"building" healthier families

This morning I was reading more about a (fairly typical) pro-choice initiative called the Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP). Here's some of what they had to say:

"Through training, advocacy and mentoring programs, RHAP helps family physicians and other clinicians make birth control and abortion a part of routine medical care... RHAP builds healthier families."

In other words, according to RHAP, you "build" a healthier family either by:

1. not building a family (i.e. artificially sterilizing one or both of the parents) or

2. building a family and then killing the youngest member of it (i.e. procuring an abortion).

RHAP is typical of countless other "reproductive health" organizations across this country. Why do we stand for any of them?

Vita Pro Omni!

an ethic of love

Tommy Piolata recently wrote a short, but beautifully insightful, article for Heartbeat, St. Louis University's pro-life publication. I have received his permission to share it with you here:

Vita Pro Omni!

An Ethic of Love

by Tommy Piolata

Often, when there is ethical talk, what follows are words such as rights, obligations, duties etc. However, such language misses the heart of ethics. I once read a homily by Pope Benedict XVI in which he rightly identifies the nucleus of ethics as love. Where there is love, there is authentic morality. Thus, I think it is a rather unfortunate reality that moral-talk is saturated with words such as rights and duties. What happened to love? Where is talk of the good? I’m pro-life not because of some power-political language regarding rights and property, but because ethics is about love, the good, and happiness.

My being pro-life is not rooted in some sort of moral obligation that I perceive, or some sort of Kantian duty that I ought to follow. My being pro-life is rather discovered in the fabric of a credo: that I believe in love. I believe, above all else, that the fulfillment of the human person is founded in the form of love, which is always for the happiness of the other. I believe that happiness is a good, and hence, an ethic that dismisses and disrupts the happiness of mothers and children is far from a moral good.

I’m pro-life because I want to fall in love with the way of love. And it seems so apparent to me that to adhere to an ethic of love I should stand up for an injustice that dehumanizes women and places a façade upon their womb, that refuses to listen to a child’s cry and annihilates him because he is “inconvenient” and small, that oppresses mothers into believing their bodies are not sacred and their children not children. I’m pro-life because I believe in love and charity; and it is a grave injustice, anything which as its aim is the destruction of human personality, human development, human happiness.

Lastly, we live in a world of interconnectedness—hence the importance of love! There is no such thing as the radically separate individual. Instead, as Mother Teresa once remarked, we belong to one another. So, to be completely honest with the abortion issue and consider it as is, I see the pinnacle of segregation, that is—to borrow the words of Martin Luther King Jr.—“it substitutes an “I-it” relationship for an “I-thou” relationship.” Locate for me love, when the womb becomes a trashcan and the child an “it.”

sobering statistics

Planned Parenthood, by far the leading abortion perpetrator in America, has finally released its 2008 annual report. They performed 134 human abortions for every 1 adoption referral. I realize abortion is the most lucrative part of their business, but you'd wish they'd be at least a little bit embarrassed by that extraordinary bias.

Adoption is always the better option. Ours is not the right to choose who will get a chance at life and who won't. What if my mother had chosen to abort me? What if your mother had chosen to abort you? The fact is, with Planned Parenthood around, none of us is safe.

Vita Pro Omni!

pro-life 101

"There are more people working full-time to kill babies than there are working full-time to save them."

Stephanie Gray from the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform has a job I'd love to take on someday. Watch her video for articulate, reasoned, and unemotional pro-life apologetics.

Vita Pro Omni!

just an afternoon chat

This afternoon I had a great conversation with Jody*, an employee from Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Virginia, and with Brittany* and Amber*, some girls from the William and Mary chapter of VOX (Voices for Planned Parenthood). They were all three sitting in our Student Center offering the morning-after pill at a reduced price as part of their EC (emergency contraception) Day on campus. So when I walked by their table on my way to get a Quiznos sub for lunch, I stopped, said hello, and started talking.

Although I made it known from the start that I disagreed with their organization and their EC sale (Brittany asked me later whether I was a member of Students for Life, to which I replied yes and invited her to drop in on a meeting sometime-- I'll be visiting VOX's meeting next week), my goal in approaching them was not to argue. I wanted to talk. I hoped they would get to know me as an approachable face from the "other side" here on campus. I asked a lot of questions. I listened for a long time.

