Pertinent definition of oft-bandied word ...
"Until the eighteenth century the term generally meant whatever was worthy of a free man, e.g., as applied to the liberal arts or a liberal education. This meaning is still current, but at least since the French Revolution liberalism has become more or less identified with a philosophy that stresses human freedom to the neglect and even denial of the rights of God in religion, the rights of society in civil law, and the rights of the Church in her relations to the State. It was in this sense that liberalism was condemned by Pope Pius IX in 1864 in the Syllabus of Errors (Denzinger, 2977-80)".1
1 Hardon, John, S.J. 1999 (2nd Printing, 2001). "Modern Catholic Dictionary", p. 317. Eternal Life. Brownsville, Kentucky.
"Denzinger" refers to Enchiridion Symbolorum (Handbook of Creeds) originally edited by Henry Denzinger and first published in 1854.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
A Spider's Web
A soldier found himself in a terrible battle. The enemy was soundly defeating the soldier's army. He and his comrades found themselves hastily retreating from the battlefield in defeat, running away in fear for their lives. The enemy gave chase. The young man ran hard and fast, full of fear and desperation, and soon found himself cut off from his comrades in arms.
He eventually came upon a rocky ledge containing a cave. Knowing the enemy was close behind, and that he was exhausted from the chase, he chose to hide there. After he crawled in, he fell to his face in the darkness, desperately crying to God to save him and protect him from his enemies.
When he looked up from his desperate plea for help, he saw a spider beginning to weave its web at the entrance to the cave. As he watched the delicate threads being slowly drawn across the mouth of the cave, the soldier pondered its irony. He thought, "I asked God for protection and deliverance, and he sent me a spider instead. How can a spider save me?
His heart was hardened, knowing the enemy would soon discover his hiding place and kill him. And soon he did hear the sound of his enemies, who were now scouring the area looking for those in hiding. One soldier with a gun slowly walked up to the cave's entrance. As the soldier crouched in the darkness, hoping to surprise the enemy in a last-minute attempt to save his own life, he felt his heart pounding wildly out of control.
As the enemy cautiously moved forward to enter the cave, he came upon the spider's web, which by now was completely strung across the opening. He backed away and called out to a comrade, "There can't be anyone in here. They would have had to break this spider's web to enter the cave. Let's move on."
Years later, a young man wrote about that ordeal: "Where God is, a spider's web is as a stone wall. Where God is not, a stone wall is as a spider's web."
Heard on "Glen's Story Corner" on Relevant Radio. For more about Relevant Radio visit www.RelevantRadio.com
He eventually came upon a rocky ledge containing a cave. Knowing the enemy was close behind, and that he was exhausted from the chase, he chose to hide there. After he crawled in, he fell to his face in the darkness, desperately crying to God to save him and protect him from his enemies.
When he looked up from his desperate plea for help, he saw a spider beginning to weave its web at the entrance to the cave. As he watched the delicate threads being slowly drawn across the mouth of the cave, the soldier pondered its irony. He thought, "I asked God for protection and deliverance, and he sent me a spider instead. How can a spider save me?
His heart was hardened, knowing the enemy would soon discover his hiding place and kill him. And soon he did hear the sound of his enemies, who were now scouring the area looking for those in hiding. One soldier with a gun slowly walked up to the cave's entrance. As the soldier crouched in the darkness, hoping to surprise the enemy in a last-minute attempt to save his own life, he felt his heart pounding wildly out of control.
As the enemy cautiously moved forward to enter the cave, he came upon the spider's web, which by now was completely strung across the opening. He backed away and called out to a comrade, "There can't be anyone in here. They would have had to break this spider's web to enter the cave. Let's move on."
Years later, a young man wrote about that ordeal: "Where God is, a spider's web is as a stone wall. Where God is not, a stone wall is as a spider's web."
Heard on "Glen's Story Corner" on Relevant Radio. For more about Relevant Radio visit www.RelevantRadio.com
Thursday, February 18, 2010
What is Ash Wednesday? A Concise Explanation by Jimmy Akin
Few write with the precision and clarity of Jimmy (James) Akin regarding Catholic matters. Mr. Akin's work in Catholic apologetics is thorough and through his writings he presents and articulates ideas and concepts with an understandable expertise. He is a Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers and is heard frequently on the Catholic Answers radio program. More of his writings may be found at Catholic.com, as well as his own blog, http://jimmyakin.org/.
