Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Takeaways from Unplanned movie

One of the first sentiments I had after viewing the film Unplanned was the same as my opening remarks last October about the film Gosnell: the scariest moment perhaps "is when one realizes how protected the abortion industry is."

Let's review that and several other takeaways from the film. I will keep spoilers at a minimum.

Still from the movie Unplanned (2019). Obtained from

Unplanned is an important insider look at the machinations of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry on which it thrives. The film is based on the actual life of Abby Johnson, whose name is very familiar to Catholics and the pro-life industry. Her perspective as an acclaimed and former director of Planned Parenthood has inspired many. The film's epilogue notes how Johnson's organization And Then There Were None has provided resources for and helped lead over 500 workers to discover the truth about Planned Parenthood and subsequently abandon it.

Planned Parenthood's business model is evident in the film. Abortions collect the largest margin of any product or "service" they offer. That means the difference in the amount an abortion costs them versus what they charge typically vulnerable women and girls is a larger dollar amount than anything else they offer. The description of this business model in the film is evidenced by the facts.

The film draws attention to Planned Parenthood publicly claiming they desire abortion to be "rare." Yet, as Abby Johnson and others have revealed, Planned Parenthood issues awards for increasing abortion productivity. This is hardly the organization's only lie.

Although the film does not delve into it, Planned Parenthood's long list of lies includes denial that they cover up child sex abuse, and denial that they sell baby body parts and have altered abortion procedures in order to procure specific parts.

The film does involve more than one bloody scene, including a dramatic abortion. The film received an R rating, which seems excessive, considering bloodier films without pro-life messages are given lesser ratings. However, the film's co-director Chuck Konzelman pointed out the irony of this rating, because "abortion is an act of extreme violence."

Another feature in the film worth mentioning are the several euphemisms and terms of snakery Planned Parenthood uses to disguise the truth.
  • "Planned Parenthood" - The very name of the organization itself belies the fact that abortion clients are already mothers. Its main product, abortion, and its other products like contraception, are designed to eliminate parenting. As some have noted, "unparenthood" more accurately describes their intentions.
  • "Anti-Choice" - As is often the case, including with a complicit media, the term "anti-choice" is used to describe pro-lifers who recognize the enwombed as a life. As Father Corapi often used to ask of the abortion industry's use of the word "choice": "Choose what?"
  • "Tissue" - The baby is referenced only as "tissue" that is not a baby "yet." In the film, we hear this used to convince a teen about the acceptability of having an abortion.
  • "Products of Conception" - A lesser known euphemism is the official term used by Planned Parenthood to refer to the remains of the aborted baby: "Products of Conception." In the P.O.C. room, pieces of the baby are "reassembled" and accounted for, so they can determine that they got the entire baby. As I said, the film is disturbing, but the information it reveals in this mass media format is important in combating the lies about the enwombed. Ancient Egypt wasn't the only sinful nation plagued with rivers of blood. 
  • "Reproductive Health" - Another phrase heard in the film and with frequency in media and from politicians is the term "reproductive health" to refer to the dismemberment or pulverizing of an enwombed baby. The reality is, a baby that would otherwise continue to live and grow, is terminated—the very antithesis of "health" and a diabolical lie.
  • "Her body" - Although the abortion industry has tried to sell the idea that abortion is ultimately about "her body," the nascent baby in the womb—left out of the abortion propagandist's equation—has his/her own unique DNA, distinct from the mother. Empirically and factually, the baby is not the mother's "body."
For eight years Abby Johnson worked up close and personal with the abortion of some 22,000 babies.  She was also not stuck at Planned Parenthood against her will and had family that consistently encouraged her to leave. But all those euphemisms and all Planned Parenthood's talk about health for vulnerable women serves as a veil, a means by which to deflect the public's attention, to avoid asking the actual question—is the enwombed a life?

Still, we have seen in modern days those who admit that from the moment of conception, the enwombed is by all reasonable measure a human life. Their justification for abortion comes in the the illogical idea that the baby's value is dependent on the mother's desire. If a mother considers herself "not ready" to raise a child or doesn't want to be connected to the father anymore (as was described in the movie about Johnson), the baby's very life loses value. This is to treat a baby the same as any other commodity, where market demand determines value. In this case, the mother is the market. This relativistic and perverse mentality deprives human life of objective worth.

Johnson has spoken at length about the blindness of sin she incurred. One takeaway for our own lives is to be on guard for what ways we might be deluding ourselves, falling for some seductive sales pitch on a particular sin.

