Open Letter to US Senator Mikulski (D-MD)

Back in 2008, I visited US senior Senator Mikulski's office to present ideas about FOCA.

Below is a series of inquiries about a quote from Sen. Mikulski found here that was very peculiar.

"Now, abortion is never and never should be used as a tool for family planning." -Sen. Mikulski

First I wrote this via email:
---

Ms. [Medical Staffer],

I just read a speech given by Sen. Mikulski on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (at http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=81192&keyword=abortion&phrase=&contain= ). She said, "Now, abortion is never and never should be used as a tool for family planning." Could you let me know what this really means in layman terms? According to the Senator, when should abortion be used if not for family planning? The vast majority (>>50%, not ready/cannot afford baby) of abortions are used for family planning. I am confused about the Senator's position. Please clarify.

Thank you,
[gbm3]
Baltimore, MD

---

I received this politically correct response via email.
---

Dear [gbm3]:

Thanks for getting in touch with me. It's nice to hear from you.

I appreciate knowing of your opposition to abortion. I have given the abortion issue very serious consideration. As someone who represents such a diverse constituency, I support respecting the individual conscience, so that each woman can decide for herself whether and when to have a child. That means that I also support the rights of medical students and doctors to choose whether to perform abortions.

I also support a ban on all post‑viability abortions except where necessary to save the woman's life or to protect her from a serious and debilitating threat to her physical health. I voted for a bipartisan bill which would have done just this, and I am disappointed that this alternative was not passed by the Senate. I am disappointed because this measure was built on common ground which reflected the views of the American people. [Is this FOCA???]

In my view, abortion should only be an option of last resort. We need to concentrate on the prevention of unintended pregnancies ‑‑ from support for abstinence programs for teenagers to support for family planning information and services.

Again, thanks for contacting me. Please let me know if I can be of help to you in the future.

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator

Responding to your message
Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:48 AM

---

I wrote this in reply to the office comment form:
---

(1) "Now, abortion is never and never should be used as a tool for family planning." ( http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=81192&keyword=abortion&phrase=&contain= )

(2) "As someone who represents such a diverse constituency, I support respecting the individual conscience, so that each woman can decide for herself whether and when to have a child."

Senator Mikulski,

I originally contacted you and your staff to clarify the first statement above that was voiced by you on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (regarding what "a tool for family planning" meant).

As a reply, the second statement was sent by you and your staff.

I am now more confused than before my first inquiry. If abortion is never to be used for family planning, how can it be said that a woman can decide between bearing a child or terminating that child once s/he is conceived after fertilization? (A woman is pregnant if and only if she is bearing a child after fertilization.)

I know you are a champion against human trafficking, or the slave trade. Consider two statements that would not make sense on the 30th anniversary of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857):

"Now, working a slave is never and never should be used as a tool for farming or industry."; and

"As someone who represents such a diverse constituency, I support respecting the individual conscience, so that each plantation or industrial owner can decide for himself whether and when to own a slave."

I agree with your statement that "[ ] abortion is never and never should be used as a tool for family planning." Viability, skin color genetics, nor nationality of a preborn boy or girl should be criteria whether abortion is to be used.

I agree that "abortions [can be used] where necessary to save the woman's life or to protect her from a serious and debilitating threat to her physical health" as a compromise, but abortion, like human trafficking or slavery should be outlawed nationally (even in Southern States of the Union).

Instead of a compromise, consider changing your position on this most pressing issue of our time by legislatively limiting abortion only "where necessary to save the woman's life or to protect her from a serious and debilitating threat to her physical health", whether the preborn human is viable or not?


As a final note, please consider Francis Beckwith's pro-life position in Defending Life (p. 57):

1. The unborn [I prefer preborn] entity, from the moment of conception [or fertilization, depending on the conception definition], is a full-fledged member of the human community.

2. It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.

3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.

4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.

I encourage you and your staff to read Mr. Beckwith's book.

Sincerely,
[gbm3]
Baltimore, MD

---

I wonder if anyone will join me in writing Sen. Mikulski to try to outlaw abortion?

Zygotic Inquiry V

This is the last post in a series (started here) of an email conversation about beginning of life issues.
---

Hello,

Thank you for writing back so promptly. I understand if such a timely response will not be forthcoming.

I will contact the researchers regarding my morula question. I'll let you know what I find out (after all the holidays).

You mention that you do not have "a checklist" for rendering an answer for the moral worth of a human, ie a person.

However, at the end of your last response you assert, "[I]t is impossible for us to reconcile or differences on this issue once we move beyond the black and white of what is observable and testable."

What observable and testable criteria are to be shown? What is the purpose of these observable and testable criteria? ("Brain activity"? What specific activity(ies)?)

I assert that these observable and testable criteria of which you speak, whatever they (it) are (is), will by necessity require you to make a moral or metaphysical determination of whether a human has moral worth, ie, s/he is not to be killed.

My criteria is the capacity for sentient cognition, not the actual realization, if ever, of these capacities, but the capacity itself. I'm glad you brought up the example of "adults with severe mental handicaps [that] may have cognitive abilities below those of a healthy infant." I have a nephew who probably won't mentally reach beyond 9 mo. However, since he is the son of my sister and brother-in-law who are human persons with the same capacity, he is a person with moral worth who should not be killed for any reason.

Without your specific definition of a person with moral worth (who should not be killed for any reason, save self defense in clear and present danger), I cannot go forward with that part of our mind opening dialog (I thank you for being so civil).

Good day,
gbm3
---

[Extra email]
Hello [ThiZ],

A while back, you wrote:

"No, I'm actually ok with embryonic stem cells too. There are methods of removing cells from a morula in a way which then allows the main body of cells to continue development. The morula then becomes a blastula, ready for implantation and fetal development, and the cells which have been removed can be grown as a culture composed entirely of undifferentiated, pulripotent cells. It's a win-win if you ask me, but most people who support one side or the other just hear the term 'embryonic stem cells' and stop paying attention when anyone tries to explain further."

I looked up some references for further information before I contact scientists directly. Are the following references relevent towards the procedure of which you write above regarding obtaining ESC from morulas? Which articles are not relevant (and why)?

http://wf-f.org/OAR_StemCells.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec06/stemcells_08-24.html
http://www.cbhd.org/content/%E2%80%9Cethical%E2%80%9D-embryonic-stem-cell-research
http://media.www.lewisflyer.com/media/storage/paper638/news/2009/02/11/News/The-Church.And.Stem.Cell.Research-3623523.shtml

Thank you for your time,
gbm3
---

I'm sorry for not getting back to you sooner, and I apologize for this profuesly, but I will not be able to continue to communicate with you on this subject. I am not qualified to give your questions the treatment they deserve. I am a science fan, and a student, and while I have my own opinions, I am not an activist for either side. I'm having a difficult time restarting this blog after a few incidents last semester, and I cannot afford the time or energy to play devils advocate for subjects for which I am not entirely devoted.
I would, however, like to thank you for your courtesy in our conversations, despite our differing opinions, I am truly grateful for that.