The Day of Ashes
By James Akin
Ash Wednesday, the day Lent begins, occurs forty days before Good Friday. Some Fundamentalists claim Ash Wednesday is based on a pagan festival, but it originated in the A.D. 900s, long after Europe had been Christianized and the pagan cults stamped out.
Ash Wednesday is actually a colloquial name. The official name is the Day of Ashes, because on that day the faithful have their foreheads marked with ashes in the shape of a cross.
In the Bible, a mark on the forehead is a symbol of ownership. By having his forehead marked with the sign of a cross, a person symbolizes that he belongs to Jesus Christ, who died on a cross. This is in imitation of the spiritual mark or seal that is put on a Christian in baptism, when he is delivered from slavery to sin and the devil and made a slave of righteousness and Christ (Rom. 6:3-18). It also imitates the way the righteous are described in the book of Revelation: "Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God upon their foreheads" (Rev.7:3). Or again, "Then I looked, and, lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads" (Rev. 14:1). This is in contrast to the followers of the beast, who have the number 666 on their foreheads or hands.
The Day of Ashes
By James Akin
Ash Wednesday, the day Lent begins, occurs forty days before Good Friday. Some Fundamentalists claim Ash Wednesday is based on a pagan festival, but it originated in the A.D. 900s, long after Europe had been Christianized and the pagan cults stamped out.
Ash Wednesday is actually a colloquial name. The official name is the Day of Ashes, because on that day the faithful have their foreheads marked with ashes in the shape of a cross.
In the Bible, a mark on the forehead is a symbol of ownership. By having his forehead marked with the sign of a cross, a person symbolizes that he belongs to Jesus Christ, who died on a cross. This is in imitation of the spiritual mark or seal that is put on a Christian in baptism, when he is delivered from slavery to sin and the devil and made a slave of righteousness and Christ (Rom. 6:3-18). It also imitates the way the righteous are described in the book of Revelation: "Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God upon their foreheads" (Rev.7:3). Or again, "Then I looked, and, lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads" (Rev. 14:1). This is in contrast to the followers of the beast, who have the number 666 on their foreheads or hands.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
St. Valentine's Day
This article is pulled from the 1912 edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia. No doubt, since the original publication a notable amount of secularization has occurred to the holiday.
At least three different Saint Valentines, all of them martyrs, are mentioned in the early martyrologies under date of 14 February. One is described as a priest at Rome, another as bishop of Interamna (modern Terni), and these two seem both to have suffered in the second half of the third century and to have been buried on the Flaminian Way, but at different distances from the city. In William of Malmesbury's time what was known to the ancients as the Flaminian Gate of Rome and is now the Porta del Popolo, was called the Gate of St. Valentine. The name seems to have been taken from a small church dedicated to the saint which was in the immediate neighborhood. Of both these St. Valentines some sort of Acta are preserved but they are of relatively late date and of no historical value. Of the third Saint Valentine, who suffered in Africa with a number of companions, nothing further is known.
Saint Valentine's Day
The popular customs associated with Saint Valentine's Day undoubtedly had their origin in a conventional belief generally received in England and France during the Middle Ages, that on 14 February, i.e. half way through the second month of the year, the birds began to pair. Thus in Chaucer's Parliament of Foules we read:
For this was sent on Seynt Valentyne's day
Whan every foul cometh ther to choose his mate.
For this reason the day was looked upon as specially consecrated to lovers and as a proper occasion for writing love letters and sending lovers' tokens. Both the French and English literatures of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries contain allusions to the practice. Perhaps the earliest to be found is in the 34th and 35th Ballades of the bilingual poet, John Gower, written in French; but Lydgate and Clauvowe supply other examples. Those who chose each other under these circumstances seem to have been called by each other their Valentines. In the Paston Letters, Dame Elizabeth Brews writes thus about a match she hopes to make for her daughter (we modernize the spelling), addressing the favoured suitor:
And, cousin mine, upon Monday is Saint Valentine's Day and every bird chooses himself a mate, and if it like you to come on Thursday night, and make provision that you may abide till then, I trust to God that ye shall speak to my husband and I shall pray that we may bring the matter to a conclusion.
Shortly after the young lady herself wrote a letter to the same man addressing it "Unto my rightwell beloved Valentine, John Paston Esquire". The custom of choosing and sending valentines has of late years fallen into comparative desuetude.1
1MLA citation. Thurston, Herbert. "St. Valentine." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 14 Feb. 2010.
