Abortion As a Blessing, Grace, or Gift–A Renewed Conversation about Reproductive Rights?

bsmeter3

The “deep thinkers” at IEET (Institute for Emerging Ethics and Technologies) firmly believe they are the smartest kids in the room, so they spent a lot of time attempting to justify what is (humanly and ethically) totally unjustifiable – abortion. Here’s their latest attempt at taking themselves and their twisted logic way too seriously. – Ed.

Our inability to talk in morally resonant terms about abortion has clouded the broader conversation about mindful childbearing. (There are no “morally resonant” reasons to kill innocent babies in the womb. – Ed.) The cost in recent decades has been devastating. In developing countries millions of real women and children have died because abortion-obsessed American Christians banned family planning conversations as a part of HIV prevention efforts. (This is total “BS”. A flat-out lie! – Ed.) Those lost lives reveal the callous immorality of the anti-choice movement. (Now these guys have unilaterally redefined “callous immorality” as SAVING innocent lives. – Ed.)

Back home, here in the U.S., our inability to claim the moral high ground about abortion has brought us one of the most regressive culture shifts of a generation. (That’s because there is absolutely no moral high ground available when it comes to killing innocent babies. – Ed.) We are, incredibly, faced with “personhood rights” for fertilized eggs, pregnancies that begin legally before we even have sex, politicians with “Rape Tourette’s,” and a stunningly antagonistic debate about contraceptive technologies that could make as many as ninety percent of unintended pregnancies along with consequent suffering and abortions simply obsolete. (I think she is referring to various types of contraceptives that function by killing innocent life, after conception. But you never know! – Ed.)

The voices that are strongest on reproductive rights often falter when it comes to the cultural dialogue. At least part of this absence is because so many of the pro-choice movement’s leaders and funders are secular and civic in their orientation, awkwardly uncomfortable with the moral and spiritual dimension of the conversation, or, for that matter, even with words like moral and spiritual. From language that seems moderately wise–Who decides?–we fall back on “safe, legal and rare” (a questionable effort to please everyone) or even the legal jargon of the “right to privacy.”

abortionpile

A large pile of murdered teeny, weeny babies
numbering – so far – about 55 MILLION!

The other side talks about murdering teeny, weeny babies and then mind-melds images of ultrasounds and Gerber babies with faded photos of late term abortions. (As if none of these accurately reflect the sad reality of abortion, as well as the abortion mentality. – Ed.)  And we come back by talking about privacy?? Is that like the right to commit murder in the privacy of your own home or doctor’s office? (As a matter of fact, it is.  Now they’re catching on! – Ed.) Even apart from the dubious moral equivalence, let’s be real: In the age of Facebook and Twitter, is there a female under twenty-five in who gives a rat’s patooey about privacy, let alone thinks of it as a core value? (The right to privacy was merely the context and the false, fabricated  justification for the court’s ruling on the non-existent right to abortion. – Ed.) 

There’s more – but why bother? These guys are either deliberately, or by nature, almost totally ignorant about the truth of the issues they so poorly attempt to address. Probably because ignorance is their only hope! – Ed.

“Trick” question: Are there two personalities in Christ, a human “I” and a divine “I”?

One personality … or two?

It is popular for modern(ist) theologians to speak of two personalities in Christ. Some have gone so far as to claim that there are two persons in Christ – and, to us, it is difficult to understand how such speculation on the part of certain scholars has not yet been openly condemned as heresy.

On account of the one person of Christ, the Church prays in her Creed: I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ. This means not only that Jesus Christ alone is the Lord, but also implies that he his one. Christ the Lord is one, he is not two – thus, though he is both human and divine, Jesus is one divine person which is the person of the Eternal Word.

Still, it is common enough for these modern theologians to speculate regarding the personality of Christ, they ask: Granted that the Lord is one person; is it yet possible to claim that there are two personalities, one human and one divine? We admit that the Church has not yet pronounced on this issue; however, for reasons which will be manifest below, we argue that it is not safe for a Catholic to suppose that there are two personalities in the one person of our Savior.

Read more

The Body Doesn’t Lie, But Modern Culture Does


Sexuality is more than skin-deep – Now when it comes to sexuality in the human person, our sex (or as some incorrectly call it, our “gender,”  (gender is a grammar term that refers to the classification of nouns in romance languages)  is not just a 50/50 coin toss. Our soul is male or female and hence our bodies reflect that fact. I don’t just happen to be male, I AM male. My soul is male, my spirit is male, hence my body is male.

So called “sex-change” operations are a lie. Cross-dressing is a lie. “Transgendered” and what ever other made up and confused assertions cannot change the truth of what the soul is. You can adapt the body but not the soul. The soul simply says, “Sum quod sum” (I am what I am).

Now again, the modern age has chosen simply to set all this aside and to see the body as incidental or arbitrary. This is a key error of the modern age and has led to a lot of the confusion we have about many things. We have already seen how the widespread approval of homosexual acts has stemmed from this. But there are other confusions that spread from this.

Read more (and be sure to watch the video at the bottom.)