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.)

We Haven't Seen No Taxes Yet

With the Tax Day Tea Parties going on, I wonder if any of the protesting posters asked if the Obama Cabinet payed their 2008 taxes.

(Warning: I'm admittedly ranting more than usually below.)

They owe Chiinna money too!

If I went, this might have been my sign:

Stimulus Debt to Chiinna: [sp]
Sovereignty On Sale &
Human Rights to be Shelved
wze3.blogspot.com to be censored

With this overwhelming debt, we have yet to feel the full fury of high taxes (such as Canada etc.) and hyperinflation (from printing money we are borrowing from Chiinna). It's coming.

I'm all about helping the poor, but we've been helping too many really rich folks.

I wonder what Secretary Clinton thinks about the protesting. (She's probably giving it as much attention as Chiinna's giving to her words on human rights expectations.)

A Letter from a Dublin Jail

In April 1963, Dr. King wrote his "A Letter from a Birmingham Jail" that addressed his "Fellow Clergymen" regarding "Negro" civil rights.

On March 26th, 2009, another black Pastor Walter Hoye wrote his letter from a Dublin, CA jail that addressed his fellow "men of the cloth" regarding "womb lynching", or abortion.

I just came back from vacation in New Orleans, LA where a teen-aged Afr. Am. girl's shirt read "We are taking over." Does she not realize that her race in America is dying out and that her President is helping the cause? However, unlike what many people may think, it is not from gun violence. It is due to "pre-natal" murder.

From the Pastor Hoye:

Brothers, in Black America alone every seventy-two (72) seconds a black baby is murdered in the womb of his or her mother. This holocaust is genocidal to the point that today a black child has less than a fifty-percent (50%) chance of being born. According to the 2006 U.S. Census, Black Americans are below the replacement level. In other words, death in Black America outpaces life. Abortion alone accounts for three (3) times more deaths in our community than
HIV/AIDS, Violent Crimes, Accidents, Cancer, and Heart Disease combined. There is no question pre-natal murder, abortion, is the number one issue in not only Black America, but in all of America today. (emphasis added)

It took a little over a year from Dr. King's letter above to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I pray that it will be a short year until a Civil Rights Act of 2010 is signed into law by [President] Obama that will be a beginning to an end of discrimination against the pre-born (especially the genetically black pre-born).
---------

From Dr. King's “A Letter from a Birmingham Jail”:

I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.
...
There was a time when the church was very powerful—in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Open to Judgment

I've been thinking about a blog post that a family member wrote. It's below.

You probably think you know the answers to these, but I'm a better judge of that than you, and you can't convince me otherwise

Two things people would answer "Yes" to, when they should say "No":

1 - Are you a good judge of people?

I used to think I was a good judge of people until a close friend and idol of mine went to jail for conspiracy to commit triple murders and then another friend was discovered, by me, to have stolen a half million dollars from the company we worked for at the time.

2 - Are you open-minded?

I think people are open-minded about things they don't yet have an opinion on, but not so much on things they've already made up their mind about. When is the last time YOU had your mind changed by someone?

I tried to think about the last time that I changed my mind about something important other than at work. (I change my mind all the time at work; it's part of the job.)

Anyway, I thought of the big things (non-exhaustive): religion, life, death, love, family, and politics.

I grew up in a liberal Pennsylvania mixed marriage home. I always wondered about other religions since my Dad never received (Catholic) communion at Church.

In the many “talks”, my parents (Mom) told me not to have sex until marriage and that I should use protection if necessary.

The intellectual things that I remembered as a child mainly came from high school. I never had a girlfriend. Actually, I usually sat in the back and watched the other high schoolers make fools of themselves over romantic matters (or other dumb stuff).

For a long time, I remembered just soaking up people’s words (I didn’t/don’t talk much). I thought high school was mostly a farce. (My family thought I was gay. Why does not having a girlfriend equal gay?)

In high school, I rooted for Gov. Dukakis because I thought VP HW Bush, Sr. didn’t care enough about poor people.

As a freshman in college, I joined a non-denominational Christian fellowship (and eventually an a cappella Christian group) because I wanted to understand what they believed. (My first girlfriend was a Southern Baptist from the former group.)

As a junior or senior, I participated in a homosexual bible study series (sponsored by the Rainbow Alliance) to understand what they believed.