APA citation. Thurston, H. (1912). St. Valentine. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved February 14, 2010 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15254a.htm
Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Paul Knutsen.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
At least three different Saint Valentines, all of them martyrs, are mentioned in the early martyrologies under date of 14 February. One is described as a priest at Rome, another as bishop of Interamna (modern Terni), and these two seem both to have suffered in the second half of the third century and to have been buried on the Flaminian Way, but at different distances from the city. In William of Malmesbury's time what was known to the ancients as the Flaminian Gate of Rome and is now the Porta del Popolo, was called the Gate of St. Valentine. The name seems to have been taken from a small church dedicated to the saint which was in the immediate neighborhood. Of both these St. Valentines some sort of Acta are preserved but they are of relatively late date and of no historical value. Of the third Saint Valentine, who suffered in Africa with a number of companions, nothing further is known.
Saint Valentine's Day
The popular customs associated with Saint Valentine's Day undoubtedly had their origin in a conventional belief generally received in England and France during the Middle Ages, that on 14 February, i.e. half way through the second month of the year, the birds began to pair. Thus in Chaucer's Parliament of Foules we read:
For this was sent on Seynt Valentyne's day
Whan every foul cometh ther to choose his mate.
For this reason the day was looked upon as specially consecrated to lovers and as a proper occasion for writing love letters and sending lovers' tokens. Both the French and English literatures of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries contain allusions to the practice. Perhaps the earliest to be found is in the 34th and 35th Ballades of the bilingual poet, John Gower, written in French; but Lydgate and Clauvowe supply other examples. Those who chose each other under these circumstances seem to have been called by each other their Valentines. In the Paston Letters, Dame Elizabeth Brews writes thus about a match she hopes to make for her daughter (we modernize the spelling), addressing the favoured suitor:
And, cousin mine, upon Monday is Saint Valentine's Day and every bird chooses himself a mate, and if it like you to come on Thursday night, and make provision that you may abide till then, I trust to God that ye shall speak to my husband and I shall pray that we may bring the matter to a conclusion.
Shortly after the young lady herself wrote a letter to the same man addressing it "Unto my rightwell beloved Valentine, John Paston Esquire". The custom of choosing and sending valentines has of late years fallen into comparative desuetude.1
1MLA citation. Thurston, Herbert. "St. Valentine." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 14 Feb. 2010
APA citation. Thurston, H. (1912). St. Valentine. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved February 14, 2010 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15254a.htm
Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Paul Knutsen.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Pithy Lyric on Lost Love
Cryin' in the night,
Night goes into
Morning, just another day
Happy people pass my way
Looking in their eyes I see a memory
I never realized how happy you made me
Night goes into
Morning, just another day
Happy people pass my way
Looking in their eyes I see a memory
I never realized how happy you made me
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Lost Generation Palindrome
A palindrome is a word that reads the same forwards and backwards, for example "level". When applied to a long form composition it is a writing whose lines are read in one sequence one time, then the lines are read in reverse sequence the next. Notice how the meaning changes, though the lines are the same.
Lost Generation
I am part of the lost generation
and I refuse to believe
that I can change the world
I realize this may be a shock but
Happiness comes from within
is a lie, and
Money will make me happy.
So in 30 years I will tell my children
They are not the most important thing in my life
My employer will know that
I have my priorities straight because
work
is more important than
family
I tell you this
Once upon a time
Families stayed together
but this will not be true in my era
This is a quick fix society;
Experts tell me
30 years from now I will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of my divorce
I do not concede that
I will live in the country of my own making
In the future
Environmental destruction will be the norm
No longer can it be said that
My peers and I care about this earth
It will be evident that
My generation is apathetic and lethargic
It is foolish to presume that
There is hope
And all of this will come true unless we choose to reverse it.
There is hope
It is foolish to presume that
My generation is apathetic and lethargic
It will be evident that
My peers and I care about this earth
No longer can it be said that
Experts tell me
Environmental destruction will be the norm
In the future
I will live in the country of my own making
I do not concede that
30 years from now I will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of my divorce
Experts tell me
This is a quick fix society;
but this will not be true in my era
Families stayed together
Once upon a time
I tell you this
family
is more important than
work
I have my priorities straight because
My employer will know that
They are not the most important thing in my life
So in 30 years I will tell my children
Money will make me happy
is a lie, and
Happiness comes from within
I realize this may be a shock but
I can change the world
and I refuse to believe
I am part of the lost generation
Script to video that was submitted by a 20 year old man to a contest entitled "u @ 50" sponsored by AARP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42E2fAWM6rA
Lost Generation
I am part of the lost generation
and I refuse to believe
that I can change the world
I realize this may be a shock but
Happiness comes from within
is a lie, and
Money will make me happy.
