Today is the feast of Holy Innocents

What would drive a king to order the slaughter of all male toddlers two years and under across a number of districts? What would drive his soldiers to carry out the deed amidst the objections and wailing of the mothers and fathers who are unable to stop the massacre? What did the bystanders do? What was going through their minds?
   And then one would ask: was God also a bystander? How could he let this happen? This is a tough one, but the answer can be as simple as this: it is his will that Herod, those soldiers, the parents of the victims and the other witnesses should have the freedom to act as they choose. They were, after all, made in his image and likeness, and so they had the power of their intellect as well as conscience, enough to know that murder was wrong. For God to deny Herod and the soldiers free will is to obliterate them as human beings. And since all human beings are capable of wrongdoing at various points in their lives, then the implications are not so limited as one might think.
    The first reading from St. John's first letter tells us that we all sin from time to time. He also tells us that in God there is no darkness. How then do we achieve communion with him if there is darkness in us each time we sin? He will not obliterate us, but he will forgive our sins. He provided the sacrifice in his mercy and love: Jesus Christ, the lamb of God. Through him, our sins can be forgiven if we acknowledge them. Even Herod could have been forgiven. As for the holy innocents, they are not abandoned to their deaths, for there is eternal life in heaven, and these innocents cannot have committed sin at that age.
    But today, a slaughter of innocent continues, as this reflection points out. What would drive fathers and mothers to abort their own child, or allow that of their grandchild, nephew, or niece? What would drive legislators to advocate for more abortions, locally and internationally, to the tune of over 40 million annually across the world? What would drive a doctor, sworn to provide healing and to do no harm, to perform the abortion despite knowing that the child is viable, or the very simple fact that even the embryo at day one is its own distinct being? What did bystanders do? What was going through their minds at what was occurring or about to occur?
    Today is the feast of Holy Innocents. Let us pray for an end to the slaughter, not by legislation, not by obliterating our free will, but primarily the conversion of our hearts, through Jesus Christ, our sacrifice and advocate.

The Gipper Got it Right: Pro-Life Ronald Reagan on Abortion

Very succinct observations and very powerful insights (LifeNews).

Children of the Reformation: On Marriage, Contraception to Abortion

Touchstone Archives: Children of the Reformation is a thought-provoking read. I think a few questions are left unanswered though, such as how today's pastors, recovering the orthodox Christian ethos, might navigate their way through the very factors that caused their forebears to fumble on such crucial matters. But someone has probably written about that already someplace.

Prenatal screening for Down syndrome: genocide?

So says a group of New Zealanders who are calling out the government on policies that can be perceived to encourage abortion of those found in utero to likely suffer from Down syndrome. In highlighting how far this has already gone, they cite "around 90 per cent of these babies in some western countries having their lives terminated in utero."

Aborted for a cleft lip and palate?

One has to wonder if postmodern society is truly so enlightened as to abort a baby due to a cleft lip and palate, a problem that can be corrected with surgery. To make things worse, how does one silence one's conscience enough so that the baby, born alive, having survived the abortion, was left in a bag to die alone and uncared for?

Getting to the soul of the matter

The story of South Korea attempting to reverse the culture of abortion and contraception is not unique. The same problem exists in Japan, China (particularly Shanghai), Germany, France, and other countries. Note that it isn't only that this generation is refusing to propagate life to the next generation. In many countries today, despite the wealth and relatively higher levels of comfort and safety, people are also giving up on their own lives. Not only is depression and suicide more common, there's the push for euthanasia, and many voices for the termination of the ill, the handicapped, etc.

It isn't something that incentives can help with. The soul, in this case, has been corrupted. The solution lies in cleansing the soul. But what is a government to do when they no longer believe in that?

Fighting the culture of death attacking the Philippines

The eggs were probably laid long before the 60s, and here comes the onslaught against life. The Philippines is yet another country whose life values are being attacked not only in the shadows through pop culture, but for a few years now, through legislation. The "Reproductive Health" lobby is being heavily funded by groups such as Planned Parenthood, whose agenda is probably both financial and ideological. This blog is dedicated to thwarting those efforts in the Philippines. Manny Amador's blog is also in the fight. Please pray for the Philippines and for Filipinos: may God send more workers in the vineyard to sow and harvest life, not death.

