With What Time Is Given

See http://www.lifenews.com/bio1982.html

While surfing other blogs, I recently came across this text, a speech by Rudy Giuliani at a NARAL convention.  This shows beyond a doubt Giuliani’s commitment to the Pro-Choice cause, and his commitment to nominating Pro-Choice judges.  Giuliani said:

“Thank you very much for inviting me to say a few words of welcome. This event shows that people of different political parties and different political thinking can unite in support of choice. In doing so, we are upholding a distinguished tradition that began in our city starting with the work of Margaret Sanger and the movement for reproductive freedom that began in the early decades of the 20th century.   As a Republican who supports a woman’s right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here. And I would like to explain, just for one moment, why I believe being in favor of choice is consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. . .”

Again, it is worth pointing out what Sanger said since Giuliani lauds her efforts in the movement for reproductive freedom that began in the early decades of the 20th century.  Sanger advocated abortion and birth control as a way to advance a eugenics campaign to eliminate “inferior races” and openly networked with the KKK to that end.  She was an anti-semite even before the holocaust and never recanted her beliefs.  She hated large Catholic families, having come from one herself, and believed abortion and birth control should be utilized to eliminate the “feeble-minded”.  She cautioned that in order to get the black community to accept abortion and birth control, it would be necessary to get black ministers to take the message to the community. 

Giuliani received over 4 times the amount of abortion blood money in his last campaign than Hilary Clinton did.  If he couldn’t beat her then, in a NY state race, what makes anyone think he is more “electable” on a national scale?  The guy hasn’t held elected office in years.  No social conservative can rally behind him, and in fact it is likely a Giuliani nomination would split the party as a Buchanan or the like would rise up as a 3rd party candidate.  I for one would be more likely to vote for whoever runs against him on the theory that it would be better to have a Democrat in 08 with a chance of a social conservative in 2012 than be stuck with no hope of a social conservative until 2016 and likely beyond should he be elected.  As the Pro-Life cause rises in America, his election would be a crippling blow. 

A recent article in Time magazine recognized the positive work of America’s 2300 pregnancy centers.  http://www.lifenews.com/nat2936.html  As the lifenews article observes “Unlike abortion facilities, these centers help pregnant women with baby and maternity resources, parenting classes, adoption, medical and educational needs, counseling, community referrals and support for women who had abortions they regret.”  These centers not only outnumber abortion clinics, but through the unheralded effort of tens of thousands of individuals across the country.  They help to save lives every day and build the culture of life by striving to make a place for every child who has come into the world and giving support to the mothers who an abortion clinic usually tries to rush into a bad decision.  These services are provided free of charge to the women who need them and continue long after birth.

As reported recently by CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/08/edwards.bloggers/index.html, John Edwards refused to disassociate with two bloggers hired by his Presidential campaign team who spew anti-Christian, and particularly anti-Catholic bigotry.  One blogger titled her post the “pope and fascists” and another ignorantly contended opposition to birth control forces women to bear more tithing Catholics.  Edwards response was that he believed these women deserved a fair shake, and without so much as remotely discussing their actual comments asserted that he spoke to them and that they did not mean to offend anyone’s private religious beliefs.

 Four conclusions and observations on this incident:

1.  These bloggers do NOT apologize for their comments or rescind them, nor does Edwards ask them to.  He in fact condones them by keeping them on paid staff to blog for him, thereby reaching out to people in the blogosphere who share exactly those beliefs.  Apparently he doesn’t feel this outrageous statements to be controversial.

2.  These bloggers typify the current bigoted, irrational, and mindless assertions that those who have religious beliefs should stay out of the public square.  We’ve all heard their ideology as they try to force it down our throats.  They posit that reason and religion are incompatible, that if someone with religious beliefs and conviction acts in the public square, whatever such a believer says should automatically be disregarded as irrational.  Why?  No reasons are offered, no rational analysis.  The secular gospel refrain is “don’t force your beliefs on others” which serves to deflect any discussion centered in reason.  To such an indoctrinated secularist, religion is to be a purely private matter, not impacting one’s complete person, and certainly not their beliefs in the realms of social justice and politics.  They do not stop at merely the unreasonable demand that people must have a secular basis for any action or belief guiding their actions, it seems they want to puritanically censor any belief held in part on religious conviction. 

In place of reasoned discussion of point and counterpoint, such bigoted secularists seek to force their own ideology on believers in a variety of ways.  Most pointedly, they do not feel the need to respect the right to life, limiting this right whenever it conflicts with a glorified autonomy that amounts not to liberty but to license.

3.  The comment that “tithing Catholics” are undesirable clearly reflects an anti-Catholic hatred and ignorance.  Catholics do not tithe, for the most part.  They apparently want less Catholics and the destruction of the institution which is the Church, apparently in their ignorant views maintained by tithing. 

