Parents, do you know what the latency period is?

I admit that I was shocked to learn that many (most?) young and not-so-young Catholic moms in my Facebook book club were unfamiliar with what the Church calls "the latency period." We were going over the first three chapters of my book, Raising Chaste Catholic Men, and I discovered that this was a new term to most of the women who commented. I decided, and was encouraged, to put this in a blog post, so here we are!

An excerpt from Chapter Three, "When They Are Little":


Most of what you need to know about chastity and your sons’ [and daughters'] early years can be summed up in two sentences:

1.  Respect the latency period.
2.  Don’t freak out about stuff.

The latency period, or what St. John Paul II called the “years of innocence,” spans from about age 5 to puberty and is easy enough to understand. From The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality [Guidelines for Education Within the Family]:

This period of tranquility and serenity must never be disturbed by unnecessary information about sex. During those years, before any physical sexual development is evident, it is normal for the child's interests to turn to other aspects of life…. So as not to disturb this important natural phase of growth, parents will recognize that prudent formation in chaste love during this period should be indirect, in preparation for puberty, when direct information will be necessary. [#78]

Our Church tells us to respect the latency period of children, which would ideally last until the child hits adolescence; however, we live in a society that does not respect a child’s innocence. In fact, the world around us seeks to destroy innocence, by design. The educational establishment, advertisers, books, movies, television, and video games — all push to sexualize children at a young age. In fact, entities like SIECUS and Planned Parenthood, which have routine access to public schools, believe that children should be immersed in secular, relativistic sex education from birth. 

What to do when the latency period is violated? We must step in. Again, from the Church: 

A further problem arises when children receive premature sex information from the mass media or from their peers who have been led astray or received premature sex education. In this case, parents will have to begin to give carefully limited sexual information, usually to correct immoral and erroneous information or to control obscene language. [#84]

Okay, obviously there is more information from the Church about the protection of the latency period (read the entire Vatican document, as I did many years ago), but there you have it. What many moms and dads have intuited actually has a name: The latency period.

Everything in this culture wants to violate those "years of innocence," so be aware. Don't freak out, and all is not lost if your little kids are exposed to too much, too soon, but there should be a certain level of "sheltering" going on, for sure. That is part of your job as a parent.

What is your young, pre-adolescent child learning about if he is not learning about sex? Again from the Vatican document:

During those years, before any physical sexual development is evident, it is normal for the child's interests to turn to other aspects of life. The rudimentary instinctive sexuality of very small children has disappeared. Boys and girls of this age are not particularly interested in sexual problems, and they prefer to associate with children of their own sex. So as not to disturb this important natural phase of growth, parents will recognize that prudent formation in chaste love during this period should be indirect, in preparation for puberty, when direct information will be necessary. [#78]

During this stage of development, children are normally at ease with their body and its functions. They accept the need for modesty in dress and behaviour. Although they are aware of the physical differences between the two sexes, the growing child generally shows little interest in genital functions. The discovery of the wonders of creation which accompanies this phase and the experiences in this regard at home and in school should also be oriented towards the stages of catechesis and preparation for the sacraments which takes place within the ecclesial community. [#79]

As in the first years of life also during childhood, parents should encourage a spirit of collaboration, obedience, generosity and self-denial in their children, as well as a capacity for self-reflection and sublimation. In fact, a characteristic of this period of development is an attraction toward intellectual activities. Using the intellect makes it possible to acquire the strength and ability to control the surrounding situation and, before long, to control bodily instincts, so as to transform them into intellectual and rational activities. [#86]

How beautiful and amazing! Unlike what the culture tells us, not everything is about sex! And children can and should retain their innocence in their pre-pubescent years.

Imagine that.   :)

If it were your own daughter in crisis....

... what would you choose for her?


Okay, stay with me, while I draw this comparison. Really, don't go anywhere, just give me a few minutes to show you something powerful, a real study in contrasts.

In the past couple of days online, two very different models of women's healthcare kept popping up for me, and I was so viscerally struck by the colossal differences, more so than usual.

