Pro life article in the NY times?

I knew that would get your attention. Well, I was rather shocked that the Times, the bastion of pro abortion views in the city where several times more babies are aborted than born, would print something which gives a more balanced view on abortion but it has happened. It's in a blog by Ross Douthat, not a mainstream article, but still, blogs do get crawled. As a person working in the diocese of Phoenix wrote "Maybe the truth keeps knocking until we are embarrassed not to answer!"

The blog talks about the new show on MTV about women facing decisions which seem (according to MTV anyway) best solved by abortion. I didn't watch the show because I knew right up front, it would totally annoy me.

Blogger ROSS DOUTHAT said although the view of MTV was, pro choice, the first show turned out to be "a heartbreaking spectacle, whatever your perspective."

He talks about shortage of babies available for adoption, partially because only a small percentage of single mothers are not keeping their babies. But Ross does add that "Since 1973, countless lives that might have been welcomed into families like Thernstrom’s — which looked into adoption, and gave it up as hopeless — have been cut short in utero instead."

Another thing, Ross brought up about the show was the euphemistic de-humanizing way the abortion industry talks about the baby. Expressions like "fetus" or "baby" are carefully avoided and the baby is referred to as "the pregnancy problem" which is just a "ball of cells".

However, apparently the pregnant woman on the show has realized it is a baby because she begins crying when her boyfriend calls her baby a "thing".

Sadly, she went ahead with the abortion because like many other women, she didn't see a way out. However, life is always the best way out and unfortunately, we often find out all too late that nothing is solved by the termination of a life - that only adds to the difficulty of a situation. One only has to listen to a small sampling of the thousands of women in the Silent no more awareness campaign to realize that abortion causes many more heartaches than going through with a pregnancy.

I did like Ross's conclusion though. It was:

"This is the paradox of America’s unborn. No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed."

Imagine that in a blog of the New York Times. As the old saying goes, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus". That is, this is not a bad way to start a new year, in which we hopefully will progress toward ending the mass execution of the unborn.

time is marching on - are we??

Hi anyone who is reading this. Do you ever feel frustrated? I feel like that right now. Because basically most parts of the pro life movement (OK I will admit there are a few mavericks in the crowd and I'll give their websites later) are proceeding using the same strategies which have NOT worked for us in the past - not really as shown by our total and unutterable loss on this last election.

As we speak, the Democrats and Obama are busy unraveling everything we've done in 35 years.

According to Randall Terry (and I SO AGREE with him!!!) we only have one option left to us. To educate the people and make SURE we fire a bunch of Congress persons in 2010. We can get a pro life majority again in Congress if we START working now.

As far as "alerting" the pundits, it doesn't do any good. The only thing the march in Washington did is the warn the media to intensify their efforts to smear pro lifers in the press - thus the lastest bunch of insults calling us "terrorists" etc. We got by some estimates over 400,000 in Washington and who knows how many more in San Francisco (TOTAL media silence on that march).

In other words, we alerted THE WRONG people.

Remember Teddy Roosevelt's advice? "Walk softly but carry a BIG STICK!" We should be making FAR LESS NOISE and FAR MORE PLANS.

Randall Terry is leading a great effort - please go to his website - let's join with him. A humble plea He says too, "LET'S FIRE THESE PEOPLE IN 2010". With a targeted vote, we CAN get back, at least, a majority in Congress which would go a long way to neutralize the untold damage being done to our cause as we speak.

Randall has joined the Catholic Church by the way and one thing we REALLY need to do is educate the Catholics because 52 percent of us voted for Obama and the Democrats in this last election. We need to get those folks back in OUR camp. If you go to Randall's website, Randall has ideas of how to do that.

The other real activist pro life group is "Priests for Life". Fr Frank Pavone, the head of PFL is dynamic and brilliant. Again he is about educating the public and working toward firing more than a few politicians in 2010 (that's only ONE YEAR FROM NOW). They have some excellent literature on their website. See them at Priests for life.org

If we focus in our support in aligning with these two groups, I think we can achieve what we need to do which is work toward stopping the killing.

As individuals, we each need to realize that we should be doing something activist each day. Like praying the Rosary for life. Our lady told the children at Fatima that if only a percentage of Catholics prayed a daily Rosary, WW II could have been stopped.

But we also have to make sure WE are educated. Read Randall's literature. Look at Fr Pavone's photos and listen to his videos and audios. We need to STOP BEING SILENT but to TALK to folks around us. Fr Pavone said on EWTN the other day "there are some lives only YOU can save."

A good example of individual activism is the 73 year old fiddler in San Luis Obispo who plays well enough to gather a large audience at a local restaurant. He ALWAYS, courageously, displays his pro life signs. You can read about him and hear his great playing at http://prolifefiddlin.org/

With a focused effort and God on our side, there is no way we canNOT reverse the evils which are happening now and to save those infants being wantonly killed, 9 per minute in the USA.

Pope rebukes Pelosi for her pro abortion stance

It's hard to imagine that Nancy Pelosi actually expected the Pope to agree with her pro abortion stance. I suspect she planned to pose for a picture with him and fudge the details for the news. A picture of the Pope and Pelosi smiling, arm in arm would have been a gem which published without any details might have suggested that despite her pro abortion stance, he approved of Nancy who sells herself as a "good Catholic".

Nancy's hopes were dashed to pieces today, however, when Benedict barred all photographers and reporters from her 15 minute private audience with him. Apparently according to the Vatican press release, Benedict XVI spent most of the 15 minutes instructing Pelosi about the Natural Law and the church's teachings on the Sanctity of life, politely reminding her that her pro abortion stance is putting her "in serious difficulties as a Catholic". He told her it was his duty as her Pastor to warn her about this. Benedict XVI speaks several languages fluently including English so he likely instructed her about the sanctity of life from conception to death without a translator.

Pelosi spun for the news services that she praised him for the church's help in poverty, "Global warming" etc and showed him photos of her family's previous visits to Rome:

"It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, today. In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church’s leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming, as well as the Holy Father’s dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel. I was proud to show His Holiness a photograph of my family’s papal visit in the 1950s, as well as a recent picture of our children and grandchildren."

Perhaps his not granting her the Pope-Pelosi photo ala Mother Teresa was the worst insult.

She should be worried about ex-communication. By her getting in his face like that and THEN, misrepresenting the real content of the meeting to the press, she might be in "more serious difficulties" than she previously thought.

Benedict XVI might be polite but he can never be accused of being weak kneed or stupid and Ms Pelosi may well find herself ex-communicated if she does not change her ways.

One might ask why she would care, but if she loses the support of the Catholic vote (and it may bring some of the Evangelical Christians with it) she may lose her job in Congress i.e. be voted out. That she DOES care about... :)

SOURCES: (Zenit)Pope Benedict rebukes Pelosi over abortion

(CNA)Nancy Pelosi tries to spin meeting with Pope Benedict