-[ThiZ]
---

[[My last email:]

Hello [ThiZ],

Well, I'm sorry to read that you're not going forward on this fruitful dialog (I like to read your point of view). I hope you all the best in your studies and in all that you do. If you feel like starting this conversation up again, by all means do so.

Thank you and God bless you,
[gbm3]

Zygotic Inquiry IV

This is forth in a series (started here) of an email conversation about beginning of life issues.
---

Hello,

Way back, I thought it prudent to wait a while before responding to your last email ("I may not have as much time to write long emails after tomorrow").

I would like to first take up the issue of personhood (again). You said, "I do not believe it is possible to say 'this is a person and that is not' based on legally-decided criteria, but I will admit I do not believe a zygote is the same as a child, it has the potential to become one." I totally agree that a zygote is not a child in the same way that a 2 mo. infant is not the same as an adult (say, >30 yrs). There are criteria of being a human that are met by the adult that the infant cannot realize in actuality. An infant cannot reproduce since the reproductive organs do not function yet. The infant cannot actually communicate about last week. Yet, the infant has the potential to become an adult.

I don't think there can be any argument about the above observations, but do you really mean to say that the "[human zygote (with a gender assigned at fertilization)] has the potential to become *a person*"? In other words, are you saying that an infant has moral worth that needs to be protected and the human zygote potentially has moral worth which s/he does not have at his/her level of development? Please advise on these important questions for my understanding of your position (I'm still not clear, sorry).

At this point, I would like to posit an important distinction between potential and capacity, or passive potential and active potential. I pile of metal and parts has a passive potential to become a car since outside forces must do the work to assemble the car. A monarch caterpillar has the active potential to become a monarch butterfly since the monarch itself causes itself internally to obtain wings. Active potential is a peculiarly particular aspect of biological systems. A monarch will never have the capacity of talking about last week while a human does not have the capacity to fly with wings.

"By binary system I do indeed mean that I do not see life as a black and white situation. Before you formed a brain, your cells were alive, yet when your brain dies, 'you' will be considered dead, even though many cells in your body will still be functional. It is an uncommon position, I do not expect anyone to sympathize with it, and I understand many people actually find it somewhat unpleasant."

This phrase curiously mixes beginning of life ideas with end of life ones. On its face, it seems (probably mistakenly in confusion) that if one does not have a brain, s/he is dead. Further, a zygote actually is forming a brain from fertilization in that the zygote has the information (programmed) to form the brain internally. However, objectively the human zygote is not dead since it is constantly creating by itself the systems of the body including the brain. The human without a brain with an active potential of human cognizance has already lived its life to its conscious end (although s/he still has worth / is a person; see below).

The criterion of having a functioning brain (human level cognition) is a troubling one since in a metaphysical sense, if one does not have this, one is not a person (moral worth attached as a human). (I disagree that this is "an uncommon position".)

Consider the example of a reversibly comatose human. S/he does not have human level cognition in actuality, but they have the active potential, or capacity to gain it in a finite time. This state is analogous to a human zygote: the human zygote has the capacity to gain human level cognition in a finite time. The fact that one has an actual brain is irrelevant since they both have the same potential (finite time needed) to gain human level cognition. Of course this assumes that the reversibly comatose human has moral worth, or is a person.

So, please permit me to deal my cards. To have moral worth as a person does not come down to what one does (human level cognition), but what one is (capacity for human level cognition). As soon as a human zygote is created with a gender (no longer gametes of sperm or egg; "fertilized egg" is a misnomer since an egg has no gender), they must be protected as every other person must be protected.

"Whether or not abortion is made illegal again, it will continue, if you believe it can be stopped by purely legal means than you are doing nothing but perpetuating an illusion. People will still be able to obtain the drugs and even the procedure itself via illegal means.

"As a religious person, and therefore a student of the nature of humanity, do you really believe humans, especially scared, desperate ones, wouldn't do these things, just because the government threatened them?"

Even though it may seem convoluted in some way, can't your observation be said about all crimes? As a Christian, I realize all people sin, some to criminal proportions. However, the rule of law set by our US and state constitutions must be observed unless they be ignored and lay the path toward anarchy and destroy the common good.

Obviously not all crimes carry the same weight in penalty. However, crimes against humanity (even if technically legal; I suggest reading Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html ) cannot be condoned by any civilized society including ours.

Slavery was once legal. Now, even though its still illegal, slavery/human trafficking is still going on right under our noses in this country. Should it become legal again? Of course not.
[break]

About the ESCR ("morula-derived stem cells"), none of the articles mention what is done with the embryos after they survive the taking of some of their cells.

Well, I'm done for now. Let me know what you think.

BTW, I noticed you like debates on line. I didn't know if you saw this one: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09102308.html .

Good day,
gbm3
---

Mr. gmb3,

Thank you for waiting, my schedule has indeed been extremely full in recent weeks, and I am taking advantage of my Thanksgiving free time to respond to this message before I have to return to my previous schedule.

Before anything else, I would like to address your question about the morulas used during the research we discussed earlier. While I do not have an exact answer, I do know that many embryos are either re-frozen, or discarded. If you wish to know more, I suggest you contact the researchers themselves about the matter.

Regarding your position on personhood, I do not view the matter in the same way as you do. Nor do I, as you seem to insinuate with your comments regarding communication and reproductive ability, have some kind of check off list about whether or not something has a “moral worth”. Furthermore, while I do understand your analogies regarding the two types of potential you have outlined, I do not agree with your position that a potential brain is equal to that of an active one. I apologize for troubling you, but as someone who does not believe in the metaphysical, I have no evidence that there is any sort of consciousness or “anyone” in a given body if there is no brain activity.

You bring up the case of a reversibly comatose human, but not an irreversibly damaged one. If a person has been damaged to that extent, then I do believe that what has made them, them, is indeed dead. Furthermore, while the body that remains is human, there is no “person” inside. In the case of a reversibly comatose human, they are still functioning to a degree as to be visible to outside forces, perhaps not physically, but brain scans are fantastic sources of information, and there are obvious differences between someone in a vegetative state, and someone who is simply trapped. If moral worth is a matter of one’s capacity for human level cognition, then one is presented with a new problem as adults with severe mental handicaps may have cognitive abilities below those of a healthy infant.

Your conclusion that a zygote must be protected rests on the following propositions: that there is such a thing as moral worth, that people have moral worth, and that people are those members of homo sapiens who are capable (or will eventually be capable) of “human level cognition”. However, I do not agree with these propositions, as such I cannot accept the conclusion, nor will I be able to change your mind of the matters (not that I would ever intend to do so). I am grateful for having someone with whom to speak, and I hope I have helped you in some way, but it is impossible for us to reconcile or differences on this issue once we move beyond the black and white of what is observable and testable.