One of the sins to which Johnson was blinded in her youth was her having obtained two abortions herself. She suffered terribly from the second, yet still pursued a career fostering abortions. The film especially brings to light the lie especially underlying her second abortion. She had filed for divorce and discovered she was pregnant. She didn't want to be "connected" to that man anymore and the termination of the baby was a "fix" for that problem. Of course, she merely sacrificed her baby for that separation and took on a different cross, knowing she offered no fight for her own child's life and paid someone to end it. This is not an uncommon story. It underscores the importance of treating the conjugal act with the utmost sacredness, and should discourage anyone from engaging in casual sex, and certainly not commit to someone of questionable character which is more difficult to avoid when engaging in sex with that person. But modern phenomena like abortion and contraception imply that one needn't be as careful or choosy with a partner. It's another dimension of abortion's lies.

The film mentions the type of powers that fund Planned Parenthood, explicitly naming George Soros, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet. The support from these multi-billionaires for an organization consistently caught lying and disguising its depraved work goes a long way in explaining its continued existence.

Soros and Gates have given over a combined $32 million to Planned Parenthood in recent years, dwarfed only by Buffet, who issued the abortion provider a deluge of over $230 million. (see LifeSiteNews.) Incoming donations such as these as well as Planned Parenthood's outbound political donations are reasons why many have questioned their reception of taxpayer funds and non-profit status. Their legal intimidation, also shown in the film, are important facts to know when understanding the entity that is Planned Parenthood. With such a concentration of influence from just a few donors, one rightfully must question how much of the organization's survival is due to ideology and paid propaganda. This is especially a fair question when one considers the euphemisms, that Planned Parenthood uses language to describe what they do other than language that actually describes what they do.

Despite such colossal funding, Planned Parenthood still vies for public funds. Politicians who support them are not apt to reveal the flow of income they already enjoy from other sources. They typically hide behind miswordings like "health" to market things like abortion and contraception that are properly defined as non-medicine or poisons.

Such political and corporate funding could also explain why Planned Parenthood has been caught multiple times in outright lies yet fail to incur any consequence of significance. We are witnessing the undeniably naked emperor and are told to look the other way and deny it.

The film seems to avoid Johnson's eventual conversion to Catholicism. It only mentions an earlier stage of her spiritual development when she attended a generally Christian service. There are shots of pro-lifers praying the rosary at times, but nothing overtly Catholic, even though that appears to be central in where Johnson is today. This might make the film more widely appealing to non-Catholics to support the pro-life movement, but it's worth noting that the whole story has a definite Catholic component.

Part of what I remember hearing about Johnson's exodus from Planned Parenthood was that one of the items she took with her when she left was a bowl full of Miraculous Medals left by pro-lifers. She had collected them over time. I think I might have seen a bowl on her desk late in the film that contained them, but it was hard to tell if that was an "Easter Egg" or just another prop. Perhaps a commenter can shed light. But, undoubtedly, Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal lent her immaculate gaze to that day when Abby Johnson finally stood for innocent life in the womb.

Unplanned: Behind the Scenes is viewable over at There are a number of fascinating tidbits from this video and the phenomena behind the movie. But I'd like to focus on these three additional takeaways from this mini-film.

  • Providence. Lead actress Ashley Bratcher (whom was warned not to take the role because she would never find work again) discovered that her mother had almost aborted her after already having been post-abortive. Not only was abortion considered, but her mother was literally seconds away from permitting the deed against Ashley, having gone all the way to a "clinic," and was in the room for an abortion before she walked out. This story adds a providential mystique to the film and what it represents.
  • Opposition. Shawn Carney of 40 Days for Life made a prophetic statement which will undoubtedly come true. There will be critics of the film who will avoid confronting the truth it exposes by seeking refuge in more euphemisms, claiming the film is the "anti-Planned Parenthood movie, the anti-abortion movie, the anti-woman movie, the anti-fill-in-the-blank..."
  • Revelation. Writer/Director Cary Solomon told an interesting story about how his father had seen the movie and experienced a conversion on the matter of abortion. He quoted his father as saying, "You've shown us what we didn't want to see." The statement superbly summates the theme of the film, from the power Planned Parenthood wields, to the truth about abortion itself.

Further resources:

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Refutation of justifying abortion because of zygote mortality, historic infanticide, and more

Evolutionary biologist Heather Heying's recent argument for abortion makes appeal to zygote survival, historical periods of infanticide, and careers.

Often, arguments for abortion avoid the ultimate question: is that which is in the womb a human life? This article clearly concedes it is, stating that even zygotes "are human, by any usual definition of the term." The argument in this article is not whether the enwombed are "human." Instead, their level of sacredness is called into question. Let's look at the various arguments in the article, starting with this matter of zygotes.

