« Where were you? | Main | Praying on Good Friday »

April 20, 2007

Comments

JP

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was among those who denounced yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Act"

If I'm not mistaken Sen Reid voted for the ban.

mark

JP:

I think that's Adler's point.

Belloc

Those groundswells and that cartoon are badges of honor.

I've been waiting for an opportunity to say this for a long, long time, and I finally have one: God bless George W. Bush.

Without him, striking this abominable infanticide from among us would not have been possible.

ContraMundum

The MSM's anti-Catholic bigotry is unsurprising. I just hope Catholics aren't cowed by this. If it weren't enough for people to consider that pro-life efforts are taking care of the smallest and most helpless of God's creatures, and therefore something very pleasing to God himself, then they should ask themselves who history will see as the real heroes--those who stood for feticide, or those who were heedless of the slanders against them and stood for the innocent?

Also, the fact that Roe and Casey are, constitutionally speaking, groundless and indeed mind-blowingly stupid, should give some comfort in this case. The fact that the Catholics on the court were able to urge judicial restraint in this case is a good thing. Kennedy is still a very dangerous man to have on the court, but perhaps by the prayers of the nation's Catholics God will guide him to do some good. Plus, I wonder how Kennedy will react to the cartoon showing him, along with the other RCs, wearing a mitre. May get his dander up a bit.

coco

Could we find some appropriate picture to put some stars-of-David on, just for comparison? say, a picture of the British cabinet?

Something to prick the consciousness of those who don't hold anti-catholicism as dangerous as anti-semitism...

Kathleen

Oh I am so tempted to do a contra to this cartoon with each of the dissenting justices holding a baby with sizzors sticking out of their heads.

ken

Ah, yes, Harry Reid is indeed a pro-life Democrat; party first, principles last. Wasn't Hillary supposed to be moving to more neutral ground on the abortion issue? Overwhelming majorities of Americans oppose PBA, but the Democrats are going to continue to pucker up and kiss Planned Parenthood's butt.

Ed

I looked at the links provided at the end of Amy's post. It's just the same, old, tired anti-Catholic drivel that it's always been. Especially laughable are the "pope-made-'em-do-it" comments on the 5 SCOTUS justices who are Catholic. Absolutely no attempt at anything approaching logical commentary.

I'd be curious to find out if these people are sincerely pro-abort or simply view the abortion issue as a conveniently provided vehicle for their anti-Catholic invective. I think it's the latter.

Dan

I'm proud of the fact that the five justices that voted to uphold the ban are the five Catholics on the court. It is almost like a sign. The unqualified opposition of the Church to abortion is one of her greatest modern glories.

The obvious downside is that having only the Catholics on the court vote for the ban makes the anti-abortion position seem sectarian and it of course is not.

Catholic Mom

So how does the MSM and other leftist types explain the support for this ruling from non-Catholics? This is not a Catholic issue.This is an issue of human rights and human dignity. I suppose it is so much easier to attack a big target like the Catholic Church instead of logically addressing the philosophical components of the arguments.

Donald R. McClarey

The anti-Catholic bigotry on this issue is interesting. Certainly members of the Church have honored themselves in the fight against abortion, but the most fervent pro-lifers I have personally encountered in Central Illinois have been evangelicals. I don't think my experience is atypical. However for many leftists the Church is ENEMY NO. ONE and any opportunity to bash her is eagerly seized upon. Not too put too fine a point upon it many leftists hate us with a fiery passion. If you don't believe me visit Daily Kos or Democratic Underground. To be fair, there are often honorable leftists also who will speak up for the Church, but they are usually heavily outnumbered.

MAB

The Auth cartoon in the Philadelphia paper: I don't understand it.
Is he saying there are 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court?

Ed

MAB,

Yes, the cartoonist is indeed signaling that there are 5 RC justices on SCOTUS.
I think the subtler message is "No Catholics need apply".