-ThiZ

Zygotic Inquiry III

This is third in a series (started here) of an email conversation about beginning of life issues.
---

Hello,

Could you please provide some resources for the [non-destructive?] ESCR procedure you describe below? I can't find any with ease. What happens to the embryonic human when the stem cell is extracted? Implanted into woman? Discarded? Dies (I assume not)?

It is refreshing to hear that you think the "personhood" concept is "patently ridiculous".

"Would you propose a woman who illegally purchases a morning-after pill, or has an abortion before organogenisis be punished in the same manner as a mother who killed her toddler?"

Abortion, the Pill, and the "morning-after pill" were once illegal. They can be again. When they were illegal before, the punishments were not equal for each crime against humanity. Further, the doctor usually received the punishment in accordance with the severity with the crime. Nonetheless, abortion was still a crime.

Even M. Sanger (founder of Pl. Parenthood) said, "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." and "...abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life.." (from "Margaret Sanger Was Against Abortion?")

"What about other organisms besides humans, is there something, in your opinion, that makes a [I assume "human"] fertilized egg "better" or more deserving of life, than an animal without [I assume you meant "with", not "without"] the sense of self-awereness?"

Actually, it's a human zygote. Calling it a "fertilized egg" is like calling you and me a "fertilized egg" at our current stages of devel. A human zygote is part of the human family, the animal (mature) is not. From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights<, "...the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..." "Binary system"? What do you mean by this (please clarify)? Either one is alive or dead? Black and white for morality/ethical nature of abortion/destructive ESCR? Thank you in advance for your reply.

gbm3
---

I am running low of time for today, so I apologize in advance for the inarticulate manner in which I will be attempting to answer your questions as soon as possible. I actually did mean "without" a sense of self-awareness. While the capacity for self-awareness if difficult to test in animals, it is impossible for it to exist in an embryo of any type before the creation of even the most rudimentary of neural systems. I do not look to any religious system OR man made entity such as the UN as my source of guidence about how to regard other living creatures. Whether or not abortion is made illegal again, it will continue, if you believe it can be stopped by purely legal means than you are doing nothing but perpetuating an illusion. People will still be able to obtain the drugs and even the procedure itself via illegal means. As a religious person, and therefore a student of the nature of humanity, do you really believe humans, especially scared, desperate ones, wouldn't do these things, just because the government threatened them? Here are links to four scientific papers addressing the topic of morula-derived stem cells:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109898906/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/303/5664/1669
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15670408
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120703181/abstract

By binary system I do indeed mean that I do not see life as a black and white situation. Before you formed a brain, your cells were alive, yet when your brain dies, "you" will be considered dead, even though many cells in your body will still be functional. It is an uncommon position, I do not expect anyone to sympathize with it, and I understand many people actually find it somewhat unpleasant.

Furthermore, you are twisting what I said in regards to "personhood" and while I apologize for any unintentional obfuscation on my part (I do not believe it is possible to say "this is a person and that is not" based on legally-decided criteria, but I will admit I do not believe a zygote is the same as a child, it has the potential to become one.) I must also state that I am somewhat taken aback by your manner of drawing attention to the matter.

Again, please forgive my terseness, and I thank you for being so civil, despite our different backgrounds. I look forward to hearing from you again, but I must also warn you that I may not have as much time to write long emails after tomorrow.

-ThiZ

Zygotic Inquiry II

This is second in a series (started here) of an email conversation about beginning of life issues.
---

Hello,

Thank you for your response.

I did hear about the prenatal short-term memory from a site I visit daily: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09071602.html.

Re. ESCR, you seem to indicate that you are only for adult stem cell research ("just" stem cells) and against embryonic SCR. Correct?

Re. abortion, you are against it unless external factors (not related to the preborn human's self-perpetuating development) should potentially suppress the preborn human's "brilliant" future. Correct?

Do you believe that a human starts as a non-person and then turns into a person at some point? (person=human with value/worth: to be protected by laws) If so, what are criteria(n) for personhood (when is a human a person)?

Thank you for answering my questions in advance.

Good day,
gbm3
---

No, I'm actually ok with embryonic stem cells too. There are methods of removing cells from a morula in a way which then allows the main body of cells to continue development. The morula then becomes a blastula, ready for implantation and fetal development, and the cells which have been removed can be grown as a culture composed entirely of undifferentiated, pulripotent cells. It's a win-win if you ask me, but most people who support one side or the other just hear the term "embryonic stem cells" and stop paying attention when anyone tries to explain further.
What a waste.

As for your other topic, I am not of the mind that it matters what one believes about "personhood." Personally, I think that all things are transitional, but that means nothing to the legislative process. We, as a species, like to draw lines and put boxes around things, but nature doesn't work like that. There is no magical instant when something is transformed into something else, so trying to define what is a person and what is not is patently ridiculous. Even if abortion was illegal, people would still do it, and what then? Would you propose a woman who illegally purchases a morning-after pill, or has an abortion before organogenisis be punished in the same manner as a mother who killed her toddler?

What about other organisms besides humans, is there something, in your opinion, that makes a fertilized egg "better" or more deserving of life, than an animal without the sense of self-awereness?

I don't mean to be dramatic, but it truely is diffcult for me to understand those who see this, who see life itself, as a binary system, and I apologize for that handicap.

-ThiZ

Zygotic Inquiry I

Since I'm snowed in, I thought I would start a series of posts (now instead of later) that will consist of an email conversation I had with "ThiZ", an atheist who writes from Colorado (each post will begin with my email and end with hers). It regards beginning of human life issues, mainly abortion and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). I think it was a fruitful discussion in which I learned some new things about a unique perspective.

Enjoy! I surely did.
---

Hello,

I have a question: As a thinking person who used to be a zygote, do you think abortion and/or ESCR are immoral/unethical? (I didn't get a hit with an "abortion" search of your site.)

Thanks. [gbm3]
---

Greetings Mr. gbm3,

I apologize profusely for my tardiness, as you may have noticed by the great length between blog posts, I have been indisposed for several weeks.

My answer to your question is a rather complicated one, and worthy of discussion and perhaps a post of its own, however, I will attempt to give you the best quick answer I can.

I am a strong supporter of stem cell research, but only so long as the cells in question are just that, stem cells. I'm actually more upset when the created zygotes (human OR animal) are allowed to actually differentiate and grow, only to be killed because they are no longer useful.

Additionally, while I do advocate the use of the morning-after pill and do not believe abortion should be outlawed, I still wish it wasn't necessary. Yes, "necessary", certainly not under all circumstances, not even close, but I truly do believe there are times when there is no other option.

When I consider the actual processes of fetal development, I find it remarkable, beautiful even. I don't like to think of it being interrupted, not for any religious reasons, but simply because life itself, is so amazing. However, if there is a chance that a child, or an animal, will only experience pain when it enters this world, if would be unwanted, hurt, or abandoned, then I would rather see the whole thing stopped before it can even begin, because once it is, it's BRILLIANT.

If you want to see to fascinating studies regarding what we do as early as 30 weeks in, check out this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090715074924.htm from Science News. Also, here's an abstract about how we first learn taste for certain flavors: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/107/6/e88.