The article says “most human zygotes throughout history never became children” because they were either “miscarried,” had “chromosomal abnormalities” that proved fatal to the zygote, or that “genetic and environmental conditions rendered the zygote non-viable.” The article then concludes of these zygotes:
They are human, by any usual definition of the term, but they cannot survive. This happens to most zygotes that have ever been conceived. This fact leaves me, a biologist, wholly unconvinced by arguments about the sanctity of life.
Before we parse this conclusion, let’s again pause on the point of agreement. Fertilized zygotes “are human.” The article is correct in this regard. From the moment of conception, the nascent life has its own unique DNA, and is the empirical beginning of human life that progresses unto death. Now, let's analyze this main premise.
  • Why should we question the sanctity of life of babies in utero on the grounds that “most zygotes” do not survive? Explanation for this foundational claim is absent. It is merely asserted. Later, we will address the claim that sacredness is attributed to varying stages of physical development.
  • The argument here resembles, but falls short of, a logical three-term syllogism. The argument in syllogistic form is: Most zygotes die, therefore they are not sacred; or: Most Z are D. Therefore no Z are S. Missing is a second (minor) premise, such as a statement about what constitutes sacredness. The argument is logically invalid without even addressing whether the premises are valid.
Ultimately, it's nonsensical to assert life isn't sacred regardless of the frequency of biological malformations. It would not matter if 99% of zygotes didn't survive. No statistical appeals are necessary once we recognize human life is sacred and human life begins at conception.

Keep that in mind when reading these next three bullets, which are not foundational rebuttals to the article's zygote argument. Remember, the statistics are inconsequential to sacredness of life. Where there is human life, the sanctity proper to human life is present. The following thoughts are rather an inspection of zygote mortality statistics.
  • What effect does the pill, which literally siphoned the life out of society beginning in 1960, have on the failure of zygote survival? The FDA's description of the "mechanism of action" of the oral contraceptive Ella admits: "alterations to the endometrium that may affect implantation may also contribute to efficacy." How many zygotes are counted that couldn't implant simply because the mother took an abortifacient pill? How many zygotes were deemed "flawed" because the mother had a virus, consumed too much alcohol, took drugs, used spermicides, had a bacterial infection, or an STD? Should we deny the sacredness of the nascent human on account of external forces? According to the article, which states "environmental conditions rendered the zygote non-viable," the zygote wouldn't even have to be "flawed" to lose sacredness. It only needs to fall victim to some unnamed environmental condition. This would be, of course, a nonsensical index to measure the sacredness of human life, for a baby could be speciously deemed unsacred on account of someone else taking heroin.
  • An examination of embryo mortality rate studies was published in June 2017 by Dr. Gavin E. Jarvis in the Cambridge Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience. He concluded current data is not reliable regarding the mortality of embryos, stating: "natural human embryo mortality is lower than often claimed and widely accepted." (e.g. A multitude of studies have widely disparate statistics, e.g. ranging from 46%-90% mortality for all pregnancies, from zygote to term.) 
  • Consider the following: According to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, the total "rate of pregnancy loss after implantation" is 31%—much less than half. If one denies the sanctity of life based on "most zygotes" not surviving, wouldn't one have to say life is sacred at the stage in which the gestational survival rate exceeds 50%? And, if not, the appeal to "most zygotes" is moot.

    But, again, the percentages are irrelevant. Life is sacred from conception, because, even as the article concedes, it is a "human" life. We needn't demand a certain stage of gestational development to elapse before we can attribute sacredness to the life. What these statistics demonstrate is that post-implantation abortion would be unacceptable even to someone who arbitrarily wishes to claim a greater-than-50% mortality statistic as the threshold for sanctity of life.
Another phenomenon to which the article appeals to justify abortion is the reality of historical infanticide. Granted, it does not endorse infanticide, at least not for modern cultures. The article states of America: "Society-wide, we have agreed on this much: once they are born, let us not kill our children."

That much is a relief (even though proponents of post-birth infanticide exist in the West, such as the notorious atheist professor Peter Singer). However, the article still appears to use the reality of historical infanticide as justification of abortion as a necessary evil:
There is a long list of behaviors and actions historically available to women who are trying to control their own reproductive lives. Infanticide is on that list. I am not arguing that this is good, but it is true. ... Evolution responds to circumstance. Most zygotes disappear before even making themselves known to their mothers. In many cultures, in which the environment was variable enough that many children were unlikely to make it to adulthood, infanticide has been acceptable. ... Indian and African slave populations in Surinam [used abortifacients] so that they would not bring children into a life of slavery.
And, in the opening paragraph of the article:
Sometimes, though, in the service of the greater good, abortions are necessary.
You see in these related excerpts several ideas. Let's examine them:

