Posted on 05/31/2009 9:33:51 AM PDT by wagglebee
I spent a lot of time watching news coverage of President Obama’s recent speech at Notre Dame. I couldn’t help but be reminded of my sister Terri’s two-week ordeal that took place at the hospice facility where she was killed in March of 2005.
The was so much that was eerily similar—from the amount of media present and the pro-lifers who were there in prayer, to the dozens of people who were arrested for protesting against what was taking place.
Along with so many other Catholics, I found it profoundly disturbing that President Obama was not only invited to speak at a Catholic university but that he was given an honorary Doctor of Laws degree. It was what Vatican official Archbishop Raymond Burke referred to as the “source of the greatest scandal”.
However, just as disturbing to me was watching the Catholic students, parents and faculty praising President Obama by giving him standing ovations for his “can’t we all just get along about abortion” speech.
They seem to have forgotten the president’s extreme pro-abortion record when he was in the Illinois state senate and his already-lengthy actions in favor of abortion as president. His direct assault on the value and dignity of life and human rights runs completely contrary to Catholic teaching.
But that didn’t seem to diminish the red carpet treatment he received from Notre Dame President John Jenkins who invited Obama to speak. It is shocking and disheartening that a Catholic university would show such adoration for a president who has already been categorized as one of the most pro-death politicians to ever be elected to office.
Of course watching and listening to the media’s fawning coverage was just as difficult as listening to Obama himself. Indeed, the media would repeatedly insist that pro-lifers should try and find common ground with Obama’s position on abortion and embryonic stem cell research. It seems that the mainstream media wants to portray conservatives as a group that needs to adhere to the Obama administration’s policies and his vision of “change” or risk becoming extinct. As is frequently the case, they clearly just don’t get it.
Amidst all this media coverage I also reflected on Obama’s position on euthanasia and his offensive remark about Terri during the campaign. Then candidate Obama claimed his biggest “regret” as a senator was trying to stop Terri’s imposed death. This is especially scary because a growing number of health care experts are already warning us that Obama’s new health care plan could potentially open wide the door to euthanasia in our nation.
Make no mistake: President Obama’s position on how we should treat the most vulnerable members of our society is the same for disabled and medically vulnerable people as it is for innocent unborn children. In short, he seems to believe they fall outside the protection our nation offers. This is especially absurd, given his crusade to protect America’s sworn enemies from methods of “torture” (his word) that fall far short of what happens during an abortion or a euthanasia death by dehydration and starvation.
This same man who advocates unlimited abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy and regrets trying to save the innocent from a horrifying death by dehydration is doing everything is his power to protect the “rights” of the most merciless terrorists in our custody. His administration has even expressed outrage that caterpillars were put in a room with a terrorist as a form of torture. Since the average caterpillar is neither scary nor dangerous, it made me wonder how that would compare to depriving our most vulnerable American citizens—innocent of any crime—of food and water until they dehydrate to death. I find it ironic that he doesn’t seem worried about “regretting” what might happen if any of these terrorists are set free to attack America again.
During all this Notre Dame controversy I also heard more than once from our media that “54 percent of Catholics voted for Obama.” That is a number I never agreed with because I believe that zero percent of true Catholics voted for Obama. If you adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church, you did not vote for him. “Catholics” who voted for Obama chose the “change” and false “hope” offered by a dynamic candidate over the values of their faith. To my mind, they are not Catholics at all.
It was, however, heartening to read of the hundreds of thousands of Catholics (including nearly 100 cardinals and bishops) who did object to the president speaking at Notre Dame and also to see all of the people who showed up to protest Notre Dame’s decision.
Words have meaning and one can only hope that Obama believes in his own rhetoric about change, because if his position does not change with respect to life—and he remains an advocate for the continued death of our most vulnerable—then Notre Dame will be forever associated with giving such a person not only a platform for his position but a prestigious award for it as well. What a badge of shame for a previously great university.
The pro-death prognosticators aren’t always spot on?
Thread by presidio9.
Last winter, the Boston College security policeman phoned me to warn me that someone had placed a sign on my car in the parking garage that suggested I might be in danger. It called me a bunch of foul names, including "baby killer!"
I have just returned to Jersey City after a year at Boston College writing a book on Rev. Robert F. Drinan, S.J., the B.C. law school dean elected to Congress from Massachusetts in 1970 who campaigned against the Vietnam War and called for the impeachment of President Nixon on the basis of his illegal bombing of Cambodia. Drinan was elected five times, but was forced out of office in 1980 by Pope John Paul II, largely because of his support for legalized abortion.