I hope this email has answered your questions, at least partially. If you have any more, please don't hesitate to write again. I hope you enjoy the articles

-ThiZ

Same-Sex Conversation

This week, I had a conversation with someone from the Episcopal Church. He has a family member that is a "woman priestess" (Christians in the Protestant Ecclesial Communities don't have valid sacramental ordinations). Obviously, he's not from the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), but the more liberal portion of the Anglican Communion (of which the Episcopal (U.S.) Church is a part, at least in the state of Maryland).

After he talked about some of his family swimming the Tiber (converting to Catholicism from the liberal "Christianity" of the Episcopal Church), we talked about the openly and practicing lesbian (I don't know her name) who is originally from Maryland that is to be newly "ordained" in the Episcopal conference of California. She would be the second practicing homosexual to be "ordained" Episcopal bishop behind Gene Robinson of New England.

We then got onto same-sex "marriage". His main point was that gay people were born gay, and we all have to accept it and not discriminate against them. Among other things I've said before (on Youtube etc.), I countered briefly that we are all born into sin (except for two people, Jesus and Mary (Immaculate Conception) via Catholic theology), implying that same-sex attraction was one among many sins.

Well, in New Jersey's Senate, of all places, this point about being born gay has come up again. From Lifesitenews.com:

Regina Griggs, director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), criticized the comparison of homosexuality to racial issues.

"Contrary to Bond's statement equating skin color with homosexual behavior, major scientific studies and mental health associations have stated homosexuality is not innate," said Griggs in a statement. "No replicated scientific study has found a gay gene, gay DNA, or gay center of the brain.

"Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. Many African-Americans have come out of homosexuality, proving sexual orientation can change, but skin color does not."

Further there are more testimonies at a Catholic Apostolate website that ministers to people with same-sex attraction, Courage Apostolate.

Well, if two thousand years of Tradition and the Bible (and current science) won't convince someone, I wonder what will?

(BTW, as far as I know the man with whom I was conversing does not have same-sex attraction and is married (without quotes) to a woman.)

Feast of the Holy Innocents

When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi. (Matthew 2:16)

Today is the Feast of the Holy Innocents during the season of Christmas (ends on the Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord [Jesus]). This is when children under King Herod's rule and "its vicinity" where killed because he didn't want another king to threaten his rule and his power.

This feast reminds me of the tragedies of abortion and miscarriage. I wrote the motet below because of the tragedy of miscarriage, but I also realized that while my wife and I mourned the pre-birth death of our son or daughter, millions of mothers voluntarily and directly cause the death of their preborn son or daughter for no reason other than inconvenience or their "own way". They are the modern King Herods.

Judging these mothers is not the purpose of this post; it's just to show that some things never change: we all sin and deserve its proper wage. However, thanks be to God for forgiveness through the blood of the Lamb, Jesus the Holy, Innocent Child we celebrate during this season.

The motet I wrote:

The Manhattan Declaration

I'm a Catholic signer along with many others of The Manhattan Declaration (summary and link below)

The summary from the website (link below):

The Manhattan Declaration
A Call of Christian Conscience

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Best OTAAAC Speech Ever

It's from Gov. Casey, Sr. Why can't junior live up to this?

Address by Governor Robert P. Casey
Delivered at the University of Notre Dame in 1995

Just a part of it...

Prior to 1973 [and Roe v. Wade] - just think about this for a minute - the laws of America reflected an overwhelming pro-life consensus that children before birth deserve the protection of the law. That consensus was a secular consensus. Those laws were not written by clerics, or in monasteries, or by the great organized religions of America. They were written by people who respected the truth. And that secular, pro-life consensus was both popular and national. And those two words are important. Popular because it came directly from the people, and national because it was not sectional or regional. It covered the entire country .. not unique to any one class or any region, but embodied in the laws of virtually every state in our nation. Not unique to our left or to the right, Democrats or Republicans, Liberals or conservatives, it represented the mainstream of America. My friends, it still is the mainstream of America, so don't be fooled.

The American people have not accepted abortion on demand. They've been hammering away for twenty-one years, but they're hammering a square peg into a round hole. It's like a bone in our throat. We can't swallow it. We cannot assimilate it. We cannot become comfortable with it, because it's fundamentally contrary to what we believe as Americans. It's in our history. Every poll shows a vast and growing unease with the abortion license and the industry that serves it. I believe a pro-life consensus already exists in America. And it grows every time someone looks in a sonogram.

USCCB Strongly Worded Marriage Document

On 17 November 2009, USCCB put out the document:

Marriage:
Love and Life in the Divine Plan
A Pastoral Letter of the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

There is some strong language regarding same-sex "marriage" and Natural Family Planning. Please see below.

About same-sex "marriage":

Today, advocacy for the legal recognition of various same-sex relationships is often equated with non-discrimination, fairness, equality, and civil rights. However, it is not unjust to oppose legal recognition of same-sex unions, because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. "The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it." To promote and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman is itself a matter of justice. In fact, it would be a grave injustice if the state ignored the unique and proper place of husbands and wives, the place of mothers and fathers, and especially the rights of children, who deserve from society clear guidance as they grow to sexual maturity. Indeed, without this protection the state would, in effect, intentionally deprive children of the right to a mother and father.
(original emphasis)

About Natural Family Planning (NFP; not the traditional rhythm method):

Natural family planning (NFP) methods represent authentic family planning. They can be used both to achieve and to postpone a pregnancy. NFP makes use of periodic abstinence from sexual intercourse based upon the observation of the woman‘s natural signs of fertility, in order to space births or to limit the number of children when there is a serious reason to do so. NFP methods require that couples learn, accept, and live with the wonders of how God made them. This is essentially different from contraception. (emphasis added)

Openness to procreation in the marital act involves "acknowledg[ing] that one is not the master of the sources of life." Using the technology of contraception is an attempt at such mastery. By contrast, couples using methods of NFP do nothing to alter the conjugal act. Rather, they abstain from conjugal relations during the portion of the woman‘s menstrual cycle when conception is most likely. This practice fosters in couples an attitude of respect and wonder in the face of human life, which is sacred. It also fosters profound respect for one‘s spouse, which is necessary for the mutual enjoyment of authentic intimacy.

As Pope John Paul II observes, any couple who tries to live out this openness to procreation will find that it requires a sacrificial love. At certain difficult times in life, the procreative meaning of marriage may seem to be at odds with the unitive meaning. Though this can in fact never be the case, preserving unity may in some cases require a considerable sacrifice by couples. They should take heart from St. Paul‘s assurance that God will not test us beyond what we can endure: "God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength; but with the trial he will also provide a way out, so that you may be able to bear it" (1 Cor 10:13).

I fully agree with the above analysis.

Phillies in It for Me

Last year, the Phils (Philadelphia Phillies baseball) were in the world series. Unfortunately, my back was in really bad shape last year, so when my first born's Godfather called me when they won the world series (he's a real, real fan), my wife had to tell him that I was asleep in bed.