I did ask Jody when she thought life began. She said viability. I asked her what the fetus was prior to viability. She paused and stammered and finally laughed, saying, "It's hard to explain." As she was struggling for an answer, I felt a sense of sympathy for her. It was clear she had been lied to about the entire issue-- to the point where she, a woman who deals with pregnancy for a living, couldn't even explain what a fetus was.

I decided to change the course of the conversation a bit, and asked Jody what it was like to work for Planned Parenthood. I asked her about the kinds of conversations they have with girls who come in with unplanned pregnancies. I asked her if it ever made any of the nurses sad or uncomfortable to see fetal remains after an abortion. She hesitated. Finally, she looked up and said, "It's hard, you know... well, I shouldn't use the word hard... I don't know. It's just, I have kids of my own and..." (she glanced down at her 6-month-pregnant belly) "...it affects some nurses more than others."

Though only about 45 minutes long, my conversation with Jody, Brittany, and Amber reminded me that we are all more similar than we often think. We all understand the intrinsic value of human life and feel a sense of sadness in destroying it. It may be possible to numb ourselves from that sadness for awhile, but no one can stay detached forever. If we engage these conversations, I think people will awaken to their natural senses-- and choose life over death.

Be loving. Be brave.

Life will win.

Vita Pro Omni!

*Names have been changed

what women deserve to know

I shared via Facebook the fact that Missouri abortion clinics recently added several basic, informational stipulations. Women now receive a brochure containing the words, "The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being."

Many people asked me where I had read that information. It can be found here.

Vita Pro Omni!

darling darrs

My fabulous friends Allie and Jordan Darr recently welcomed a second little one into their family: Luke Cosmas.

Luke was born on August 13 at 3:20 pm, and weighed 7 lb, 11 oz. He was 19 inches long.

Both Allie and little Luke are doing wonderfully. Vincent loves being a big brother.

Jordan, meanwhile, loves having another little man following in his footsteps... ;)

Vita Pro Omni!

freakonomics, racism, and hot fudge

Freakonomics, Racism, and Hot Fudge

Five years after its publication, Freakonomics is still in vogue.

It’s also still a master in muddling.

The 2005 book, a collection of articles written by economist Steven Levitt and journalist Stephen Dubner, applies economic principles to various cultural and sociological issues— an interesting marriage indeed. And America certainly ate it up.

Freakonomics peaked at number two on the New York Times Best Seller list among nonfiction and was dubbed the 2006 Book Sense Book of the Year in the Adult Nonfiction category. The authors created the Freakonomics blog in 2005 (hiring a full-time editor in 2007) in an effort to maintain the discussion— one that has been assimilated indefinitely into the New York Times website. And just this year, a documentary film adaptation of the book was produced to be released by Magnolia Pictures in the fall.

Read full article here.

doing good moral math

Doing Good Moral Math

It seems talk about early human life is everywhere. The media certainly doesn’t emphasize the fact that they are speaking about tiny human beings when they discuss this issue or that issue, but nonetheless, the talk is there.

Just last month, the Washington Post featured an article about a 30-year-old woman undergoing in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo freezing to “postpone parenthood.”[1] And newspaper articles from recent years in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York have revealed each state’s lucidencouragement of embryonic stem cell research.[2]

Amidst all of this dialogue and grappling, it seems the central question is often left out of the equation: What is the moral status of early human life?

Read full article here.

[1] “Washington Post Commentary Explores Embryo Freezing”, Medical News Today, May 28, 2010.

[2] NCSL (National Conference of State Legislatures), Stem Cell Research, January 2008.

planned barrenhood/ banned parenthood

I truly don't mean to be rude or sarcastic with the title of this post, but I have to be honest: I've always been confused as to why Planned Parenthood carries its name. They specialize in helping women implement various immoral plans to not become parents. Perhaps one of the aforementioned monikers would be more fitting.