So in 30 years I will tell my children
They are not the most important thing in my life
My employer will know that
I have my priorities straight because
work
is more important than
family
I tell you this
Once upon a time
Families stayed together
but this will not be true in my era
This is a quick fix society;
Experts tell me
30 years from now I will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of my divorce
I do not concede that
I will live in the country of my own making
In the future
Environmental destruction will be the norm
No longer can it be said that
My peers and I care about this earth
It will be evident that
My generation is apathetic and lethargic
It is foolish to presume that
There is hope
And all of this will come true unless we choose to reverse it.
There is hope
It is foolish to presume that
My generation is apathetic and lethargic
It will be evident that
My peers and I care about this earth
No longer can it be said that
Experts tell me
Environmental destruction will be the norm
In the future
I will live in the country of my own making
I do not concede that
30 years from now I will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of my divorce
Experts tell me
This is a quick fix society;
but this will not be true in my era
Families stayed together
Once upon a time
I tell you this
family
is more important than
work
I have my priorities straight because
My employer will know that
They are not the most important thing in my life
So in 30 years I will tell my children
Money will make me happy
is a lie, and
Happiness comes from within
I realize this may be a shock but
I can change the world
and I refuse to believe
I am part of the lost generation
Script to video that was submitted by a 20 year old man to a contest entitled "u @ 50" sponsored by AARP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42E2fAWM6rA
ProLife Mark Crutcher responds to "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"
Few write with clarity and precision as well as Mark Crutcher, Founder and President of Life Dynamics. Here, from his book, "On Message" (2005, Life Dynamics Incorporated, p. 34) Mr. Crutcher addresses the oft-heard wisecrack directed at Pro-Life males – “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”. To grasp the insidious intention of this insinuation one must appreciate what a “sacrament” is. According to the Baltimore Catechism a “Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace” (http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson13.htm, retrieved 1/19/10). A further definition is useful, that of “grace”; meaning “a supernatural gift of God bestowed on us, through the merits of Jesus Christ, for our salvation” (http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson10.htm retrieved 1/19/10). That preliminary basic definitions on terms for which entire volumes have been written are required reveals the underlying nature, whether intentional or inadvertent, of ineptitude and contempt toward theological concepts pervading this comment. Mr. Crutcher exposes the absurdity of the pro-abortion remark and does so with his characteristic sense of disarming reason. (Visit Life Dynamics at www.LifeDynamics.com and Mr. Crutcher's blog at www.markcrutcherblog.com.)
Since the beginning of this debate, radical pro-aborts have been regurgitating this nonsense and it is time to set the record straight. If you look at polls taken on the public’s attitude about abortion, one thing jumps out. Regardless of whether the poll is paid for by the pro-abortion side or the pro-life side, and regardless of how the questions were slanted to favor one position or the other, one finding almost never changes. With virtually no exceptions, the results show that men are consistently more pro-abortion than women. It seems that men, especially single men, are aware that they are the ones best served and protected by legal abortion.
So while these abortion advocates continue to espouse this “sacrament” garbage, they do so with the full knowledge that it’s a bald-faced lie. They are fully aware that the data shows that the ability to become pregnant actually makes a person less supportive of abortion. Of course, the abortion lobby finds that fact to be counter productive, so they just ignore it.
Let’s not forget, with almost no exceptions, pioneers of the women’s movement like Susan B. Anthony, Mattie Brinkerhoff, Sarah Norton, Emma Goldman, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were quite outspoken in their opposition to legal abortion. In fact, Alice Paul, who helped write the original Equal Rights Amendment and worked 50 years for its passage, called abortion, “the ultimate exploitation of women.” Even suffragist newspapers like Woodhull’s and Claflin’s Weekly, had editorial policies which openly attacked abortion and abortionists. (For more information on pro-life feminism see: Victoria-Woodhull.com)
These early women’s rights advocates correctly saw abortion as patronizing and paternalistic. What they recognized back then remains true today. Abortion doesn’t free women, it devalues them. Abortion says they are second-class people whose problems are so trivial they can be handled with a “quick-fix” solution. These women knew that abortion favors sexually predatory and sexually irresponsible males. It allows them to sexually exploit women in a relatively risk-free environment. These guys can have their fun, and if a pregnancy occurs the woman involved can just be “vacuumed out” and used again.