One must carefully read this section of the article to grasp exactly why historic infanticide is cited, ultimately, as justification for abortion. Although the article claims it is not arguing that infanticide is "good," it says it has at times in history "been acceptable." This ties into the opening claim that "in the service of the greater good, abortions are necessary." Essentially, this all amounts to arguing that, although abortion is not "good," it is something "necessary" to prevent something bad in the judgement of the mother. The "bad thing" ranges anywhere from the mother's judgement of saving a baby from growing up in slavery to the baby being an obstacle to the mother's career.
This brings us to a segue. Earlier in the article, we see reference to the career factor:
One of my friends escaped an abusive home, became addicted to heroin, and got pregnant very young, before aborting the fetus, getting her act together, and becoming a scientist. That part where she got her act together and became a scientist? Far less likely had she been a teenage mother.
To the devout pro-lifer, this is an atrocious razing of the ears and heart. One could imagine a paraphrase of the conclusion: "That part where the baby grew up to be a scientist? Far less likely since she was killed in utero." But, more to the point, the mother's potential future career is an irrelevant factor when determining the sacredness of the enwombed baby. It is not sensible to justify the killing of one's children on the grounds that one might enjoy a successful career without them. And, a baby is not more or less sacred if her mother eventually becomes a scientist, a seamstress, a homemaker, or whatever. We don't need to wait to find out what the mother's career aspirations are before we can determine if life in the womb is expendable. The life of the enwombed is sacred on its own merit. The mother's career is a diversion.

Scapegoating evolution
Let's return to "evolution." You see how evolution is cited as a scapegoat both for the unwilled death of zygotes and willed infanticide. This is not the first time we've seen evolution speciously cited as some unimpugnably good force to justify something outside its purview (Atheist evolutionary biologist professor Gad Saad erroneously argued that "morality" was strictly a "scientific" phenomenon of evolution). But the problem with such appeals to evolution is at least twofold.
  • First, what constitutes behaviors that are "evolution responding to circumstances"? Zygote mortality? Killing the young? These are the first two notions the article mentions in light of "evolution responding to circumstances." These are both unwilled and willed deaths, which are deemed beneficial for "evolution." But, if these are not "good" but "necessary" evolutionary responses, what other willed and unwilled phenomena is? What about the Black Plague that wiped out a third of Europe? What about the Titanic tragedy? What about 20th century smallpox? What about killing the weak? What about killing the neighboring tribe because one tribe wants the others' more fertile land? What about Aztec temple sacrifices? What about any genocidal regimes in history? What about prolific serial killers? Shall we argue these are all simply "responses of evolution" because afterward there were more resources available per remaining person? Shall we legalize related forms of terminating life on the grounds that "evolution" delivered similar deaths in history? And shall we call each a necessary evil for a greater good? Kind of like a recent movie villain did with the snap of a finger?

    You see the danger in grouping things like zygote mortality, infanticide, evolution's "response," and abortion as an argument for "greater good."
  • Second, let's say one wanted to attribute every action in human history as the work of "evolution." That wouldn't make any of those actions "good." Nor would it make any of those actions "bad," nor even a necessary evil. The study of evolution is in the purview of science. It deals with observable facts. It has no capacity to quantify good or evil. One cannot use evolution as an axiom to say that an action that was the response of "evolution" (if that can even be "observed) is automatically "good." Value judgements must be derived elsewhere.


The article then argues against the notion of a distinct “line” at which sacrosanct life begins. I emphasize sacrosanct because the article has conceded earlier that the fertilized egg is already a “human” life. This section of the article is really a thought exercise about what are acceptable stages of development it’s still okay to terminate that human life. The two most “obvious” lines, conception and birth, are both rejected.
  • First, conception is rejected in the article on the grounds of the main argument, that “most zygotes are not destined to survive.” But, again, it is illogical to deny the sanctity of human life on the grounds that unwilled malfunctions or external factors sometimes interfere with biological processes. 
  • Second, birth is rejected on the grounds that "for most moderns, the idea of abortion at nine months gestation, just before a full-term birth would occur, is a bridge too far." However, this is followed by another appeal to historic infanticide: "given the prevalence of infanticide in human history...this line has not always been considered sacrosanct." Two fallacies of argument are at work here:
    • First, the appeal to "most moderns," is the fallacy of ad populum. Even though the pro-lifer obviously agrees it is wrong to terminate a baby at 9 months (or any stage!), that view is not derived by submitting to "most moderns." Rather, the sanctity of life is intertwined with the value of humanity itself, a value necessarily beyond a human's biological cluster of subatomic particles, but in the human being's inherent participation in the image of the Transcendent. This idea is the foundation for all morality. Morality dissolves when one attempts to reduce humanity to biological functions alone or as a tool, as in the case of determining a human's value based on what effect one thinks that human will have on the determiner's career. 
    • The second fallacy is the appeal to historical "prevalence of infanticide." This is the fallacy of ad antiquitatem, which argues if something was done in history, it must have been correct.
So, if conception and birth are both inadequate "lines" to determine sanctity of life, when is it supposedly no longer okay to end a human life because it became too sacred? The article tosses out more than one suggestion.

