Planned Parenthood pushes pernicious HB5615 at Aurora "community forum": FAPP to protest
Posted by Matt Yonke on Wednesday, February 4th, 2009
Planned Parenthood is holding a so-called "Community Forum on Reproductive Justice" at the Eola Community Center (Map) in Aurora on Wednesday, February 11.
The meeting is one of a series taking place around the state as part of an effort to drum up support for Illinois House Bill 5615, now being called the Reproductive Justice and Access Act (RJAA), and Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood will be there to protest.
Join us at 5:30 p.m. to let Planned Parenthood know that this community does not support them or their political agenda.
I say this is a "so-called" community forum because who's ever heard of a community meeting where you have to RSVP? Aren't community meetings supposed to be open to he community? Not only that, but a week before the actual meeting, the registration on their website is closed. Strange doings, but we're used to secrecy and deceit from Planned Parenthood. Nothing new there.
You may recall this measure came up in the Illinois house last March. We talked about it on the blog and at the Pro-Life Action League's site. The RJAA is very similar to the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) currently at issue in the national congress, only on the state level.
It looks like the legislature will be taking the bill up again and Planned Parenthood is doing their dirty work.
If passed, the RJAA would:
- Make comprehensive sex-ed mandatory in all Illinois public schools
- Force doctors to perform abortions in some circumstances
- Force doctors and pharmacists to dispense contraception
- Remove all restrictions on abortion, such as waiting periods, parental notice, and informed consent laws
…and more. More details are available on the Illinois General Assembly website.
We'll be in for a fight in the legislature over this one, and we'll let you know when to call and write your representatives. Until the, join us next Wednesday to say NO to the RJAA and NO to Planned Parenthood.
PP says the right to an abortion is a "Reproductive Issue".
I guess a law that makes it legal to kill who ever you want would be a "Life Issue"?
February 4th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
wow.. I made the cut just in time.. I feel like a celebrity..
Now I can't decide whether I want to go inside and hear what they say, or stay outside to protest..
February 4th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
I suggest you take a few minutes to read the full text of the bill. It's not too long.
Reproductive Justice and Access Act
My thoughts on it were posted on the blog entry titled: Wednesday Open Thread: Illinois HB5615.
God Bless,
Roger
February 5th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
HB5615: Starting with the law of abortion being allowed, it proposes new law preventing any and all opposition to the abortion law. An analogy….I am allowed to do something…..an additional law says I cannot be "hindered in any way, shape, form or manner" in doing aforementioned thing. Gee whiz, you want to spend the rest of your life recording all the things I (or anyone else of sound mind and body) am allowed to do (it would take a life time, right?) but what's with each thing needing a law that says I can't be stopped from doing any of them?
February 5th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Hint: HB5615 is a law about ANOTHER LAW! It's NOT a law that all ways is about an "activeity or something of that sort".
And the problem is (perhaps only incidental) it is a law about a BAD LAW, rather then about GOOD LAW.
February 5th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
If you're going to be there, I'd love to meet you in person. Of course, I'll be inside! *smile*
February 5th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
I'm so glad that you two get so much pleasure out of making snippy remarks on this blog…
February 6th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
We are the sons and daughters of the LORD GOD. We are not protesting we are humbeling ourselvs before God and repenting for our own sins and loving all of you in Christ Jesus and asking for His Mercy and Grace to open your hearts to hear the truth. That Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life no ones comes to the Farther but by Him. He hung on the cross and cried Father forgive them they know not what they do. We have all sinned and come short the glory of God. Jesus says let each of us personaly seek out our own salvation with fear and trembeling. The breath in our bodies is His mercy even when we kill our childeren are aged and even in war. Lord you who are so mercyfull and so Loveing Awaken the church to return to our first love The forgivness you gave us may we give it. Long for it, for those who are in darkness. Not in judgement but in Your True loving spirit. For you said by Love have I drawn you. Without love all our words are work is in vain. Are we truely loving our Lord if we dont cry for those who are lost as we once were Lord? You said Love one another as I have Loved you. Are we willing to die lay our lives down for the lost as you did? If we turely Love you we will do as you did not in words but by how we live.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:16 am
http://douglawrence.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/us-bishops-disappointed-by-obamas-abortion-policies/
The above is the link to the US Bishops response to President Obama's Abortion Policies
Dear Larry, Nancy, and Pro-life Constituents,
Before I pontificate on such a weighty debate, I will recall to you that this is not a new question; so the answer (if there is one) that I could provide is not a new answer (regarding disallowing pro-abortion politicians reception of the Eucharist.)