I thought it was a once-in-a-lifetime-event that I would regret for a long time, if not the rest of my life.

Well, you know what, the Phils had to come back to the world series just so I could redeem myself and have a second chance to watch as much of every game as possible, no matter what the cost (yes, woman; I hope she doesn't read this).

Let's Go Phils! (I do root for the Phils no matter what game I'm attending including the Pirates and Orioles. I'm not weird, I'm a Phillies fan. )

(PS: my full-of-myself wonderings above have been inspired by the full-of-themselves players that we're watching. My wife and I really love Derek Jeeter's aura.)

Amateur Catholic Post

Below is listed at Amateur Catholic (14 May 2009). I spent a while writing it, so I thought I would post it on this blog:

Hello Amateur Catholics,

I would like to join your list of Amateur Catholics.

Who would you list among Professional Catholics? I would like to argue that there is only one Professional Catholic.

I would say that individuals who make a living from their Catholic writings and speaking engagements are professional writers and speakers. They just happen to know a bunch about Catholicism.

Many Catholic bloggers have the same knowledge and devotion to the Church and its teachings, but they just can't write or speak as well.

What we have in common is that we love the Church in which Jesus lives that is directed by the Holy Spirit for the Glory of God the Father. We are all Amateur Catholics, save one, since amateur means one who loves.

The only Professional Catholic is Jesus Himself. He worked in order to purchase the Church, us, at a very high price.

1 Cor 6:17-20
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians6.htm

But whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Avoid immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body.

One thing we Amateur Catholics do is glorify God in our bodies by blogging for Christ and His Church.

May we always work for our Lord in the whatever we do, say, think, or write.

Oh Lord,
save us all from the powers of hell,
and bring us together in Your Spirit,
Amen.

Wondering Zygote Emeritus
http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/

Anti-Personhood Arguments

Below, you'll find the written testimony against the Maryland personhood amendment (2009 MD HB 925).

If anyone is available for commenting against the con-side below, please by all means do so. I'll be doing it soon.

Thanks in advance.

Two New Motet Recordings

Below are two motets I recorded with some great singers.
Many thanks to Robin, Jamie, and Craig.
My musical CV/Resumé

Une Voix dans Rama

This Christmas Joy



Une voix dans Rama s'est fait entendre,
pleur et longue plainte:
(et d'abondants sanglots amers)
C'est Rachel pleurant ses enfants;
et elle ne veut pas qu'on la console,
car ils ne sont plus.

A voice was heard in Ramah,
sobbing and loud lamentation;
(and profuse bitter weeping)
Rachel weeping for her children,
and she would not be consoled,
since they were no more.

Matthew 2: 18

Bible verses taken from la Bible du Semeur. (text in parenthesis)
Copyright © 1992, 1999 Société Biblique Internationale. With permission.

Bible verses taken from la Bible de Jérusalem. (text without parenthesis)
Copyright © 2003 Les Éditions du Cerf. With permission.
---

This Christmas Joy
by Gerald McClain

In swaddling clothes to us arrive,
This Jesus Christ, our hopes revive!
In Marys arms, her little boy:
This tiny babe, death to destroy.

Was not in clouds, come down to reign
But from a girl in labor pain; (Revelation 12: 2)
Not in a throne was he to lay
But in a manger full of hay.

Welcome to Him from us today,
This Christmas joy, in us to stay.

From foreign lands their homage paid:
To Bethlehem, the star did say.
Fall prostrate where did shepherds come;
Laid out their gifts a costly sum.

Then in a dream: from Herods gaze,
Another path to home was made.
A furious king proclaimed forthright
That innocents shall loose their life.

Though in a world with evil known,
This Christmas joy, Love has outshone.

Give glory to the Fathers Son:
Begotten of the Holy One.
Though evry part is from the same,
The Word to us in flesh he came.

A preview of the coming years,
A final act to wipe all tears:
From nursling small to mature man,
Fulfillment of the Godheads plan.

All praise and laud and glorious powr,
This Christmas joy, tis Jesses flowr.

Gerald McClain
© 2005 Musique de McClain
8-19-05

Nobody for Chatting?

I just discovered that my only follower, Pro Life Girl, took me off her list to follow my blog. Might it be that I'm on the fence about healthcare?

I'm not for government climbing into and devouring our wallets from the inside out, but government does take our money for everyone's use on roads and for defense.

I'm a Republican for one issue only for the most part (I am also against overspending/borrowing), but I would love to join the Democrats if only the new feminazis would stop pushing baby killing (for all four trimesters).

The thing is, it seems that only people who agree with you 100% follow what you have to say. I think it's important to discuss through or chat about our disagreements. Maybe we'll dispose with some nonsensical heresies theological and otherwise.

(How can one be against abortion and for torture? Does Judie Brown really believe this? What's here definition of torture?)

Obamacare Oxymoron?

Last night during [Pres] Obama's congressional healthcare speech, US Rep. Joe Wilson of SC yelled out that [Pres] Obama lies. He tweeted (according to govtrack.us),

Happy Labor Day! Wonderful parade at Chapin, many people called out to oppose Obamacare which I assured them would be relayed tomorrow to DC. (Sep 7, 2009)

Some would say that this outburst during the speech would end his career, but I think it will galvanize his electorate to vote for him. (Is it a coincidence that he was a staffer for Senator Strom Thurmond of SC?)

Yes, Obama lies out of both sides of his mouth all the time, but what politician doesn't? I'm not excusing [Pres] Obama; he just wants to do a good job in his latest drive-by position (he spends very little time in his jobs; would a HR manager hire him now for a union position if s/he saw his resume?).
---

About Obamacare as an oxymoron, does [Pres] Obama really care about people and/or their intelligence when he lies so much, though. Is he just pandering to the health insurance industry to get them more business on the taxpayers dime, no 3/4+ paycheck? Is he just a moron to think people don't realize that he lies so blatantly? If he told the truth more often and/or care about people's intelligence, would he get more done (am I just naive)?

Just wondering.
---

Despite all the lies from the left and fear mongering from the right, I'm still on the fence if a public option is the way to go. Actually, I think the main problem is tort law: the amount of money from lawsuits is astronomical. Also, the pay for service system is fishy.

Nonetheless, people I know who don't have jobs and are mid-aged or less can't get health insurance. Yes, rationing may well happen under a public option but rationing also happens now. Those without a job or extra money to burn are out of doctor offices and into ER's (what if they might have (early stage?) cancer?).

My stance now is simple. I will stay out of the debate unless abortion is to be mandated, because I don't assume to know all the answers about health care/health insurance.
---

One last question, if Obama thinks that pinpointing the starting point of human life is above his pay grade (he knows as much now about this question as he did before he became (perhaps legitimately) US President), how can he think that figuring out how to (solve forever, supposedly) the healthcare system (and all the other issues) is within his paygrade?

Is This Saying Hard?

