As Long As We Are Alive, We Have All the Life There Is

ChelseaDisabled2 Comments

In his book As I Lay Dying, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus writes about being sick and near death in the hospital:

The very sick can look simply awful. Although they politely tried to hide it, I saw the recoil on the faces of visitors. A young parishioner arrived unannounced and, before I knew what she was doing, started snapping pictures. Now I’m glad she did. I came across the photos again the other day. I looked nothing short of ghastly, a corpse awaiting the undertaker’s makeup. Little wonder that people think they would rather be dead than lying there so pitifully and humiliatingly destitute of any capacity for life. But they are wrong about that. I do not want to say that it was not so bad, but a little life goes a long way. As we have all the time there is, so also, as long as we are alive, we have all the life there is. There is the cliche that while there is life there is hope, but I do not mean that. At times I had little hope that I would ever be well again. I mean, rather, that while there is life there is life, as much life as there ever was. I suppose I do want to say that it was not so bad. It was not so bad as it looked.

jeandominique.pngIt kind of reminds me of something Jean Dominique Bauby (pictured right) wrote in his memoir The Diving Bell and the Butterfly after a massive stroke left him completely paralyzed with “locked-in syndrome”:

Like the bath, my old clothes could easily bring back poignant, painful memories. But I see in the clothing a symbol of continuing life. And proof that I still want to be myself. If I must droll, I may as well drool on cashmere.

While many able-bodied people will say that they would rather be dead than sick or disabled, most people actually in these situations (including myself) are quite happy to be alive and want to stay that way.

To paraphrase another quote from Bauby: even a rough sketch, a shadow, a tiny fragment of a human being is still a human being. We might be in extreme pain or unable do all of the things that other fully-able-bodied human beings can (at least not in the same way), but that doesn’t mean that we are deprived of the beauty and goodness that life can bring.

Previous:
The Beauty of Human Weakness
Refusing to Suffer is Refusing to Live

TOB Tuesday: The Heart of the Gospel

ChelseaTheology of the Body, TOB Tuesday1 Comment

Christopher West has a new book out!

Read an excerpt here, then head on over to Catholic Lane and read a review from Brian Killian:
heartofgospel.png

At the Heart of the Gospel, the new book by Christopher West, is the fruit of West’s sabbatical from speaking after controversy broke following a television interview. West’s new book is primarily two things. First, it’s a summary of the main points of West’s lectures and writings over the years. West takes a deep breath, slows down, and lays out his argument step by step. West also marshals plenty of quotations from old and new authorities to back him up. There are plenty of quotes from the Catechism, Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Scola, the saints, and of course Pope John Paul II and his Theology of the Body.

The second aspect of the book is West’s response to his critics. In the appendices West addresses two big points of contention. The first is the controversy that has swirled around West’s treatment of the delicate question of sodomy in the context of marital foreplay. The second appendix deals with West’s claims about spousal analogies in the Church’s liturgies — especially the ceremony of blessing the baptismal font. West doesn’t back off of his positions here, but he adds additional explanations and clarification. West also admits that he has made mistakes in his presentations in the past. But he mostly sticks to his guns. And at least on some issues, he certainly should.

Do read the rest! Also, National Review Online has an interview with West on his new book: Sex and the Eternal City.

Another good review: from Brandon Vogt

Previous posts:
The Pivotal Question – on the Christopher West “controversy”
West is Back!

Ignorant Teen Planned Parenthood Reps Respond to Q: Does PP Provide Mammograms?

ChelseaBreast Cancer, Planned ParenthoodLeave a Comment


According to the description, this video is from Planned Parenthood Teen Lobby Day May 3rd 2011…somewhere in California:

Sadly, these girls are not alone in their ignorance. If you listen to the news (lately, especially!), you’d think that Planned Parenthood provides poor women everywhere with valuable and comprehensive breast cancer services. But, no. Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms – a woman’s best chance for detecting breast cancer, nor do they treat women for breast cancer. However, they will give you birth control pills and abortions that cause breast cancer.

Previous post: Welcome to Planned Parenthood. How May We Help You Get Breast Cancer Today?