Let's go back to the early Church. When the Apostle Paul went about teaching and preaching he
feared the end was imminent. (He must have believed man was deserving of it, not unlike today.) So the early Church was met with fervor in his public speaking: (Galatians 1:8) that if anyone "… preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
After all, Christ's return was thought to be, in Paul's beliefs, only days away. It's too bad that the public teaching today does not, generally, reflect this fear. Today more than ever we are ripe for it.
Never before in the history of civilization have we experienced such a catastrophic social justice crisis as we do now in the Abortion Holocaust.
Back to the question raised regarding the magisterial ruling on restrictions regarding who should be allowed/disallowed reception of Communion. There wouldn't even be a debate if the Church were able to effectively carry out her primary role as a teaching institution. If she upheld her own teachings abortion never would have been legalized in the first place. Joe Scheidler, time and again has challenged the leadership of the Church to uphold her teachings. He has been snubbed time and again for doing so. To quote him: “Satan has been allowed to enter through the gates of the Church.”
This should not be much of a mystery in that the Church has experienced throughout Her history heretical teaching. It is up to the mystical body of Christ to get Her leadership back on track. The Church for the most part belongs to the laity.
To what Larry discussed about a magisterial announcement “through an Ex Cathedra statement by the Pope, or through a Counciliar decree from a brand new Church Council,” what if this statement or decree were written? It does not necessarily preclude capitulation. About 15 years ago the most pro-life Pope in history, John Paul II, drafted the Gospel of Life. The secular media revels in the fact that 50% of self-proclaimed Catholics are pro-choice. That statistic goes down a bit when we look at only those Catholics who attend Mass.
Is it a miracle that these “liberal” politicians even attend Mass at all? Maybe. Everyone knows a political Pilate. I agree with Nancy that definitely these politicians hunger for the limelight, even the limelight of appearing at Mass before high-profile Catholic leaders. Do these political Pilates who deny Christ yet receive Him in the Eucharist differ much from the original Pilate? What is the answer?
Christ gave us the answer the night before Pilate turned him over to the Roman Soldiers.
Then he was the fulfillment of his promise: The Eucharist.
The Eucharist will save the abortion promoters just as it saves you and I, the way Christ said it would.
That takes us right back to the original question.
No easy answer.
When I meet up with Peter at the gate I will ask him with trepidation. After all He does hold the key to the gate.
So thanks for adding the third question to the 2 other question I have for Christ.
In Christ,
Sharon
P.S. The other 2 are: how do I join him in contributing to the blood atonement of the crucifixion and why do I get the privelege of knowing Him in the Eucharist when many many never will?
Peace
February 9th, 2009 at 1:48 am
Would anybody have the link to PP's site about this "Community Forum" for tomorrow 2/11?
I only found the link for their Feb 5 and Feb 10 "forums" but nothing on the Eola event…
*Just realized tomorrow is the Feast Day for Our Lady of Lourdes
February 10th, 2009 at 10:23 am
This is "off topic" in particular, but on topic with respect to abortion and contraception. Never the less, if you see fit, delete upon reading…..I just gotta say something, namely:
For the "hell of it" I went to PP internet….(looking for site mentioned above)…..no luck, but I checked into their "Issues and Action". Wow! Whereever they encounter pro-life opposition, they resort to saying "they are against women's health !" If they were "forced (sued in some way)" or "tricked" etc. into SIMPLY DEFINING what they mean by "women's health"…..well, it seems to me it would be impossible that the definition would protray contraception (aborting reproductive process) or abortion (killing what is BY NATURE within a womb of a woman) as being "health"……At least not without destroying the reason [mental health (sanity)] of the reader!!!
February 11th, 2009 at 11:13 am
oh!…they would jump on me with that!….coming back with (perhaps "overlooked") by them with a "general" definition!!!….however, when the definition is made "percise, exact….a TRUE definition"…..(I bet they would dodge like you never seen it done before! (the consenting and participating in making the definition exact).
just of the top of my head….."women's health is what a woman wants"….thus an unwanted pregnancy is justified by abortion. rebuttal…..women's health or the health of a woman's state of mind?
What about the actual, existing being of a woman?….where is this in the definition????
February 11th, 2009 at 11:36 am
This community is PRO-LIFE which PP saw last night as
compared to their private forum of low attendance.
LIFE is an important issue to this community!
February 12th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
StudentFL did you actually get in???
Great to see our numbers out there on such short notice and on a week night!
February 12th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
What exactly is the status of this bill? On the state's website it says that the last action was Session Sine Die. From what I could find, this means that the bill died when the session adjourned. This obviously isn't the case since PP just had a private meeting regarded it. Also, no action other than that has been taken on it since 3/14/2008. Can anyone clarify this for me?
