UN Report on Child Sex Abuse Demands the Church Change Teachings on Abortion and Homosexuality

The United Nations Committee on the Protection of the Child has issued a report on the Catholic Church and the child sex abuse scandal.

The report goes off the rails. Instead of dealing with the issue of sexual abuse of children in the serious and concentrated manner that it deserves, the committee used the report as an opportunity to demand that the Church change its teaching on abortion and homosexuality.

I have a hard time when I see people using the sexual violation of innocent children as a wedge issue to promote their unrelated agendas. I regard it as callous political opportunism that has nothing at all to do with a genuine concern for the children. I think it violates the victims all over again by ignoring them and their needs and using them as tools to “get at” someone else.

It was dispiriting, reading this report. The children this report is talking about have been subjected to the life-destroying cruelty of sexual abuse by a trusted adult. It breaks my heart to see other adults, who are supposed to be their advocates, misuse their suffering to score points for their own private agendas.

The focus of this report should have been the children and how to help and protect them.

Here is a video summarizing the report.

YouTube Preview Image

 

Four-Year-Old Girl and Her Family Ask Belgian King to Block Euthanasia of Children

Jessicasaba

Speaking of child abuse, legislators in Belgium are moving toward passage of a law that would allow doctors to euthanize children.

It all began in 2002 with a law that allowed doctors in Belgium to kill their patients who were (a) at least 18 years old, (b) of sound mind, and (c) gave their consent. Left out of this (of course) was just how questionable “consent” becomes when families and medical practitioners go at a sick person who is probably also isolated and totally dependent on them for their emotional and physical well being.

This “right” morphed a bit in 2013 when doctors began killing people who were not terminally ill, but merely facing a disability. Now, the idea of extending this “right to die” to children and people suffering from dementia is moving toward legality.

The family of four-year-old Jessica Saba has stepped into the debate to ask King Philippe to block euthanasia for children like her. I say “like her” because Jessica was born with a heart defect that required surgery to allow her to live.

You know what that kind of surgery is, don’t you? It’s expensive.

Whereas, killing the child would be oh, so much cheaper, not to mention alleviating the “suffering” of her parents and saving the baby herself from that painful wake-up from anesthesia which any surgery patent knows all too well.

When you look at it that way, it’s a blessing to kill little kids. Who could be so cruel as to deprive them of their “right” to die?

As for those difficult dementia patients, aren’t their “useful” lives over anyway? Think how much better it would be for families if they weren’t burdened with the trouble of taking care of Grandma. As for the expense, everyone knows that end of life care racks up the bucks.

I apologize for being so sarcastic. But I am at my wit’s end with people who try to justify legalized medical murder by flinging around ridiculous arguments about how killing people is a kindness to them and their “right.”

The killing of innocents is not a “human right” and it is not a kindness.

We are creating a society where we kill everyone who does not have the capacity to actively defend their life in a courtroom. If someone who can stand upright and vocalize sophisticated arguments does not speak up for them — and in certain cases such as the judicial murder of Terry Shiavo, even if they do — they can and will be killed by doctors obeying a court order. All that needs to happen is for someone else with what the court decides is “standing” to petition the court that they want their “loved one” dead.

1828189207

I hope and pray that the lawmakers of Belgium get a grip and stop this legislation themselves. But if that does not happen, we can only hope that King Philippe will step in. I assume there will be an enormous political price to pay if he does.

That is an interesting remark, isn’t it? We have come to the place in our “civilized” Western world where the political danger lies in refusing to allow oneself to be made into the executioner of little children and helpless old people.

I do not ever take a destabilizing action in governance lightly, and I assume that is what this could be. My basic premise of governance is that a just and stable government is always the greater good. However, a government that kills its old people and little children is not just. There are times when the decision is so fraught that there truly is no other option but to take the possibly destabilizing path.

Every lawmaker from the king down who says yes to this will have done something that puts them beyond the pale of civilized behavior. Every person who lobbies for it, or votes for those who pass it, will have made themselves an accomplice to it.

If the king signs this, he will make of himself the executioner of little children and helpless old people. Could you sign it? Would you?

I hope the lawmakers say no. If they don’t, I hope the king says no.

Whatever the political consequences, they are nothing compared to the moral consequences of having said yes to this measure.