The anonymous vandal in the Boston garage had no idea whose car it was. He or she seems to have been enraged by the rear bumper sticker, put in place during the presidential campaign, which read: "CATHOLIC DEMOCRATS/Blessed Are the Peacemakers." In his/her warped mind, since I was voting for Barack Obama, I must be the kind of fellow who kills babies. . .
Thread by me.
Given its source, a publication of Claremont McKenna College, not exactly a hotbed of radicalism, this article urging health care cost containment as a reason to legalize euthanasia captures a justification for assisted suicide that is ever lurking in the background of the debate. From “The Economic Argument for Euthanasia,” by Charlie Sprague:
America has serious health care problems, and as Paul Krugman makes clear in a recent column, serious cost control in the health care industry needs to be a top priority in reform. President Obama and Congressional Democrats seem poised to push for major health care reform in the upcoming months. One idea that politicians on neither the left nor the right will touch due to political sensibilities, however, could be the easiest way to save billions of dollars without affecting health care quality at all: legalizing euthanasia.
As every good CMCer with an understanding of economics should know, those with terminal illnesses are resource sinks for society. End of life care is incredibly expensive due to the frequency of hospitalizations, the increased need for specialists’ attention, etc. Those with terminal illnesses have even more expensive health care needs. Obviously, those in the final stages of a terminal illness are no longer in any position to contribute economically to society. Their continued existence may be personally meaningful to the those who love them, but from a economic perspective they are all cost and no benefit.
If this is a parody, it just proves the Smith Maxim on Satire and the Culture of Death: They always catch up to you. Look how Oregon Medicaid has already denied chemotherapy to cancer patients but offered to pay for their assisted suicides. Moreover, some real euthanasia supporters have already made the argument. Thus, Derek Humphry and Mary Clement adopted the save-money-by-killing-the-sick argument, on page 333 of their book, Freedom to Die:
A rational argument can be made for allowing PAS [physician-assisted suicide] in order to offset the amount society and family spend on the ill, as long as it is the voluntary wish of the mentally competent terminally and incurably [note: not the same thing as terminal] ill adult. There will likely come a time when PAS becomes a commonplace occurrence for individuals who want to die and feel it is the right thing to do by their loved ones. There is no contradicting the fact that since the largest medical expenses are incurred in the final days and weeks of life, the hastened demise of people with only a short time left would free resources for others. Hundreds of billions of dollars could benefit those patients who not only can be cured but also want to live.
And don’t forget the radical environmentalists are looking toward instituting increased abortion and euthanasia as a way of reducing human population and “saving the planet.” Alas: This article may be a parody, but it is already behind the times.
Thread by paltz.
Some kids will be surprising their fathers with breakfast in bed this weekend, while others will present a gift inscribed with the phrase, "world's best dad." Some men, though, will only be reminded of the heartache from losing the opportunity to become fathers. They are the third victims of abortion.
The story of a man abandoning a woman after getting her pregnant has become the stereotypical image of pro-abortion activists and some pro-lifers. The male shirker is central to the abortion storyline and often is used to rationalize taking the life of a baby. . .
Yeah. What’s up with that troll debating a woman’s “right” to choose? Why hasn’t he been zotted yet?
You mean the same troll who claims that we should just surrender in the war on terror because we can’t win and also believes that we should support Zero?
If that’s the troll you’re referring to, I don’t have a clue why he is still here (in any of his various troll names).
Yep. That troll. He doesn’t make any secret of his abhorrent beliefs.
“Wesley Smith: Save Money by Killing the Sick - Euthanasia as Health Care Cost Containment”
A good resource for warning the public by calling talk shows, writing a letter to the editor, etc. to get them to call their politicians before it’s too late.
If Obama”care” is ever passed, it will probably never be reversed.
Thanks for the ping!
Thread by bdeaner.
A pro-life outreach has started a new prayer campaign hoping for the conversion of pro-abortion Catholic politicians to the pro-life perspective. The web site and outreach OneNationUnderGod is starting the effort today, the feast day of St. Thomas More.
Pope John Paul II proclaimed More the patron saint of statesmen and politicians, so June 22 appears to be an appropriate time for prayer for lawmakers who Catholic deviate from the Catholic Church's longstanding pro-life teachings.
Lisa Correnti talked with LifeNews.com about the new effort.
"In the 1995 encyclical Evangelium vitae, John Paul II reiterates what the Catholic Church has always taught: that lawmakers have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that contradicts humanity's fundamental right to life," she explained.
"Months ago, we discovered that 50 percent of Catholic politicians serving in the 111th Congress have accepted large donations from pro-abortion lobby groups while reinforcing their support for abortion rights legislation," she added. "These elected officials are deeply confused about Catholic teaching on the morality of abortion."