True feminists also know that abortion lets men buy their way out of responsibility. The fact is, no other single factor has freed more sexually predatory and sexually irresponsible men than women's willingness to submit to abortion. It is, has always been, and will always be, a safety net which makes it easier for women to provide responsibility-free sex to men.
The reality that abortion is a protector of men is now so well known that some abortion advocates no longer even bother to deny it. In fact, some even say it should be celebrated. On May 11, 1990, on the nationally syndicated radio commentary program Spectrum, one very vocal proponent of abortion-on-demand, Ann Taylor-Flemming, was expounding on the need for their side to bring more men into the cause. She said this should be done because of the service abortion renders them. This is what she had to say about men, women, and abortion:
“I came of age with the women’s movement. It has given license to my ambitions and dreams, and filled me with the fervor for equality that permeates all that I do. But this time, I want to turn the tables a bit. Take an issue that always seems like a women’s issue and pitch it directly towards the men out there. And that issue is abortion … it’s time now to invite the men of America back in, to ask them to raise their voices for choice … I dare say that many of them have impregnated women along the way, and then let off the hook in a big, big way – emotionally, economically and every other way – when the women went ahead and had abortions … the sense of relief for themselves was mixed with sympathy for and gratitude towards those women whose ultimate responsibility was to relieve them of responsibility by having abortions … it would sure be nice to hear from all those men out there whose lives have been changed, bettered, and substantially eased because they were not forced into unwanted fatherhood.”
Even the most bigoted male chauvinist would never suggest that women have a “responsibility” to let the men who impregnate them “off the hook” by submitting to abortion. And yet, here is that very philosophy being espoused by someone who claims to be an advocate for women.
Statements like these prove that even outspoken advocates of abortion know that by its nature abortion will always be something which allows men to sexually exploit women. The really deplorable part of this is that they have this patronizing attitude toward women while claiming the only motive they have for being in this battle is to protect women. Maybe that’s an example of that old warning to be suspicious of anyone who says they only have your best interests at heart. (A recording of the Taylor-Flemming quote is on file at Life Dynamics.)
Another point is, not only does abortion protect men, it does so without demanding that they face any personal risk. After all, while the baby that’s sentenced to death is just as much his as hers, it’s only her body which will be invaded to carry out the execution. You can bet that if these guys were the ones who might end up on the abortionist’s table, facing unknown emotional and physical risks, they’d suddenly have a different attitude about sex and abortion.
Then there is the argument that a woman sometimes “needs” an abortion because a baby might interfere with her career. However, true feminists do not ask women to change to meet society’s needs, but instead work toward a society in which pregnant women, and women with children, are allowed to fully participate just as they are. If the failures of society clash with the biology of women, a feminist would not say that women are the ones who have to change. Simply put, real feminism does not ask women to solve society’s problems by killing their children. In fact, powerful women do not kill their children for anyone or for any reason, nor do they believe that women need surgery to be equal to men.
It is interesting to note that anytime a state has tried to enact legislation prohibiting abortions for sex selection, these “protectors of women” are the first ones to fight against it. They do this despite the fact that it’s been proven time and again – by people on both sides of this issue – that when a sex selection abortion occurs the overwhelming majority of the time it’s a female baby which ends up dead. These people think so little of women that they won’t even stop killing those babies whose only sin is that they would one day be women. The pro-choice mob has apparently decided that if our society wants to view being female as a fetal deformity punishable by death, that’s okay by them.
The abortion industry wraps feminism around abortion hoping to hide what it really is. Better than anyone else in our society, these people know that abortionists are nothing more than cowardly, cold-blooded, hired serial killers and moral hyenas who prey on women in troubled circumstances. They also know that abortion has the same relationship to women’s rights that pornography has. It cheapens, degrades and victimizes them for the benefit of men. For the abortion industry to suggest that having a clean place to kill their babies is the cornerstone of women’s equality is a self-serving and vile perversion of the basic values of true feminism. As pro-life feminist Melissa Simmons-Tulin once said:
“… women will never climb to equality over the dead bodies of their children.”