February 12th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Jason,
A new session of the legislature has just started. They can revive the bill and will this session.
February 12th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Brian is correct, the bill died but will very likely be brought up again this session. No action has been taken since last March.
Keep your eyes on the blog here for updates. We'll definitely need to be letting our elected officials know the truth about this bill.
February 13th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Pope Urges Catholic US Legislators to Defend Life
Receives Speaker of the House Pelosi in Audience
VATICAN CITY, FEB. 18, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI is urging legislators to uphold the sanctity of human life according to Church teaching, he affirmed in an meeting with U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The Pope received Nancy Pelosi and her entourage briefly today after the general audience, reported a Vatican communiqué.
He "took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death," the Vatican reported afterward.
The Pontiff added that these teachings "enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."
In a statement today from Pelosi's office, she said that in the meeting she lauded "the Church's leadership in fighting poverty, hunger and global warming, as well as the Holy Father's dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel."
Abortion controversy
The meeting comes after Pelosi's erroneous remarks on a television interview last August. When asked to comment on when human life begins, she responded that as a Catholic, she had studied the issue "for a long time" and that "the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition."
The next day, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William Lori, chairman of the Committee on Doctrine, said her answer "misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion."
They, and other bishops, issued public statements clarifying the Church's position. They cited the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law."
Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco, which is Pelosi's home diocese, invited her for a private meeting in September.
Catholic congressmen
Meanwhile, two other Catholic congressmen, John Boehner and Thaddeus McCotter, wrote a letter Tuesday to Cardinal Rigali. They thanked him for his Feb. 5 letter to all members of Congress in which he urged legislators to uphold existing pro-life laws and refrain from forcing taxpayers to fund abortions.
The legislators' letter, released to the public, read "We stand with you in the defense of all human life and look forward to working with you."
It continued: "We are committed to working with our pro-life colleagues on both sides of the aisle to proactively defeat efforts to enact the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) or any similar measure. We are similarly committed to working to retain, and not weaken, laws that prohibit using federal funds for the purpose of promoting or funding promotion of abortion. […]
"We will, as Pope Benedict XVI exhorted during his apostolic visit to the United States last year, 'proclaim the gift of life, to serve life, and promote a culture of life.'"
© Innovative Media, Inc.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:31 am
FIAMC Statement on Obama and Life Issues
"Obama Promised to Be a Force for Positive Change"
ROME, FEB. 17, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Here is the statement released today by the World Federation of the Catholic Medical Associations about new threats to human life under the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama.
* * *
The election of Barak Obama as President of the United States marked an important watershed in American history and culture. Running for office in a time marked by economic and geo-political turmoil, Obama promised to be a force for positive change, political reconciliation and effective government. Unfortunately, President Obama has begun his term with actions that will undermine respect for human life, human dignity and religions freedom. We call upon Catholic physicians and health care providers, and all people of good will, to spare no effort in convincing President Obama to reverse these decisions.
During the 2008 campaign, some Catholics and self-identified Catholic advocacy groups endorsed Barak Obama for President based in part on his support for economic justice and foreign policy, and in part on his pledge to try to reduce the number of abortions by increased social spending on support for pregnant women. Yet as a legislator and as a candidate, Obama had taken positions utterly opposed to respect for human life. For example:
– Obama has long been an advocate of abortion on demand, and has touted his 100% approval rating from Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion in the United States;
– Obama opposed every limitation on abortion, including laws requiring parental notification and consent before minors could obtain abortions;
– Shockingly, as a state senator, Obama actively opposed any protections for infants born alive after failed abortion procedures and misrepresented his record on this issue during the 2008 campaign;
– Finally, during the campaign, Obama proudly proclaimed his support for the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) — the most radical expansion of abortion license in the world — and promised to sign the law as President.
In addition to his unqualified support for abortion, Obama has promised to provide federal funding for stem-cell research that destroys human life at the embryonic stage.
Since taking office, President Obama has engaged in a series of actions that indicate that he is prepared to implement his prior support for abortion.
– Within the first few days of taking office, Obama overturned the “Mexico City Policy,” a U.S. government policy that denies federal funding to international agencies that promote or perform abortion as a means of birth control;
– More ominously, when overturning this policy, President Obama indicated his willingness to provide financial support to the United Nations Population Fund, an organization that lost U.S. government funding after it collaborated with the Chinese government’s coercive “one child” population policy.
