that's a hard pill to swallow.
But I come back to Fr. A's assertion that such cases where direct abortion to save the life of the mother are rarely, if ever, necessary. I believe he is right, but in the case at hand of the girl in Brazil, there are too many unanswered questions and other options for us to be able to answer this question with certainty.
My feeble fence-sitting on such a hard case, as Fr. A called it, is a luxury I can now afford, but I pray for all those faced with such a decision. God grant them guidance, and grant us all mercy.
I'd appreciate any help on this from my fellow pro-lifers.
Mary's baptism and other busy-ness
Well, blogging has been light lately because my workload is never constant. Sometimes I'm twiddling my thumbs; right now I'm drowning in work. It's a good problem to have these days, so I'm not complaining.
However, this past weekend, on Divine Mercy Sunday, my daughter was welcomed into the Body of Christ. Above is the moment she was cleansed of Original Sin.
It is an awesome responsibility to know that my wife and I are entrusted with four little souls whose destiny is to be with the Father forever. We are all called to be saints; we specifically are called to mold our saints. Please pray for us to have the strength, love, and humility to be faithful in our mission. God bless.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The tragedy in Brazil
a repost from a comment on CatholicVote.com:
so last night I said this: "abortion, as the direct and intentional killing of an unborn person, is never morally acceptable. It can never be justified as the lesser of two evils," which didn't sit right with you guys. Let me make it clear first that though I said it is not morally acceptable, I never said that the alternative is easy. I'm not minimizing the dangers and risks associated here, nor am I dismissing the trouble brought about in this family (of the girl in Brazil).
That said, we have to understand that the reason abortion is wrong has nothing to do with the external circumstances that surround the decision. It is wrong because it is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being. A baby in the womb is not an aggressor. The CCC references that MA posted explain that in the act of defending one's life against an aggressor, one may be justified in using force, even deadly force, if it is necessary to fend off the attack (though if deadly force is not necessary, it is not morally justified). But a baby in the womb's only "crime" is existence, not violent assault. There are, as MA pointed out, certain circumstances that pose a problem, such as tubal (ectopic) pregnancy, etc.
Let me step back for a moment. The Church's teaching on this doesn't pit the life of the mother against the life of her child, as many confuse the issue to be. The Church doesn't tell women that they have to die and their child has to live. The intention must be to protect the lives of both persons to the extent possible.
But what about ectopic pregnancy? In such a case, the zygote has implanted in the fallopian tube instead of in the uterus, thus threatening to rupture the tube and lead to the death of the mother. This is where the notion of double-effect comes in. When I said above that abortion is the direct and intentional killing of the unborn baby, I wasn't adding those modifiers to be emphatic. "Direct" means that the action undergone is the actual killing of the baby, "intentional" means that the purpose is a dead baby primarily, for whatever other reasons may be included. So what? Well, in the case of ectopic pregnancy, one can wait for a while to see if the baby miscarries on its own, which is somewhat common. The only other morally acceptable option is called salpingectomy, in which the section of the fallopian tube with the implanted zygote is removed.
You might be thinking to yourself that I'm splitting hairs here, but I'm not-- The direct action here is not the killing of the baby, but the removal of the fallopian tube, which should it burst, will kill both the mother and the child. And the intention is not to kill the child, but to save the life of the mother. While one effect of the procedure is the death of the child, it is an unintended effect of the procedure to save the life of the mother. Therefore, if another procedure could be developed where an ectopic pregnancy could be treated without the child dying (such as removing the zygote and helping it to implant correctly in the uterus), then salpingectomy would no longer be the morally acceptable option. (I had a friend that this happened to.)
Now, how does this apply to the girl in Brazil? Let's point out that we don't know all the facts, so we have to consider a few possibilities. The doctors were saying that this 9-year old girl's body could not possibly carry these babies to term. I won't refute that, but I also imagine that if that's the case then they might very likely miscarry anyway. If they didn't miscarry, might they be able to grow long enough so that they could be taken out by cesarian section and cared for in an incubator or other technological treatments? The point is that I doubt that this girl was in IMMEDIATE danger, like say, it's Tuesday and if they don't get these babies out Tuesday night she'll die. But let's consider that she didn't miscarry and the babies did put her in serious imminent danger; then they could be removed and any possible steps taken to care for them must be taken. If they die despite medical efforts to save their lives, you must recognize that that is VERY different from intentionally killing them.
Now some of you have said that he decision is easy, that to save your kids, you would choose abortion. I hope the decision is not that easy, because we're talking about the decision to kill your grandkids. If it were my decision, I would do whatever was necessary to save all their lives, if possible. "But the doctors said she would die." Maybe, but as much respect as I have for the medical profession, they don't know everything either, nor do they have a crystal ball to tell the future. In fact, doctors told my mother she should have aborted me just on the POSSIBILITY that I might have had Downs Syndrome. My father should have been dead five years ago, except that he had a miraculous healing from asbestos cancer. Why do we have so little faith not to do all that we can to allow God to solve this in His way? (I know some of you won't accept that point, but why rush anyway?)