One of the article's suggestions is that abortion could be considered acceptable up to the stage when the baby would survive outside of the womb. The viability argument has been refuted in prior articles: e.g. Notre Dame professor's flawed argument for abortion).

The article also posits the average age at which organs are laid down or when "brain development accelerates in utero" as a possible threshold to no longer allow for abortion.
  • But, the article has already conceded that the zygote is "human." Arbitrarily appealing to this or that normative and natural stage of development as an apparent consideration for sacredness is nonsensical. Why should a baby be killable when it is at the correct and normal stage of life development? We're not even talking about an abnormality in development here—which is neither justification to end a human life. These are normal stages of development. A cynic might not be wrong to think such abortion-supporters are merely citing stages arbitrarily in order to accommodate abortion.
  • As well, considering sacredness of life in view of something like level of organ or brain development also suggests that even adults' lives would be "less sacred" if they suffered from some setback of organ or brain development. It also begs the question: What other developmental drawbacks can compromise the sanctity of one's life? Poor vision? Deviated septum? Narcolepsy? 
The article does not actually define any of these considerations as the exact threshold of sanctity of life. Rather, it is ultimately arguing for a nebulous "continuum" for abortion instead of a definite line. From there, the article suggests the following unspecific solution:
If we recognize a trade-off between the positive social impact of keeping abortion available to women, and the problems of providing carte blanche for all abortions up to some very late date, perhaps we should seek a solution that renders barriers to abortion higher the farther along in the pregnancy a woman is, but allows free and easy access early in pregnancy, and so does not sacrifice a woman’s ability to choose her life’s fate.
Many readers were probably already aghast at the phrase "positive social impact of keeping abortion available."

  • To start with the obvious, estimates of over 1.5 billion babies have been killed by abortion in the last 40 years. It remains a vexing reality, the elephant to end all elephants in the room, that the lives of aborted babies are not counted, and often not considered, when the effects of abortion are discussed. The previous quote parrots the common abortion supporters' sole angle: "her life," never the baby's. 
  • Later, the article even claims that "[f]acilitating choices that allow people to live their highest and best lives is consistent with...a pro-choice...position." But, obviously forgotten in that statement is the bloody hemorrhage of lives intentionally lost in the womb. The idea that a supporter of abortion calls for "allowing people to live their highest and best lives" is one heap of irony. The babies aren't given a choice. They are dismembered or pulverized and killed. Only the woman who wants to pursue her science career gets a choice. And none of this even touches on the many statistics that show the psychological and social detriment resulting from abortion.
The article segues here to call anyone who is pro-life and believes the possibility of the death penalty a hypocrite. This is a common claim by abortion supporters and has been rebutted in numerous places (eg. CatholicVote, Jimmy Akin).