Regardless of your stance on abortion or contraception, Planned Parenthood has an absolutely filthy track record in our courts. They are largely dishonest and often criminal; yet they receive over $330 million in annual funding from our tax dollars. Let's take a look at what they do with that money:

I will allow that video to speak for itself.

Finally, I want to pass some information along. Below is a list of just some of the hundreds of companies that financially support the number one abortion provider in America**- the corporation you just witnessed emotionally manipulating and lying to that vulnerable young girl: Planned Parenthood.

Perhaps we could all refrain from giving these companies our business as much as possible:

American Express Company

AT&T Foundation

Bank of America Corp

Black and Decker Corp

Bloomingdale's

BP America, Inc

Bristol-Meyers Co

Caterpillar Foundation

Charles Schwab and Company, Inc

Coca-Cola Company

Colgate-Palmolive Co

Community First National Bank

Delta Airlines Foundation

Eckerd Corporation

Emerson Electric Co

Ernst & Young Foundation

Exxon Corporation

General Electric Company

General Mills Foundation

General Motors Corporation

Gillette

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co

Hartford Insurance Foundation

Hewlett-Packard Co

H.J. Heinz Company Foundation (Heinz ketchup)

Home Depot, The

Hormel Foods Corporation

Houghton Mifflin Company

H & R Block, Inc

IBM Corp

JC Penny Co, Inc

Jiffy Lube

Johnson & Johnson Family of Companies

Jostens, Inc

J.P. Morgan & Co, Inc

Kellogg Company

KFC

Kmart Corp

Kraft Foods, Inc

Land O' Lakes Foundation

Levi Strauss & Co (Levi's jeans)

McDonald's Corp

McGraw-Hill Foundation, Inc

McKesson Corporation

Microsoft Corp

Motorola Foundation

Nabisco Foods Group

National City Bank Foundation

Newsweek

New York Times Co

Northwest Airlines

Northwestern Mutual Insurance

Olive Garden, The

Pennzoil Company

PepsiCo Foundation, Inc

Philip Morris Companies, Inc

Pizza Hut

PNC Bank Foundation

Prentice Hall

Proctor & Gamble Co

Prudential Foundation, The

Radio Shack

Reader's Digest Foundation

Rockefeller Group, Inc

SAFECO Insurance Companies

Sallie Mae

SBC Foundation (formerly Ameritech)

S C Johnson & Son, Inc

Shell Oil Company Foundation

Sherwin Williams Foundation

Sony Corporation of America

Sprint Foundation

State Farm Insurance Companies

SYSCO Corporation

Taco Bell

Texaco, Inc

Texas Instruments Foundation

Time, Inc

Time Warner

U.S. Bank

US Air, Inc

Verizon Foundation

Wells Fargo & Co

West Group

Western Life Insurance Co

Xerox Corp

... and many more.

Planned Parenthood, sooner or later, you will be defunded.

Vita Pro Omni!

**Updated April 2007

what choice are you supporting?

I stumbled across this article on LifeSiteNews.com and wanted to share it with you all.

While reading, I encourage all of us, regardless of our stance on abortion, to consider whether our own position is intellectually sound. I continue to lovingly challenge my pro-choice friends on this issue because they still have yet to give convincing- or even decent- evidence that their position is correct. The fact is, before anyone can reasonably say they support a given choice, they have to accurately describe what choice they are defending. A good question becomes: What is really happening during an abortion?

As a final note, I want to reiterate a point that I have made before: The pro-life position is in no way contingent upon any kind of religious beliefs. At all. This article makes references to the Catholic faith; and it is no secret that many Catholics feel very strongly about the abortion issue (myself included). Nonetheless, only good science and philosophy are necessary to conclude that the pro-life position is true.

Vita Pro Omni!

"How Dare You Call me Pro-Abortion?! I'm Pro-Choice!"

by Hilary White

ROME, August 5, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Perhaps I am just obsessive, but something happened in Rome a year or so ago that has been bothering me and won't leave me alone. In June last year, when the Vatican was gearing up for a state visit from the new president of the US, the editor-in-chief of the Vatican's daily newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, made the extraordinary statement that Barack Obama's long, flawless pro-abortion voting record, policies and personal opinions do not make him "a pro-abortion president." Not at all. "He was, rather" merely "pro-choice," said editor Gian Maria Vian.