Since the beginning of this debate, radical pro-aborts have been regurgitating this nonsense and it is time to set the record straight. If you look at polls taken on the public’s attitude about abortion, one thing jumps out. Regardless of whether the poll is paid for by the pro-abortion side or the pro-life side, and regardless of how the questions were slanted to favor one position or the other, one finding almost never changes. With virtually no exceptions, the results show that men are consistently more pro-abortion than women. It seems that men, especially single men, are aware that they are the ones best served and protected by legal abortion.
So while these abortion advocates continue to espouse this “sacrament” garbage, they do so with the full knowledge that it’s a bald-faced lie. They are fully aware that the data shows that the ability to become pregnant actually makes a person less supportive of abortion. Of course, the abortion lobby finds that fact to be counter productive, so they just ignore it.
***
The only people who ever tried to sell the idea that women will never be equal to men unless they can legally butcher their children, are those who have either a financial or political interest in abortion. The average woman, regardless of her views on abortion, is simply not gullible enough to be convinced that protecting the unborn would mean relegating women to the status of nothing more than the property of their husbands.Let’s not forget, with almost no exceptions, pioneers of the women’s movement like Susan B. Anthony, Mattie Brinkerhoff, Sarah Norton, Emma Goldman, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were quite outspoken in their opposition to legal abortion. In fact, Alice Paul, who helped write the original Equal Rights Amendment and worked 50 years for its passage, called abortion, “the ultimate exploitation of women.” Even suffragist newspapers like Woodhull’s and Claflin’s Weekly, had editorial policies which openly attacked abortion and abortionists. (For more information on pro-life feminism see: Victoria-Woodhull.com)
These early women’s rights advocates correctly saw abortion as patronizing and paternalistic. What they recognized back then remains true today. Abortion doesn’t free women, it devalues them. Abortion says they are second-class people whose problems are so trivial they can be handled with a “quick-fix” solution. These women knew that abortion favors sexually predatory and sexually irresponsible males. It allows them to sexually exploit women in a relatively risk-free environment. These guys can have their fun, and if a pregnancy occurs the woman involved can just be “vacuumed out” and used again.
True feminists also know that abortion lets men buy their way out of responsibility. The fact is, no other single factor has freed more sexually predatory and sexually irresponsible men than women's willingness to submit to abortion. It is, has always been, and will always be, a safety net which makes it easier for women to provide responsibility-free sex to men.
The reality that abortion is a protector of men is now so well known that some abortion advocates no longer even bother to deny it. In fact, some even say it should be celebrated. On May 11, 1990, on the nationally syndicated radio commentary program Spectrum, one very vocal proponent of abortion-on-demand, Ann Taylor-Flemming, was expounding on the need for their side to bring more men into the cause. She said this should be done because of the service abortion renders them. This is what she had to say about men, women, and abortion:
“I came of age with the women’s movement. It has given license to my ambitions and dreams, and filled me with the fervor for equality that permeates all that I do. But this time, I want to turn the tables a bit. Take an issue that always seems like a women’s issue and pitch it directly towards the men out there. And that issue is abortion … it’s time now to invite the men of America back in, to ask them to raise their voices for choice … I dare say that many of them have impregnated women along the way, and then let off the hook in a big, big way – emotionally, economically and every other way – when the women went ahead and had abortions … the sense of relief for themselves was mixed with sympathy for and gratitude towards those women whose ultimate responsibility was to relieve them of responsibility by having abortions … it would sure be nice to hear from all those men out there whose lives have been changed, bettered, and substantially eased because they were not forced into unwanted fatherhood.”
Even the most bigoted male chauvinist would never suggest that women have a “responsibility” to let the men who impregnate them “off the hook” by submitting to abortion. And yet, here is that very philosophy being espoused by someone who claims to be an advocate for women.
Statements like these prove that even outspoken advocates of abortion know that by its nature abortion will always be something which allows men to sexually exploit women. The really deplorable part of this is that they have this patronizing attitude toward women while claiming the only motive they have for being in this battle is to protect women. Maybe that’s an example of that old warning to be suspicious of anyone who says they only have your best interests at heart. (A recording of the Taylor-Flemming quote is on file at Life Dynamics.)
Another point is, not only does abortion protect men, it does so without demanding that they face any personal risk. After all, while the baby that’s sentenced to death is just as much his as hers, it’s only her body which will be invaded to carry out the execution. You can bet that if these guys were the ones who might end up on the abortionist’s table, facing unknown emotional and physical risks, they’d suddenly have a different attitude about sex and abortion.
