Shock: No jail time for woman who strangled newborn because Canada accepts abortion, says judge

Truly incredible and a good reason to pray!

There is both consistency and inconsistency in this judge's decision. She reveals a consistently diminutive view of what human life is worth, unborn or not, but she also reveals the moral equivalence of abortion and infanticide. However, she is inconsistent in her role as judge, applying her interpretation of society's opinion, rather than the laws of the land.

Of life and of death

Just a thought that I'd like to record somewhere (though I haven't the time to develop it now): it is likely that the underpinning for the Catholic doctrines on the morality of artificial contraception can be traced to (and probably beyond) that for the fifth commandment. How so? Well, it is the Lord who gives life, and it is therefore an arrogant act for one of his creatures to control one's life (or death). This needs some nuanced thought, of course, particularly when one is dying and resuscitation is futile because there is no hope of prolonging life in some way. In terms of human conception and artificial contraception, I think it's fairly straightforward. Not that every marital act must be fertile, but that if a marital act is fertile, only God may decide whether this act results in conception or not. Does this make sense? It is 1:21 am after all..

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?

Procreation

Having three children (and soon, God willing, four), I'm not a fan of population control. I prefer "family planning", which is what I have learned about Natural Family Planning. It sounds more sane to me that couples would jointly (pray and) decide how many children they are invited by God to have, based on their circumstances as a whole. This means of course one, two or more children depending on those circumstances.

Compare that to the notion of population control, negative in connotation and, in practice, negative, period. That a Chinese city is now acknowledging problems with it is very telling. The one-child policy, which actually goes against Chinese custom (I can speak from experience), was not entered into scientifically. That's clear enough since the science of demographics/economics says that the ideal population replacement level is at about 2 children per family. But there's more to it than those numbers. The contraceptive mentality seems to be the first step, where the value of human life is no longer grounded in objective terms, i.e., precious because it is precious to the Creator. In subjective terms, human life is expendable, and its value is relative. The negative connotations of motherhood and children have been sold too effectively, and it will not be easy to now tell women to compromise their careers and comfortable lives and lifestyles for motherhood. So this news about Shanghai, which is not unique (Japan, South Korea, Singapore, some European countries are doing the same thing), is problematic. Baby bonuses will only go so far, I think, whereas the battle will really be in the hearts and minds of women. From a Christian perspective, one can only hope and pray, because it will take the Holy Spirit to renew the face of the postmodern world.

Update: Found this piece and, I have to say, the comments from primary school students therein are eye openers.

One small step for euthanasia in Western Australia..

.. can be the start of a long trek downhill or off a cliff. A quadraplegic who laments "a living hell" of a life was allowed by the Supreme Court to starve himself to death. I have many objections about this, not least of which is that a judicial or legislative ruling can be easily seen -- or actively promoted -- as a moral statement. It also turns life on its head, with death per se becoming preferred over life, even an extremely difficult one. But this is not a case of a dying man refusing extraordinary care. Not that I have any idea how difficult his life is, but I can imagine how other quadraplegics might see themselves, or may be seen by others, in the light of this ruling. The cynical view of physical disability can be very catching, or can be actively promoted. After all, if there is nothing inherently wrong with suicide for a man who sees life as "a living hell", then there is nothing inherently wrong with terminating the life of anyone in that situation. It becomes, purely, a matter of choice. But the question of who makes such choices is very hard to pin down. How often are one's choices made for them by someone else? The state may take children away from their parents. The state may incarcerate those it considers too dangerous to society. Banks may repossess someone's assets. Family members may choose to pull the plug. Parents may choose to terminate their own child anytime during the pregnancy. If deliberately ending a life is no longer inherently wrong, then the safeguards against unjustly doing so are on wobbly foundations indeed.

Planned Parenthood in Korea: pushing for more babies?

A very odd member of the Planned Parenthood family is advocating for families to have more babies. MercatorNet asks if this is one way for abortion to disappear. Maybe. But the interesting question for me is if, by this particular story, abortion and population control advocates are going in the right direction? I'm not so sure.

But looking back, we recognise that the direction of policy had to be changed when the TFR reached 2.1. In fact, the change was not realised until 20 years later in the early 2000s. We can say that the one-child policy met the needs of its time but it did not change at the proper time. The reasons for low fertility rate are late marriage, an unfavourable social environment for women to do "work and home" at the same time, too much money needed to raise children, and so on.

My understanding of the explanation from PPK (Planned Parenthood Korea) is that this is still a calculated move for an optimal population. The bottom line is still the system, not the person.

And the implications of the last sentence I quote above may not be sufficiently appreciated by PPK. Given that the low rates are based on attitudes about careers, marriage and children, on what grounds can PPK convince women to have more babies? Probably not by population targets, nor economics, nor even patriotism. Governments can throw in material or financial incentives all they want, but I doubt that they would persuade a woman who is convinced that motherhood is of second-rate value and fulfillment. As any parent knows, it isn't just the money. It's the effort, heartaches and pains involved in raising up a child that can put one off. What can offset those? I think only love can. Not that I'm brimming with it -- certainly not. But I do remember both my mother and father.