YouTube Preview Image

Woody Allen and Polanski: The Rich and Shameless Display Hypocrisy About Child Sexual Abuse

Tumblr mzbqi2N23P1rjriquo1 500

Nobody hates pedophiles more than the Rich and Shameless.

At least, they hate pedophiles when the pedophile is a priest.

Pedophile priests should be — and are — burned at the stake of public opinion, and their pedophile-enabling bishops along with them. That’s the verdict of the R&S set.

However, when the pedophile is a powerful director of successful films — who might conceivably be of benefit to their careers — we are reminded of the cinema “art,” these directors provide. As for the unimportant girl-child, well, she can’t give anybody a job or produce their play or anything of value. So what’s the beef? Put away the stake, douse the flames and quit the word processor. There will be no public hating today.

Here’s how the Rich and Shameless appear to regard these things:

Catholic priest caught with child pornography on his computer:

R&S: Burn/behead/draw-and-quarter him. At the least, send him, his bishop and the bishop’s dog to a maximum security prison for life.

Powerful director rapes a teen-aged girl:

R&S: It wasn’t rape rape. Let’s sign a petition protesting the police-state arrest of this great artist.

Powerful director, at age 56, has an affair with and marries a girl he has raised as his daughter, and is accused by her sister of having raped her when she was seven:

R&S: This is just a bitter woman (the girls mother) who is trying to get this fine man, who, by the way, is a “great artist.” His “personal life” should not interfere with the professional respect he receives for his “art.”  

Does anybody but me detect a wee bit of hypocrisy here?

I have no problem with sending pedophile priests to jail. I am as disgusted with the bishops who hid them and allowed them to continue in their abuse of children as anyone on this planet.

The difference between me and the Rich and Shameless is that I feel this way because of the children. I am not interested in using the sexual abuse of children as a leitmotif to try to define and destroy the Catholic Church. I also do not excuse priests who do this because they’re on “my” team. So far as I’m concerned, it’s all about the children.

These people, that I’m calling “Rich and Shameless” for lack of a better way to describe them, excoriate Catholic priests who sexually abuse children without mercy or limit. They extend this excoriation to the Church as a whole, drubbing all priests and bishops with the same filthy brush.

Then they turn around and deny and defend powerful members of their own community from well-founded accusations of egregious sexual abuse of children. They use specious denials, personal testimonies, accusations and claims of some sort of non-existent moral high ground to excuse who they want excused from whatever they do. It gets so ridiculous that they inevitably end up skewering themselves with their own dissimulations.

I don’t think that people who do this care about the sexual abuse of children. I think they use it when the sexual abuse fits their other objectives as a means of attacking people and causes they don’t like. I think they then turn around and dismiss it, to quote Shakespeare, as much ado about nothing when the accused is one of their own, even when the accusations against their own stink like an open sewer.

Their outrage over pedophile priests looks like a pose and a sham. Their reactions to pedophiles, both charged and credibly accused, who are also powerful directors, are exhibits a and b, pointing to that conclusion.

Will They Know We are Christians by Our Love?

Funny raise your voice argument


“A Christian murderer…It’s not me saying this, it’s the Lord. And there is no place for nuances. If you speak ill of your brother, you kill your brother. And every time we do this, we are imitating that gesture of Cain, the first murderer in History.” Pope Francis

I want to tell you two stories, both true, and both of which happened to me.

Back when I was running for office the first time around, I held a fund-raising party at a friend’s house. During the course of that campaign, I had been the target of a group of people who were strongly pro life. I had preachers at the largest churches in the district, preaching against me every Sunday. I had pro life people, walking door-to-door throughout the entire district, spreading outrageous lies about me.

For some reason, whenever a woman runs for office, the lies usually center around sex. I was denounced as a lesbian/prostitute/whore. I was also called a Communist.

When the fund-raising party took place, several of the pro life people showed up and took photos of the guests as they entered the house in what everyone thought was an attempt to intimidate them. They also made a point of writing down the license tag numbers on the guests’ cars.

That was back then, when I was pro choice.

Flash forward a couple of decades, and I am a converted Catholic, and what has been called the most pro life member of the Oklahoma legislature. (That’s the same Oklahoma legislature I was in back when I was pro choice.)