Then there is the argument that a woman sometimes “needs” an abortion because a baby might interfere with her career. However, true feminists do not ask women to change to meet society’s needs, but instead work toward a society in which pregnant women, and women with children, are allowed to fully participate just as they are. If the failures of society clash with the biology of women, a feminist would not say that women are the ones who have to change. Simply put, real feminism does not ask women to solve society’s problems by killing their children. In fact, powerful women do not kill their children for anyone or for any reason, nor do they believe that women need surgery to be equal to men.
It is interesting to note that anytime a state has tried to enact legislation prohibiting abortions for sex selection, these “protectors of women” are the first ones to fight against it. They do this despite the fact that it’s been proven time and again – by people on both sides of this issue – that when a sex selection abortion occurs the overwhelming majority of the time it’s a female baby which ends up dead. These people think so little of women that they won’t even stop killing those babies whose only sin is that they would one day be women. The pro-choice mob has apparently decided that if our society wants to view being female as a fetal deformity punishable by death, that’s okay by them.
The abortion industry wraps feminism around abortion hoping to hide what it really is. Better than anyone else in our society, these people know that abortionists are nothing more than cowardly, cold-blooded, hired serial killers and moral hyenas who prey on women in troubled circumstances. They also know that abortion has the same relationship to women’s rights that pornography has. It cheapens, degrades and victimizes them for the benefit of men. For the abortion industry to suggest that having a clean place to kill their babies is the cornerstone of women’s equality is a self-serving and vile perversion of the basic values of true feminism. As pro-life feminist Melissa Simmons-Tulin once said:
“… women will never climb to equality over the dead bodies of their children.”
A Conspiracy of Kindness on the Court
Kevin is a boy who might be described as "slow." He didn't learn his ABCs as fast as other kids. He couldn't compete in schoolyard races, but Kevin had a way with people. His bright smile and big heart won him plenty of friends.
Randy, the pastor at Kevin's church, decided they needed a basketball team for boys. Kevin signed on and soon basketball became a center of his life. He practiced hard. While the other boys worked at dribbling the basketball and shooting lay-ups, skills Kevin would never master, he simply shot baskets. Or more correctly, he threw the ball AT the basket. He had a special spot near the free throw line. He threw and threw, and it occasionally went in. On the rare times that he succeeded, Kevin raised his arms and shouted, "Look at me, Coach! Look at me!" Randy looked at him. And smiled.
The day before their first game, Coach Randy gave each player a bright red jersey. Kevin was number 12. He scrambled himself into the sleeves and wore that jersey almost every day. Everywhere. One Sunday morning the church worship service was interrupted by Kevin's excited voice. "Look, Coach!" He lifted his gray wool sweater to reveal the red jersey underneath with number 12 on the front. Nobody there minded the interruption; the congregation knew Kevin and loved him.
I'd like to be able to tell you that the team did well. But the truth is they never won a game that season - except for the night it snowed and the opposing team never showed up.
At the end of the season, the boys played in the church league's tournament. As the last-place team, they drew the unfortunate spot of playing against the best team - boys who had never lost a game all year.
Game day arrived. Both teams played their best, but the game went as expected. Near the end of the last quarter, Kevin's team stood nearly 30 points behind. It was then that one of the boys called timeout. "Coach Randy," he said, "this is our last game and Kevin has never made a basket. I think we should let him make a basket."
The team agreed. Kevin was instructed to stand at his special place near the free throw line and wait. He was told that when he was given the ball, he should shoot.
Kevin was ecstatic. He ran to the floor and waited. When the ball was passed to him he shot - and missed. Number 17 from the other team snatched the rebound, dribbled down the court for an easy basket but a moment later Kevin got the ball again. He shot - and missed again. Number 17 repeated his performance scoring two more points. Kevin shot a third and fourth time with the same result.
But slowly the other team seemed to figure out what was going on and the next time they snatched the rebound, a boy threw it to Kevin! He shot - and missed. Now every rebound came to him and he threw and threw toward the basket. Time was running down and Kevin still had not scored.
BOTH teams circled the boy by this time and all of the players were shouting, "Kevin! Kevin!" The crowd took up the chant. Soon everyone in the gym was shouting Kevin's name.