The article then attempts to justify abortion by claiming it is morally analogous to fixing a broken leg:
Furthermore, if you play soccer and break a leg doing so, it is not responsible to remain maimed simply because the playing of soccer brought with it the risk of breaking one’s leg. It is, in fact, responsible to have your leg fixed, not merely so that you can live to play soccer again, but so that you can go on to contribute maximally to society, living up to your potential, not just with regard to soccer, but in other regards as well. If you have sex and end up pregnant, it is not responsible to become a parent out of a sense of moral obligation, if you are not ready to do so. Responsible athletic and sexual behavior both involve a reduction, on the front-end, of the chances of undesirable outcomes. Setting a bone is not identical to aborting a fetus, but there is a moral analogy to be made, with regard to how a person should take responsibility for their actions.
There is actually no moral analogy to be made here.
  • Breaking a leg is a medical disorder that needs fixing. Pregnancy is the opposite of that. It is not a medical disorder.1 Pregnancy is the normative, correctly functioning, and proper order of gestation and human life. This analogy is exactly backward. Abortion corresponds to breaking a leg, not fixing it.
  • Also, the notion that it's okay to have an abortion if the mother is "not ready to" "become a parent" is an argument that entirely ignores due regard for the enwombed. The value of the life in the womb is not dependent on the mental "readiness" of the mother. And adoption is an option. The mother's "readiness" is an inexcusable and irrational barometer for determining the worth of enwombed life.
The final section of the article is called "A humane and reasoned response." But, this argument for abortion is neither.
There is a question of which of two lives we, as a society, preferDo we prefer the life of an adult who can make decisions for herself, and who has found herself in an unfortunate position? Or do we prefer the life of her unborn child—a child who has not yet had the opportunity to make decisions for itself, good or bad? ... The implicit moralizing that prefers the fetus to the woman has judged the woman guilty for needing an abortion in the first place.
This is a glaring fallacy of false dichotomy.
  • First, think about this statement: "prefers the fetus to the woman." We are talking about death for the baby. Death. The mother's "punishment"—if one has been conditioned and deluded enough to believe motherhood is a punishment—is a possible career setback or lack of "readiness" to be a mother. She might have to complete her science degree via distance learning. We're not being asked if we "prefer" vanilla or chocolate here. We're not being asked which of the two shall be killed. We're asked if one person's life is as valuable as someone else's ease of getting job.
  • Second, the reason there are pro-life organizations like Ireland's LoveBoth Project is because "the baby or the mother" is a false dichotomy. Love both. 
  • Third, one of the ways we can help women (and men) avoid situations where abortion is seductive is to discourage pre-marital and recreational sex, stop handing out "birth control" to teens, and start teaching that sex is a serious act that could result in another person who otherwise would never exist. Particularly, Western culture fosters promiscuity from entertainment to education. From such attitudes we have record STDs and articles promoting abortion instead of encouraging abstinence for those not "ready" to be a parent. Passing the culture's reckless norms onto babies by killing them in utero is an egregious injustice.
  • Notice the juxtaposition of a mother "who can make decisions for herself" versus the unborn child who cannot "make decisions for itself." The implication here is that, because only the mother is capable of making a choice in this situation, the choice should go to her. Apparently, the logic here is that the baby hasn't actually articulated a desire not to be dismembered or killed by suction machine. So let the mother chose because the baby can't decide yet! This ability-to-choose argument is utterly convoluted, and, much like most arguments for abortion, ignores the dignity of the enwombed human being.
Finally, let's look at one more excerpt from the article:
By preferring the future baby—who will need love and sacrifice, and lots of it—over the adult—who does not need that kind of support—you guarantee that our shared social fabric will be stretched ever thinner.
Consider the following reactions to this quote:
  • First, this assertion is actually a call for less love. Reread the statement to see. It says babies need lots more love than adults—therefore, it's better to kill a baby to save all that love effort. This brings us back to earlier in this blog post where we philosophized as to whether genocide or a massive plague is just evolution performing some good "response to circumstances." According to the this-requires-too-much-love theory, all such loss of life is good because now we can concentrate our "shared social fabric" of love on fewer survivors.
  • Second, according to this quote, a person who requires "lots of" love is expendable. The logical conclusion of such an attitude is to terminate the sick. What about a cancer patient that has a fair chance of recovery with months or years of treatment? What in the too-much-love theory suggests we should expend resources on such a person rather than salvage the "lots of" "social fabric" by killing them as soon as possible? Nothing,
  • Third, if even adults need some degree of love and support, proponents of too-much-love would commit suicide, no? This is not to be provocative. This is to let the trajectory of a claim play out of its own accord. The only thing in the article that suggests killing birthed people is bad is the statement: "Society-wide, we have agreed on this much: once they are born, let us not kill our children." But, not only is there is not full agreement on this matter as shown earlier, but leaving such a matter open to some implied majority has historically given rise in various cultures to cannibalism, human sacrifice, slavery, and more. 

The modern abortion movement is the bloody scandal of our time. All this brings us to an even clearer understanding of the evil of abortion. Neither evolutionary, nor biological, nor career-based arguments for abortion can withstand scrutiny. Each collapses under their own fallacies and self-contradictions. Proponents of life from conception until death should stand strong in these dark times, by being informed, praying and fasting, and continuing to contribute time and resources on behalf of the enwombed innocents, marriage, and stable families.

1In extreme cases where pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, see discussion of incident at Phoenix hospital in 2010—refer to paragraph beginning with "Brown's book is fraught with footnotes..."

Sunday, January 27, 2019

When Bishops embrace politics over pastoring

In January 2019, the diocese of Covington Kentucky, under direction of Archbishop Roger Joseph Foys, issued a condemnation one day after a viral video appeared to show high school boys harassing an older man at the March for Life in Washington. The archdiocese called the students' behavior "opposed to the Church’s teachings on the dignity and respect of the human person" and issued an apology to the actual aggressor. The media had already politicized the issue, emphasizing race, and showing only a specious snippet of video that belied the story. The light-speed reaction of the archdiocese has left them embarrassed as subsequent footage of the incident revealed the older man to have been the aggressor. Even though the archdiocese openly condemned the students absent of further investigation, their most recent statement said it is "important for us to gather the facts that will allow us to determine what corrective actions, if any, are appropriate." Lexington Bishop Stowe originally called the students a, "contradiction of the very reverence for human life that the march is supposed to manifest." Louisville Archbishop Joseph Kurtz tweeted a condemnation of what he claimed were "the shameful actions of the Covington Catholic High School students." Other bishops made similar premature condemnations. They wittingly or not worked in concert with an unethical media, hostile to the Church and the pro-life movement. And, once again, they showed themselves perfectly capable of crying out in unison when politically popular, but painfully mute when needing to champion unpopular, but true, teachings of the faith.

