Thursday, May 28, 2015

Ultrasound is rape, but abortion is totally non-invasive, according to dailykos

Dailykos publishes something about something. It's difficult to tell what's going on, exactly.

I hate including a link to their silly "journal" but I suppose I must, just for proper attribution purposes.

 All I can say is they love dead babies, and they love moms who kill them.

In order to prevent themselves and their readers from thinking about the very inconvenient fact that abortion kills a human being --- as well as the other inconvenient fact that abortion is never medically necessary --- they distract by writing the word, "rape" many times.

As if that were the issue.

Ultrasounds Save Lives

They are afraid that a mom might see an ultrasound of that little guy or gal, and be moved to change her mind about killing/aborting. They are afraid of that because it has happened many times. Many moms have changed their minds when seeing the little person on an ultrasound.

dailykos doesn't want "choice." They only want abortion.

When Did My Party Become the Abortion Party?

Governor Walker has a great pro-life record. That's why I voted for him, even though I have been a registered Democrat since 1969 --- the year I first became old enough to vote.

Here's a quote from the dailykos article: 
Since penetration of a woman's body without her consent is rape, and since Republican Legislatures are legalizing just that, Republican legislators should be brought up on rape charges. That includes Governor Walker, every Legislator who voted for a state mandated rape law, and every Governor who signed one into law.
Law suits need to be filed by women's groups. The American Medical Association should sign on as co-plaintiffs, refusing to be forced into being accomplices. Individuals subjected to such assaults should file class action suits.
All of us who are appalled at this twisting of our laws in order to hide Republican assaults upon our families, friends, and neighbors need to be raising our voices in righteous outrage.

This author actually wrote this with a straight face?

Of course she or he doesn't mean it. It's just pretense.

Pro-aborts love to pretend to burst with righteous indignation.

An ultrasound is a little sensor on the tummy, while you're fully clothed. (Maybe you have to pull your shirt up so the sensor can "sense" better?) I know this because I've had six kids.

I am sad to say that I have also had two abortions, may God forgive me.

(I received Absolution for these abortions, of course, before returning to the Sacraments for which I had longed so earnestly.)

Somebody on EWTN said that in the past, one could not simply receive Absolution for abortion in regular Confession. The priest had to go ask the bishop for special permission because it was rare back then --- before 1973. The penitent had to wait for that permission from the bishop.

Unfortunately, abortion is no longer that rare.

Still, I wish I could have my babies back. I think of them always, every day. I miss them. I wish I could see them again, but they are with the Lord. I was the one who sent them there prematurely.

The worst thing about an ultrasound is that it can hurt the baby's ears, I've heard. It makes a loud screech, that only the baby can hear.

(That is, of course, unless you want to promote abortion. In that case, everything about ultrasound is bad. That's why dailykos is so against it.)

I wish grievously, sadly, powerfully, that someone would have "forced" an ultrasound on me on those two dates. Because then my babies would be here with me now.

No, not "might."


One commenter posted this brilliant (NOT) insight to the article: 
" . . . I asked a close friend, who's also conservative and devoutly Catholic -- what he thought of this.  And he put it perfectly -- the way any thinking, feeling person on the Right should see it:  "Abortion is wrong.  But destroying the dignity of women doesn't make it any less wrong."
Would that all religious conservatives had that sensibility."

[NB:  Why all the labels? "Thinking?" ---- "feeling?"---- "on the Right?" ---- "conservative"?" What about the actual issue --- a baby has died, or will die in abortion? Why doesn't it make perfect sense to do as much as possible to prevent that death? ]

Abortion destroys the dignity of all involved.

Abortion destroys the life of a healthy baby.

Abortion also sometimes destroys the life of the mom, as well. (We don't really know how frequently moms are killed by abortion.)

If you don't want "penetration," don't get an abortion. Just let the little guy or gal continue to grow until she or he is ready to meet the world and continue growing in the outside world, as nature intended.