I hold another fund-raising event, this time a reception at the law office of a long-time friend of mine. Once again, I have been attacked by people who are passionate about the issue of abortion. Only this time it is the pro abortion people. I almost get censured by the Oklahoma Democratic Party. I am called a woman-hater/liar/whore. I am also called a (get ready for this) Fascist.

Now, at this fund-raising party, the pro abortion people show up. They — you guessed it — take photos of the guests as they enter the building, presumably to intimidate them, and write down the license tag numbers on the guest’s cars. The only difference between them and the pro life people who attacked me in my past is that they add the flourish of pickets with signs and chanting “traitor” at me in loud voices when I walk into the building.

Here’s my point: How, exactly, would a person on the sidelines be able to tell these two groups apart?

Answer: They’re can’t.

Both groups justify their behavior with claims that they are behaving badly out of a desire to create a greater good. The pro choicers claim that they are motivated by their love for women. The pro lifers say that they are motived by their love for unborn babies.

But if there is love in either group, you can’t see it by watching them. Their motivation appears to be hatred of one another.

In my humble opinion, if you can’t tell the difference between the behavior of pro life people and pro abortion people, then the pro life people are doing something wrong.

Evidently, my earlier post about slander and hate in political campaigns, felt like a personal attack to at least a few Public Catholic readers. That was not my intention. I know how hard it is to keep your religion when you are dealing with evil, and abortion is evil, right down to the ground. It perverts everything it touches, including good intentions.

It is the easiest thing in the world to convince yourself that sin is not sin if it is committed in the name of doing good. Politicians do this all the time. It’s why nobody trusts them. Politicians have extraordinary verbal skills and a good dose of legal sophistry at their disposal. They can spin up explanations about their own behavior and use those explanations to give themselves a green light to do just about anything. They excuse immoral behavior by claiming a moral imperative to behave immorally on just about every weasel vote they take.

Anyone who engages in the political battles of this world — even volunteers and well-wishers — is positioning themselves for a blast from the temptations of power. There are plenty of power brokers out there working full-time to grease the slide of ordinary people into the same self-congratulatory self-excusing self-justifications that politicians use.

But the truth itself remains untouched. In the end, the only ones we fool are ourselves.

What I’m trying to say is Do not let the evil of abortion and the venality of politics overwhelm your goodness and destroy your Christian witness. Do not tell yourself that sin is not sin if it is committed in the name of fighting abortion. Do not tell yourself that maliciously spreading ugly stories and gossip about other people is ok if it’s done to keep a pro abort out of office.

Because it is not ok. You may not do evil for a good cause. You also may not do evil because someone else did it first. It is wrong. It is sinful. For your own sake — for your own soul — do not become hardened in this sin of personal character assassination.

Several commenters have objected to the use of the phrase “murder with words” to describe the deliberate destruction of another person’s reputation for malicious purposes. I have looked into the eyes and seen the faces of people from both sides of the argument as they spit out vile epithets at me. I saw who sent them in their eyes. I never doubted that they were trying to hate me to death, that the only thing between their hate and actual, physical murder was fear of the law. The experience gave me an understanding of what Jesus meant when he said that a person who hates his brother or sister is a murderer, and no murderer has eternal life within him. 

Think for a minute. Consider the dark pleasure that you feel when you are venting your righteous rage. Ponder the ugliness that enters your soul, along with the anger that accompanies it.

I spent a good bit of time in church this weekend, praying about my own righteous anger over fallen Catholics in high places. I knew that I could not and would not take to the various forums that are open to me and begin calling them names and putting out Photoshopped versions of their faces, replete with horns and ugly expressions. I had no temptation to degrade them as human beings or to spread ugly stories about them to punish and hurt them.

But I knew that the anger I felt could fester into bitterness, and that this bitterness would separate me from the one place above all that I want to be, which is in a state of grace. I want to do what my Lord Jesus Christ requires of me. So, I prayed about this anger before it had time to grow roots and begin to own me.

It is ok, it is fine, in fact, to deal with issues and facts and to point out the areas where you disagree with a person. It is ok, when the facts themselves warrant it, to say something such as President Obama is the most pro abortion president in history. I think there is sufficient factual evidence to warrant that statement, and I also think that it pertains to his job performance.