4.  John Edwards’ failure to engage in the discussion of these outrageous statements and their underlying philosophies is a condonation of the bigotry.  Hedged and likely purposefully ambiguous disassociative statements such as he personally does not agree with them are not a condemnation of the bigotry and send the message that its really okay.  After all, he uses the same hedged language when supporting a “right to choose” that he personally doesn’t believe in abortion, but that the right exists all the same.

 Even worse than some of the other horrific presidential candidates, Edwards demonstrates a particular want of character and moral bankruptcy.

Some people adhere to the refrain that they are “personally opposed to abortion but don’t feel they have a right” to tell others whether to have an abortion.  This of course treats abortion as some sort of self-regarding behavior and ignores the fact that a human life is what is euphemistically termed as “terminated.”  Furthering the euphemism, it isn’t a baby being terminated or “my child” but “a fetus” or “the pregnancy.”  Anyone who describes what is involved in the abortion process or the pain it involves is termed “extremist” and opposition to the taking of human life is “imposing values” upon others.  

If you push further and counter these arguments by pointing out the biological truth that a human life is being taken, the next round of nonsensical assertions admits that abortion is bad, but that it is a necessary evil.  This theme is embedded in arguments such as “don’t base your vote on one issue” (unless it is any issue other than abortion in which case it is really fine, and ignoring abortion’s intrinsic connection to other issues such as a culture of life, protection of the family, contraception, IVF, cloning, euthanasia, etc.), “there’s nothing really that can be done at this time on that issue” (which is never true as battles are constantly being waged which demand a pro-life leadership in government), or resort to fabricated scenarios, ”what about back alley abortions?” (Bernard Nathanson and other early NARAL advocates admit they amplified the number of such abortions they had evidence of by over a hundred fold, yet such claims are still used in protests and in legalization efforts in Catholic nations) and amplified extreme exceptions such as “what about rape, incest, and the life of the mother” (less than 1% of all abortions).  Each resorts to a common underlying message:  Ok, so you can see the truth despite our best efforts to obfuscate the issue, but don’t act on it.

 It should not be surprising that some who feel abortion is a good thing call themselves pro-choice.  Some such groups of people see abortion as an effective type of birth control, or a means of population control, or an effective instrument to protect their valued lifestyle.  As opposed to those who buy into the above mentioned arguments that abortion is a necessary evil or that they have no right to tell others how to control their bodies, etc. (the pro-choicers) the pro-abortion group may be typified by those who actively discourage women from giving birth, call parenthood irresponsible, oppose parental involvement and consent, coerce women into abortion, and/or support forced abortion.  The UNFPA, or United Nations Population Fund, is dedicated to supporting forced abortion policies in countries such as China and North Korea and draws its funds from many nations, including Canada and many of the EU nations.  The United States does not currently fund forced abortions overseas, although it does fund abortion centers and programs overseas, including the infamous Mexico City policy.  Most Congressional Democrats support this funding for forced abortions.

One web site worth bookmarking if you have not seen it is http://www.all.org/stopp/resource.htm.  It would be well worth taking some time to see what Planned Parenthood is up to and how they are going after our children. 

There you can see both the historical context in which P.P., a heavyweight pro-abortion advocacy group, was founded, and what they are up to now.  Largely underriden by government funds, “STOPP”, who sponsors the above cited web page, is dedicated to stopping P.P. and stripping them of their government funds wherever possible by disseminating the truth of their activities.  What they reveal is an organization that sought to create a new “race” by weeding out the genetically unfit, a group that emerged while aligned with the KKK and other organizations, sharing in a denouncement of non-white races, a fierce anti-Catholicism and the writings of Margaret Sanger, PP’s founder, which are incredibly racist.  PP still honors Sanger today, giving out awards in her name.  

Appalling also is their current repertoire of activities which demonstrates a concentrated effort to promote a casual sexual lifestyle to the young, dissociate loving commitment from procreation, dissociate sex from procreation, and even dissociate sex from loving commitment.  Planned Parenthood is incredibly active in promoting the use of contraception and so-called “safe sex”, denies people’s ability to sexually control themselves, encourages them not to try, and consistently targets college, high school and middle school aged young people.  They want contraception through the schools, (without parental knowledge or consent), contraception at concerts, government funded contraception and abortions, and even consistently oppose parental consent and parental notification.  Again, this agenda is largely profitable and largely underriden by tax dollars.  They consistently set up near high schools and universities and their government funded pregnancy counseling ends in abortion by a rate of several hundred abortions to every birth. 

 Take some time to learn about this cancer on our society and an organization that is committed to opposing them by visiting the above link.