Make Every Breath Count

ChelseaDeathLeave a Comment

“Time is a treasure that melts away. It escapes from us, slipping through our fingers like water through the mountain rocks. Tomorrow will soon be another yesterday. Our lives are so very short. Yesterday has gone and today is passing by. But what a great deal can be done for the love of God in this short space of time!” ~St. Josemaria, Friends of God: Time is a Treasure

Life is short. Are you making every breath count?

For You Know Neither the Day Nor the Hour

Welcome to Planned Parenthood. How May We Help You Get Breast Cancer Today?

ChelseaKomen for the Cure, Planned Parenthood4 Comments



This graphic brilliantly and succinctly explains why Planned Parenthood does not fit into Komen’s agenda. Period. And there’s no reason for them to keep funding it (and they should have never funded it in the first place):

welcometopp.png

Not that I expect much from Planned Parenthood, but their reaction to this whole thing has been irrational and totally unprofessional. Why in the world they now consider Komen their mortal enemy is completely beyond me. Not once did Komen ever condemn Planned Parenthood or their practices. In fact, they have gone out of their way to say that they still consider PP a “friend” and would even reconsider their grants if PP met their new standards at some point in the future. I mean, Komen’s founder and CEO is a abortion advocate who once sat on the board of her local Planned Parenthood, for crying out loud!

As childish as Planned Parenthood is acting, I think Wesley Smith is right. Komen is just reaping what they sowed when they chose to partner with PP in the first place. Lucky for them, PP’s scorched earth campaign against them isn’t exactly hurting their bottom line. Quite the opposite, actually. On a conference call yesterday, CEO Nancy Brinker said donations are up 100% since they ended their relationship with PP.

And, who knows? maybe Jill Stanek is right, too. Maybe this whole thing will cause Komen to finally acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer that is getting renewed attention and the organization will undergo a “cleansing of its liberal bastion” as some of its pro-abortion officials resign. Let’s hope!

Related: see my article Komen Cuts Ties to Planned Parenthood, Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Komen Breaks Ties to Planned Parenthood, ESC Research

ChelseaAbortion, Breast Cancer, Contraception, Planned ParenthoodLeave a Comment

My latest article, published at CatholicLane.com:

komen4cure.jpgFor years, several Susan G. Komen for the Cure affiliates have given Planned Parenthood over half a million dollars in grants every year. Last year that amount was roughly $680,000 and $580,000 the year before. Now, the Nation’s largest breast cancer awareness organization says it will officially end its financial support for the Nation’s largest abortion provider.

The cutoff, Komen spokesman Leslie Aun told the AP, is the result of Komen’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities. Currently, Planned Parenthood is being investigated by a U.S. House Committe to determine whether the abortion giant properly reports criminal conduct or has improperly used public money to pay for abortion services.

Another likely factor in their decision is Komen’s new initiative to strengthen its grants program to be more “outcomes-driven” and allow for greater investments in programs that “directly serve women”. While Planned Parenthood provides some “breast health” services, mammograms, which are a woman’s best chance for detecting breast cancer, aren’t among them. An investigation last year by LiveAction revealed that, contrary to the claims of Planned Parenthood Federation of America CEO Cecile Richards, Senator Barbara Boxer and other supporters, Planned Parenthood can only refer women to other locations for mammograms since not a single one of their facilities is equipped to offer them.

Naturally, Planned Parenthood is not happy with this decision and claims that the move is political and based on heavy pressure from pro-life groups. Cecile Richards told the AP, “It’s hard to understand how an organization with whom we share a mission of saving women’s lives could have bowed to this kind of bullying. It’s really hurtful.” The Hill reports that Planned Parenthood has set up an “emergency fund” to offset the loss of the Komen funds (a deficit that could easily be recovered if Richards and her affiliate CEO’s would agree to even a 1% cut in their paychecks).

Whatever the reason for it, this is very welcome news to pro-lifers who have been condemning he deadly link between the two organizations for years now for several reasons, not the least of which being the fact that Planned Parenthood is in the business of killing innocent human beings.