Earlier, Vian had praised President Obama for his speech at Notre Dame University (remember all that?) in which he said that the president "tried to engage the debate, stepping out from every ideological position and outside every confrontational mentality."

"I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice!" How many times have pro-life advocates come across this indignant exclamation? Vian has here presented the quintessential "liberal Catholic" position (perhaps not unconnected to the secular humanist position), that the best, highest, most moral stance is that there must never, under any circumstances be "confrontation." There is no greater evil than to take an "ideological position." Peace in our time, and at any cost.

It sounds fine, to some, when we are talking about abortion, a subject upon which there is much moral disagreement. But try changing the discussion just a little. Imagine for a moment we are talking about moral evils upon which there is no dispute. Can there be a non-confrontational position on genocide? Imagine for a moment the editor of the Vatican's newspaper praising Barack Obama for his non-confrontational stand on slavery. On rape. On wife battery.

When a person says, "I'm pro-choice," he is trying to find a middle point between two things that are simply opposed, an obvious intellectual squirm.

But let us examine the "pro-choice" assertion. Say a person were to tell you that he is "pro-choice" on slavery. He would say, with a noble lift of the brow perhaps, "I don't like slavery. I don't feel it is right for me to own another human being. But I also don't believe that it is my right to impose my personal beliefs on another. I believe in personal choice. It is between a man and his god whether he should own a slave".

It is obvious, isn't it? The thing chosen must be moral before the concept of being "pro-choice" can also be moral. For Vian to say that Barack Obama is merely "pro-choice," and to imply that this is a position superior to the "ideological" pro-life stand, he is, first, kowtowing to the abortion industry who invented the slogan to soothe troubled consciences, and second, but most importantly, he is saying that abortion is a moral thing to choose.

In championing the pro-life position, we simply say that between life and death, there is no third thing. You are either alive or you are not. Abortion kills or it does not. It is morally permissible or it is not. There are simply some things that do not admit of a "neutral" third position. Between these two opposed possibilities, there can only be "confrontation," distasteful as that may be to some sensibilities.

"Pro-choice" sounds good. It sounds like supporting freedom and rights and all those things that enlightened people should support. It derives from one of the greatest propaganda triumphs in recent human history: the slogan "a woman has a right to choose".

"Choose" is what we grammar fiends call a "transitive verb". You can't just "choose," in the same way as you can run or work or sleep. "Choosing" requires an object, a thing that is chosen. The slogan "A woman has a right to choose," is a grammatically unfinished sentence. It is possibly a fault of the erosion of our education system that millions of people accept this slogan without asking "A right to choose what, exactly?"

The instinct to say that the term "pro-choice" is nonsensical indicates that the listener, at least subconsciously, still adheres to the laws of rational thought. He knows that there can be no "third way" between right and wrong, evil and good. Between life and death.

Vian is being more apt than he perhaps realises. Pro-life people are those who have chosen a side in the war that really, objectively and externally, exists. There is a war, as it says in the scriptures, between God and the fallen angels, between good and evil, and in that war, there can be no neutrality.

Pro-life people are those, simply, who have seen that abortion, the deliberate killing of innocent people, is evil and must be stopped. We know that there have been and still are other evils, things that can never be reconciled with the Good. Things like genocide, slavery, human trafficking. Man's inhumanity to man. We know that these things must be confronted, even at great cost. And that the people who defend these things must be personally confronted as well.

We who hold this position are regularly accused of "extremism". When we make comparisons to the other great evils of our age, to the slaughter of the Jews in WWII, to the killing of hundreds of thousands in Rwanda, to the African slave trade, we are denounced as fanatics. So be it. Even when the accusations come from inside the Vatican's walls. So be it.

*It has been reproduced in compliance with their copyright conditions.

between the bookends: pro-life on porn

My newest article on Ethika Politika:

Vita Pro Omni!

