Monday, February 20, 2006

You Have to Read It to Believe It

"The Rev. Donna Schaper is senior minister of Judson Memorial Church in Manhattan." She wants us to know that she murdered a baby, and that's OK.


I had an abortion 19 years ago. I am not bragging, nor am I apologizing. . . . I also find the very intimidation that I experience in telling my story to be the reason I must speak. Why would I be afraid? Because anti-abortion people like to punish people into their version of morality. . . . I happen to agree that abortion is a form of murder. . . . I know I murdered the life within me. I could have loved that life but chose not to.


The 'minister' wants us to know that any reference to her own conscience is merely an attempt to oppress her by denying her the constitutional right to murder. (N.B. the court in Roe acknowledged that, if the baby is a person, there can be no right to kill him or her. Our justices are not quite this confused.)

Exodus aside, the good minister has ample authority for saying 'thou shalt go ahead and kill when thou dost feel that is it the right decision for thee'.


I did what I think men do all the time when they take us to war: They choose violence because, although they believe it is bad, it is still better than the alternatives. The "just war" theory assumes that human beings get caught in terrible choices all the time. This freedom is not just for men; it is for women also.


Forget for a minute that, since 1920, men have been constitutionally incapable of 'taking us into war' without the cooperation of the fairer sex. Forget also little things involved in this decision like public authority and the duty to protect nations. Our minister discovers her own license to kill in what she calls 'maturity' (which used to be called 'immaturity', but nevermind):


When I made my choice to end life, I was behaving as an adult. . . . I behaved as an adult who is also a sexual being. Things happen sexually between people that are not always controllable. The unprotected sex I had with my husband while nursing our twins had a consequence that neither of us desired. . . . Because women are mature sexual beings who make choices, birth control and abortion are positive moral forces in history. They allow sex to be both procreational and recreational, for men and for women.


The fate of nations is as nothing compared to the good of unfettered sexual recreation.

The dear minister is 58. Apparently, her generation raised adolescence to the status of beatitude. I permit myself to hold out for something more, even if in the minister's eyes it makes me a chauvinist . . .

Saturday, February 18, 2006

Follow France

Never thought I'd say it, but lookie here:


French Government Report Says No to Homosexual “Marriage”

By John-Henry Westen

PARIS, February 16, 2006

A government commission set up at the request of the President of the French National Assembly has concluded that homosexual ‘marriage’ and adoption by homosexual couples, and medically assisted procreation for homosexual couples should not be permitted by law. The decisive factor to the report's conclusions, after an investigation of more than a year, was the commission’s decision to act “to affirm and protect children’s rights and the primacy of those rights over adults’ aspirations.”

. . .

The Mission considered demands for marriage to be made available to same-sex couples, and was of the view that it “is not possible to think about marriage separately from filiation: the two questions are closely connected, in that marriage is organized around the child.” Said the report: “ Marriage is not merely the contractual recognition of the love between a couple; it is a framework that imposes rights and duties, and that is designed to provide for the care and harmonious development of the child. Foreign examples demonstrate this: countries that have made marriage available to same-sex couples have all, simultaneously or subsequently, authorized adoption by those couples and developed systems for assisted procreation or surrogate gestation, to enable those couples to have children.”

The report stated: “It would in fact be incoherent, if couples were regarded as equal, to remove the prohibition on marriage and preserve it for filiation.”

Summing up its decision process on the matter, the Information Mission says, “Making marriage available to same-sex couples therefore presupposes that they will also be given the right to adopt and receive medical assistance for procreation, and even the right to use surrogate mothers, because such couples are not fertile. The Mission is divided on this subject. It considered the consequences for the child’s development and the construction of his or her identity of creating a fictitious filiation by law – two fathers, or two mothers – which is biologically neither real nor plausible. Diametrically opposed representations were made by the people heard on this point, and they failed to persuade a majority of the Mission to support recognizing a right to a child or a right to marriage, for same-sex couples. A majority of the Mission does not wish to question the fundamental principles of the law of filiation, which are based on the tripartite unit of ‘a father, a mother, a child’, citing the principle of caution. For that reason, that majority also, logically, chose to deny access to marriage to same-sex couples.”

Extraordinary Minister Shortage

The most hilarious thing I've read in some time . . .

Thursday, February 16, 2006

A Little Slow on the Draw . . .

. . . but check out this post from Phil.

Under the opposite heading (no puns intended): Phil, any musings on the Cheney incident?

A Spiritual Diary

Check this out, and the whole blog with it.

Friday, February 10, 2006

Winston Churchill on tobacco!

I have been enjoying Churchill's book "Amid these Storms" (Charles Scribner's Sons 1932). Here is a passage from an essay entitled "A Second Choice" -- on chance and foresight.

If we look back on our past life we shall see that one of its most usual experiences is that we have been helped by our mistakes and injured by our most sagacious decisions. I suppose if I had to relive my life I ought to eschew the habit of smoking. Look at all the money I have wasted on tobacco. Think of it all invested and mounting up at compound interest year after year. I remember my father in his most sparkling mood, his eye gleaming through the haze of his cigarette, saying, ' Why begin ? if you want to have an eye that is true, and a hand that does not quiver, if you want never to ask yourself a question as you ride at a fence, don't smoke.'

But consider! How can I tell that the soothing influence of tobacco upon my nervous system may not have enabled me to comport myself with calm and with courtesy in some awkward personal encounter or negotiation, or carried me serenely through some critical hours of anxious waiting? how can I tell that my temper would have been as sweet or my companionship as agreeable if I had abjured from my youth the goddess Nicotine? Now that I think of it, if I had not turned back to get that matchbox at Flanders, might I not just have walked into the shell which pitched so harmlessly a hundred yards ahead?
Site Feed