Fox to Air Abortion Documentary

ChelseaAbortion, Media1 Comment

null“Facing Reality, Choice,” will air Saturday, Oct. 27, at 9 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel. It profiles three women and their “agonizing decisions to have their babies or terminate their pregnancies.” I’m not quite sure how this will effect, or add to, the abortion debate as a whole. It will be a purely emotional look at why each woman makes the decision she does. Even those of us who oppose abortion realize that it is never easy for a woman to make the choice to kill her unborn child – excuse me terminate her pregnancy. But, hey, they report, you decide.

The FOX documentary profiles three women to explore the abortion issue by following their agonizing decisions to have their babies or terminate their pregnancies…

FOX News follows Kayla, a 20-year-old student, as well as a 20-something married couple, Brooke and Tom, desperately trying to have a second child. Brooke finally conceives, but four months into her pregnancy they learn that their baby has a fatal genetic defect and that it will survive no more than a few hours after it is born.

FOX News followed a third woman, Jeanne, for more than a year. A single woman battling a drug problem, she already has five children by two different men. None of them live with her.

When she become pregnant again, she allowed FOX cameras to follow her as she decided between abortion, adoption or keeping her baby.

They even follow Kayla into the the “operating room” as she undergoes her abortion, though they don’t:

focus on the surgical details of the abortion procedure, but it is emotionally wrenching, however, as the woman cries through the abortion and her mother, beside her for emotional support, learns this is her daughter’s second abortion in less than a year.

To Rowling’s Credit

ChelseaMarriage, Religion, Sexuality1 Comment

nullNo, I do not give Rowling credit for “outing” a beloved character, to many children by the way, after the series has come to a final and satisfying conclusion, without any major moral catastrophes – until now. That was unnecessary and, I think, unwise, given her large Christian fan base, which spends a sometimes exhaustive amount of time defending her and her novels from those accusing her of anti-Christian, witchcraft and sorcery indoctrination of our children.

However (and this is to her credit), if in fact the character of Dumbledore has been homosexual in her mind as she was writing the series – one of the things I find amazing about her as an author is the extensive background information she has for her characters, even the most insignificant, which have been in her mind for year and years – she chose not to make that even a minute detail in any one of the seven novels, although it has been speculation among some readers (I never once wondered about his sexual orientation or love life, it was irrelevant to the story for me). She never even mentioned it in any interviews or on her website, which is filled with little known facts and answers about characters and details in her books – which could possibly suggest this is a new character development on her part, actually.

nullKeeping in mind the fact that this is a fictional character and, the way the story is written, one does not have to believe that Dumbledore is gay, despite the author’s intention (in literature there are multiple viewpoints or interpretations, two of which are the author’s and the reader’s and they don’t have to match) – think about this. If he was actually homosexual, as Rowling has now told us, it is not impossible for us to interpret in the novels that, after never fully recovering from a decades (centuries?) old heartbreak, he had been living a chaste and even virtuous life – protecting students from, and helping Harry to defeat the forces of darkness.

This is similar to how Catholics encourage all persons with serious same sex attractions to live. From the Courage Apostolate website, the 5 goals for those with homosexual attractions:

1. Live chaste lives in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality. (Chastity) – for this see the Catechism of the Catholic Church
2. Dedicate ones life to Christ through service to others, spiritual reading, prayer, meditation, individual spiritual direction, frequent attendance at Mass, and the frequent reception of the sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist. (Prayer and Dedication)
3. Foster a spirit of fellowship in which all may share thoughts and experiences, and so ensure that no one will have to face the problems of homosexuality alone. (Fellowship)
4. Be mindful of the truth that chaste friendships are not only possible but necessary in a chaste Christian life and in doing so provide encouragement to one another in forming and sustaining them. (Support)
5. Live lives that may serve as good examples to others. (Good Example)

Christ is the model of chastity and we are all called to lead a chaste life, each according to his particular state of life (CCC 2394). As Catholics we believe that homosexuals who, for whatever reason, have a strong attraction to members of the same sex, have a special calling to celibacy. Christ himself says, “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so,” (Mt. 19:12). I don’t refer to that in defense of the idea of a “gay gene” but I do see it as a possible reference to those with homosexual attractions.

Let’s just hope this is the last post-Potter surprise. From Steltek in Transition:

What’s next? Saying in passing that McGonnagal had a magical abortion and isn’t sorry about it, just because you can!?