Between the Bookends: Pro-Life on Porn

I’ve been thinking for some time now that pornography is an issue that ought to be addressed within the pro-life community. But I wasn’t sure why. On the surface, it appears that beginning and end of life issues (since they involve human beings at their most vulnerable and dependent stages) are what we need to be talking about; and, certainly, they are. But if being comprehensively pro-life means supporting life at every stage — from conception to natural death — it seems there’s an awful lot of life between those two bookends that we need to be concerned about. How are we defending the equally massive dignity of people who are 4, or 12, or 31, or 67?

Undoubtedly, one of the greatest predators of the middle-aged person’s dignity is the porn industry. Pornography, though a seemingly “private” issue, actually has tremendous public ramifications. It contributes exceptionally to the overall diminishing of human dignity that we see reflected in our movies, our books, our TV shows, our radio stations, and even our laws. It is poisonous to marriages, toxic to families, and detrimental to society. And it is becoming more rampant and widespread every year.

Senator Sam Brownback gathered some staggering statistics on the issue. He found that 72 million people visit Internet porn sites each year. One in five children, ages 10 to 17, has received a sexual solicitation online. Nine out of ten children, ages 8 to 16 with Internet access, have visited porn sites, usually while doing research for homework. The founder of the Center for Online Addiction reports that 65% of people who visit their site do so due to marital problems caused by cyber pornography[1]. And 2.5 billion emails every day are pornographic in nature[2].

The person who doubts that porn’s ramifications seep into all aspects of society should perhaps consider a study by Dr. Mary Anne Layden, Co-director of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program at the University of Pennsylvania. Layden reports:

"70% of hits on Internet sex sites occur between 9 and 5 on business computers. Research also indicates, and my clinical experience supports, that 40% of sex addicts will lose their spouse, 58% will suffer financial losses, and 27% to 40% will lose their job or profession."[3]

If we really think porn has no adverse influence on our lives, we are sorely kidding ourselves.

But Layden’s statistics, in particular, struck me for another reason. Remember, she found that the vast majority of all porn viewing happens between 9 and 5 on business computers. This immediately confirmed what I — and likely most of us — would imagine to be true: namely, that people seek to ogle porn in private.

But why the secrecy? Aren’t 72 million other people looking at it, too? Is there really a need for the shame and embarrassment?

No woman ever stepped off a Planned Parenthood table excited to proclaim to the world that she just aborted her pre-born child. And no pornography user ever comes home to his wife and kids eager to share the news that he spent the last two hours looking at airbrushed pictures of naked women.

Why?

Because we have a natural human capacity — call it a conscience — to know the difference between right and wrong. And try as we might to convince ourselves otherwise, we know that like the decision to procure an abortion, the decision to use pornography is hardly one to be proud of.

So we begin to try to make ourselves feel better. More specifically, we begin to justify. In the same way that a mother dehumanizes the fetus to justify killing him, the porn user dehumanizes the model to justify lusting after her (or him).

The mere concept of dehumanization ought to be enough to make us shudder, as this has been the radically prejudiced idea responsible for the tragedies of Nazi Germany, for lynching in the South, and for the Rwandan Genocide.

Whenever a certain group of people is dubbed with a less-than-human status, they are made vulnerable to attack and destruction. This is as true in 2010 for the porn star and the fetus in America as it was in 1935 for the Jew in Germany or in 1955 for the Black in Tennessee. At their core, these issues — all human rights abuses — are intrinsically and intricately linked to the dignity of the human person, and for that reason ought to be the pro-lifer’s business.

If we do not make efforts to purge America of pornography, more than our jobs, our finances, and even our marriages will be at risk; our very dignity will be threatened.

Dehumanization anywhere is a peril to human dignity everywhere. As feminist Catharine MacKinnon put it:

"When pornography is […] normal, a whole population of men is primed to dehumanize women and to enjoy inflicting assault sexually […] Pornography is the perfect preparation — motivator and instruction manual in one — for […] sexual atrocities."

I’m afraid sexual atrocities — momentous as they are on their own — are not all we have to worry about if pornography continues to batter the people between the bookends.

[1] Gustafson, Rod. Online Pornography is Addictive.

[2] Family Safe Media. Pornography Statistics 2003.