When I studied abroad in Mexico, I went a couple of times (actually most Sundays) to a Mormon ecclesial community (church).

I strike up conversations on line (and in person) to try to understand people with different views.

I don’t know when I changed my mind last (except on this blog).

I think I’m open to thoughts, but please, oh please, make a convincing argument and provide some resources (which I will actually read in full, assuming its not over 200 pages).

What is a liberal? One who listens to all and tries to whole-heartedly acquiesce to the Truth. (It’s not the same as giving into the “dictatorship of relativism” since there is a Truth insofar as we truly exist.)


As far as judging people, you have to hold the seat of a judge. In other words, you must have all the relevant facts (evidence), hidden and unhidden, in order to make a proper and just judgment. What’s the criteria, unreasonable doubt?

In practice, I keep this thought in mind, "We reap (and gather in) what we sow."

Notice however, that I didn't say that admonishing is to be avoided. We have a duty to speak the truth to guide against evil.

Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if one has a grievance against another; as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do. And over all these put on love, that is, the bond of perfection. And let the peace of Christ control your hearts, the peace into which you were also called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, as in all wisdom you teach and admonish one another, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. Colossians 3:12-16

Obama Perjured Himself

"[The rescinding of conscience rules for health care workers] is a declaration of war on all who oppose the killing of the unborn." -lifesitenews.com

The main reason that I was against Obama for president was that I believed that he would not uphold the Constitution of the United States. This proposed rule change proves to me, more than any other action (even if it's just proposed), that he perjured himself when he took the oath of office (twice).

(Is Obama really an American citizen? I wasn't even sure about McCain.)
(By the way, I would vote for and have voted for this African American for President. I don't agree with everything he says, but he has been the best presidential candidate for a long time.)

How did Obama perjure himself? He's now blatantly and obviously dismissing the Constitution of the United States (First Amendment; see the USCCB's own superb analysis: they do not say that Obama perjured himself, I do.).

Doctors and Nurses still take the Hippocratic oath (some recite, "I will not give a woman a pessary to produce abortion."). Some have the audacity to believe that they are to do no harm to anyone in anyway (including referral), even to the individual preborn.

How can the (supposed) President of the United States force a doctor or nurse to go against their conscience or oath? It's like forcing a President of the United States to divulge secrets to enemies foreign and domestic (yes, I know it's in the VP oath).

May this country remember that powers are from the American people and not from a few.

May God bless this sinful America. (By the way, that includes all Americans.)



UPDATE (4/1/2009 12:09P):
I just sent the following email from here. (The middle part [] is a form letter.)
---

[Header will be placed here]
Dear [System will insert the recipient's name here]:

I am [Gutterball Master] of Baltimore, Maryland.

I have many friends and family members who believe in the Hippocratic oath: they are to do no harm to their patients, including their preborn and handicap patients.[Please retain the conscience regulation, and enforce current laws protecting the right of health care providers to serve patients without violating their moral and religious convictions. The right of conscience protected by existing federal laws is inviolable. Weakening protection for this right will harm the ethical integrity of our healing professions, drive caring people out of these professions, and reduce patients' access to much-needed basic health care.]Help my friends and family keep their Constitutionally prescribed and Congressional mandated conscious protections that enable them to care for their patients. If the Church clause and others rules are rescinded, they may be unduly persecuted for doing what is right for all their patients.

Sincerely,
[gbm3]
[The system will insert address here.]

A Changed Request

I changed my mind about the last post. No, this is not an April's Fool joke. After reading about and listening to Professor Glendon (below), I think it a better idea if she accepts the award from Notre Dame. She deserves any award she is given by anyone or institution with any morals (even Notre Dame at this juncture). See some of her talks on Youtube below.


Also, the letter I sent bounced back. Evidently, the email address I used is no longer active.

I am going to send the following letter to her Harvard email (glendon aatt law dott harvard dott edu).
---------

Professor Glendon:

Hello. I am [Gutterball Master] of Baltimore, Maryland.

Congratulations on your upcoming reception of the Laetare Award from the University of Notre Dame. Your service to the Church in the United States and exceptionally thoughtful and thoroughly researched books and articles makes you an excellent choice for this award.

With this honor, you have the privilege to address the student body of Notre Dame, who will be the future leaders of the world, with an inspirational word.