See Nancy Brown’s (author of the Mystery of Harry Potter) post: Is Dumbledore Real?

See my other Potter posts:
A Pro-Life Harry Potter?
Harry Potter, Magic and Contraception
Catholics and Harry Potter

Cures Without Cloning Initiative Update

ChelseaPro LifeLeave a Comment

Missourians Against Human Cloning held a press conference Friday morning criticizing Carnahan and the ballot language she approved for the CWC initiative. You can see video of that here. Now Carnahan’s approved language has drawn dueling lawsuits. That’s right, I said dueling, meaning one from both sides. It was inevitable that CWC was going to have to challenge the language, but the cloning supporters?? You would think that the language was biased and radical enough for them. What more could they possibly want? Well, for one thing, they claim that it understates the potential cost to taxpayers, if voters pass the measure, by saying only vaguely that the amendment could:

have a significant negative fiscal impact on state and local governmental entities due to its prohibition of certain research activities

They want numbers, and big ones. They want it to say that it cost at least $200 million to state government and at least $25 million to local governments, which is just pure fantasy. They also want the title “The Missouri Cures Without Cloning Initiative” stripped from the top of initiative petitions that people would sign because they claim it amounts to a “second summary” and would be illegal. In a statement released by the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, the plaintiffs said that it would:

mislead Missouri voters with the inclusion of irrelevant language that is nothing more than a biased advertisement

Wow, is all I can say.

We didn’t have much luck with the judge last year in trying to get Amendment 2’s deceptive ballot language changed. We will need lots of prayers to the Holy Spirit for this judge so that we can have a fair shot at finally banning all human cloning in Missouri.

Some Objectivity from the KC Star?

ChelseaCloning, MediaLeave a Comment

I wouldn’t exactly go that far, but another pro-cloning columnist, this time in the KC Star, agrees that the language approved by the Secretary of State on a ballot summary for a human cloning ban is “confusing” and “misleading.” The best part of the whole commentary is where he admits that Amendment 2 did not ban cloning and that its own ballot language was misleading:

her Amendment 2 summary said flatly that the measure would “ban human cloning or attempted cloning,” something the measure did not do, at least as I understand the word “cloning.”

It was clever wording. As I’ll explain, it was correct in a narrow legal sense, but misleading. It has been ruled valid by the courts, which give wide leeway to state officials in this area…

Like the 2006 summary (amendment 2’s deceptive ballot language), the latest synopsis threads the legal needle but creates a misleading impression…

Both the latest summary and that for Amendment 2 conform to the increasingly esoteric vocabulary that has grown up around this issue, starting with the interesting twist on the word “cloning.”

Amendment 2 defined the word in what strikes me as a dodgy way. It asserted that cloning doesn’t begin until an artificially created embryo is implanted in a woman.

Since cloning would be defined as implantation of an embryo, Carnahan — in her Amendment 2 summary — could claim the measure would “ban all human cloning …”

But according to my dictionary, cloning is the process of creating a genetic duplicate “by replacing the nucleus of an unfertilized ovum with the nucleus of a body cell from the [donor] organism.” In plain English, cloning begins with the transfer of the genetic material, not with the implantation of the fertilized egg in a uterus.

Before this debate erupted, most people made the key distinction in reasonably clear language.

Without blushing or shrinking in horror from the C-word, many supporters of stem-cell research explained that they backed therapeutic cloning — with the goal of harvesting stem cells that could cure diseases such as diabetes. Reproductive cloning, which everyone condemned, was aimed at producing a child…

I hope the Cures Without Cloning campaign fails.

But the semantic gamesmanship surrounding this debate is increasingly annoying and incomprehensible, and soon it will be understood only by lawyers.

The latest ballot summary produced by Carnahan’s office only adds to the confusion.

The language sure has changed, only because cloning supporters have to keep coming up with creative ways to make people think that they’re not actually in favor of human cloning.

Pro-cloning author, Bill McClellan of the St. Louis Post also recognized the “fuzzy language” and called on Carnahan to “reverse course.”