Movie Review: Juno

It's a good movie, surprisingly positive and refreshingly honest. Juno is 16 and gets pregnant without being promiscuous. Yes, it happens. She initially sought abortion, which is probably a typical first consideration in first world countries today, but she gets a good dose of doubts about the rightness of this option. She decides to have the baby and put him up for adoption. Much of the movie is also about the couple that she chooses to adopt the baby. But it isn't that simple either, the couple not being perfect after all. I also liked the way her father and stepmother react to her news. They are supportive, which I think is always good. It bothered me that the stepmother seemed ambivalent concerning abortion, but I'm glad that neither she nor Juno's father pushed for abortion. The movie is realistic in one sense: teenagers in high school can't handle the responsibility just yet. The implications of this will hopefully penetrate most viewers. I found one scene to be rather profound: the first time when Juno wept, and perhaps was at her lowest point about her dilemma, was when she found out about problems between the couple who were adopting the baby later. This reveals the heart of the issue: what happens to the baby? The tears were not about Juno's predicament; they were about the baby's future.

DecentFilms has got a must-read review, but my two cents is that it is a good movie with good insights. I accept the reality that many young girls find themselves in this situation, much of which is avoidable if they had the time and training to think about the consequences of jumping into situations that they are not prepared for. But when a Juno finds herself in such a pickle, there can only be one response from the people around her: support. Should abortion be considered? Of course. And with calm and deliberate reasoning be summarily discarded as the wrong and worst possible option.

Amnesty International on the wrong side in Nicaragua

AI is soliciting support for "women's rights activists" in Nicaragua who helped a rape victim obtain an abortion. They consider the activists victims, persecuted for defending the right of women to abort their child. They're not mentioning that the activists helped the stepfather rapist escape to Costa Rica. With the rape victim. By whom another child was conceived (now a toddler, I guess).

You'd think that AI would know enough to recognize the real crimes committed here.

[More background details here.]

A remarkable turn of events in Uruguay

What a refreshing development in Uruguay when their president vetoed an abortion law reform bill of sorts, despite the push from his own party in the other direction. Truth and no small degree of charity saved the day. In his own words:

"There is a consensus that abortion is a social evil which must be avoided. Nonetheless, in those countries where abortion has been liberalised, it has increased. In the United States, in the first ten years, they tripled, and the figure has been maintained. It has become customary. The same thing happened in Spain. Laws cannot ignore the reality of the existence of human life in its gestational stage, just as science reveals it. Biology has evolved greatly. Revolutionary discoveries, such as IVF or sequencing the human genome, show that from the moment of conception there is a new human life, a new being. So much so, that in modern legal systems, including our own, DNA has become the acid test of determining the identity of persons, independent of their age, even if the body is destroyed, or when practically nothing is left of the human being, and even after a long time. The true degree of civilisation of a nation is measured by how the neediest are protected. Therefore we must protect the weakest amongst us. Because the criterion is not the value of the subject with respect to how others respond to him, or his usefulness, but the value which exists due to his mere existence... This text also affects freedom of enterprise and association when it imposes upon medical institutions with legally approved statues which have, in some cases, been functioning for more than a hundred years, an obligation to perform abortions, expressly contrary to their foundational principles. The law, furthermore, describes, erroneously and in a strained fashion, against common sense, abortion as a medical act, ignoring international declarations... which reflect the principles of Hippocratic medicine which characterise the doctor as someone who acts in favour of life and physical integrity. In accordance with the particular characteristics of our people, it is better to seek a solution based upon solidarity which promotes women and their babies, giving them the freedom to be able to choose other ways, and in this fashion, to save both of them. We need to tackle the true causes of abortion in our country which are rooted in our socio-economic circumstances. There are many women, particularly in the poorest sectors, who are alone in the task of raising children. Hence, we should protect abandoned women with solidarity, instead of offering them abortions.

As Feminists for Life have been saying for a while now: Women deserve better than abortion. And I would add: as do their babies.

[Source: MercatorNet.]

Serbian abortionist comes to terms with the truth

Strange that an atheist who did not even recognize the name 'Aquinas' received visions of the saintly scholar. Regardless of how it came about, thank God that this man eventually learned the truth.

