Well, most of them I think:
Hat tip to the Man with Black Hat
Well, most of them I think:
Hat tip to the Man with Black Hat
From the blog Thoughts of a Regular Guy and quoted in full without commentary:
We see it time and time again. A baby survives an abortion attempt, and then is left for dead.
As an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama actively defended this practice.
But sometimes it gets even worse. We recently reported on a baby who survived 22 hours of such postpartum neglect, only to be found by priest who had gone to pray over the body.
Now from China, we have this story of a baby who not only survived the abortion, and the ensuing neglect, but who was disposed of as medical waste and nearly cremated alive (Hat-tip to Hawaii Right to Life):
AN aborted baby declared dead by doctors in south China’s Guangdong Province cried before he was due to be cremated, but died hours later as doctors refused to treat him. [Emphasis added.]As tragic as this story is, there’s a lesson to be learned here, that should be obvious to anyone who ever watched a crime drama on American television: when someone escapes alive from murderers intent on killing him, it is neither helpful nor humane to return that person to the murderers who tried to kill him in the first place.
A mortuary worker at Nanhai Funeral Home in Foshan City said the baby cried and scared him as he was about to throw the coffin into a furnace, Information Times reported today.
He opened the box and found the seven-month fetus moving, but apparently choking on some cotton wool in his mouth, the report said.
After the worker cleared his mouth, the baby yawned and breathed peacefully. Workers rushed him back to Guanyao Hospital which delivered the baby as medical waste earlier that day.
But doctors left him in the lobby, and confirmed after an hour that the baby died.
Remember, there’s nothing magic about location. The baby is here, the baby is there, the abortionist doesn’t care. Once the decision is made to kill, the baby is not safe anywhere, neither in the womb, nor out of it.
The chariman of Catholics United for the Common Good, Alfred Rotondaro:
Gay sex comes from God. Married sex without the intent of procreation is now an evil, according to the hierarchy. But does any practicing Catholic under age 80 believe this? And in a pluralistic nation like America, we must realize that abortion is here to stay. We must examine the reasons for abortion and deal with those reasons to reduce abortions.
H/T American Papist
Review here: http://www.jamesbowman.net/reviewDetail.asp?pubID=2040:
By the time you get to the end of the movie’s 140 minutes, you realize it is just another progressive fable. Robin turns out to be the son of the guy, a stonemason, who wrote the Magna Carta — here represented as a 19th century rationalist’s design for a perfect political system — a generation before the barons, with the indispensable help of Robin, sought to impose it on King John. Robin adopts as his own Sir Walter’s meaningless but curiously utopian-sounding motto: “Rise and rise again until lambs become lions” and the defeat of the French is followed by a retreat to the Greenwood where, on Marion’s account of it, there is “no rich no poor, but fair shares for all at nature’s table.” There is also an allusion to Peter Pan and the lost boys with Marion in the role of Wendy and Robin that of Peter. We’re home once again, folks, back in Movieland. I’m not quite sure how that’s happened, but somehow, that’s the only place today’s audiences ever want to be.
Is the story of the Church in Malta supposedly denying communion to cohabiting couples.
Ed Peters sets the record straight here: http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/maltese-bishops-on-reception-of-holy.html
I wanted to post Jimmy Akin’s analysis of the excommunication of Sister McBride because he succinctly lays out the information that I only have been able to collect in pieces from multiple sources:
1) Last December a 27-year old woman with pulmonary hypertension was 11 weeks pregnant and sought some form of care at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix.
2) According to a statement of St. Joseph’s, a consultation was held “with the patient, her family, her physicians, and in consultation with the Ethics Committee, of which Sr. Margaret McBride is a member.”
3) It was decided that “the treatment necessary to save the mother’s life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy.”
4) The abortion was performed, though the means by which it was done is not clear. Presumably it was suction aspiration, or possibly dilation and curettage since RU 486 does not seem to be recommended for 11 pregnancies. The Arizona Republic states that it was a “surgery,” which would also point to either suction-aspiration or D & C, but it mentions this only in passing, and so it could be something the reporter assumed, not what actually happened. If it was (as I strongly suspect), suction-aspiration or D & C then the child was directly torn in pieces as part of the procedure.
5) At some point this came to the attention of the Diocese of Phoenix, and Sr. McBride confirmed to Bishop Olmstead that she had approved the abortion.
6) At some point, presumably after this, Sr. McBride was reassigned within St. Joe’s. Neither the diocese nor the hospital has said whether Bishop Olmstead had a role in the reassignment.
7) Also at some point, presumably at about the same time, Sr. McBride was informed that she had incurred a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication per canon 1398 of the Code of Canon Law, which states: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
8.) At some point the reassignment of Sr. McBride came to the attention of the Arizona Republic, whose staff contacted both Bishop Olmstead and St. Joseph’s for statements.
9) On or about May 14, St. Joseph’s confirmed to the Arizona Republic that an abortion had taken place there in December. On or about this same date it provided a statement to the newspaper.
10) On May 14, Bishop Olmstead provided a statement as well.
11) On May 15, the Arizona Republic published the statements online (kudos to the Arizona Republic for doing so instead of hiding them and merely quoting and summarizing them without showing us the context).
12) The same day, it published this story by Michael Clancy on the matter (for some reason the story now carries a date of May 19, though it originally came out four days earlier; perhaps this is an unacknowledged revision of the original story). It was at this point the story became known to the public in general.
And those are the basic facts as we know them (or seem to know them).
Read this and his analysis here: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/what_are_the_true_facts_regarding_the_abortion_approving_nun
Ed Feser takes AT to the movie The Fly:
No, not that kind of AT. Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy:
So, even if Brundle at the end of his transformation had had no exercise of reason, that would not by itself show that he was no longer a rational animal. But as it happens, he does exercise reason to the bitter end. To be sure, after Veronica (the Geena Davis character) accidentally tears off his jaw and thereby (apparently) triggers the sloughing off of his other remaining human facial features to reveal a gigantic fly-like head (see above), he loses the power of speech. But he continues his attempt to carry out his scheme of splicing himself with Veronica and their unborn child to create a bizarre new three person/one fly hybrid. (More on that below.) He is, of course, completely mad by this point, but to be mad is to be irrational, not non-rational. Moreover, after his failure to accomplish the splice and the associated accidental merging of himself with part of the telepod, he is clearly “begging” Veronica to put him out of his misery when he grasps the end of the shotgun she is holding and raises it to his head. This is obviously meant to indicate that Brundle is still “in there.” So, he is still a rational animal, even if an absolutely horrific one.
I eagerly await his treatment of John Carpenter’s The Thing. Gratuitous YouTube (WARNING!: Swears and gaahroooosssss!):
Canon Lawyer Ed Peters weighs in on the legal aspects here, but what I found interesting was his link to a Q&A from the Diocese in pdf here. I’ve been having a little trouble figuring out what procedure was used and noted this:
What if the treatment provided to the mother results in the death of her unborn child?
Certainly a physician should try to protect both lives equally. If the child can grow past viability and
then can be delivered, that is always preferable. If, however, a necessary treatment brings about the deathof the child indirectly it may be allowable. A Dilation and Curettage (D&C) or Dilation and Extraction (D&E), however, would never be such a treatment since it is the direct killing of the unborn child and is, morally speaking, an abortion.
which suggests to me that it was either a D&E or D&C. That also makes sense because Mark Shea linked a Commonweal article that made the jaw-dropping assertion that it was not abortion, it’s just surgically separating mother from child. That reminds me of a comment by Zippy that it is absurd to say “I didn’t run that red light. I merely refrained from pressing on the brake which is a morally neutral act.”