Coach Randy was sure that time must have run out; the game HAD to be over. He glanced at the official clock. It was stopped at 4.3 seconds. Even the timekeepers joined in the mania and stood by their table shouting with the crowd, "Kevin! Kevin!"
Kevin shot and shot. Everyone was screaming. He attempted again and again and again and ... miraculously, one of his shots took a crazy bounce on the rim. Everyone held their breath.
The ball dropped in.
Chaos reigned. Nobody remained seated. Everyone stood and cheered as if one boy had single-handedly won a world championship. Kevin's arms sprang up in the air and he shouted, "I won! I won!" He had scored. His team escorted him off the court, the clock ticked down and the game was over.
That day an undefeated team retained their perfect record. But everybody won. Everybody. Because everybody had participated in a crazy conspiracy of kindness that was so compelling, so powerful, the earth itself might have stopped for a moment to rejoice with one young boy.
How beautiful it is when we all conspire together in kindness ... everybody wins.
Story attributed to Steve Goodier.
As heard on "Glenn's Story Corner" on Relevant Radio, www.relevantradio.com.
Randy, the pastor at Kevin's church, decided they needed a basketball team for boys. Kevin signed on and soon basketball became a center of his life. He practiced hard. While the other boys worked at dribbling the basketball and shooting lay-ups, skills Kevin would never master, he simply shot baskets. Or more correctly, he threw the ball AT the basket. He had a special spot near the free throw line. He threw and threw, and it occasionally went in. On the rare times that he succeeded, Kevin raised his arms and shouted, "Look at me, Coach! Look at me!" Randy looked at him. And smiled.
The day before their first game, Coach Randy gave each player a bright red jersey. Kevin was number 12. He scrambled himself into the sleeves and wore that jersey almost every day. Everywhere. One Sunday morning the church worship service was interrupted by Kevin's excited voice. "Look, Coach!" He lifted his gray wool sweater to reveal the red jersey underneath with number 12 on the front. Nobody there minded the interruption; the congregation knew Kevin and loved him.
I'd like to be able to tell you that the team did well. But the truth is they never won a game that season - except for the night it snowed and the opposing team never showed up.
At the end of the season, the boys played in the church league's tournament. As the last-place team, they drew the unfortunate spot of playing against the best team - boys who had never lost a game all year.
Game day arrived. Both teams played their best, but the game went as expected. Near the end of the last quarter, Kevin's team stood nearly 30 points behind. It was then that one of the boys called timeout. "Coach Randy," he said, "this is our last game and Kevin has never made a basket. I think we should let him make a basket."
The team agreed. Kevin was instructed to stand at his special place near the free throw line and wait. He was told that when he was given the ball, he should shoot.
Kevin was ecstatic. He ran to the floor and waited. When the ball was passed to him he shot - and missed. Number 17 from the other team snatched the rebound, dribbled down the court for an easy basket but a moment later Kevin got the ball again. He shot - and missed again. Number 17 repeated his performance scoring two more points. Kevin shot a third and fourth time with the same result.
But slowly the other team seemed to figure out what was going on and the next time they snatched the rebound, a boy threw it to Kevin! He shot - and missed. Now every rebound came to him and he threw and threw toward the basket. Time was running down and Kevin still had not scored.
BOTH teams circled the boy by this time and all of the players were shouting, "Kevin! Kevin!" The crowd took up the chant. Soon everyone in the gym was shouting Kevin's name.
Coach Randy was sure that time must have run out; the game HAD to be over. He glanced at the official clock. It was stopped at 4.3 seconds. Even the timekeepers joined in the mania and stood by their table shouting with the crowd, "Kevin! Kevin!"
Kevin shot and shot. Everyone was screaming. He attempted again and again and again and ... miraculously, one of his shots took a crazy bounce on the rim. Everyone held their breath.
The ball dropped in.
Chaos reigned. Nobody remained seated. Everyone stood and cheered as if one boy had single-handedly won a world championship. Kevin's arms sprang up in the air and he shouted, "I won! I won!" He had scored. His team escorted him off the court, the clock ticked down and the game was over.
That day an undefeated team retained their perfect record. But everybody won. Everybody. Because everybody had participated in a crazy conspiracy of kindness that was so compelling, so powerful, the earth itself might have stopped for a moment to rejoice with one young boy.
How beautiful it is when we all conspire together in kindness ... everybody wins.
Story attributed to Steve Goodier.
As heard on "Glenn's Story Corner" on Relevant Radio, www.relevantradio.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