Donald R. McClarey

"Not too put too fine a point upon it many leftists hate us with a fiery passion." should have been "Not to put too fine a point upon it many leftists hate us with a fiery passion." Should never post while also attempting to eat lunch.

Jordan Potter

"Is he saying there are 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court?"

Oh, I know! He's saying the five Catholics on the Supreme Court have the excellent moral and spiritual character that would qualify them to be made Catholic bishops, but the four non-Catholic justices are are very troubled in their souls that they have not yet converted to the Apostolic Faith. The cartoonist is trying to encourage those four justices to join the Catholic Church.

Yeah, that's it!

chris K

"Intact D & X" - how nice,... shall we all have tea? .... devilspeak!

So our grandchildren and their grandchildren will be able to read just who it was who put at least some stop to the madness.

The lines drawn between good and evil are definitely visible now.
And if it is an unintended consequence that such people have placed Catholics on the side of good - then it's a good thing and we should be proud.

EileenR

I always love stuff like this.

a procedure named intact dilation and extraction, or "intact D&X." (Anti-abortion activists came up with the misleading coinage "partial-birth abortion").

Oh this always gets me.

What the heck do they think intact dilation and extraction *is*? I mean, dilation is pretty clear, and extraction means removing the fetus from the mother's body, and if it's intact and alive, doesn't that mean it's partially born?

And it is abortion. No doubt about that.

It makes no sense. Do these people actually believe what they're saying?

EileenR

Also, if we're going to be pesky about medically correct terminology, it's "Intact D&X Abortion" not "Intact D&X".

Larry

Now we have to hope that the law is enforced everywhere. Unfortunately I find it hard to believe that in certain places they couldn't care less about enforcing such a law as this (eg.New York City, anywhere in California etc.)

PatrickB

I read all those cute little "here"'s. And they are really frightening because: 1) So many of them are genuinely hateful bigotry. 2) So many of their 'facts' are just plain wrong. 3) So many of their arguments are so lacking in logic that one is near stunned into disbelief. 4) So many are so entirely subjective.

Susan Peterson

Dan, above, (I think it is he) commented on one of those blogs, (at the second "here" and someone immediatly stepped in to warn him to "tone it down."

I posted the following but there was a notice that the comment was awaiting moderation, so we will see. Here is my comment:

Dan says something absolutely crystal clear, perfectly logical, totally lacking in insults to others or ad hominem arguments, and Pamela Leavy tells him to tone it down? What needs to be toned down about it?

He said 1. The law prevents killing a newborn infant. (true) Implied:presumably all accept this law and do not consider it to be unduly dependent on theology.
He asked :Then why would a law preventing the killing of a child a few minutes before it is born…(or, rather, when its head is born but not its body or feet) have to be unduly dependent on theology?

Then he asked rhetorically, making an analogy which he does not elucidate,but which should not be difficult to grasp, whether Todd objected (of course he was not born yet, but in principle, I suppose) to Christians leading the movement to end slavery. In each case, Christians are concerned to defend the rights of persons, in the one case to liberty, in the current case, even more basically, to life.

My comment would be that ALL of these laws, the one protecting the life of a newborn, one protecting the life of the half born or just about to be born, and one protecting a class of people from being enslaved, ALL of them are dependent in a sense on “theology”, that is, at least on a set of shall we say, moral axioms. They are all dependent on an idea of the value of the human person, and of what is proper to a person, what belongs to him by virtue of the fact that he is a person.

Susan Peterson

James

I don't believe there were any cartoons when Justice Ginsburg fell asleep during an argument before the Supreme Court.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/03/02/high-court-gossip-ginsburg-snoozes/

Clare Krishan

We Catholics are going to have to discipline ourselves to defending life rigorously, using simple reason. I offer here a small personal insight I gained recently as an aid to those who don't have the stomach to discuss the bloody details with detractors of the SCOTUS decision.

To steel myself in order to read the deeply disturbing testimony details I entertained the fantasy that the authors where describing a deceased fetus: thus the terms lost their gut-wrenching impact,
and seemed to be reasonable descriptors of a OB/GYN being as conservative as possible to protect his surviving patient's potency to act as a mother in the future (all the while conscious that I was only doing this to get through the ordeal without contemplating the excruciating pain of the baby being culled).