In February 2018, Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich responded in a week to publicly condemn and sanction a priest who burned a flag promoting homosexuality that once hung in his parish. Meanwhile, after two priests in Cupich's archdiocese were arrested for committing a public sexual act with each other, Cupich said he would wait for an investigation. Neither originally, nor over four months later, has any public condemnation come from Cupich. Cupich is also the Archbishop who responded within 48 hours to the first ViganĂ³ letter about clergy abuse by say saying the Pope should focus on "other things" and that addressing the letter was to go down a "rabbit hole." Vexingly, the Pope still appointed Cupich to the organizing committee of the February abuse synod.

In June 2018, news media drew attention to the temporary separation of family members crossing the southern U.S. border while screening occurred. Although these detainments were temporary and complicated by such matters as child sex traffickers often posing as a child's parents, multiple bishops, in a unified, simultaneous voice, condemned the policy in the harshest language. Tucson Bishop Edward Weisenburger referred to the practice "In light of the canonical penalties that are there for life issues" and suggested the hierarchy consider "canonical penalties for Catholics who are involved in this". San Antonio Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller said, "To steal children from their parents is a grave sin, immoral (and) evil."  Brownsville Archbishop Daniel Flores said, "separating immigrant parents and children as a supposed deterrent to immigration is a cruel and reprehensible policy." Los Angeles Auxiliary Bishop Robert Barron said, "The forced separation of children from their parents, which is underway now at our southern border, is an unconscionable violation of human dignity." Chicago Archbishop Cupich also spoke out immediately (He did not wait for further investigation as with his priests in Feb. 2018), stating the policy was "nothing remotely Christian, American, or (sic) morally defensible..." These are just a small sample. But whatever one thinks of these detainment policies (the policy was since deauthorized), if the bishops were truly concerned about damage to families, where is their massive condemnation about ongoing issues that are destroying legions of families, in numbers no border detainments will ever approach? Where are the bishops' unified and sobering statements about family destroyers such as divorce, cohabitation, pre-marital sex, or contraception? These things have created a hemorrhage of destruction in the institution of the family. Obviously, the bishops have shown they have the ability to issue strong condemnations in a unified voice. Why not conduct a communication blitz on these other matters instead of something politically charged that does not even constitute objective immorality?

Jesus Chasing the Merchants from the Temple by Quentin Matsys, 16th cent.
Public domain image acquired from Wikimedia Commons.
These incidents are some among many examples. Meanwhile, scandals among the hierarchy themselves persist. The faithful are left vexed. Stories of infiltration abound. Neither Pope Francis nor any other named bishops have been able to rebut the content of Archbishop Carlo Maria ViganĂ³'s letters detailing cover-up of sexual deviance within the Church. Pope Francis has neither replied to the 2016 dubia issued by four cardinals on the matter of Communion. Stories of priests teaching heterodoxy from the pulpit persist. Bishops consistently react fast when making popular political condemnations, but react glacially slow or altogether silently when upholding Church teaching or when condemning ills coming from their own ranks. The current state of bishops is unacceptable.

What are the faithful to do? Foremost, there is prayer. Another consideration some Catholics have suggested is withholding Sunday giving in favor of other faithful Catholic and non-profit organizations. In this scenario, dioceses are withheld funds until the true doctrines of the faith are promoted and opponents from within the Church are silenced or expelled. However, there is opposition to that view, such as from Catholic radio host Al Kresta from November 2018. Phillip Lawler, who has been instrumental in journaling scandal within the Church, also has suggestions in his recent book, The Smoke of Satan: How Corrupt and Cowardly Bishops Betrayed Christ, His Church, and the Faithful...and What Can Be Done About It.

Further resources:
Divorce Hurts Children, Even Grown Ones, Psychology Today (2011)
Unprotected movie, Don Johnson Evangelistic Ministries (2018)
Children falling short in school? Blame parental break-ups, Nicole M. King and Bryce J. Christensen (2018)
Kresta in the Afternoon, Jan. 25, 2019, hour 1, interview with Phil Lawler (on Covington Catholic incident)
The Patrick Madrid Show, Jan. 21, 2019, hour 1 (on Covington Catholic incident)

Monday, December 31, 2018

5 modern lies sold as truth

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)

Detail of Prophet Isaiah in Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel Ceiling.
Acquired from Wikimedia Commons.

Today's culture, in plain sight, successfully sells lies that are often 180 degrees opposite the truth.