[3] Gustafon.

attention, columbus

Just wanted to send a quick announcement out to my friends in the Columbus area. The Arena Grand Movie Theater (downtown) will be showing Blood Money, a new documentary about the abortion industry in America, this coming Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday (Aug. 2-4) at 6:30 pm. Whether you are pro-life, pro-choice, or on the fence, I really recommend that you come out. You will learn something new. And a discussion will follow each night.

You can watch the trailer, pre-register, and learn more about the movie here.

Vita Pro Omni!

disrobing pro-choice euphemisms

My inaugural article on Ethika Politika, here on Vita Pro Omni for the first time:

Vita Pro Omni!

Disrobing Pro-Choice Euphemisms

There are those ideas which serve the fulfillment of the human person and there are those ideas which diametrically oppose this purpose. Of course, there are also those which are somewhere in-between— but such ideas are less noteworthy and unrelated to our discussion today. For the time-being, I would like to focus on a string of modern thought which has abused humanity and poisoned minds over the last 50 years in particular.

Throughout the course of a few decades, this mentality has essentially seeped into every corner of our society. When considered at its face value, this seems an almost shocking phenomenon: how could an ideology so dangerous, so depraved, get past millions of American’s consciences? But when we realize that this philosophy is a great masquerader, concealing its true colors behind the guises of “women’s liberation” and “population control”, it all begins to make a bit of sense.

The ideology to which I am referring is, broadly speaking, the pro-choice ideology. This doctrine insists, sans sound premise, that certain human beings ought to be labeled non-persons and thus have no rights. It insists further that the choice to destroy a living human fetus is fundamental to a woman’s freedom and equal place in society. According to this mindset, abortion is a Constitutional right and ought to be protected as such.

The ramifications of this mentality are unspeakable, but not unprecedented. Anytime unpopular human beings are reduced to something disposable, we see horrific effects. We saw it in our segregated nation under Jim Crow laws in the 1950’s, when African-Americans were lynched by the thousands because they were dark-skinned; and we see it in America today with abortion-on-demand, where the unborn are dismembered, burned, and suffocated because they are inconvenient. But I would like to think (and generally do think) that the propagators of these killings would never commit them were they to see them for what they really are.

As far as I understand, segregationists genuinely believed in their racial ideology and pro-choicers (by and large) truly believe in abortion as a just societal policy. But popular ideologies may or may not be at the service of truth. And there is good evidence that neither the segregationist nor the abortionist has his story straight.

By drawing an analogy to segregated America I do not intend to offend pro-choice readers but rather to illuminate a historical moral evil that is perhaps more clearly a moral evil due to the boon of retrospect. Masquerading ideologies are characteristically deceiving in their own time, but become transparent in following years.

This transparency comes about in several ways, but two in particular. Perhaps one could classify them as a single means involving paired steps. In any case, it seems there are several initiatives we must undertake to try to disrobe the costumed pro-choice ideology, leaving it naked and stripped of its charm.

The first initiative is educational in nature. In short, we have a responsibility to learn the facts about the unborn. The abortion question ultimately comes down to their moral status, so knowing 1) what they are and, 2) how to articulate what they are, is crucial. Embryology, biology, philosophy, sociology… all are at our service in correcting the inimical pro-choice mindset. Where there is intellectual confusion, we must submit ourselves to the service of truth and aim to correct it.

The second initiative is active in nature. Armed with proper knowledge, we can enter the realms of higher education and politics to make a legitimate case for life. This is what groups like ALL (American Life League), AUL (Americans United for Life), and the Susan B. Anthony List do, to name a few pro-life powerhouses. Without resorting to extremist tactics, never considering violence, these organizations nonetheless make measurable strides toward pro-life philosophy and policy.

Utilizing history as our teacher, we see that the Civil Rights Movement required authors and activists, professors and preachers, to bare segregation for the world to see. The Pro-Life Movement will likely prove no different.

Surely, inhuman ideas parading in dress-up clothes and pretending to be human are among the most dangerous sort— and C.S. Lewis understood this ably: “But in general, take my advice, when you meet anything that’s going to be human and isn’t yet, or used to be human once and isn’t now, or ought to be human and isn’t, keep your eyes on it and feel for your hatchet.” Pro-choice euphemisms, be gone!