However with my scientific background I soon realised that I was mistaken in my assumptions - the texts are missing all the awkwardness one would expect to encounter if the fetus was lifeless, with the mother's own biochemistry rejecting the "foreign body."

The reason that abortionists operate by intact extraction is that they need the baby to CO-OPERATE - keeping her muscles taught, limbs maintained in a natural fetal posture, so she doesn't bend in unnatural directions and get stuck during her delivery, complicating (more risk, greater cost) matters.

The abortionist's relies on the baby's vigor until he decides she's helped enough then he can "pre-cease" her, rendering her DOA (deceased on arrival) and he can submit the bill to her mother (or us the taxpayer) for services rendered.

Abortion by injecting a heart-stopping drug and vaginal stillbirth is still 'legal' remember, so why not use it? The survival of a "viable fetus" is timed to the second, so that he may perfect his lucrative trade under a law designed to support this pretense, until SCOTUS closed the loophole out of some vague concern for the "state's interest" in its unborn citizens.

Unborn life is worthless is America because its more convenient that way, advantageous to those already born to derive their rights and freedoms from private imagination rather than natural history (where we all came from right? Our mother's wombs) - personhood as gnosis not human nature.

We must demand that our Bishop's put a premium on catechetical materials that teach the natural law and preach a Catholic "incarnate" imagination. The disembodied discourse in our public square that passes for "democratic freedom" is increasingly dangerous to our life and liberty as people of faith. We carry a great responsibility to hold ourselves and our politicians accountable in the coming years.

deacon john m. bresnahan

What surprised me was a Dem Party site run by a Catholic that was full of anti-Catholic swill. Is this the Dem Party of the future?? You can't win in court or with public opinion so unleash the dogs of anti-Catholic bigotry.
However, a very recent poll showed almost 70% of Americans against partial-birth abortion. Yet Catholics are only about 25% of the population. So let's go out and bring into the Church all those who agree with us and probably admire our courage in the face of clear hate-filled bigotry.

Kathleen

Unborn life is worthless is America because its more convenient that way, advantageous to those already born to derive their rights and freedoms from private imagination rather than natural history (where we all came from right? Our mother's wombs) - personhood as gnosis not human nature.

Clare: Excellent, excellent point.

Fr. Augustine Thompson O.P.

Amy,

Catholics politicians and judges cannot follow their consciences (if these differ from the NYTimes) or they are traitors to democracy. So said the Nativist bigots in the 1800s (see cartoons at this link):

http://www.stentorian.com/MoveOn/catholic.html

So say the secularist bigots today. You might want to post some of Nast's anti-Catholic cartoons along with their modern equal from the Phily Enquirer.

Funny how history repeats itself.

TerryC

Susan if your description of Dan's post was accurate he was told to "tone it down" because he compared, however obliquely the killing of an unborn baby to the enslavement of a human being. This reminds the anti-life crowd that an unborn baby is a human being. This makes them feel uncomfortable, and making someone feel uncomfortable is the greatest crime one can commit against the modern secular crowd.
If you want a real reaction compare the number of unborn babies to the number of people killed by the Nazi's in the holocaust.

Jeannette

I see conversions ahead. Evidently, you can't count on anyone but Catholics to defend human life!

AmericanPapist

Both Bill Donahue and Fidelis are going after the cartoonist, Tony Auth. I blogged about it here:

http://www.americanpapist.com/2007/04/remember-that-papist-cartoon-some.html

You might also want to update the link for the picture, it should direct to "http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ta/2007/ta070420.gif" now. Thanks!

Hart Williams

My complete response to this column is at http://www.hartwilliams.com/zug/2007/04/catholic-bashing.html

As the author of the "chill wind blows from Rome" I have addressed the implication that my blog was "anti-Catholic." It wasn't.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.