Christchurch Earthquake

On February 25, 2011, in Blog, Canterbury, by matt

As everyone reading this will know, a 6.3 earthquake hit Christchurch just before 1pm on the 22nd of February. As far as I know, all those involved in Pro-life Canterbury and their family and friends are okay, although the death toll now is over 100 with many more missing.

I’m going to use this blog post to give some quick information. Most of us are currently busy in some regard with repairing and clearing things through groups such as the UC Student Volunteer Army. If you also wish to do something, but can’t directly, you can always donate money to the Canterbury Earthquake Appeal through the Red Cross.

Obviously O-Week was cancelled so we won’t be running the Pro-life stall this year (unless another O-Week replacement comes up). The University of Canterbury also won’t be open to at least after the 14th of March.

As we as a city (and nation) try to get up on our feet again, please pray for us and support us in whatever way you can.

cathedral Christchurch Earthquake

 

According to CHINAdaily.com, China has now become only the second country to become officially recognized as a qualified member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

The only other country to hold qualified member status is New Zealand – or more precisely, the NZ Family Planning Association.

I wonder what Kiwis think about the fact that the NZ Family Planning Association is now keeping official company with a regime which denies couples the right to choose their family size, which forces women to have abortions, and which imprisons and tortures activists who speak out against these practices?

I also can’t help but wonder how the heck China could even become a qualified member of the IPPF.

The IPPF states on its website that they committed to the following principles:

* We believe that sexual and reproductive rights should be internationally recognized as human rights and therefore guaranteed for everyone.
* We encourage individuals, women in particular, to take control of their reproductive lives.
* We promote equality between men and women, aiming to eliminate gender biases, especially those that threaten the well-being of women and girls.
* Above all we promote choices.

How the heck does 35,000 forced abortions a day, and government restricted fertility square away with any of these guiding principles?!!!!!

Scary.

From the Examiner.com…

Justin Bieber was asked in his “Rolling Stone” interview about his thoughts on abortion after a rape? Justin said, “everything happens for a reason,” but I have never been in that situation so I cannot judge.” This line really seemed to set the ladies off. They feel that Justin Bieber has so much influence on young girls and his opinion may sway theirs.

“The View” was once a show that respected other’s views on subjects. In recent months the view has become more of a closed minded show, evident when a few of the ladies walked off the set when Bill O’Reilly said something they did not agree with a few months back. Now Justin Bieber’s view differs from theirs so not only is Justin Bieber to blame but so is the interviewer who asked these “inappropriate questions?”

Whether or not you agree with Justin Bieber’s opinions on abortion issues, he still has a right to them. His opinion would have been for one side of the argument or the other. The argument is usually those who are for abortion and those who are against abortion. Justin Bieber just happens to be one of the people who is against abortion.

Is it because his opinion was not the same as the ladies of “The View” that they painted Justin Bieber’s interview as somewhat of mistake at his age? Would they have been more receptive if Justine Bieber took the opposite stand, and his view went along with their views on abortion?

Full story here…

 

From Lifesite…

In a historic vote Friday afternoon, the US House voted to strike all federal funding for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Every year the abortion giant receives hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding.

The congressional body voted 240-185 in favor of the amendment, introduced by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), to the 2011 Federal Spending Bill.

Immediately after the vote Rep. Pence released a statement saying: “This afternoon’s vote is a victory for taxpayers and a victory for life. By banning federal funding to Planned Parenthood, Congress has taken a stand for millions of Americans who believe their tax dollars should not be used to subsidize the largest abortion provider in America.

“I commend my colleagues in both parties for taking a stand for taxpayers and a stand for life.”

The amendment will now go before the Senate.

The vote came after a heated debate in the House. It also comes in the wake of an explosive series of videos released over the last two weeks by the pro-life organization Live Action, which showed Planned Parenthood staff repeatedly willing to aid and abet the trafficking of underage “sex workers” by offering advice to an undercover investigator posing as a “pimp” on how to obtain secret abortions, contraception, and STD tests.

In a web page released right after the vote, Planned Parenthood called the legislation “the most dangerous legislative assault in our history, and it cannot go unanswered.” In an open letter to Congress that the organization is asking supporters to sign, the abortion giant says: “To every member of Congress, know that we stand together today against this outrageous assault, and together we will not lose.”

Full story here…

 

 Pro life hero Dr. Bernard Nathanson has died aged 84

The National Catholic Register has reported that…

Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson, an obstetrician who oversaw the performance of about 75,000 abortions before becoming a leading pro-life advocate and a convert to the Catholic faith, died after a prolonged battle with cancer this morning in New York. He was 84.