Correnti says pro-abortion Catholic lawmakers fail to recognize that legitimate social policy must be guided by absolute truth -- in this case the understanding that human rights begin when human life begins, at conception. . .
Thread by me.
The President's Council on Bioethics is no more. With a one-day notice, the members were told in a letter from the President that their services were no longer required. Pack up, get out. Forget the fact that they had a couple of interesting reports coming out soon, one more meeting, and that the Council's tenure would expire come this September.
Peter Lawler, member of the now-defunct Council, notes that he is reassured when the letter states that "President Obama recognizes the value of having a commission composed of experts on bioethical issues to provide objective and non-ideological advice to his Administration."
Maybe it's because the President wants to change to bioethics. Maybe it's because he's smarting a bit because, when he issued his new executive order opening the door to more human embryo research and cloning, 10 of the 18 current Council members criticized his new policy. But a more likely reason is that he needs a philosophical, well-stacked bioethics rubber stamp. . .
Thread by me.
June 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – PBS recently conducted interviews with notorious late-term abortionists Leroy Carhart and Warren Hern, in which both men labeled the pro-life movement a “terrorist movement.”
“This is domestic terrorism, this is a terrorist movement,” said Hern.
“The anti-abortion people have no decency. They will stop at nothing,” Hern said. “They'll hurt people that you love in order to hurt you and they do not believe that other people have the right to be left alone.”
He continued, saying that the pro-life message is “designed to kill.”
“It’s part of the message that it’s ok to kill a doctor who does abortions. That's the message, that's what [they] want to happen. That's what happened to Dr. Tiller,” he said.
“This is not an abortion debate, there's no debate,” Hern then stated. “This is a civil war. The anti-abortion people are using bombs and bullets, and they've been doing this for thirty years.”
“The message from the anti-abortion movement is 'do what we tell you or we'll kill you,' and that's what they do.” . . .
Thread by tcg.
In the Parade Magazine interview he told the interviewer: “…we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one. As fathers, we need to be involved in our children’s lives not just when it’s convenient or easy, and not just when they’re doing well — but when it’s difficult and thankless, and they’re struggling. That is when they need us most.” At the Town Hall meeting following the White House Barbecue for young men he said: “If we want our children to succeed in life, we need fathers to step up. We need fathers to understand that their work doesn’t end with conception -- that what truly makes a man a father is the ability to raise a child and invest in that child.”
What is implicit, actually what is explicit, is that President Obama, in emphasizing the ongoing obligations of fatherhood, also acknowledged that Fatherhood begins at conception. Such an admission brings with it an extraordinary implication; every intentional abortion constitutes the killing of some father’s son or daughter. Yes, his comments to the young men concerning the continuing obligations of fatherhood were helpful. But what are we saying as a Nation to all men through our current public policy concerning legalized abortion? Anyone who has counseled, prayed for or known a man who has allowed the mother of his child (or worse encouraged her) to seek an abortion, knows that there are three victims of this evil act. The mother, so often lied to, the child, innocent and deserving of life, and the father, who through his participation in the killing of his child is forever changed. . .
Thread by me.
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In an interview with Jon Stewart of the "Daily Show" on Comedy Central last week, former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee blasted the false notion that common ground exists in the abortion debate.
The notion that there is common ground on killing children and hurting women has been repeatedly taken to task by pro-life advocates.
Huckabee said that abortion advocates don't want to give an inch in the abortion debate by accepting even modest limits on abortion such as parental notification, which would allow parents to know when their daughters are considering the life-altering decision.
Stewart talked about how abortion advocates may have the best interests of women in mind, but Huckabee countered that pro-life advocates care for both mother and child.
"See, Jon, I don't know of a pro-life person that believes if the mother's physical health is in jeopardy that you just let the mother die in order to save the child. Your ideal would be to save both," he said.
Huckabee added that there can be no common ground on abortion just as there was no common ground on the issue of slavery.
"I think one of the fundamental questions that we would have to come to is does a person have a right to own another person. That really is the issue. Can a person own another person? Can a mother totally own the child? Can the father totally own the child?" he asked.
"The question is, is that life inside the mother a human life? If it is, then that human life has equal value to the 70-year-old man, to the 7-year-old child. There is no point at which human life loses its intrinsic worth and value. Do we have the right to own another person?" the former Arkansas governor added.
"There's an equality to human life. No one is worth more than another; no one is worth less than another," he said. . .
Thanks for the ping!
I strongly advise everyone to avoid this major hospital. The prettier the grounds and the newer the buildings don't be fooled. Rationing and malpractice are acceptable there to pass as medical treatment. In 2003, this is the ER that wouldn't let Terri in. This is where Mikey Schiavo used to work.