As a fellow Catholic who tries wholeheartedly to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, may I implore you to address the fact that the most pro-abortion American President will be speaking at the same podium as yourself? As you have written, power and great opportunities invite profound responsibility. Please breach the wall of status quo (see Dr. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail) and address the President’s policies and his interpretation of the law (that is contrary to Catholic teaching) that sledgehammer away at the roots of our great republic. (I am sure that you know his policies intimately.) This would send a clear message that the University is dismissing its Catholic mission by inviting and awarding an honorary law doctorate to President Obama for his current policies and his former Illinois and United States Senate voting records and bill co-sponsorships.

Christ is my hope and life, but I pray that the Most Holy Trinity may grant you wisdom in how to address this acute scandal at Notre Dame.

In this time of Lent, I pray that you continue to have many prayers answered and that we may one day meet when our Lord calls us at the last trumpet.

May God bless you and yours,
[gbm3]
Baltimore, MD
---

May God have mercy on us all.

Open Letter to Professor Glendon

I wrote the following letter to Professor Glendon today at glendon aatt glendonbooks dooot com. She is to receive the Laetare Award from the University of Notre Dame this year along with President Obama. President Obama is to receive an honorary law doctorate. The University of Notre Dame is (was) one of the premier American Catholic Universities.
---------

Professor Glendon:

Hello. I am [Gutterball Master] of Baltimore, Maryland.

Congratulations on your upcoming reception of the Laetare Award from the University of Notre Dame. Your service to the Church in the United States and exceptionally thoughtful and thoroughly researched books and articles makes you an excellent choice for this award.

With this honor, you have the privilege to address the student body of Notre Dame, who will be the future leaders of the world, with an inspirational word.

As a fellow Catholic who tries wholeheartedly to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, may I implore you to address the fact that the most pro-abortion American President will be speaking at the same podium as yourself? As you have written, power and great opportunities invite profound responsibility. Please breach the wall of status quo and address the President’s policies that sledgehammer away at the roots of our great republic. (I am sure that you know the policies them intimately.)

Further, if I may be so bold, may I suggest that you decline the acceptance of your award? This would send a clear message that the University is dismissing its Catholic mission by inviting and awarding President Obama for his current policies and former Illinois and United States Senate voting records and bill co-sponsorships.

Christ is my hope and life, but I pray that the Most Holy Trinity may grant you wisdom in how to address this acute scandal at Notre Dame.

In this time of Lent, I pray that you continue to have many prayers answered and that we may one day meet when our Lord calls us at the last trumpet.

May God bless you and yours,
[Gutterball Master]
Baltimore, MD

"Hands" of God Thought

The question was asked in Faith Sharing this week at Church: How do you reconcile your image of God of the Old-Testament with the image of God of the New-Testament?

I immediately thought, "There is no difference; It's the same God."

After some others talked about their ideas, I came up with one I never thought of before.

I talked about how the universe is expanding due to the change of entropy. (I asked, "Into what is the universe expanding?" Someone said the universe was infinite; I don't know about that.)

Anyway, I imagined God as holding the universe in His personified hands while it expands. God is able to care for the universe like the song says, "He's got the whole world (universe) in His hands." At the same time (out of time but in time since God "is". Note to Dawkiners: No, God is not created, He just is), He is able to guide, punish, or even crush part of the universe with His fingers. This is one way how I "reconcile" the two views.

What do you think? (Really)

Powerful Ignorance Buys Power

I've been reading the thoughts of three currently powerful politicians about when they think human life begins.

From Secretary of State Clinton:
"I believe that the potential for life begins at conception," said Mrs Clinton.
"But for me, it is not only about the potential life, but the other lives involved."

From President Obama:
Mr Obama said he did not know whether life begins with conception.
"This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on... I don't presume to know the answer to that question," he said.
"What I know... is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates."

From former President Clinton:
In a recent interview with CNN’s Sanjay Gupta, former President Bill Clinton repeatedly referred to human embryos as “unfertilized,” adding that, if they were fertilized, they would “become human beings.” (emphasis added)

Why are they so ignorant?

Remember Dr. Evil's pinky finger:
Perhaps for evil power?
(Duh note: in America, power=money)

(May I suggest that they read up on real science (as opposed to political science that is changed by money) at the (usually Atheist) Libertarians for Life science page.)