Why in the world Komen would ever want or need to give money to Planned Parenthood of all places has always been a mystery to me. Not only do they not provide mammograms, but mounting evidence suggests that some of the main “goods and services” they do provide — abortion and hormonal contraceptives — actually increases a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer. The link between hormonal contraceptives and an increased risk of breast cancer has been acknowledged by the Mayo Clinic and the World Health Organization and in 2010, a researcher at the National Cancer Institute, which previously denied the link, admitted that abortion significantly increases a woman’s chances of getting breast cancer. Even Dr. Janet Daling, a leading cancer epidemiologist and pro-choice advocate has said, “I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It’s not a matter of believing, it’s a matter of what is.”

At any rate, besides being a good moral decision, this was just a smart financial move for Komen. Planned Parenthood does not fit into Komen’s agenda. Period. And there’s no reason for them to keep funding it. There are better ways to make sure that poor women have access to breast cancer screenings than giving money to an organization that alone is responsible for roughly three hundred thousand of America’s annual 1.2 million abortions.

But wait! There’s more good news from Komen: it appears that their support for embryonic stem cell research may also be a thing of the past. A new statement on their website, dated November 30, 2011, notes that Komen has never funded embryonic stem cell research and only supports research on stem cells that are derived without creating or destroying a human embryo. Pro-life sources close to the Komen situation have told LifeNews.com that the purpose for that statement was to tell grant seekers that Komen will categorically not fund any embryonic stem cell research.

I don’t know what’s up with the leadership at that organization, but I like what they’re doing! Tell them you like it, too! Email: news@komen.org

Now, if only they would stop denying the abortion link and provide women with information on the full range of unnecessary breast cancer risk factors.

Related post:
Abortion, Contraception and Breast Cancer

A Bold Statement from Newt on ESC Research and IVF

Chelsea2012 Election, Embryonic Stem Cell Research1 Comment


This didn’t get a whole lot of press, but it certainly caught my attention. While courting pro-life Christians in Florida on Sunday, Newt Gingrich said that he would ban all embryonic stem cell (ESC) research – even research on ‘left-over’ embryos from IVF labs – and take a serious look at the way fertility clinics are managed. From the Christian Post:
gingrich.png

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who is campaigning for votes in Tuesday’s Florida primary, said he would ban all embryonic stem cell research and called for a commission to study the ethics of in vitro fertilization.

“I believe life begins at conception,” the Republican presidential hopeful stressed Sunday at a news conference outside a Baptist church in Lutz, Fla.

“The question I was raising was what happens to embryos in fertility clinics,” Gingrich added, referring to the remarks he made a day earlier at another Baptist church in Winter Park, that embryonic stem-cell research amounts to “the use of science to desensitize society over the killing of babies.”

Gingrich’s proposal was seen as an attempt to woo evangelical voters and gain an edge over former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, his biggest opponent in Florida.

Gingrich went on to say he was in favor of a commission to “look seriously” at the ethics of how fertility clinics are managed. “If you have in vitro fertilization, you are creating life; therefore, we should look seriously at what the rules should be for clinics that are doing that, because they are creating life,” The Associated Press quoted him as saying outside Exciting Idlewild Baptist Church.

Gingrich, who vocally supported federally funded research about a decade ago, said he was also against the use of leftover embryos for stem cell research.

This is a pretty big departure from his previous position in favor of at least some ESC research, so I’m taking what he says with a very fine grain of salt. Nevertheless, it’s refreshing talk to hear. Quite frankly, I wish more pro-life politicians would talk about the need to ban this research completely instead of only focusing on the funding aspect of it – which seems to be where the battle is at right now. But, no. Over here it’s considered “extreme” and even unreasonable to suggest making the use of human embryos for medical research illegal, meanwhile the practice is banned in other countries that are far more progressive than the United States.

Kudos to Newt for also taking on the grossly under-regulated fertility industry, which, among other things, creates so many surplus embryos per IVF cycle that we end up with tens of thousands of tiny human beings perpetually held in cold storage. A big reason why ESC research is even a question today.