Birth control is "medicine," claimed Hillary Clinton in 2017. Planned Parenthood has called it "basic health care." Yet contraceptives used to prevent birth are the opposite of medicine—for their end goal is to cause a normally functioning body to malfunction. Birth control more closely resembles the medical definition of Poison: a substance that "may cause structural or functional disturbance."

Read more in earlier TCV blog post: "Birth control" is not medicine.

"It's my body!" shouts the 21st century feminist of enwombed offspring. Yet, in reality, the fertilized egg—the zygote—has its own unique DNA, distinct from the mother. A mother thus advances the culture's lie when she refers as "her body" to that which is not her body.

Additional resources: Science is clear: Each new human life begins at fertilization (Sarah Terzo, 2013); 41 Quotes From Medical Textbooks Prove Human Life Begins at Conception (Terzo, 2015); The Science About When Life Begins Makes Pro-Choicers Look Terrible (Dr. Donna Harrison, 2018)

During the years leading up to the 2015 gay "marriage" ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, there were three common slogans used to advance the idea of gay "marriage": "love is love," "same love," and "marriage equality."

Dialogue on this issue was minimal and even discouraged. Then-First Lady Michelle Obama declared: "In a country where we teach our children that everyone is equal under the law, discriminating against same-sex couples just isn’t right. So, it’s as simple as that."

Although the state declared marriage redefined by stroke of a pen, marriage was not the only thing their verdict "redefined." The censoring of discussion disguised this. Notice how each of the three slogans advanced the idea that men and women are interchangeable with no difference. One ingredient is equal to another. This was among the undiscussed, dangerous side effects of the formulations: "same," "equal," "A is equal to B." These were the Orwellian newspeak that tickled many ears.

The idea that Man+Man = Man+Woman is absurd on its face. The sale of this idea that men and women are interchangeable variables is also contrary to science, which shows the unique qualities brought to parenthood by mothers and fathers, as well as the obvious family structure innate in the male and female union. Any children raised in such arrangements are deprived of one or more of their mother and father. The idea also paved the way for society's next chapter, discussed below (Sex/Gender), in denying the significant qualities between males and females.

Additional Resources: Reengineering the Family (Heather Mac Donald, 2010); How Re-Defining Marriage Harms Society (Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, 2012); Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom (Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, 2015); and additional social science resources in the endnotes at Same-Sex “Marriage”: The Victims. The Children (2015).

Modern transgenderism: It is the idea that a man can "become" a woman (or vice versa) either based on his own feelings and/or after a surgery alters some of his body parts. A significant portion of society is at the point where it cannot tell the difference between a boy and girl and even believes there are a multitude of sexes beyond male and female. This is the hypnotic effect that abusing truth has created.

The idea of switching "genders" is again contrary to science:
In human embryos, the SRY gene encodes a unique transcription factor that activates a testis-forming pathway at about week seven of development. Before this time, the embryonic gonad is "indifferent"... (Genetic Mechanisms of Sex Determination, Nature Education 1(1):25, 2008)
Instead of simply admitting a boy with xyz feelings is still a boy who has these feelings, society fosters the lie that he's not a boy at all, or that somehow a new "gender" can even be created as a result of sexual proclivities.

But calling a boy a girl and a girl a boy is a dangerous inversion of reality that has led to regretful surgeriesharmful use of puberty blockers in children, and other personal and public damage, not to mention the instability caused to any other truth. In "redefining" marriage and what is a boy and girl, society has paved the way to other redefinitions, such as the recent effort to rebrand pedophilia under the moniker "minor attracted person (MAP)." The trajectory will result in future "redefinitions" of parenthood and more as previously discussed in 5 difficult issues human cloning will cause.

Additional resources: Transgenderism: Semantic contagion or biological fact? (Dr. Anne Hendershott, 2018); The Genetics of Sex Differences in Brain and Behavior (NCBI, 2010); The myth of gender-neutral parenting (Dr. Deborah Soh, 2017)

As previously detailed at length, modern atheists such as Sam Harris, Gad Saad, or Patricia Churchland have attempted to explain morality strictly as a function of biology and evolution. Harris goes so far as to say morality exists even though he believes free will does not.

But these efforts are as misguided as they are ironic. By assigning the label "morality" to biological instincts or automatic actions devoid of free will, morality's necessary feature of obligation is stripped from the equation. By reducing man to an automaton or animal obeying euphoric bodily chemicals, these atheists actually make the argument that morality doesn't exist.

The significance of these lies is not something to take lightly. They are prone to cause damage, whether to public policy, the innocent baby, the fatherless child, the sexually confused, or the very foundation of moral truth. We end with a relevant quote from a saint:
[Y]ou did well in urging me not to betray the truth, but to refute the slanderers, lest, by a success of falsehood against truth, many might be injured. (Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Trinity, ca 375 A.D.)