Three years ago (as I guest posted at my friend's blog), the same readings were read at mass yesterday. One of them was from Ephesians 5.

Brothers and sisters:
Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.
For the husband is head of his wife
just as Christ is head of the church,
he himself the savior of the body.
As the church is subordinate to Christ,
so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything [see my note below].
Husbands, love your wives,
even as Christ loved the church
and handed himself over for her to sanctify her,
cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
that he might present to himself the church in splendor,
without spot or wrinkle or any such thing,
that she might be holy and without blemish.
So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.
He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no one hates his own flesh
but rather nourishes and cherishes it,
even as Christ does the church,
because we are members of his body.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.
This is a great mystery,
but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.

I asked what people's priests (deacons) said about this reading if anything at all. My priest avoided the reading explicitly.

This year, however, he said some good things about it. The wife being subordinate does not mean doing the laundry, he said, or doing more chores. For the husband, it doesn't mean that we are to be waited on, necessarily, but that we are to also wash the feet of our wives and our neighbor. (These are my priest's ideas.)

I think people now a days would perhaps cringe less at the idea of drinking Jesus' body and blood than at this Ephesians reading. People think that the (RC) Church believes that women are less than men in some way(s). No, we are to "[b]e subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ."

So, what did your priest or deacon say about this reading this year, if anything?

Which Came First? The Chicken or the Egg?

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

The question and answer have many very important implications.

This is a three (3) part video:
I. Introduction and answer
II. Reapplication of the answer
III. Social and political consequences (prolife? OTAAAC?)

References:
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/
(2) http://science.howstuffworks.com/genetic-science/question85.htm
(3) http://people.cs.uu.nl/hansb/religion/chickenegg.html
(4) http://business.fortunecity.com/johns/139/index6.html
(5) http://www.arrogantatheist.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=729&page=1

Same-Sex Marriage and the State Youtube Video only

How Will Same-Sex "Marriage" Hurt Marriage?

How Will Same-Sex "Marriage" Hurt Marriage?

Besides the detriment to religious institutions and those with religious objections to those in same-sex "marriages" (and teaching it as a norm in public schools), what harm to "traditional" or "real" marriages will occur from codifying same-sex "marriage" into law?



Some resources:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/06/259
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/UST_fall2004.pdf
http://www.marriagedebate.com/ssm.php
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/07/what-marriage-is-and-what-it-isnt
(Will be available free in a few months after July 2009!)
http://www.iptv.org/video/browse.cfm/program/20022
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/11/priority-of-strengthening-families.html
http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2009/05/pseudogamy-101.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1908243,00.html
http://positivelywaiting.blogspot.com/2008/05/marriage-from-teens-point-of-view.html

OTAAAC (pro life) Debate Advice

I just (sort-of) finished two debates with people who are PAAAC (pro-choice). One wanted abortion to come to Ireland, one wanted ESCR to stay on-board, respectively below.

Of course, at the end of the day, it only matters if a human is a person from conception onward. Both debaters came to this point, but their responses were puzzling:

I asked, "At the end of the day, I have a question: If personhood is established for a non-viable human that is found to be inside a woman's body, does the woman still have a right to kill the non-viable human in your view?"

She said, "Yes, no one has the right to use anothers body without their permission, fetus or rapist."

The other man (heatmourning33) said (after I believe his personhood definition was destroyed), "I don't have all the answers, your way could be the better way to go, I havent [sic] been convinced."

Do you notice that the question of personhood doesn't really matter in the end to these PAAAC (pro-choice) people?

This leads me to the following advice:

Before starting to debate, ask explicitly the following question:

If personhood is established for a [zygote or equivalent], does the [woman/state/scientist/president/etc.] still have a right to kill the [zygote or equivalent] in your view?

FYI: The US Supreme Court:

If the suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth Amendment].

Abortion is Just War for Obama

Barack Obama has spoken about abortion on various occasions. One of the last times he spoke about abortion specifically was at Notre Dame when he received an honorary doctorate of laws degree. The other two times of note were during his “100 Days Press Conference” and during the campaign after he spoke at Pastor Rick Warren’s Church during a presidential debate with Senator McCain. The relevant parts of Obama’s words are reproduced below.

Interview with Mr. Stephanopoulos on ABC
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcVN8DpwWE0]

...As a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into (Stephanopoulos interrupts: As respect to Augustine) It does. It's a pretty tough question and so all I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions. What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue. That's it's one that families struggle with all the time. And that in wrestling with those issues I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions. I think the better answer, and this was reflected in the Democratic platform, is to figure out how do make sure that young mothers or women who have a pregnancy that's unexpected or difficult have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices including adoption....

100 Days Press Conference
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/obama-100-days-press-conf_n_193283.html]

You know, the -- my view on -- on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.

I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they -- if they suggest -- and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.

The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that -- that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their doctors, with their clergy.

So -- so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.

Obama's Notre Dame speech
[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-barack-obama-notre-dame-speech,0,2951798.story?page=2]

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let's make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

Now, understand -- understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction.

I noticed that in all three monologues above, he said that abortion is a moral, ethical, or spiritual issue. Further, he said that women, mothers, or families must make this choice without government interference.

After some reflection on these common principles, it seemed that Obama was applying just war theory to abortion. Mothers (et al.) take the role of defending entity (defender), while the baby takes the role of the aggressing entity (aggressor). The defender decides, through parallel applications of just war theory to abortion, whether going to war is just or unjust.

In 1991, Francis Kissling, former president of Catholics for Choice, wrote, "If War is Just, So is Abortion." [http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/op-eds/1990s/19910417ifwarisjustsoisabortion.asp] In addition, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, former president of Chicago Theological Seminary, wrote two articles and one speech that picked up on Ms. Kissling’s ideas.

In essence, Ms. Kissling said that women, who were once not considered moral agents, are in reality the primary moral agent to decide if pregnancy termination is necessary. Ms. Thistlethwaite agrees, writing, “Obama Acknowledges Women as Moral Agents.”

In comparing the need for war and abortion, Ms. Kissling writes, “Both constructs would recognize that the taking of life in war and in abortion (though not equivalent acts) are never in themselves moral goods. But these values are not absolute. They can be overridden in serious circumstances and after reflection on the moral guidelines established by the church.” These circumstances, according to her, include self-defense and “[the protection of] a nation's integrity”, or “a woman's physical and emotional health”.

Ms. Thistlethwaite goes further in saying that it is not possible to know if a preborn person has a soul in her speech (to Planned Parenthood), “How Is It With Your Soul?” Ms. Kissling mentions this conundrum briefly, but does not expand the thought. It would seem, for the moment, that the preborn human is a person in the same way that an enemy soldier is a person. The topic of personhood of the perborn human is beyond the scope of this essay.

If it were accepted that abortion could be analyzed with just war theory, the four-prong test of just war theory must be applied. In order to pass the test of a just war or abortion, all four prongs must be true at the same time. The test includes the following (http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp).