"That same day a cousin came to the hospital with his four months-pregnant girlfriend, who wanted to get her ninth abortion - something quite frequent in the countries of the Soviet bloc. The doctor agreed. Instead of removing the fetus piece by piece, he decided to chop it up and remove it as a mass. However, the baby's heart came out still beating. Adasevic realized then that he had killed a human being,"

[Source: Lifesite News, CNA]

A logical extension to the principle behind abortion

.. appears to be a reasonable question as to who should be aborted? After all, if abortion is subject to no objective terms of morality, then there isn't really anything wrong with it. Hence, the mother may choose it, the mother's parents or boyfriend or husband may choose it over and above the mother's wishes (being a minor, for example), and perhaps even the government may choose it where it deems it advantageous to do so. And even if the government does not coerce the abortion, it can certainly make it more acceptable. It already does so from a socio-political standpoint, after all, when Victorian adherents in Parliament championed the Abortion Law Reform Bill in order to make the choice more comfortable for doctors and women to make. Why not economic then, such as this proposal to pay for the abortion of handicapped babies in order to save on welfare benefits?

The Australian Parliamentary Group on Population and Development has been slammed by Queensland Senator Ron Boswell for holding to Nazi-style eugenic ideology on the abortion of disabled children. ... The pro-abortion group had made a submission, signed by 41 Australian MPs, to the parliamentary committee that is examining the issue of abortion in Australia. The group said paying women a Medicare rebate for second-trimester abortions would save the government about $180,000 a year, due to the high costs of caring for handicapped babies who are allowed to be born.

Source: Lifesite news

Like a bridge crumbling when its supports are broken from underneath, one beam at a time: that's what happens to law and order when objective notions of right and wrong are discarded.

Sign a Petition Opposing the Abortion Law Reform Bill of 2008

Many thanks to David at Sentire Cum Ecclesia for the link to this online petition that appears to be spearheaded by Dr. Jereth Kok, MBBS.

When Does Life Really Begin?

According to Associate Professor Maureen Condic: it begins at conception. Her white paper, "When Does Life Begin?", is online from the Westchester Institute. Here's an excerpt of an interview she gave Zenit.org (emphasis mine):

Q: You define the moment of conception as the second it takes for the sperm and egg to fuse and form a zygote. What were the scientific principles you used to arrive at this conclusion? Condic: The central question of "when does human life begin" can be stated in a somewhat different way: When do sperm and egg cease to be, and what kind of thing takes their place once they cease to be? To address this question scientifically, we need to rely on sound scientific argument and on the factual evidence. Scientists make distinctions between different cell types (for example, sperm, egg and the cell they produce at fertilization) based on two simple criteria: Cells are known to be different because they are made of different components and because they behave in distinct ways. These two criteria are used throughout the scientific enterprise to distinguish one cell type from another, and they are the basis of all scientific (as opposed to arbitrary, faith-based or political) distinctions. I have applied these two criteria to the scientific data concerning fertilization, and they are the basis for the conclusion that a new human organism comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion.

The Culture of Death is coming to invade the Philippines

through a "reproductive health" bill with rather sinister designs all over it. We do need prayers for my former home.

.. Access to contraceptives is already unrestricted in the Philippines. The government family planning service, which has been in place since the 1970s, has an infrastructure of workers all the way down to the grassroots. .. So what is the purpose of House Bill 5043, which is entitled “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development” .. what makes it so objectionable to the church and those legislators and members of the public who are pushing from the other side? The answer is, coercion. The contraceptive-driven fertility decline program of HB 5043 may be the most coercive ever designed outside China. .. it establishes an “ideal” family size, setting the stage for a proposed two-child policy; it imposes a national sex education curriculum at fifth grade level. Couples would be denied a civil marriage license unless they present a “certificate of compliance” from a family planning office certifying that they have been adequately instructed in family planning and “responsible parenthood”. If before, quota-driven programs have led to gross human rights violations, this time around this bill could easily penalize with fines and jail sentences workers who will be unable to meet their quota. Employers who refuse to provide reproductive health care services to their employees will likewise be subject to penalties. Worse, it curtails freedom of speech, since any person who dares to talk against the program will also be subject to jail sentence and fines. This program turns the Philippines into a veritable police state with the government using police powers to interfere in the personal affairs of its citizens. It will surely drive a wedge between couples since a health worker must provide sterilization services even in the absence of spousal permission -- or incur a penalty; and likewise between parents and children, since the latter can have access to reproductive health services without parental consent. In a generation or two, the six years of value-free sex education the bill mandates for school children will surely create sexually active adolescents.