As their employers, the American people are obliged to have opinions about their elected officials’ job performance. Judiciously considering the facts and making reasoned judgements about how our elected officials perform their jobs is part of our charge as citizens of this Republic.

It is also imperative that Christians engage the larger culture through their work, their politics and their ministries. We are called to be the light of the world. We need to go into the world and be that light.

But trashing another person for the pleasure of hurting them — which is the real reason people repeat ugly, personal stories — is sinful. Trashing another person as a tactic is just as sinful. I am not talking about legitimate political criticism. I am talking about attempts to destroy someone’s reputation by spitefully spreading personal stories about them in what amounts to a political vendetta. Use any excuse you want, that is a sin. If you will just look into your own heart, at the darkness it puts there, you will know it for the sin it is.

I can attest to this because I am a human being. I know about the dark pleasure of hurting someone with words because I have felt it. I can tell you, based on my sinful experience that this is a grave sin that not only inflicts helplessness, humiliation and scalding pain on the person you attack, it dips your own soul in the blackness of evil. It is from the pit.

The question is not whether or not “everybody else is doing it.” Of course they are. Our whole culture is rotten with the politics of personal destruction. That is not a question at all.

The real question is: When people look at pro life advocates, will they be able to tell a difference between us and the pro abortion advocates?

Unless the answer to that is a clear-cut and resounding “yes,” we will never, no matter how hard we try, convert this culture to Christ.

After I wrote this, I found these comments from Pope Francis on this subject. From CNA/EWTN:

.- During his morning Mass homily in Santa Marta, Pope Francis focused on the topic of gossip – saying that when we participate in this sin, we imitate Cain’s gesture in killing his brother Abel.

The Pope began his homily Sept. 13 by echoing the words of Jesus in the gospel reading, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”

He spoke for a few minutes on the virtue of humility, adding that Jesus addressed those who practice the opposite and who foster “that hateful attitude towards one’s neighbor when one becomes a ‘judge’ of his brother,” calling them “hypocrites.”

“Those who live judging their neighbor, speaking ill of their neighbor, are hypocrites, because they lack the strength and the courage to look to their own shortcomings.”

Pope Francis said that the “Lord does not waste many words on this concept,” and that “he who has hatred in his heart for his brother is a murderer.”

The Pope added that in his first letter, John the Apostle emphasizes that “anyone who has hatred for his brother is a murderer, he walks in darkness, he who judges his brother walks in darkness,” and that those who judge or speak ill of others are “Christian murderers.”

“A Christian murderer…It’s not me saying this, it’s the Lord. And there is no place for nuances. If you speak ill of your brother, you kill your brother. And every time we do this, we are imitating that gesture of Cain, the first murderer in History.”

During this time when there is so much debate and discussion about war amid cries for peace, the pontiff pleaded that “a gesture of conversion on our own behalf is necessary.”

“Gossip,” he cautioned, “always has a criminal side to it. There is no such thing as innocent gossip.”

Quoting St. James the Apostle, the Pope imparted that the tongue is designed to praise God, “but when we use our tongue to speak ill of our brother or sister, we are using it to kill God…the image of God in our brother.”

Atheists Launch Super Bowl Ad Mocking Hail Mary

Doug Flutie the Hail Mary Pass

American Atheists must rolling in cash. They’re running an ad at the upcoming Super Bowl.

Don’t throw your rosaries in the trash yet. There’s nothing new. It’s just the usual jibe at Christians — in this case Catholics. The ad is a pun on the hail Mary pass. It shows a man wearing what looks like a clerical collar, holding a football. The words A Hail Mary only works in football are displayed next to him.

Yuck. Yuck.

The ad will also feature a link to American Atheist’s upcoming convention, where, presumably, there will be jibes, jokes and clever puns attacking Christians galore.

From The Huffington Post:

No country combines sport, politics and religion quite like the US. Just watch this weekend’s Superbowl for a barrage of chest-beating nationalism and religious iconography pumped out before, during and after the game.

Yet atheists, one of the quickest growing demographics in the US, according to recent polls, are striking back this year with a billboard at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium mocking those who turn to prayer during the game.

Superbowl

West Coast Walk for Life: Archbishop Cordileone Asks Young People to Defend Life and Marriage

SJC photo resized

Archbishop Cordileone called on young people at the West Coast March for Life to defend both the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of marriage.