– President Obama is filling his Cabinet and Administration positions with supporters of abortion, including Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State (who has long been a proponent of abortion “rights” in the United States and around the world); Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff (who had a 100% voting record with the National Abortion Rights Action League as a member of Congress and a reputation as an aggressive pro-choice politician); Dawn Johnsen, nominee for Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel (who was the Legal Director for NARAL and part of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project); Eric Holder, Attorney General (who has been a longtime supporter of abortion “rights”); Melody Barnes, Chair of the Domestic Policy Council (who has been a member of the boards of directors for both Planned Parenthood and Emily's List); Ellen Moran, White House Director of Communications (who is the current executive director of Emily's List); and Thomas Perelli, nominee for Associate Attorney General (who collaborated with pro-euthanasia attorney George Felos to successfully starve Terri Shiavo to death).
– While he has made no move to encourage the passage of FOCA, many are still concerned that the provisions of FOCA will be added piecemeal to other bills and legislative acts.
– Finally, President Obama has declared his opposition to the new HHS rule that protects the conscience rights of health care providers. The rule was enacted in the last days of the Bush administration in response to many threats to the conscience rights of physicians, pharmacists and health care providers in the United States.
In light of these actions and appointments, we are issuing an urgent appeal to President Obama to reconsider his support for abortion and research that can succeed only by destroying innocent human life. In addition, we offer our prayers, encouragement and appeals to Catholic physicians in the United States to educate the public and to oppose these efforts to promote abortion. Finally, we appeal to all members of FIAMC to be vigilant in opposing the new threats to human life and dignity that could now come from the Obama administration officials in foreign policy positions and at the United Nations.
© Innovative Media, Inc.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I was very happy to see the Pope's pro-life response to Nancy Pelosi's vist to the Vatican. The report on Bill O'Reilly's TV program last night about this was excellent. They even noted the Vatican did not post pictures of her visiting the Pope that she could try to use as a photo-op pretending she is a "faithful Catholic". I am so appreciative of the stand Pope Benedict has taken for the lives of innocent unborn babies. May God bless him.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Sharon's Encyclical To The Leadership Of The Church
(Thanks Elizabeth C.):
The bold text is taken from my previous letter, the quotes from the Vatican with her list of politicians' names are taken from Elizabeth C. whose informative link is attached on site.
The following is Eric Scheidler's (my favorite pro-life site) where all of this info. is generated from: http://familiesagainstplannedparenthood.org
Everyone knows a political Pilate: Nancy Pelosi (most glaring example), Hillary Clinton (who was quoted as saying to a pro-lifer during Protestant worship “God loves child-killers” as if to imply that this means that God loves child-sacrifice), Rahm Emanuel, Dawn Johnsen, Eric Holder, Melody Barnes, Ellen Moran, Thomas Perelli (who helped aid in the starvation of Terri Shiavo), and the list goes on and on.
It's too bad that the public teaching today does not, generally, reflect this fear: If the Church feared for her imminent demise don't you think she would have invested more man hours and more money in preventing a Godless official from being elected to office in the first place? Acorn should have and would have, if the Church possessed enough of the Holy fear Padre Pio so often spoke of in his ministry, been shut down cold. The nomination was made into a racial vs. sexist hotbed of controversy. It was the poorest example of phony showmanship (especially on the part of Obama) of any primary race in the history of our nation. Catholic democrats voted him in. It was not about who is the best democrat for the job but who could more effectively take pot shots at whom. Obama won. Then he openly contradicts himself by appointing his unsuitable opponent to the position of Secretary of State. Now they can take pot shots at each other in the White House. This is the leadership we have to look forward to in the immediate future. This is who we put in office. Then I hear: pray for them. I say pray against them and maybe our opposition will help lead them toward penitent celebration of the Sacrifice. How often do Catholics even refer to the reenactment of the last supper as the Sacrifice? Ironically the Eucharist is the Sacrifice for the sacrifice (the abortion holocaust.)
To quote from Elizabeth C.'s letter:
The Pope received Nancy Pelosi and her entourage briefly. Better: The Pope received Joe Scheidler and his entourage at length.
The Pope "took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death."
Better: The Pope encouraged his flock of Shepherds to defend “the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death," and encouraged them to take to the streets, and the polling places, and the legislature, to close down abortion before it closes us down.
"Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law."
Better: “Now, let's actually do something about it.”