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor [preborn person] on the nation or community of nations [pregnant woman] must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it [the pregnancy] must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success [in terminating pregnancy];
4. the use of arms [abortion] must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated [death of mother or “a woman's physical and emotional health”]. The power of modern means of destruction [chemical and surgical abortion] weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Right away, prongs two and three are almost guaranteed. Only a few preborn persons have survived abortion. The real questions are one and four.

How is damage inflicted by the preborn person on the pregnant woman lasting, grave, and certain? For one, the clear and present danger of the woman (immanent death) would suffice. Since pregnancy lasts nine months and not the lifetime of the woman (assuming adoption used), pregnancy itself would not be lasting. Since miscarriage is very probable, pregnancy is not certain.

Does abortion produce evils and disorders graver than the death of the mother or “a woman's physical and emotional health”? Assuming that the preborn human is a person, killing the preborn human and letting a mother die are equivalent evils. Killing the preborn human produces a greater evil than a detriment to a woman's physical and emotional health.

It seems that the only reason an abortion can be just is for the life of the mother if death from the baby's presence is a clear and present danger. However, just as in the application of war, the objective of defense is not to kill people, it is to stop the means of destruction. In order to stop bombings, bomber planes may be shot down; it just happens that there are people flying them. The "enemy" person must be protected as humanely as possible. In abortion, the preborn person must be protected whenever possible. If the fallopian tube or uterus is removed, or drugs must be administered to protect a clear and present danger to a mother, the secondary effect of killing the preborn person is not unjust.

The caveat is that a woman cannot choose abortion if the framework of just war theory is applied. Since the only just war against the preborn person is for the clear and present danger of a mother’s life, only a doctor (or team of doctors) can justly "wage war" on the preborn person. Only a doctor can determine the gravity of a life-threatening situation.

In conclusion, if Barack Obama is using the ideas of Ms. Kissling in terms of applying just war theory to abortion, he is incorrect in his evaluation. No woman or family can justly determine if a preborn person should die for his or her desires (inconvenience, pride, need for adoption, &c), only an objective doctor can conclude that a pregnant mother is in clear and present danger due to the mere internal presence of the preborn person. If the just war theory is applied to abortion, the moral, ethical, and spiritual decision must conclude that abortion is not the just action to take. Government must make sure that unjust wars against preborn people are not undertaken at the whim of any other person’s will.

Despite the fact that the preborn person in the mother’s body may present clear and present danger to the life of the mother, how can the preborn be considered aggressors? Ms. Kissling addresses this in one sentence in "If War is Just, So is Abortion.” “As we have seen, even in high-tech modern warfare, innocents will be killed.” Does this make sense? If abortion is the equivalent to just war, who is the person that is threatening the mother’s life? Is the preborn person “innocent” according to Ms. Kissling? The preborn person is not an innocent bystander; she is an innocent participant in an intrinsically evil act.

If Barack Obama does not think that preborn humans are people (until the soul enters at some undetermined time by him), why does he call abortion a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue? If he thinks that preborn humans are not people, abortion should not be an issue at all to him; if it is so, he should be honest and say so now.

But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion?
-Mother Theresa

The Absolute Tyranny of Autonomy

I finished a conversation with a female (from Ireland) on youtube (in my personal mailbox). It's below (my comments are in parentheses).

---

"Your essential question/holdings:
(1)"Why is being human so special?"
(2)"A human is a person when they are sentient and capable of consciousness."
(3)"my [sic] issue is with your attitude that a fetus has the 'right' to use a woman's body against her will- that's it, plain and simple."

Re. (3), the US Supreme Court: "If the suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth Amendment]." Therefore, your opinion (3) has no value if the woman carries a "person", according to US law. (This is apart from my or your opinions; The rule of law is what counts ultimately, apart from appeals/dictates from "Nature's God".)"

Thats quite laughable. NOBODY has the right to use anothers body without their consent- how is establishing personhood in a fetus going against this? What is unclear here?

"(1) begs to question, "Why is being a person is so special?" (To me, they are the same question.) What value does life have? Who is entitled to bestow value on someone else? [I should've asked "Who is entitled to negate the value of someone else?"] If you respect animals so much, why not respect all humans (subset of animals in your view)? Do animal mothers have the right to eject their offspring at any point (no, this is not a joke)?"

No, human is not synonymous with person. A dead human being is not longer a person, a human permanently in a vegetative state has no qualities of a person. Simply having a human body does not give you a unique right to life. I do respect humans, equally with non-humans, I just place more weight on the right to autonomy of an existing person than the non-existant rights of a potential person.
You clearly think you have the right to bestow value. Of course animal mothers do, all females do.
Believe it or not, we are thinking, autonomous beings that can make individual decisions and require no input from you.

"(2) is still not a clear definition of personhood (terms not focused; my response is on my understanding of (2)). A person in the zygotic stage reacts naturally to external stimuli. A 7 week old baby has tiny active nerves. Any human before or after viability is sentient. When an adult sleeps, they are not conscious. Are we a person one moment and not the next (vis sleep)? It takes some finite time to become conscious. It just takes a zygotic (embryonic and fetal) person a longer time to become conscious. See http://www.cbhd.org/resources/bioethics/beckwith_2001-11-19.htm (and other writings by Francis J. Beckwith) for more info."

Yes, it is. What are your specific problems with it? Why is it that you dont call a tree a person? I imagine it has something to do with the existence of a brain/self awareness/consciousness.

"Are (1) and (2) just a red-herring for (3)?"

No, they are equally valid reasons for my stance.

"At the end of the day, I have a question: If personhood is established for a non-viable human that is found to be inside a woman's body, does the woman still have a right to kill the non-viable human in your view?"

Yes, no one has the right to use anothers body without their permission, fetus or rapist.

"At the end of the day, this is my business since you and others insist on killing my neighbor, preborn female and male persons."

No, it really isnt. You risk absolutely nothing by taking your stance, you dont even have a concept of the barbaric nature of what you suggest. As a male your view is entirely negligible from the point of ignorance. I notice you didnt answer a lot of my questions and did not even address the autonomy point.

---

It was very enlightening, really.

Is it self-contradictory if she says:
(A) "(1) and (2) [are not] a red-herring for (3)" but "equally valid reasons for my stance".
(B)"If personhood is established for a non-viable human that is found to be inside a woman's body, [] the woman still [has] a right to kill the non-viable human []."

I didn't "address the autonomy point" because I wanted to first find out if personhood really mattered to her. Since in reality it didn't, autonomy is the absolute tyrant.

On George Tiller's Murder

This video was in response to a popular (and foul) Youtube channel host. He mentions Mr. Tiller in the beginning of the video.

The War on Terror

[President] Obama's speech at the National Archives on May 21, 2009, as provided by the White House [talking about the "war on terror"/Guantanamo Bay/torture/etc.]

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us -- Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens -- fell silent.

Weapons of mass destruction is to the war in Iraq/terror as denial of personhood/human life beginnings is to legalized abortion.