His message is especially powerful, coming as it does from an area of the country in which much of the population appears to be hostile to traditional values.

I see Archbishop Cordileone’s statement as the first of what will grow into a movement in the future. Promoters of gay marriage often tell us that in a few years, people will look back on those of us who support traditional marriage and say that we were on the wrong side of history.

Not so, my friends.

In future years, the struggle for traditional marriage will still be on-going. Like the pro-life movement, it will grow stronger as the debacle we have brought on ourselves becomes more apparent.

The first step is for Christian people to reclaim the sanctity of marriage in their own lives. This means that Christian spouses should keep their vows to love and cherish one another, forsaking all others.

From The National Catholic Register:

SAN FRANCISCO — A massive crowd stretching out for a mile in sunny downtown San Francisco showed the growing momentum of the Walk for Life, which celebrated its 10th anniversary for participants from across California and neighboring states.

On Jan. 25, more than 50,000 people gathered in front of San Francisco City Hall, and the diverse crowd included a mix of ages and ethnic and religious groups, with songs and prayer in English and Spanish.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, during hishomily at the Mass proceeding the rally, congratulated the young people present for embracing the pro-life movement and for joining the hundreds of lay activists, priests, women and men religious and seminarians at St. Mary’s Cathedral.

“The steadily expanding presence of young people at the Walk for Life, he said, underscored a new generation’s awareness that abortion harms rather than helps women.

“Forty years and 58 million abortions later, the very painful truth has come to light: Yes, abortion does hurt women,” said Archbishop Cordileone.

The San Francisco Church leader credited an older generation of pro-life activists with helping to change the nation’s view of abortion and demonstrating “heroic virtue” during past decades when those who challenged the legalization of abortion were stigmatized. Now, he warned the students at the cathedral, they must help enlighten their own peers about the central role of marriage as the sanctuary of life.

“The pro-life movement is about more than saving the life of the baby,” said Archbishop Cordileone.

“It’s especially about connecting that baby to where he or she came from: the mother and the father. …There is no other institution that does that.”

… Archbishop Cordileone urged the young Catholics at the cathedral to stay “close to Christ” as they seek to present the truth about marriage.

“Future generations will understand that the natural truth of marriage benefits everyone and discriminates against no one,” he predicted.

“But prepare yourselves: It will require heroic virtue, for there is a lot of reverse bullying going on these days.”

 

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-cordileone-asks-young-pro-lifers-to-defend-life-and-marriage/#ixzz2riMUp6do

 

They’re Going to Die Anyway

One doctor’s answer to the argument that the baby is going to die anyway. This doctor also explains how Obamacare violates the consciences of medical practitioners with its enforcement of abortion at any cost.

As a side note, I know a number of people who have healthy children that they were told to abort because the baby supposedly had a terminal illness or grave disability and, when they refused the abortion (often they were under serious duress from their doctors to abort) the baby turned out to be fine.

YouTube Preview Image

Oklahoma Lawmaker Files Bill to Ban Marriage

24543033 BG1

You gotta admit. I do have an interesting job. 

One of my colleagues in the Oklahoma House of Representatives has filed a bill that would make marriage illegal in Oklahoma. He says this is a way to keep gay marriage out of the state and satisfy the Constitution. 

I’m not going to comment about this right now. I may have to vote on it. And I definitely will be hearing about it in more detail in the next few days. 

In the meantime, I’m going to toss it out there for Public Catholic readers to chew on. Remember: No name-calling or verbal fisticuffs. 

Enjoy.

From Oklahoma’s Own News 9:

OKLAHOMA CITY -

State lawmakers are considering throwing out marriage in Oklahoma.

The idea stems from a bill filed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond). Turner says it’s an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Oklahoma while satisfying the U.S. Constitution. Critics are calling it a political stunt while supporters say it’s what Oklahomans want.

“[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all,” Turner said.

Other conservative lawmakers feel the same way, according to Turner.

“Would it be realistic for the State of Oklahoma to say, ‘We’re not going to do marriage period,’” asked News 9′s Michael Konopasek.

“That would definitely be a realistic opportunity, and it’s something that would be part of the discussion,” Turner answered.