It does not necessarily preclude capitulation:
It is up to the mystical body of Christ to get Her leadership back on track. It's always been up to us; it will always be up to us. Our beleaguered clergy often want nothing to do with the pro-life constituents
because we speak the truth and they can't handle the truth. Too much trouble, why should they bother it's been legal for 36 years; it will go on being legal and there's is nothing they can do about it. They are: too busy, too important, and too drained. It's more like: too side-tracked, too deluded, and too inundated with nonessentials. Not my ministry. Too controversial. “I can't make an impact.” “I would rather not.” I say : If we don't take the time to be troubled by it there will be no more Church in this country; as it is we're closing them down more now than building new. Population decreases with an increase in abortion. Laws don't change until someone changes them. Pro-life is indeed your ministry by virtue of the fact that you are human. You are always going to be too busy. Make the time. Take on the cloak of humility and ask for the fortitude of the crucifixion to gird you up. Eliminate the things that are not of God and focus on the Christ in the unborn. If we cannot save them we will be ultimately unable to save ourselves. Therefore, we will be ultimately, unable to save the Church. The universal Church will never fade; no guarantees have been made about the U.S. Church. Abortion is only controversial because it contradicts God. You can make an impact on the lives that are saved by your presence. Who cares if it's not really “your” thing. If the shoe were on the other foot you would hope that person/parson would intercede/intervene for you.
To my brother pastors, religious, priests, bishops, and cardinals: (forward to all clerics within the boundaries of the Rockford Diocese)
“Pope Benedict XVI exhorted during his apostolic visit to the United States last year, 'proclaim the gift of life, to serve life, and promote a culture of life.'" (Matt. 5:14)
To borrow a saying from the American Red Cross:
“If you don't who will?”
40 Days for Life Rockford, IL It begins on Lent (Ash Wednesday) and ends with you. Peace.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
What EXACTLY does FAPP have a problem with about this particular Bill? Or do you just have problems with ANY legislation which would provide access for ALL individuals to important health care services, including prenatal care, adoption, contraceptive care (including quick access to emergency contraception), and screening/treatment for sexually transmitted diseases as well as abortion?
Bearing in mind that effective and reliable contraception prevents abortion, of course. A woman cannot terminate a pregnancy that was never created to begin with. A fact which seems to have escaped many.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
SFane wrote:
Back to the question raised regarding the magisterial ruling on restrictions regarding who should be allowed/disallowed reception of Communion. There wouldn't even be a debate if the Church were able to effectively carry out her primary role as a teaching institution. If she upheld her own teachings abortion never would have been legalized in the first place.
**********************************
WHOSE "teaching institution?" Mine? No thank you, and I know many other people who would say exactly the same thing. Not everyone chooses to have every facet of our lives run by the Catholic Church, and thankfully in the U.S., NO church controls the government. That includes the Catholic Church.
Interesting that you mention that "abortion never would have been legalized in the first place." The Church strongly opposes most forms of reliable contraception as well, or so it did the last time I heard. Would it outlaw most forms of contraception if it had its way?
February 21st, 2009 at 2:19 pm
PP refers to contraception as "health care"?!
How can contracepting (aborting reproductive process) be considered "health care"?
And if so, pray tell, what would be "health destroy" (the opposite of health care) be? Health care above is referring to destroying the reproductive process; again, what in this world or in hell is left to be considered the opposite of "health care???
February 21st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Is the DEFINITION of health (of a woman) restricted entirely to nothing but the woman's FEELINGS and ATTITUDE she has towards her body?
What of her PHYSICAL state? (Should't it be included in the definition of her health in some way?)
February 21st, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Ocean, I really wonder if "physical well being" means anything to you? Or even the concept?
February 21st, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Abortion KILLS one other then one's self.
Contraception ABORTS one's self.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Pro-lifers believe that, generally speaking, killing of a live human being, speaking exactly, is the separation of the life (soul) from the body…..the result is a corpse AND a soul that will continue to live forever.
[The soul, being simple, (not composite….composed of parts)is not capable of being killed (because it has no parts to be separated).
However, with contraception, (aborting the reproductive process), a living human being (a soul actuating a body…thus a composite existence), from even coming into existence!
February 21st, 2009 at 8:25 pm
fine tuning: "a soul that will continue to LIVE forever"
SHOULD BE "a soul that will continue to EXIST forever"
February 21st, 2009 at 8:34 pm
re: #28 8:25pm,
"However, with contraception, (aborting the reproductive process), a living human being (a soul actuating a body…..thus a composite existence), from even coming into existence!"
SHOULD BE:
"However, with contraception, (aborting the reproductive process), a living human being (a soul actuating a body….thus a composite existence), is PREVENTED from even coming into existence!"
February 21st, 2009 at 9:29 pm
re #23 2:19pm Ocean:
"Would it outlaw most forms of contraception if it had its way?"
reply:
To outlaw contraception is trying to legislate morality.
To outlaw the means (same means existing solely to contracept) seems reasonable.
Example: RU486
February 21st, 2009 at 9:52 pm
IF handguns (by their nature) were ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE used to kill people, would one oppose outlawing them?
February 21st, 2009 at 10:00 pm
JerryVilt wrote:
PP refers to contraception as "health care"?! How can contracepting (aborting reproductive process) be considered "health care"?