They are all set to turn Filipino society on its head and brings it down the same path of ruin that many western societies now face: millions aborted every year, families broken up by instant gratification, promiscuity and adultery, women objectified, children abandoned in the aftermath of adultery and the pursuit of self-fulfillment with no commitment, etc. Oh what evils these proponents of that bill are toying with.

And if you follow the story in that link, here's a shocker (that isn't so shocking if you've been studying such lobbies worldwide):

In the House, Congressman del Mar revealed departures from the established procedure in the handling of HB 5043. There were actually four reproductive health bills referred to two House committees. A first hearing on three bills took place on April 29 this year. By the second hearing on May 21, however, the committee chairman announced they would now consider “the substitute bill” (replacing all four bills) and, in the blink of an eye, the committees approved it. Usually a technical working group is convened to painstakingly put together the substitute bill. The question is, where did the substitute bill come from? Former Senator Francisco S. Tatad, an incisive commentator, sources HB 5043 to the Philippine Legislative Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) — an NGO with offices in the same building as the House of Representatives. .. PLCPD is essentially a foreign body. A popular columnist, Jose Sison, reports that PLCPD’s 2008 lobbying fund of two billion pesos comes from the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, IPPF and UNFPA the latter two both well known for their global agenda to legalize abortion.

IPPF -- the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Ring a bell?

Judge orders a 12-year old to abort her baby

There is so much that is wrong in this picture that I can't figure out where to begin.

Legislating for the next generation

That is precisely what legislators did when they voted for both the Abortion Law Reform bill (passed in both houses of the Victorian Parliament, only amendments may be possible) and the Assisted Reproduction Treatment bill (passed the lower house). These are votes to repeat the mistakes in other countries. A generation stolen from the womb, or a generation undergoing social experiment.

Update: Here's an argument for the social experiment of redefining parenthood and raising children with any number of parents. Good luck finding data to support that. Oh, that doesn't really matter, does it? That explains why they didn't bother with data.

The Abortion Law Reform bill was passed

This makes abortions legal in Victoria without restrictions up to the 24th week, and legal all the way through to full term if two doctors agree that it is necessary. It's a sad day, and I can understand the anger of those in the gallery, but their outbursts may be misconstrued, hurting the pro-life cause in the process.

What to do now? Amendments are now apparently welcome, but who knows which amendments, exactly?

The battleground now is the Victorian society itself. Regardless of abortion being legal, it remains illicit in the Church and unacceptable in orthodox Christian ethics. It now becomes a matter of educating ourselves and our children. This is where we lost the battle in the first place: mis-education or missed education. How many so-called Christians and Catholics advocated for this bill in Parliament? How many ordinary citizens did? How many actually had or facilitated abortions themselves? This is where we lost the battle one generation ago. The ethical deficiencies are self-inflicted, or inflicted by educators and parents who became relativists, conformists to modernity, who stopped challenging their children to be consecrated -- set apart -- for God. We reap what we sow.

The sanctity of human life should be part of catechism. Christians have often lived under unjust laws, but what matters is that they live in justice themselves, for we answer to the Heavenly authority, not civil ones. And then we become leaven. Only then will the secular society be transformed.

Speaking objectively

I had been rather peckish today about vandals painting over the pro-life posters at the university and scribbling their own messages (some rather crude) instead of putting up their own oppositional posters. I had declared that these people weren't satisfied with counter-arguments and felt the need to conceal pro-life sentiments because the former group can't handle the truth. My friend Philip simply said "I wouldn't presume to know why they did that" (painted over the pro-life posters).

Mea culpa. I will try to speak objectively. Truth to tell, I do not know if the falsehoods circulating the arguments of abortion advocates are deliberate or accidental. I know that their logic, premises and data are indeed incorrect, but I have no mind-reading ability, hence I cannot judge them as liars. I have no right, and I am sorry.

Incredible abortion statistics

As previously posted, much of abortion advocacy is based on lies. I'd like to temper that by saying that advocates are not always nor necessarily lying deliberately. However, they can be typically unwilling to dig deeper into the issues. I came into the university today to find that campus posters paint and scribbles on top of quoted abortion survivors (born alive after an abortion, fortuitously given medical care and now are scarred but competent adults). The quotes were painted over with red. Some angry scribbles were put in.

What sort of truths are out there? Note these statistics which apparently come from the Guttmacher Institute, itself a well known advocate for abortion "rights":

UNITED STATES Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996) Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700 ... Who's having abortions (income)? Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%. Why women have abortions 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). ...

So let's go back to facts: what is the abortion lobby about, really?