I've also been called naive for my position; we can't always look to the textbook, etc. But if we don't study the textbook how can we expect to pass the test? If we don't understand these moral choices and how to come to moral decisions, how can we expect to come to the right decision when faced with difficulty in real life?
Again, abortion didn't magically become morally right because the mother is a young girl. Expedient? Yes. Tempting? I'll even admit that. But right? No. If abortion is wrong, it is wrong because of what it is.
One last point--more outrage and anger have been expressed over the fact that the Church is being consistent to say that abortion is wrong, even in this case, than is being expressed over the fact that some jerk raped a 9 year-old girl.
so last night I said this: "abortion, as the direct and intentional killing of an unborn person, is never morally acceptable. It can never be justified as the lesser of two evils," which didn't sit right with you guys. Let me make it clear first that though I said it is not morally acceptable, I never said that the alternative is easy. I'm not minimizing the dangers and risks associated here, nor am I dismissing the trouble brought about in this family (of the girl in Brazil).
That said, we have to understand that the reason abortion is wrong has nothing to do with the external circumstances that surround the decision. It is wrong because it is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being. A baby in the womb is not an aggressor. The CCC references that MA posted explain that in the act of defending one's life against an aggressor, one may be justified in using force, even deadly force, if it is necessary to fend off the attack (though if deadly force is not necessary, it is not morally justified). But a baby in the womb's only "crime" is existence, not violent assault. There are, as MA pointed out, certain circumstances that pose a problem, such as tubal (ectopic) pregnancy, etc.
Let me step back for a moment. The Church's teaching on this doesn't pit the life of the mother against the life of her child, as many confuse the issue to be. The Church doesn't tell women that they have to die and their child has to live. The intention must be to protect the lives of both persons to the extent possible.
But what about ectopic pregnancy? In such a case, the zygote has implanted in the fallopian tube instead of in the uterus, thus threatening to rupture the tube and lead to the death of the mother. This is where the notion of double-effect comes in. When I said above that abortion is the direct and intentional killing of the unborn baby, I wasn't adding those modifiers to be emphatic. "Direct" means that the action undergone is the actual killing of the baby, "intentional" means that the purpose is a dead baby primarily, for whatever other reasons may be included. So what? Well, in the case of ectopic pregnancy, one can wait for a while to see if the baby miscarries on its own, which is somewhat common. The only other morally acceptable option is called salpingectomy, in which the section of the fallopian tube with the implanted zygote is removed.
You might be thinking to yourself that I'm splitting hairs here, but I'm not-- The direct action here is not the killing of the baby, but the removal of the fallopian tube, which should it burst, will kill both the mother and the child. And the intention is not to kill the child, but to save the life of the mother. While one effect of the procedure is the death of the child, it is an unintended effect of the procedure to save the life of the mother. Therefore, if another procedure could be developed where an ectopic pregnancy could be treated without the child dying (such as removing the zygote and helping it to implant correctly in the uterus), then salpingectomy would no longer be the morally acceptable option. (I had a friend that this happened to.)
Now, how does this apply to the girl in Brazil? Let's point out that we don't know all the facts, so we have to consider a few possibilities. The doctors were saying that this 9-year old girl's body could not possibly carry these babies to term. I won't refute that, but I also imagine that if that's the case then they might very likely miscarry anyway. If they didn't miscarry, might they be able to grow long enough so that they could be taken out by cesarian section and cared for in an incubator or other technological treatments? The point is that I doubt that this girl was in IMMEDIATE danger, like say, it's Tuesday and if they don't get these babies out Tuesday night she'll die. But let's consider that she didn't miscarry and the babies did put her in serious imminent danger; then they could be removed and any possible steps taken to care for them must be taken. If they die despite medical efforts to save their lives, you must recognize that that is VERY different from intentionally killing them.
Now some of you have said that he decision is easy, that to save your kids, you would choose abortion. I hope the decision is not that easy, because we're talking about the decision to kill your grandkids. If it were my decision, I would do whatever was necessary to save all their lives, if possible. "But the doctors said she would die." Maybe, but as much respect as I have for the medical profession, they don't know everything either, nor do they have a crystal ball to tell the future. In fact, doctors told my mother she should have aborted me just on the POSSIBILITY that I might have had Downs Syndrome. My father should have been dead five years ago, except that he had a miraculous healing from asbestos cancer. Why do we have so little faith not to do all that we can to allow God to solve this in His way? (I know some of you won't accept that point, but why rush anyway?)
I've also been called naive for my position; we can't always look to the textbook, etc. But if we don't study the textbook how can we expect to pass the test? If we don't understand these moral choices and how to come to moral decisions, how can we expect to come to the right decision when faced with difficulty in real life?
Again, abortion didn't magically become morally right because the mother is a young girl. Expedient? Yes. Tempting? I'll even admit that. But right? No. If abortion is wrong, it is wrong because of what it is.
One last point--more outrage and anger have been expressed over the fact that the Church is being consistent to say that abortion is wrong, even in this case, than is being expressed over the fact that some jerk raped a 9 year-old girl.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