******************************
It's NOT up to you or the catholic church to DECIDE how health care should be considered. It is none of the church's business whether individuals or couples are using contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Especially those individuals and couples who are NOT members of the church to begin with. THAT was my point.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 am
Jerry Vilt wrote:
To outlaw the means (same means existing solely to contracept) seems reasonable. Example: RU486
************************
A lousy example, since RU486 is not a contraceptive method at all. Or were you deliberately trying to mislead people into thinking it is. The morning after pill (MAP) and other birth control contraceptive measures are good examples. Yours was not.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:30 am
Jerry Vilt wrote:
"However, with contraception, (aborting the reproductive process), a living human being (a soul actuating a body….thus a composite existence), is PREVENTED from even coming into existence!"
******************************
That's right, Jerry, that's what contraception is SUPPOSED to do, prevent unwanted pregnancy. Which in turn will also prevent abortion. One cannot abort a pregnancy which was never created. Maybe one day the catholic church hierarchy will finally clue in to that obvious fact, hmmmm?
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:33 am
Jerry Vilt says:
Ocean, I really wonder if "physical well being" means anything to you? Or even the concept?
*******************************
It sure does, Jerry. MY physical well being comes from NOT being pregnant. I'm DONE with the pregnancy and infancy thing, and thanks to my freedom to use reliable contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy, my physical well being is enormously enhanced. Sure works for me.
What the Catholic Church wants is irrelevant, especially for those who are not members of the church.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:38 am
Jerry Vilt says:
IF handguns (by their nature) were ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE used to kill people, would one oppose outlawing them?
***********************************
And hand guns are relevant to this particular topic…how, exactly? Seems like another example of a false argument to me.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:17 am
Ocean, I am overwhelmed due to your pointing out MANY MANY topics in one medium paragraph. I have "strong" opinions about many of them but I am having difficulty keeping the focus on them ONE AT A TIME! I tried to discuss them all at once (following your presentations) and I believe this approach does not result in definitive conclusions. I hope to correct myself in the future.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Re: Contraception.
Results in no pregnancy. But WHAT is it exactly???
Isn't it aborting the nature of a woman? (By nature, I am referring to her ability to reproduce herself).
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Ocean, a while back I made the statements:
"You believe one has a moral right to abort one's reproductive process."
"I believe one does not have a moral right to abort one's reproductive process."
The above statement explains everything about my concern.
But I believe I received no comment of any kind from you.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Jerry Vilt - Do you believe you have a right to abort ANY process going on in your body? Perhaps your body gets cancer. Do you have the right to seek medical attention to abort it? Perhaps you have high blood pressure. Do you have the right to take medication to abort it?
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Cancer is NOT the body….It has a nature of it's own. It is in extreme proximity to the body and needs the body to continue to live….but it is NOT the body.
Similiarily with ALL diseases…..the nature of a disease IS NOT the nature of the thing diseased.
Similiarly with DANDRUFF, all the secretions resulting from work or toil, etc.
All these things can be acted on, destroyed, etc. because they are NOT of the substance of the body.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Jerry Vilt says:
Ocean, a while back I made the statements:
"You believe one has a moral right to abort one's reproductive process."
"I believe one does not have a moral right to abort one's reproductive process."
The above statement explains everything about my concern. But I believe I received no comment of any kind from you.
************************************
Oh give it a rest already, Jerry. Please show me WHERE in this blog it says I am directly accountable to you. I'll save you the trouble; you can't show me, because it isn't there.
So I will continue to write responses as I see fit. Whether YOU approve of the way I write is irrelevant. I've answered your rather absurd questions more than once. I'm under NO obligation to respond in a way YOU will approve of.
I will say it ONE more time; I don't CARE what you personally believe or what the church dictates. It is NOT up to you or the Catholic Church to decide what MY reproductive choices "should" be, or anyone else's for that matter. Especially those individuals and couples who are not members of the church. Did you get it this time?
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
The body acts according to its nature….and lo and behold, creations are wonder of wonders….when something goes wrong, it is NOT the nature that goes wrong, but something outside of its nature acting against it.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
The disease is doing the aborting (of the body)…..we effect a cure by aborting the disease….not the body! The body (cured) is substantially the same after the cure as it was before the cure…..The cure was allowing the body to act natually (in good health)by aborting that which (the disease)was trying to abort the body.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:25 pm
No, your dandruff is a natural by product of your body. Why do anything to stop it. You are aborting your body's natural process.
Releasing an egg every month is a part of a woman's natural process. Using birth control can interrupt this process. There is no difference.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:25 pm
When we kill life within the womb,that is murder, no matter how one slices and dices it. And all those envolved in doing so will have to answer to God for the taking of that life.