After performing his last abortion in 1979 and declaring himself to be pro-life, Nathanson produced the 1985 film The Silent Scream, which shows sonogram images of a child in the womb shrinking from an abortionist’s instruments, and the documentary film Eclipse of Reason, which displays and explains various abortion procedures in graphic detail. Both films had a significant impact on the abortion debate, solidified his credentials among pro-life advocates and earned him the scorn of his former pro-abortion friends and colleagues.

He also published a number of influential books, including Aborting America, written in 1979 with Richard Ostling, then a religion reporter for Time magazine, in which he exposed the deceptive and dishonest beginnings of the pro-abortion movement and undermined the argument that abortion is safe for women.

He often admitted that he and other abortion advocates in the 1960s lied about the number of women who died from illegal abortions at that time, inflating the figure from a few hundred to 10,000 to gain sympathy for their cause.

In his 1996 autobiography The Hand of God, he told the story of his journey from pro-abortion to pro-life, saying that viewing images from the new ultrasound technology in the 1970s convinced him of the humanity of the unborn baby. Outlining the enormous challenge of restoring a pro-life ethic, he wrote, “Abortion is now a monster so unimaginably gargantuan that even to think of stuffing it back into its cage … is ludicrous beyond words. Yet that is our charge — a herculean endeavor.”

He noted, regretfully, “I am one of those who helped usher in this barbaric age.”

Dr. Bernard Nathanson was one of the important figures in the founding of the modern pro-life movement, and he was a truly great campaigner for the rights of unborn human beings.

If you haven’t already read it, then I would highly recommend you read ‘The Hand of God‘, which is the biography detailing his conversion from abortionist and pro-abortion activist to pro-life doctor strongly opposed to abortion. The Hand of God really is one of the must-read books for those passionate about all things pro-life.

Réquiem ætérnam dona eis Dómine;
et lux perpétua lúceat eis.
Requiéscant in pace.
Amen.

Eternal rest, grant unto him, O Lord,
and let perpetual light shine upon him.
May they he rest in peace.
Amen.

 

Are self-induced abortions on the rise?

On February 22, 2011, in Blog, by Admin

From Care2makeadifference.com

Two recent studies offer some information about how American women end their own pregnancies. Both note that only a small percentage of women have attempted to abort without the help of medical practitioners, though it should be kept in mind that this is the sort of information that many prefer not to speak about. Reviewing the studies in Slate, Sharon Lerner writes that, after the passage of Roe v. Wade, ‘interest in self-help abortion methods inevitably faded’—but news reports suggest that self-induced abortions might be on the rise.

About the two studies: A study in the current issue of American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology surveyed  9,493 women at health care facilities that provide abortions; more than 2 percent had tried to induce abortions on their own.  In the other study, published in Reproductive Health Matters, 1,425 women responded to surveys in clinic waiting rooms, with 4.6 percent saying they had tried to induce their own abortions.

Of the women surveyed, there was a preference for ‘natural—or at least natural-seeming—methods’ including

various herbs, vitamin C, birth control pills, laxatives, and a beverage cart worth of strange concoctions, including coffee with lemon, warm Coca-Cola with baking soda, various syrups, and Malta, a wheat soda

The researchers were first interested in the use of the ulcer medication misoprostol to self-induce an abortion, as this drug causes uterine contractions and is used by doctors along with mifepristone (RU-486), to induce medical abortions early in pregnancy. However, the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology found that less than half the women surveyed used misoprostol.

If this is correct, then this presents yet another challenge to the pro-abortion rhetoric that legalizing abortion reduces the rate of unsafe abortions (of course they will try and blame parents and lack of access to abortion for this, but it’s hard to see how such rhetoric could be supported in the USA).

 

From the Daily Mail…

In Britain the incidence of throat cancer is rising sharply while in the US the incidence of oral cancers linked to HPV have doubled in the last 20 years.

In Sweden in the 1970s around a quarter of tonsil cancers were linked to HPV, but by the mid 2000s the figure was 90 per cent said Prof Gillison.

‘That’s the most compelling data in a population that the increase in tonsular cancer or oropharynx cancer incidence we’re seeing in a number of places worldwide is possible caused by HPV,’ she said.

Someone infected with HPV 16 – the strain linked to oral cancer- has a 14 fold increase in risk for getting oropharynx cancer, she said.

She added: ‘What is most strongly linked to oral HPV infection is the number of sexual partners someone has had in their lifetimes, in particular the number of individuals on whom they have performed oral sex.

‘The higher the number of partners that you’ve had, the greater the odds that you’d have an oral infection.’