Star Parker Rocks My World

ChelseaPro Life, videoLeave a Comment

I was able to watch a little bit of the Values Voter Summit today on C-Span. And I turned it on right as Star Parker was speaking. She’s so fun to watch. My dad got to know her pretty well when he was working at Vitae Caring Foundation and she was a frequent speaker for them and he would rave about her when he had to pick her up from the airport and take her to an event. For those of you who don’t know, Star once lived a life of drug abuse, crime, promiscuity, multiple abortions, and welfare dependency before her final conversion. And now she is very outspoken on social policy issues. Here is a part of her speech today, followed by a one of her speaking at the Heritage Foundation:

Rick Santorum had a fantastic speech at the summit, but I can’t find a good video of it. Dakota Voice has been doing a good job of keeping up with all of the speakers and has video of some of them, including Santorum, but it is not that great and the audio keeps skipping. If I can find a better video sometime, I will be sure to put it up. I just liked his account of debating partial birth abortion with Sen. Hillary Clinton on the senate floor.

See Star Parker’s column archive

Star’s books
Pimps, Whores and Welfare Brats: From Welfare Cheat to Conservative Messenger
Uncle Sam’s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America’s Poor and What We Can Do About It
White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay

Debunking Adult Stem Cell Myths

ChelseaAdult Stem Cell ResearchLeave a Comment

It’s happened before and now we see it again, adult stem cells can be manipulated to become other types of cells. This time it’s fat cells that have been morphed into nerve cells (h/t Wesley Smith). I gotta tell you I cringe every time I hear news stories about stem cell research which go into an “explanation” of what stem cells are because they always make the distinction between embryonic and adult stem cells by saying that one kind (embryonic) is flexible while the other (adult) is not. For example:

Members of the Coalition for Lifesaving Cures say embryonic stem cell research is important because of its flexibility. An adult liver stem cell cannot be changed. It can only be a liver stem cell.

Embryonic stem cells, however, can be manipulated into becoming several types of stem cells.

This just simply is not the case and the above story is another example of that.

See also:
Adult Stem Cells Revert to Embryonic Stem Cells
Minnesota Researchers Get Lung Cells From Cord Blood

More Missouri Manipulation

Chelsea2008 Election, CloningLeave a Comment

Cathy Ruse takes on the KC Star and the St. Louis Post for their biased reporting about cloning and their defense of Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan’s disastrous and inaccurate ballot summary of the cloning ban.

Wesley Smith does the same, offering some scientific and medical sources which all say SCNT is cloning.

We can’t really expect much in the media, of course. They are typically in the tank for all issues left of center. Although the KC Star, reporter Kit Wagar specifically, is particularly offensive.

Colleen Carroll Campbell dedicated her article this week to Carnahan and her irresponsible ballot language:

Last week, Carnahan had an opportunity to give Missourians another shot at an honest debate about cloning. Instead, she gave voters more of the same.

Presented with an initiative that would close Amendment Two’s loophole — by defining cloning as the creation of a cloned embryo and thus outlawing cloning for both research and reproduction — Carnahan wrote a ballot summary that bore less resemblance to the initiative it summarized than to the press releases of its big biotech critics.

It is certainly a disgrace. We should see something filed by tomorrow from our side challenging the SOS’s language.

More on Gov. Blunt

Chelsea2008 Election, Cloning, Politics4 Comments

nullUpdate: The St. Louis Post has more on Blunt’s and other’s campaign contributions. A lot of it has to do with the restrictions put in place this year on the amount that can be donated (which I think is stupid). In the article, regarding the contribution to Blunt’s campaign from the pro-ESC research group:

Blunt spokesman John Hancock said the donation demonstrated that “the governor’s position on the issue of research is clear and unchanged, for a very long time.”

I don’t know what the Governor considers a “very long time,” but as of 2004, when he was campaigning, Gov. Blunt promised pro-life voters both in person and in a signed survey that he would support a ban on all human cloning – that includes cloning for scientific research. He has since embraced and supported the biotech industry in their quest to make Missouri the cloning capitol of the world. If this has been his “clear and unchanged” position for so long, does that mean he was lying to voters then?

I have said this before, but it bears repeating, human cloning is perhaps the most pressing pro-life issue of our time. We’re talking about manufacturing human life for research. Though it’s never been done before, many are working on it and hoping for it to become common for scientific research, common enough to lead to cures and treatments for thousands individuals. Governor Blunt has done nothing to protect us from this assault on human dignity and, in fact, has encouraged the progression of this kind of unethical and immoral science in our state.