That life within the womb is alive and growing, for if that were not so, there would be no need for an abortion to stop that life.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:31 am
Student, Your words, "dandruff is a BY PRODUCT of your body." And then you say you are "aborting your body's natural process"…..huh?….arn't you aborting the dandruff, NOT your natural process?
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 am
I said removing dandruff is not aborting your natural process that produced it. Its "aborting" the dandruff!
Contraception aborts the reproductive process itself!
Abortion aborts the product of the reproductive process.
And the product of dandruff surely doesn't compare to the product of a new human being.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:19 am
correction…..abortion kills, contraception aborts.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:26 am
saying the same thing, only hopefully more understandable:
Removing dandruff (a by product of the natural process of the body), is "killing" the dandruff, NOT the process that produced it.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:34 am
Yet again for clarification:
Contraception aborts the reproductive process of a human being.
Abortion kills the PRODUCT (a new human being) of the reproductive process of a human being.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:07 am
Removing dandruff (a natural by product of the body) is NOT aborting the process that produced it.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:37 am
Karen K,
Using contraception is not murder OR abortion.
Jerry Vilt,
Your posts make no sense.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:22 am
to AuroraResident:
When I read,
"Your posts make no sense to me."
it would certainly get me thinking.
But to read,
"Your posts make no sense."
Wow! I would wonder has an all-wise genius arrived?
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Pro-lifers there are two aspects of Obama Nation that I was unaware of until visiting this site today:
http://ifrl-blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/legislative-action-alert-foca-hb-2354.html
1.)He will re-introduce into congress Hate-Crimes bills (H.R. 256, and H.R. 262) essentially putting front-lines pro-life activists at risk of arrest for praying for and intervening for pregnant women and their unborn children. The distribution of and discussion of pro-life material in public will be made illegal completely nullifying the 1st Amendment (as if it hasn't been eroded enough by our government already.)
2.)Under F.O.C.A. (IL version:HB-2354) the “physician only” abortion law will be reversed and non-physician personnel will be allowed to perform abortions.
(The following are the more commonly known aspects of F.O.C.A.)
F.O.C.A. Will acccomplish the following if made into law:
1. Partial-birth abortion would be legal
2. There would be no conscience clause for health care workers in Illinois.
3. There would be no informed consent/waiting period.
4. There would be no parental involvement.
5. Taxpayers would pay for abortions.
If you are interested in helping Rockford's 40 Days for Life, Here's their info.:
The following is the info. you might need when you come for a visit:
Rockford Pro-Life Initiative
40 Days for Life National Campaign:
There are more than 130 communities in the United States, Canada, Australia and Northern Ireland hosting 40 Days for Life events from February 25 – April 5.
Join the Rockford Diocese in Particapating in Their Campaign in Rockford, IL
Abortion Clinic Location:
Northern Illinois Women's Center
1400 Broadway
Rockford, Illinois 61104
Need help signing up for Vigil hours?
Contact:
Lisa 815-222-7822
Get the latest updates with a calendar for your perusal
http://www.40daysforlife.com/rockford/
We need to pray!
Peace
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Karen K. wrote:
When we kill life within the womb,that is murder, no matter how one slices and dices it. And all those envolved in doing so will have to answer to God for the taking of that life.
That life within the womb is alive and growing, for if that were not so, there would be no need for an abortion to stop that life.
*********************************************
All of which is nothing more than your BELIEF, which is not fact. That's the whole point, that neither your beliefs nor those of the Catholic Church get to decide for individuals and couples whether or not to use contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy, which for me is far better than abortion.
It is a private matter, which is none of the church's or anyone else's business. Especially for people who are not members of the Catholic Church.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Abortion kills creation.
Contraception aborts (stops) creating.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:08 am
clarifying:
Abortion kills (destroys) creation.
Contraception aborts (stops) creating.[aborts (stops) the creating process]
February 24th, 2009 at 10:16 am
specifically:
Abortion kills (destroys) human beings.
Contraception aborts (stops) the making of human beings.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:19 am
footnote:
"contraception aborts (stops) the making of a human being" - as in the making process has started, and contraception aborts (stops) it.
as contrasted with "abstinence" which does not interfer in any way, shape, form, or manner the STARTING of the making process.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:33 am
yikes! "does not interfere in any way, shape, form, or manner the STARTING of the making process"
(I think the aforemention lacks refinement…sorry)
February 24th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I think we have something of a paradox:
It doesn't interfere with the start, but because of it there isn't a start! (I think this is why the word "serious reason" was used.)