What was it that Mark Shea pointed out in one of his excellent podcasts? That God delighted to create Man. There are still parents around who are blessed with a similar (albeit imperfect) sense of this delight in parenthood. How do you bring that back after postmodern western society has been slandering the concept of marriage and parenthood for the past 40 years? Now that would be an interesting problem to form strategies about. But the Catholic Church has been largely unheard when they've been shouting the answer for years now: stronger marriages. Seems like Christ was on to something after all when he went so far as to reiterate the beginnings of marriage and giving it his stamp of sanctification.

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.

Right to Life Australia is Protesting outside the office Maxine Morand

From RTLA's mailing list:

ABORTION IS NEVER HEALTHY! COME TO THE PROTEST The Brumby Government is attempting to redefine abortion from being a crime to a 'health procedure'. What is healthy about killing small babies and ruining their mothers' lives? Yet Maxine Morand, Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development and Women's Affairs - and a member of the notorious Emily's List - is guiding the Decriminalisation of Abortion Bill through Parliament. This Minister is supposed to care for children and women! We are going to let her know what we think of trying to pass abortion off as a 'health' item. Please come and join us outside Ms Morand's electoral office this Wednesday. Bring your children if you can! WHERE: 1/40 Montclair Ave, Glen Waverley 3150 MEL 71 B2 WHEN: Tomorrow, Wednesday, June 18 at 11am

WIth eyes too shut to see

There's a Filipino joke I once read about a drunk who couldn't find a toilet but really had to go -- in a public place. His friend told him to relieve himself right there and then. The man refused, being rightly embarassed, since the streets were still busy with people walking by. His friend calmly told him "just close your eyes and they won't be there anymore."

It's supposed to be funny, but when perfectly sober people take the same advice, it isn't funny anymore -- especially when the act they should be ashamed of is to end somebody's life. Fr. Frank Pavone writes about a group of children who were reported to the police for dumping things off a bridge, things that should make you cringe to even behold, much less handle as if they were of no consequence. But people do so, and worse, they cause them to be dumped like that -- with their eyes wide shut, it seems.

[CE Editor's Warning: "This article contains some graphic passages describing aborted babies and may not be suitable for all readers."]

Australian Tax Dollars to Pay for Overseas Abortions

This alert was sent to me by Right to Life Australia. Please get involved if possible. And pray!

Dear Friends of Life, We should like you to immediately contact by mail, fax or phone the Prime Minister John Howard and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer to protest against the proposal led by Dr Mal Washer, M.H.R. Moore, with the support of 50 pro-abortion federal M.P.s to overturn Australia's current ban on providing foreign aid for abortions in poor countries. Margaret Tighe Right to Life Australia Inc. Contact should be directed to: C/o Parliament House, PO Box 6022, Canberra, ACT 2600 Prime Minister Howard (at Parliament House) Tel: (02) 6277 7700 Fax: (02) 6273 4100 Mail: C/o Parliament House (as above) Hon Alexander Downer (at Parliament House) C/o Parliament House, PO Box 6022, Canberra, ACT 2600 Tel: (02) 6277 7500 Fax: (02) 6273 4112 Mail: C/o Parliament House (as above) This email was sent by Margaret Tighe, Righto Life Australia, PO BOX 240, Carlton Nth VIC 3054, 0415765742 to jefferson.tan@gmail.com

Victorial Upper House starts debate on cloning

Right to Life Australia (Marcel White) invites us all to voice our opposition to the cloning bill.

We are only a few votes away from the 20 needed to defeat this despicable legislation.

Can you please ring the offices of some of the KEY UPPER HOUSE MPs listed below, and urge them to vote against the cloning bill. If we can get a handful of them to vote our way, we may be able to gain a great victory for pro-life movement. The culture of death through cloning won by ONE SINGLE VOTE in the Federal parliament. It could be that close today and tomorrow.

Let's defeat the cloning bill.

Key MPs to contact:

Justin Madden (Western Metro) 9637-8087
Richard Dalla Riva (Eastern Metro) 9853-3955
Brian Tee (Eastern Metro) 9850-8600
Andrea Coote (Southern Metro) 9681-9555
Phillip Davis (Eastern Victoria) 5143-1038
Johan Scheffer (Eastern Victoria) 9751 2200
Matt Viney (Eastern Victoria) 9651-8911 (temporary number only)
Gordon Rich Phillips (South Eastern Metro) 9794-7667
David Koch (Western Victoria) 5572-3377

There are reasons aplenty to oppose cloning and embryonic stem cell research. We are all called to witness to the truth.