As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It's an actual human being — with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Some Marriage Advice

I've been married over just seven years, but I think I have some marriage advice from observing my marriage and others.

If you think the option of divorce is open when you marry, you will eventually divorce. If you do not think the divorce option is open, you will try your hardest to keep from divorcing.

Some might say religion helps since it teaches that divorce is immoral. I would say Christianity helps since you strive to lay down your life for the other as Christ and the Church laid and lays down their lives for each other.

---------

In the same vain as above, I also have some advice about sexual morality as it comes to abortion. When you engage in sexual relations with another, if you think abortion is an option, it will happen.

Before you engage in sexual relations, know that the outcome might be a baby, even if birth control is used. If you don't want a baby, don't engage in sexual relations with another. Period.


Just a thought.

St. Patrick in the USA

Happy Saint Patrick's Day to everyone!
---------

Our new Pres. says there's cause for alarm
The scientists are all up in arms.
With a percentage of three
Of the Irish is he.
May his blarney be only a charm!

Cut all the money (public and private) for the unethical, immoral, and nonsensical (there are moral etc. alternatives) embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).

(They're people!)
(I know the Soylent Green analogy doesn't exactly work, but I love how he does this: it's over the top, but the facts about ESC and abortion (etc.) are also just so over the top.)

Oh! that we could have Saint Patrick drive out the snakes of this country.

Personhood in Maryland

Here's the person who introduced the Maryland Personhood Amendment.

Please pray for my state, and if you are a citizen of Maryland, please call or write or come out this Friday to speak to the Delegate Council.

Information on how to do your part is here (from my blog) and here (the main mdpersonhood website).

It's All About Priorities

A couple of weeks ago, I talked to someone at Church about Amnesty International (AI). He said that he supported them in their fight for justice around the world.

During our conversation, I remembered that AI was now a pro-abortion lobby group according to lifesitenews.com (1 2 3).

So, this last Sunday, I gave a printout of the above articles (and a couple more) to him. He said that he didn't believe it (as in, "I don't believe these papers"). I said that I knew he wrote letters for AI, but I assumed he did not contribute money to them. I was wrong, he did support them monetarily. I responded, "By giving money to them, they can use your money for their pro-abortion lobby."

As you can imagine, he tried to explain his reasons for contributing to them. When you get down to it, his main point was that he does not use a "litmus test" for determining to which charities he contributes: he looks at the organization as a whole. His bottom line: if AI supports abortion, they do so many other good things that they deserve his (monetary) support.

When he was done expressing his views, I said that I look at the numbers: it comes down to priority. The total abortions carried out worldwide in one year (42 million; 210 million in five years) was more than the total number of people that were exterminated by A. Hitler in all his German concentration camps (about 21 million in 5 years; there are about 2 times more abortions in one year worldwide that were killed in WWII concentration camps over five years).

What I didn't tell him was that if an organization pushes abortion, that entity would be disqualified by me. The same goes for political candidates.

Until we (those OTAAAC) start putting our priorities in stopping abortion (monetarily and politically) instead of the economy, war, poverty, etc., we won't see this most brutal institution come crashing down.

I'm not saying that the other causes are not important, I'm suggesting that if an organization is for abortion, they should not get monetary or political support by those OTAAAC.

Period.

Hearing for Maryland Personhood Amendment

This Friday, 13 March 2009, there will be a hearing regarding the Maryland Personhood Amendment, House Bill 925 at 1 p.m. If you cannot make it to the hearing, may I suggest that you call your representative and a delegate closest to your district on the "HEALTH & GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE" to voice your support for the amendment (to be a ballot initiative).

If you do not know who your Maryland Delegates are, see this website.

(One of my Delegates co-sponsored this bill. (Thank you God!) Another of my Delegates (she was a nurse; perhaps "Do no harm?") is on the HEALTH & GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE).

Label for Life

We've all heard of racism, sexism, ageism, speciesism (speciesism is illogical), etc.

I've been trying to come up for a label for those who discriminate based on a person's stage of development (those still not born after conception). The best I came up with until today was developmentism. It just doesn't work.

Then, today, it came to me: stageism (not stagism; hard "g").

What do you think? Do you have any better ideas? (I think it should be one word, preferably three syllables.)