February 24th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Karen K wrote: "when we kill life within the womb, that
is murder.
Ocean Post #57: "All of which nothing more than your
BELIEF which is not fact."
********************************************************
The Facts of LIFE
"While giving an anesthetic for a ruptured ectopic
pregnancy…I was handed what I believe was the
smallest living human ever seen…This tiny human
was perfectly developed, with long, tapering fingers,
feet and toes…The body was extremely alive and swam
about the sac approximately one time per second, with a natural swimmer's stroke."–Paul Rockwell, M.D.
By the time a women confirms that she is pregnant,
her baby at 5 weeks is already 1/3 inch tall, with a
steadily beating heart, a developing brain and
nervous system.
At 2 months, the baby has become sensitive and responds
to touch. All five major areas of the adult brain are
present. Brain function, as measured by EEG waves, has
been recorded as early as 45 days.
For more information from their Fact Sheet contact
Human Development Resource Council, Inc.
http://www. hdrc.org or call 770/513-0060
*********
The fact being with today's technology we can hear
the heart beat on the ultrasound and we can see
pictures of what the baby looks like at each
development.
What excuse do we have now?
********
When pregnant woman feel they can not have a baby
now what a wonderful gift it would be to give their
child to another couple that desperately wants a child.
and that is called PRO-LIFE.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:47 am
"physical well being": Isn't this when the physical is acting according to its nature and free from destructive forces acting against it?
But when the physical is being aborted, we don't have well being but rather physical ill?
February 25th, 2009 at 10:54 am
"But when the physical is being aborted, we don't have well being but rather physical ill."
SHOULD BE:
"But when the physical is being aborted, we don't have physical well being but rather physical ill."
February 25th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Objection:
If the physical is aborted, isn't it neither physically well NOR physically ill?
Reply:
The above is saying that if the abort ( a fetal diease let's say), than the physical would be well (since it started that way) all thru the illness untill it's dead, than perhaps one could say its physically ill.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:15 am
(please excuse above joke) All I'm trying to say is:
Contraception, being the aborting of the reproductive process (the physical) is NOT physical well being but rather physical ill.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:19 am
"physical ill", SHOULD BE "physical illness"
February 25th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
It appears that the Catholic News Service disagrees with you.
Sister Carol Keehan, a Daughter of Charity who is CHA president and CEO stated that the legislation "has never contained anything that would force Catholic hospitals or Catholic personnel to do abortions or to participate in them."
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900402.htm
Are you intentionally spreading misinformation or do you really not have all the facts?
February 26th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Student, what about the "implications of a law"…..the law can say something that sounds innicent enough but when actual happenings occur and are judged they are found to have a "causual relationship" that doesn't seem ovious at first. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll bet a competent one would verify above.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Quote from the article:
"But even in a worst-case scenario, if the most dire predictions were to materialize and a federal law were to mandate that hospitals provide abortion services, 'I want to make it very clear that Catholic health care will not close and we will not compromise our principles'. end of quote.
Comment:
To not compromise their principles when being mandated to provide abortion services…."will not close" means that the hospital "stays open" but no one can enter!!!
again, she says "will not close"….that doesn't sound necessarily like "we will still serve"!
February 26th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
"we will still serve" should be "we wil still BE ABLE to serve"!
February 26th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
If I say "I open my door for you"….does that mean you will enter?….even with your strong desire to enter?
Hopefully yes……BUT if there is a fully armed one or many in front of my open door…..having all that is necessary to stop you from entering…..well, so much for my door, "not closed".
February 26th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Jerry, there's nothing wrong with taking your time to write what you want and letting it set. Otherwise, you look like a nutjob. Maybe you're a nutjob and then you don't mind, but if so, stop and consider whether you could save us the trouble of going through 20 of your posts by writing what you want the first time. Thanks.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Jerry Vilt says:
(please excuse above joke) All I'm trying to say is:
Contraception, being the aborting of the reproductive process (the physical) is NOT physical well being but rather physical illness.
*****************************
Your last statement is nothing more than your OPINION. Speaking for myself, it is NOT being pregnant and the freedom to use contraception to prevent getting pregnant again that gives ME my physical well-being.
You'd have a lot more credibility if you wouldn't keep trying to present your opinion as "fact." As it is, you have NONE.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Ocean says,
Your last statement is nothing more than your OPINION. Speaking for myself, it is NOT being pregnant and the freedom to use contraception to prevent getting pregnant again that gives ME my physical well-being.
======================================================
One's physical well-being is the result of something physical, NOT the result of something other then physical.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Question: Is representative Patricia Bellock from Westmont, IL Pro-life?
March 4th, 2009 at 2:54 pm