I have my own examples which shall remain confidential. I'm sure thousands thought they were at the best facility in the area. NOT!
I recommend HCA hospitals instead if you want real medical care. If you want to be rationed go to downtown Clearwater or visit their N. Clwtr facility if you're interested in neglect leading to death. Again, pretty buildings don't mean quality medical treatment, especially in Terri's county.
We aren’t all created equal (congress has best health care) always will.
Bottom line: try to stay well through diet and stress mgmt. If you need RX,keep them to a minimum.
Thread by NYer.
Episcopalian Priest, the Rev. Nina Churchman wrote a letter to Episcopal Life Online saying that women shouldn't have to ask for forgiveness for aborting a child. In fact, Rev. Churchman then goes one step further and says God rejoices in the woman's choice to abort. Here's the text in full:
After reading the 3 June article, "Pregnancy-loss Prayers", I found the text for Rachel's Tears online and was sickened to discover that the rite for abortion is couched wholly in terms of sin and transgression. The Episcopal Church, by resolution, has long held that women have the freedom to choose an abortion. It is not considered a sin. That this new rite begins with the words, "I seek God's forgiveness..." and includes "God rejoices that you have come seeking God's merciful forgiveness..." is contrary to the resolution. Women should be able to mourn the loss of an aborted fetus without having to confess anything. God, unlike what the liturgy states, also rejoices that women facing unplanned pregnancies have the freedom to carefully choose the best option - birth, adoption or abortion - for themselves and their families. No woman makes this decision lightly or frivolously. But each needs the non-judgmental and non-coercive support of her faith community to make the best decision for her circumstances.Firstly, the question of sin being based on resolution seems strange to me. I wonder if before that resolution passed, did Churchman believe abortion was a sin. I'd bet not. What if at some future date the Episcopal Church reinstates abortion as a sin, do some people in Heaven then have to go to Hell?
The wording of this liturgy focuses solely on guilt and sin instead of the grief and healing that may accompany a very difficult but appropriate decision to terminate a pregnancy. If anyone is paying attention at the General Convention, this rite should not be approved.
Thread by me.
Zurich, Switzerland (LifeNews.com) -- The Switzerland government is considering a proposal that would ban the assisted suicide clinics run by the pro-euthanasia group Dignitas. The move would end the practice of so-called suicide tourism and move the European nation out of the category with Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.
The 1942 Swiss law allowing assisted suicide has led to a practice where residents of other nations, especially England and Germany, travel to the country to end their lives.
Federal government officials said last week that they want to discuss "legal barriers and a ban on organized suicide assistance."
The proposal would limit who could use assisted suicide such as limiting it to those who are close to death. . .
Thread by Avoiding_Sulla.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain is celebrating the reissuing of Peter Taaffe’s book, The Masses Arise: The Great French Revolution 1789 -1815. “Its republication by Socialist Publications, in time for the 220th anniversary of this great event in July 2009, is extremely timely,” says the party’s website.
A different page on the party’s site promoting the same book instructs readers: “An understanding of the French Revolution remains crucial for all revolutionaries. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky studied it intensely to gain an understanding of the dynamics of revolutions.” As have virtually all other modern communist revolutionaries and self-styled “liberators” of “the people.” The well-known blood-drenched trails, for example, of Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai in China, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and Pol Pot in Cambodia, all sprang from the Jacobin tradition, with many of these leaders and their privileged comrades imbibing deeply of the intoxicating elixir of revolution at the Sorbonne and other French universities.
The spirit of the French Revolution continues to stalk our planet as virulently as ever, an ideological plague that refuses to die and continues to be transmitted from one generation to another.
As in 1789, the most influential Jacobins of today can be found among the wealthiest and most privileged echelons of our society. While Jacobins such as Robespierre, Danton, Marat, Hebert, Desmoulins, St. Just, Santerre, Sieyes, Tinville, et al., were the public faces of the revolution, it was the rich and super-rich malcontents in the shadows who provided the funding that made the overthrow of the ancient regime possible. Foremost among these was Louis Phillipe II, the fabulously wealthy and infamously degenerate Duc d’Orleans, who hated King Louis XVI (his cousin) and hated even more Queen consort Marie Antoinette (for rebuffing his sexual advances and causing his banishment from court). Joining him were other titled men of considerable pelf (and, usually, libertine habits), to wit: the Duc de Biron, the Marquis de Sillery, the Vicomte de Noailles, the Baron “Anacharsis” de Cloots, the Comte de Mirabeau, the Marquis de St. Huruge, the Vicomte de Segur, and the infamously perverse Marquis de Sade (from whom we derive the adjective “sadistic”). . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.