Yes, abortion IS wrong. But, just making that statement doesn't do anything or change anything. It's static.

"Abortion is wrong.  But destroying
 the dignity of 
doesn't make it any less wrong."

I find myself wondering what kind of allegedly "devoutly Catholic" person of any political stripe would or could say such a thing.

It seems to me that it is a little like saying, "Homicide is wrong. But, taking away that firearm from the potential murderer doesn't make it any less wrong. Because that firearm is her or his property, and nobody can interfere in her or his property rights."

Whether or not gun deprivation or ultrasound "makes" something "less wrong," isn't really the question, though, is it?

It PREVENTS that wrong from occurring in the first place. 

Later on, philosophers and theologians can debate on the hierarchy of wrong or harm.

Abortion is much more invasive and penetrating than any rape could ever be.

If you find yourself unexpectedly pregnant, be grateful that your body is nice and healthy. Then, start checking out all the sources of help that are out there, whether you decide to raise the little guy or gal yourself, or to look for an adoptive family.

Be sure to start with Title IV-D at your local county, if you are keeping the little guy or gal. Title IV-D is a federal program, totally free in every county of the U.S.

I will write more about Title IV-D in another post.

I Pledge to Vote for a Pro-Life Candidate for President Petition | GoPetition

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

First Birthday of Crazy Homeless Catholic Grandma

The first post on this blog happened on May 26, 2014, which happened to be Memorial Day that year.

Well, this year, Memorial Day was yesterday, May 25, 2015. I did not attend Mass at the cemetery. In fact, I did not go to Mass at all yesterday, which is ok, because it was not a Holy Day of Obligation.

Still . . .it's always good to attend Mass on any day, for any reason.

Saturday, May 23, would have been my stepdad's 89th birthday. He was a veteran of World War II.

Yesterday, May 25th, would have been Oppenheim's 59th birthday. He was the son of a Holocaust Survivor.

Thanks to all who have read my blog during its first year. I hope there will be many more, and I hope my blog has brought a few bright moments to your lives.

God bless. Thanks for reading.

It's official (according to dailykos): Pope No Longer Catholic, As Journalists Have Been Predicting!!!

Cardinal Burke

It's official:  

Pope No Longer Catholic, As Liberal Journalists Have Been Predicting!!

Wow, what  bunch of idiots at this Kos publication!!

After ridiculing Cardinal Burke for suggesting that the Holy Father is not free to change doctrine or dogma by himself, they make this claim:

"Apparently the Pope is free, at minimum, to encourage change. This is one more reason why so many free-thinkers in America, and in other countries love Pope Francis."
(Um, shouldn't there be a comma between 'countries' and 'love' --- for the appositive?)
{"free - thinkers" I love that. As long as we agree with this author, right?}

But, I keep wondering what CHANGE might that exactly BE? The change in the teaching that we should not judge another?

Or, a change in the teaching that certain acts (no matter who is engaging in them) are indeed gravely disordered?

So, that would boil down to a change in the Catechism, I think?

I need to write more about this later.


Insisting that the pope had "clearly affirmed the church's moral teaching, in accord with her unbroken tradition," Cardinal Burke blamed perceptions to the contrary on "false praise" of Pope Francis by "persons whose hearts are hardened against the truth."

Yes, that's for sure!! I mean, that's true what Cardinal Burke said. 
But, I fear that these journalists mean that as an insult, in order to ridicule Cardinal Burke. As far as the journalists are concerned, there could be no such thing as "false praise" --- or is it that no praise could be false enough for Pope Francis. He is their deliverer, who will marry gays, ordain women, "allow" abortion and birth control

Accordingly, Cardinal Burke must be the mean old wicked warlock who is taking away all their (and Francis') fun.

In October of 2014, Joseph Sciambra mentioned Cardinal Burke in his blog post, and it was a good one. He links to a very nice interview with the Cardinal.