His support for this research has lead many Republican leaders, some normally on board with preventing cloning, to withdraw support for some anti-cloning measures in the Missouri legislature or at least refuse to challenge him. Just months after taking office the Governor actively opposed a cloning ban introduced in the Missouri Senate by Matt Bartle and co-sponsored by half of the Senate (mostly Republicans). The Governor’s opposition to that bill prompted a majority of the Republican co-sponsors to reconsider their support. From the April 6 debate on the Senate floor, Sen. Jon Dolan (R-Lake St. Louis) said,

“Political calculations are made every day. It is not just science or morality. The governor doesn’t like this bill.

Sen. John Greisheimer (R-Washington) said:

“I’ve dreaded this day since the day I signed onto the bill. I thought everything was okay until I found out the governor opposed this bill.” He said that he had been lobbied by staff of Governor Matt Blunt to oppose SB 160. Sen. Greisheimer said that if SB 160 came to a vote in the Senate that he would have no choice but to vote in favor of it because he had, “unfortunately”, co-sponsored the bill.

That bill was laid to rest that day on the floor, opening the door for Amendment 2, which the Governor publicly supported. Similar to SB 160, Blunt opposed HJR 11 last session to give MO voters a chance to truly ban cloning in Missouri. Again the leadership caved on the issue (blaming a Democrat filibuster threat) and the measure was killed, leading to our current battle with the secretary of state over ballot language. There’s more, but you get the idea.

I know God has a perfectly good reason for these challenges we are facing. I just wish we had more leaders here (and in Washington) willing to fight for us and for the dignity of human life. Unfortunately no one will be challenging Matt Blunt for the Republican nomination next year.

Related:
Why I Can’t Support Gov. Blunt

Blunt Gets $250K from ESC Research Supporters

Chelsea2008 Election, Politics, Pro LifeLeave a Comment

The St. Louis Post reports that Republican Gov. Matt Blunt received $250,000 this summer from the Supporters of Health Research and Treatments. That’s one of the political-action committees set up by supporters of Amendment 2, and Missouri Pulse reports that Blunt has raised just over $1 million in the last quarter. So the pro-ESC research donation accounts for 1/4 of those donations.

Further reading:
Why I Can’t Support Gov. Blunt

Life Issues Forum

ChelseaPro LifeLeave a Comment

I forgot to post some pictures I took at the Life Issues Forum I spoke at the other week at St. Anne’s Catholic church in Warsaw Missouri. Our diocesan pro-life committee travels around the diocese organizing these forums to keep parishioners up to date on life issues, especially those which concern our state. nullIn this picture, Dr. Lankford, from Mexico Missouri is explaining partial birth abortion. He always brings fetal development models and actual abortion tools to describe the various kinds of abortion procedures. The PBA example inevitably causes the audience to cringe, to which he says, “yes, it’s brutal, but that’s what they’re doing!” Dr. Lankford is a medical doctor, I believe, though I forget his actual practice. He said he got involved in the pro-life movement, not only because of how harmful it is to the children, but also the harmful effect he has seen it have on the women.

Also on hand for the afternoon was Rev. Mr. Larry Webber, the executive director of the nullMissouri Catholic Conference, who talked about pro-life legislation. You can read about some of that here. Before I got there, Fr. Phil Niekamp discussed the Theology of the Body and later I offered my own thoughts on the subject – from a “young person’s” perspective. The gist of what I said was that, after attending Ave Maria University a few years ago, I saw a lot of young people soaking in and living this important theological teaching. The opposite of love is not hate, as Christopher West often explains in his TOB talks, but use. Young people (and really all people in general) have an innate desire to be loved, and they know that it is beneath their human dignity to be an object for another person’s physical gratification. TOB answers every person’s desire for love and their unique call to love as God loves.

nullI really enjoyed the church of St. Anne, and I was most impressed with their great witness for life. They have a couple of memorials for the unborn on their property and worked to get one in two of the main cemeteries in their town. As you approach the church you can see the unborn memorial crosses facing the street and further into the parking lot is a concrete monument declaring: “We as a people are dedicated to preserving all forms of human life conceived in His image.”

nullMy favorite, however, was a picture hung up inside the church with the hands of our Lord reaching out to the hands of a little child. I can’t quite remember what the little plaque underneath says exactly. It’s something like, “God said unto one of his angels, Go and get the unborn who are not wanted, and the children of the earth whose time it is to come home. Bring them home to me.” I’ve never seen anything like it before.