H/T: Bob McCoskrie

 

Late last night the Women’s National Abortion Action Campaign (WONAAC), a NZ pro-abortion lobby group, issued a press release expressing great angst about the fact that the NZ Family Planning Association (NZ FPA) didn’t get permission from the Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) to start carrying out RU-486 chemical abortions on women in NZ.

Here’s a segment of the press release…

“The Committee should have told the public immediately as this withdrawal suggests the clinic could not comply with legal conditions. Instead the Committee gave the impression in its Annual Report it wanted earlier medical abortions to be more widely available. What on earth is going on?”

Hold on a minute WONAAC, surely it’s not the job of the ASC to announce to the public that a party, who voluntarily applied to them seeking an abortion license, has subsequently withdrawn from the application process.

If you must be angry at anyone, then how about getting angry at the NZ FPA for not announcing their withdrawal?

Besides, aren’t you pro-abortion groups actually talking to each other?

Shouldn’t you have known about this before the news broke in the public arena?

After all, you have been a public supporter of this license application?

Maybe the NZ FPA was trying to tactically hide their withdrawal from the public, you know, trying to save face and all that.

Tagged with:
 

From Catholic Vote.org…

Similarly, when we discuss Kant and the issue of lying, most of my students, even the moral absolutists, are quite certain that the Dutchmen were not wrong to deliberately deceive the Nazis about the locations of the Jews they had promised to hide. They do not know whether this is an example of lying or not. But they know that if it is, than lying is not always wrong, and if lying is always wrong, then this is not lying. Because they know, without any ifs or ands or buts, that such Dutch deception is good, not evil. If anyone is more certain of his philosophical principles than he is that this deception is good, I say he is not functioning as a human being but as a computer, an angel, a Gnostic, or a Kantian. He is a Laputan, like Swift’s absent-minded professors who live on an island in the sky in Gulliver’s Travels, and who make eye contact with abstractions but not with human beings.

But can’t we solve the problem of the Dutchmen and the Nazis by saying that all lying is wrong but the Dutchmen don’t have to lie to save the Jews because they could deceive the Nazis without lying by a clever verbal ploy? No, because effective deception by clever verbal ploys cannot usually be done by ordinary people, especially by clumsy Dutchmen. I know; I’m one of them. Our moral obligations depend on abilities that are common, not abilities that are rare

Besides, the Nazis are not fools. They would suspect clever prevarications and sniff out duplicitous ploys. They could be reliably deceived and deterred from searching every inch of the house only by an answer like “Jews? Those rats? None of them in my house, I hope. Please come in, and if you find any, please give them rat poison. I hate those vermin as much as you do.”

You promised the Jews to hide them from their murderers. To keep that promise, you have to deceive the Nazis. Physical hiding and verbal hiding are two sides of the same coin, whether you call it lying, or deception, or whatever you call it. What it is, is much more obvious than what it is to be called. It’s a good thing to do. If you don’t know that, you’re morally stupid, and moral stupidity comes in two opposite forms: relativism and legalism. Relativism sees no principles, only people; legalism sees no people, only principles.

The closest analogy I can think of to Live Action’s expose of Planned Parenthood is spying. If Live Action is wrong, then so is all spying, including spying out the Nazis’ atomic bomb projects and saving the world from a nuclear holocaust.

If you say that morality changes in wartime, I reply that police ‘sting’ operations are an example of legitimate peacetime spying. An undercover policeman saves children from becoming drug addicts by pretending to be a drug customer to expose the drug dealer. Is this pretending ‘lying’ or not? I don’t much care, except as a professional philosopher and logician. I do much care that the ‘sting’ works and my kids are protected. Do you care more about protecting your own moral correctness than protecting your kids’ lives?

If lying is always wrong, then it is wrong to lie to a nuclear terrorist (the “ticking time bomb” scenario) to elicit from him where he hid the nuclear bomb that in one hour will kill millions if it is not found and defused. The most reasonable response to the “no lying” legalist here is “You gotta be kidding”—or something less kind than that. Thomas Aquinas said that even torture is sometimes justified; in emergency situations like that; if torture, then a fortiori lying.

If you were watching your son or daughter being raped while you were disarmed and tied up and had only words as weapons, and if there was some lie you could tell to the rapist that would stop him, do you really mean to tell me that you would not tell that lie? If so, I thank God that you were not my father.

Full article here…

 

 

The public flogging of Lila Rose

On February 21, 2011, in Unrelated, by Admin

I am now a regular contributor on the new pro-life blog, The A Word, and my latest post, which examines whether it was right and prudent for Lila Rose and Live Action to be chastised in the public forum by pro-life commentators who took exception to the methods her group employs.

You can read The public flogging of Lila Rose here…