Such a discussion will be made possible by a current shell bill — something that can be changed at almost any time to react to upcoming rulings on Oklahoma’s same-sex marriage ban.

“I think that, especially with issues like this, [these lawmakers are] out of touch with most Oklahomans,” said Ryan Kiesel, ACLU Oklahoma executive detector.

Cough. “Women’s Health” Looks a Lot Like the Old Double Standard.

MP900321069 300x214 1

Oklahoma is having a bit of a kerfluffle over the morning after pill.

On one side, we have a law that passed last session, simply requiring a prescription for the morning after pill for minors.

On the other side, we have the self-appointed, self-annointed arbiters of a narrow and monstrously patriarchal ideology of feminism that says that women’s human rights center entirely around the pelvic region. The whole purpose of “women’s health” and “women’s rights” as they are pushed by these people, is not the welfare of young girls. It is making them sexually available.

The pink-shirted spokespeople for this viewpoint hold that every girl needs to dose herself with dangerous chemical forms of birth control. If that fails, every girl must then avail herself of even more dangerous and higher dosages of chemicals in the form of the morning after pill. If that fails, well, then, it’s off to the abortion clinic.

And then, I suppose, back into the back seats of cars.

Because, you see, “everybody” has sex at 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, whether they want to or not. And “everybody” needs to make sure that this sex they’re having in this randomized, callous hook-up culture that deprives them of intimacy, tenderness and caring is “safe.” 

Safe, I wonder, from what? And safe for whom?

Anytime we talk about the “teen pregnancy problem” in this country, the talk is all about how to dose young girls with as many hormones as we can possibly get into their young bodies. While Oklahoma argues about niceties like required prescriptions, New York is passing these same drugs out to school girls like candy.

Because, you see, it is well-known that we have a “teen pregnancy problem,” and the cause of this problem is that young girls aren’t properly dosed up with hormones. It has nothing … I repeat; nothing … to do with the fact that young girls in our society no longer feel free to say “no” to sexual advances.

It also has nothing to do with the fact that young girls (and boys) are so Daddy deprived, so hungry for anything that passes for male approval, that they do not have enough self to stand against the tide of exhortations, “education,” peer pressure and constant drum beat of messages from the media to demand what they want.

And what do they want? I would guess that young girls want what every other person on this planet wants: To be valued for themselves. The sick sadness of teaching them that they should search for this in random sex is beyond comprehension. 

How is pushing dangerous chemicals on them anything other than an attack on young girls’ health? How is encouraging them to be sexually available and taking away their freedom to say no anything other than a blatant destruction of their developing sense of self? 

How does targeting young girls as the way to deal with the “teen pregnancy problem” as if it was their problem alone manage to become women’s rights? Isn’t it obviously … and I say again, obviously … just the old sexual double standard all dressed up in a money-making bonanza for the people who run the bogus sex education classes and make money off pushing chemical birth control with an abortion chaser on our school kids?

This is not “women’s health.” It is also not “women’s rights.” 

It’s the double standard, in all its dehumanizing, death-dealing force, come back around again. 

This article from a few months ago, describes the situation. From the Daily Mail:

Hooked on the morning after pill

It used to be a last resort. Now a generation of young women use it as their regular contraceptive – with potentially devastating consequences

 

By JULIA LLEWELLYN SMITH

 

Tania Mirmothari was worried sick. The previous night, the 19-year-old from Wakefield, West Yorkshire, had had yet another drunken one-night stand.

Carefree at the time, the following morning she’d woken with a thumping hangover, horrified at the realisation she might be pregnant.

There was only one thing for it: Tania went to her local walk-in health centre and asked for the morning-after pill.

 
Risk-takers: Tania Mirmothari (left) and Helen Tsingos regularly take the morning after pill
 
 

Risk-takers: Tania Mirmothari (left) and Helen Tsingos regularly take the morning after pill


As she sat in the waiting room, she cringed with humiliation. Shockingly, this was Tania’s fifth visit that year. Four other times in the past 12 months she’d found herself sitting, red-faced, in the same clinic, waiting for her prescription. 

 

‘I look back with shame,’ says Tania, who is now 22, and in a long-term relationship while training to be a social worker. ‘I was just out getting drunk, messing about and being stupid, having one-night stands with boys who did not mean anything to me.