Water boarding, that's nothing. How about tearing humans limb to limb, sucking their brains out, salt poisoning, and burning them to death?

Newly Proposed Mailing Project

Have you heard about the Red Letter Project? Purple Envelope Project? Lots of envelopes.

I have an idea that works on the Judicial Branch. Unfortunately, it's a little more expensive, but I'm doing it. Why not you?

This is the idea:
Send a specific book to Chief Justice Roberts (with an accompanying explanation letter, or course). It's Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History by Joseph Dellapenna. (BTW, I have no connection with the author, publisher, or any book seller. I used this book when I visited my senator to discuss FOCA (both my senators (MD) co-sponsored FOCA).)

Below, I'll list the dispelled myths and write a little about why it's so important for the Supreme Court to read this book.

The myths:

(1) that abortion was always a common practice in human history; (2) that voluntary early abortions were not crimes until the nineteenth century; (3) that the nineteenth-century abortion statutes were designed to protect the life of the mother rather the life of the child; and (4) that the statutes were enacted through a conspiracy of men to accomplish several nefarious purposes—to subordinate women, to eliminate competition from women health-care workers with male physicians, and to ensure adequate birth rates among white, Protestant women to prevent “race suicide.”

Why dispelling the myths are so important, in my understanding:
In Roe v. Wade (1973), it was found that “the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of the States today are of relatively recent vintage.” This was the initial premise that set the stage for the Roe conclusion (not that abortion was a right, but that one has a right to privacy to make such a personal decision, including with abortion; the preceding link is an interview with Mary Ann Glendon which explains the lack of the "abortion right" in Roe).

By bringing serious doubt to this premise which started the ball rolling for all the federal court cases, the court will be able to, or even must, revisit the original precedent in Roe under the principle of stare decisis.

From the book:

“It is time that the Court took seriously its own premise that the constitutional status of a claimed right to abort is to be tested against history and traditions of this nation. The accumulated wisdom relating to abortion teaches us that the prohibition of abortion was always viewed as the protection of emerging, yet real, human life —a concern only made more certain by the continual growth of medical knowledge of gestation during the last two centuries.” (p. 1084)

If Chief Justice Roberts received even a few dozen of these books, imagine how his curiosity would compel him to open and even consider reviewing an abortion case with this book in mind.

I wonder if it's possible. I pray that it is.

(tips: buy it used, send by USPS media mail)

Margaret Sanger Knew When Human Life Begins

Margaret Sanger, the founder of what would eventually be called Planned Parenthood (PP), knew the answer to the question of "When does life begin?" (or "When does human life begin?") as early as 1916.

In her autobiography, Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, she wrote,

...abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life.... (emphasis added)

So, why does PP now insist that a human person from conception (zygote) to birth is just a clump of cells?

Well, it's just a clump of cells. If you get it early enough it doesn't even look like a baby.

This quote from Margaret Sanger is telling and prophetic.

No one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable [perhaps to save the life of the mother only?] but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception [Did she think that the point of conception was the moment that a human person's life begins?]. [Contraception] is the only cure for abortions. (emphasis added)

Once one believes that contraception is a cure from pregnancy, their contraceptive mentality will force them to have an abortion (now as the contraception of last resort). They will no longer be free, but a slave to PP (and other things/persons).

Instead of curing the need for abortions, Margaret Sanger's contraception crusade made the demand for abortion skyrocket (and perhaps the reason why abortion is now legal). This is why the American Birth Control League (now PP) is the largest and most profitable (contraceptive) abortion provider ever.

(Some cure, huh?)

"From might to may to must: zero to sixty in a cultural instant."
-Sally Thomas

(Now, abortion is seen as a good.)

The women wearing "I Had An Abortion" t-shirts at the 2004 Democratic National Convention obviously share Mr. Sanger's desire to see the abortion rights argument move to a newly aggressive level.

When Does the Human Soul Develop?

An attempt to answer about the human soul's development. Any suggestions for improvement?

[Pres.] Obama's First 100 Days Parody

See 4:20 for the original text.

Mary Ann Glendon Refuses ND Laetare Medal Award

Mary Ann Glendon agrees that Notre Dame has gone too far in inviting and bestowing a honorary Law doctorate on [President] Aborti... Obama. She will not accept the award.

I guess I should've kept my first request after all to refuse the award from L'Autre Dame (second request). (Peut-être, L'Autre Dame est Margaret Sanger.)

Same-Sex Marriage and the State Youtube Video

I'm definitely no Susan Boyle, but do I make sense below? Are the points valid?

Someone made this comment on youtube:

A state also has a vested interest in a marriage later in life...when you have no children...and single the state becomes responsible for your health and welfare. If must go into a nursing home the state must pay for it. If you die the state must pay for your funeral. The list goes on and on. It is very beneficial for gay marriage in cost of state responsibilities later in life. Marriage would make it the couples responsibility to take care of each other.

MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR ALL!

My response:

I think you missed my main point (maybe I wasn't clear). Marriage that is recognized by the state, as opposed to private marriage, is for the children who will become citizens since they should have a right to be raised by their own parents (etc) so that they can become the best future citizens that they can.

As far as a nursing home, anyone can take out a long-term care policy. No state needed there. As far as paying for the funeral, I just called a funeral home, anyone can sign a contract to pay for the funeral. No state there.

THE three big cultural issues, abortion, same-sex marriage, and euthanasia have two sides: me (us) and them. Why not set up society for our children's benefit instead of ours? (my life v. child's life; my benefits v. children's best situation; my decision v. the love my children/society have for the dying)

Am I missing something? Are they missing something? Am I not clear?

African Americans For Preborn Justice

He wrote the Letter from a Dublin Jail. (The next Dr. King)


The new Harriet Beecher Stowe in song!

Bumper Stickers for Life Message

This is the back of my car. On the right, Libertarians for Life. On the left, Democrats for Life. In the center, Feminists for Life.

The idea is this: to be opposed to abortion as a choice (OTAAAC), or pro-life, should cover the spectrum of political ideologies from right to left. It also doesn't matter if you're a Catholic (typically Democrat) or Atheist (typically Libertarian). Further, "peace in the womb" is that which brings us all together as the survivors of the culture of death from abortion (mostly for those born after 1973 and Roe and Doe).

You can order the bumper stickers from the embedded links above.

---

About the youtube posts below. What do you think?

Miss USA California Responds To Gay Marriage Question From Perez Hilton Youtube Response

Miss USA California failed by Perez Hilton.

Abortion, when does a human life begin? Youtube Response

On Youtube about abortion and the beginning of life
(first video has Every Sperm is Sacred Monty Python sketch from The Meaning of Life)

Huckabee Says Abortion=Slavery

I responded to this video with the second video below:


My Response (my first personal youtube video):


I know I'm not the best speaker (even close), but I would like to practice and try to get better. (I know I'll get slammed for the um's and choppiness, but I have pretty tough skin. I just don't want to do what the first video does: cut every few seconds.)