Related: Rebecca Taylor has some recent comments from Newt on Transhumanism.

Bella Santorum Has “Miraculous Turnaround”

ChelseaDisabled, Prenatal Genetic TestingLeave a Comment

bella-s.jpgGood news! On a tele-town hall last night from his daughter’s hospital room, Rick Santorum told Florida voters, “She’s had a miraculous turnaround. We have a long way to go, but she turned the corner and we are very, very grateful.”

Bella was diagnosed with pneumonia in both lungs, a devastating illness for anyone, but especially for a small child with Trisomy 18. On another call with voters in Minnesota he said that he was “feeling pretty pumped” that her condition has been improving and she is no longer in the “very dangerous” situation she was in over the weekend.

If you have some time, please read an article Santorum wrote on the occasion of Bella’s second birthday two years ago: Two Years Worth Every Tear

While most children with Trisomy 18 don’t live to see their first birthday after they’re born, it is a treatable disease and, like Bella, children who have it can live for several years. Sadly, increasing numbers of physicians are advising, demanding, and even coercing women to abort babies after a “poor prenatal diagnosis” for Trisomy 18 – never offering them even a chance at treatment.

‘Incompatible with Life’ is a judgment not a diagnosis and parents should never be pressured into killing their child because someone else thinks her life is not worth living.

Prayers for Bella Santorum and Family!

ChelseaDisabled, Prayer3 Comments

bella-santorum.jpg

Dear readers, please join me in praying for 3 year old Bella Santorum, who has Trisomy 18 and was admitted to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia this evening.

Find out more about little Bella here:

Previous post: Santorum: Daughter w/ Trisomy 18 “Worth Every Tear”

IVF: How Old is Too Old?

ChelseaIVF, video1 Comment

susan.pngUsing her partner’s sperm and a donor egg, Susan Tollefsen became Britain’s oldest first-time mother when she gave birth at the age of 57 and sparked an ethical fire-storm. Now, 61 and separated from her partner, she says there should be an age limit for IVF treatment for women in the UK.

Last November she told the UK Daily Mail:

‘Freya (her daughter) is without doubt the best thing I have ever done in my life, and I have no regrets. But with the benefit of hindsight I recognize that perhaps some of my critics were right.

‘I get a great emotional feeling when I look at her, and a sadness when I realise time’s running out. If I could change just one thing, I would wish to be younger so I could enjoy watching Freya grow up, get married and have children of her own.

‘If I’m completely honest, my experience has taught me that 50 should probably be the cut-off limit for having children, but until you have them it’s almost impossible to appreciate that.

‘It’s so true that you only learn by your own mistakes, and my mistake was not to have had her sooner.’

It’s still pretty rare, but more and more women today are taking advantage of modern reproductive technologies to have children long after their reproductive cycle has ended. Third party reproduction is always a controversial topic, but this brings it to a whole new level.

I won’t be able to watch it, but today Jennifer Lahl, founder and president of The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network (and one of my pro-life hero’s), is supposed to be on Dr. Oz’s television talk show to discuss reproductive technologies and the question, “how old is too old?”:

IVF is risky business at any age, but I’m sure the risks are much higher the older you are.

Besides the woman putting her own health at risk, she is also seriously risking the health of her future child. That is, of course, if she’s lucky enough to actually give birth at all.

For women over 35, the percentage of IVF cycles that result in the birth of a child averages somewhere around the mid 20s – a rate that gets considerably smaller and smaller as you get older. Most women will go through multiple cycles before an embryo will even attach itself in the womb, let alone survive until birth – and these suckers aint cheap.

Not only do they cost each woman/couple tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, but they come at the expense multiple human lives. When it comes to IVF, the number of lives lost, destroyed or ‘frozen in time’ significantly outweighs the number of human beings actually living outside the womb as a result of this technology. According to recent numbers more than thirty embryos are created for every successful birth by IVF.

How old is too old? If you ask me, IVF is wrong no matter what age you are. But, when it comes to older women, especially, there’s a reason a woman’s reproductive cycle ends when it does, and we would do well to respect the laws of nature in this regard.