‘But going to the walk-in centre, I started to feel really embarrassed. I saw the same lady each time and she recognised me. I dreaded having to ask for the prescription, but then, what could I do?’

Many might argue that, actually, there were quite a few things Tania could have done: not drinking herself into oblivion every weekend was one; not falling into bed with a stranger another; and using contraception a third.

Like a growing number of young girls in our binge-drinking culture, however, such precautions would be abandoned around the time of her fifth vodka and coke.


‘I have friends who’ve taken it three times in one month. There’s so much pressure on us to be sexually active’

And at the back of her inebriated mind was the knowledge that, whoever she woke up with the next day, she’d be able to get hold of the morning-after pill just as easily as a paracetamol — or the next round of drinks.


Not so long ago, the morning-after pill was viewed very much as a last resort, described by health professionals as ‘emergency contraception’. It was designed for use in the rare event of regular contraceptives failing. But since it was made readily available over the counter 11 years ago, not to mention being increasingly accessible online, young women like Tania are taking it not in emergencies, but whenever it suits them, as their preferred method of contraception.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2142089/Hooked-morning-pill-It-used-resort-Now-generation-young-women-use-regular-contraceptive–potentially-devastating-consequences.html#ixzz2rdDI9PuP 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Lock Up Your Babies and Little Old Ladies. It’s Killing Time in New Mexico.

 

8b45421bea39e2a42ea97b0eef253d2a

 

You know those magazine articles and internet blogs detailing the best places in America to retire?

You can take New Mexico off the list.

Judge Nan Nash, a family court judge from the New Mexico second judicial district, has decided it’s time to let New Mexico doctors legally kill their patients. Anyone with half a brain knows that, despite the judge’s contentions, that means primarily and mostly our old people.

You can read her findings here. If you do, you’ll notice that she makes quite a few unsupported assumptions to get to her conclusion, which is that doctors in New Mexico can now kill their patients.

You can dress it up all you want, but that’s what euthanasia is: A license to kill.

You can call it “mercy” and “compassion” and whatever nonsensical appellation you can dream up to hang on it. But it’s killing people who have become a “burden.”

I hesitate to reference Hitler, especially after my explication here, but sometimes, only a reference to one of the masters of Godless killing of the 20th Century fits the “progressive” things we are doing to ourselves in America today. Euthanasia of the sick and the elderly is just Hitler’s “solution” for what he called “useless eaters” one step removed.

Proponents of euthanasia describe a fantasyland world where we can give people the legal right to kill other people and it won’t ever be abused. They live in a world where euthanasia is palliative care to ease people out of the inhuman suffering that the same medical profession we are giving the right to kill them inflicted on them in the first place. They erect all sorts of pretty little fences around their medical killing fields, and then pretend that those fences actually serve to keep the killers out.

But the truth of the matter is that human beings will kill with impunity if you allow them to kill at all. The line between a doctor and a killer is the law. Doctors have the power to kill their patents in a thousand unseen ways. They do it by accident all the time. They always, from the time you submit yourself to their care, have the power to kill you.

But when we blur the lines around how they can use that power to allow them to deliberately and willfully kill their patients in one little “extreme” instance and another instance and another one over there, we have opened the door to the idea that it is permissible for doctors to kill their patients.

All the pretty little legal fences in the world cannot undo the bedrock change in philosophy and attitude that comes riding in on that permission. After you break down the barrier between healing and killing of patients, everything else is fine print.

I say this as someone who is “burdened” as the world sees it with an elderly parent: You don’t have to kill people. All you have to do is love them and take care of them. Life is worth living, even at its twilight. People are precious, even when they can’t do anything for us anymore and we have to do for them.

Every human being is made in the image and likeness of God Almighty and, with the single exception of self defense, you may not kill them. 

Human life belongs to God. It is His to give, and His to take. It is ours to live.

What a bunch of inhuman monsters we have become that our society allows this.

I could go off into long-winded explanations as to why euthanasia is wrong and unnecessary and (dare I say it) a mortal sin that can get you sent to flaming hell for eternity. I’ve done it before. And I imagine I’ll do it again.

But for today, I’m doing to repeat one statement that I think says it all:

What a bunch of inhuman monsters we have become.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X