One model of women's healthcare undermines that which is uniquely woman, and will not only happily alter/derail her feminine nature and biology (in other words, her health), but will kill her unborn child in exchange for a nice wad of cash (and then some). That model is big business, and its "providers" care very little, if at all, about the women who pay for "services." This is the model that receives a half a billion dollars in taxpayer money each year, in addition to its own revenue stream from the (often poor and desperate) women who come in, and from the human body parts it sells and/or "donates" for research.

By contrast, the other model never undermines or disdains a woman's biology, but works with her body's design and nature. This model of healthcare would never harm a mother or her child -- but wants both to survive and thrive. Not only will this model of care provide help and health to the woman for free (nothing in it for them, unlike the first model), but the staff and volunteers care about the woman or girl, personally, and continue to serve her needs (including material needs), free of charge, long after the initial crisis and/or appointment is over. This is the model that some left-wing legislators, in cahoots with the abortion industry, are trying to close down and make illegal!


I didn't know which one to present you with first, the good or the bad. So, I'm going to go with the bad, so that your anger, disgust, horror, and even nausea will be soothed by the end of the post.

And so I give you, Planned Parenthood, offering services you may not have heard of....

Did you watch it all the way through? Are you physically ill?

I can only pray that you have been sufficiently horrified by what you just witnessed (which doesn't even begin to touch upon the body count at the clinics). If what you just saw isn't evil, then what on earth is?

Keep in mind that Planned Parenthood, the shameless purveyor of death and filth, is the darling of the Democratic Party and its candidates. If you needed any proof, here's Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards in the great seat of honor next to President Bill Clinton at this year's Democratic National Convention. It doesn't get much more prestigious than this:

Getty Images

The Democratic Party loves Planned Parenthood so much that it honors and defends the organization by name in its very Platform:

We will fight Republican efforts to roll back the clock on women’s health and reproductive rights, and stand up for Planned Parenthood. 

By name!

Oh, and Ms. Richards has had unfettered, revolving-door access to the current White House as well, with approximately 40 visits since Obama took office. Planned Parenthood is flush with both power and money.


Now let's turn to the hope. Let's look at the opposite of Planned Parenthood -- those organizations which are not flush with power and money but are full of real help, love, and heart -- and let's learn how women are treated in the centers and clinics set up to be a loving and humane alternative to PP.

My good friend LeeAnne wrote the following to someone online the other day, describing the care clients receive at one of our local crisis pregnancy centers, First Way:

I am currently a manager at a pregnancy center, and while we are of course going to share with clients the physical effects of abortion, contraception, etc., we spend much more time helping women (pro-life and pro-choice) get life on track if it is not. 

We work on strengthening the family structure, choosing the right fella, and addressing the issues that need support in her life: material, social, emotional, mental, familial, sometimes spiritual if she wishes. 

We spend just as much time and often more with someone whose pregnancy test is negative, as a real re-think about her goals in life can happen just then.

We stay with a pregnant mom through the pregnancy, and for a year after baby is born, then help her transition to other organizations which continue to help.

We have male counselors help guide and encourage the fathers of the babies, strengthening the families. We offer lots of help, but encourage them to step into the role of advocating and improving their situations themselves.

We have free pregnancy testing, ultrasounds, maternity clothes, and free diapers, baby clothes, and baby equipment when they come to classes on pregnancy health, parenting, and strengthening families.

We support women and men - many - who have dealt with miscarriage.

Drug rehabs bring their patients to us for support.

It just won't work to de-value the life of the mom so much that, without offering something better, we allow her to enter the ranks of the walking-wounded, the post-abortive women we talk to every day (pro-life and pro-choice) who suffer until finding a place of healing, often through groups that generously offer time to guide these women to healing.

We can't allow that to happen without doing our best to address what brought her to this place in the first place and showing her a life-affirming option.

These last 2 weeks (for some reason) I have spoken to so very many post-abortive women and heard their relentless suffering and pleas for us to tell others there is a better way. Giving her contraception will not fix the deep desires of her heart to have a healthy relationship. Helping her realize the purpose of the sexual act, the way to work with her fertility, and the goal of a strong family makes a difference. And it often works! They redeem their situations over time, and edge closer to a better life for themselves.

I just wanted to paint a landscape of what it looks like to help these moms. And we are but one organization of many, in one city; there are so many. Our clients sometimes come to us when just about to move away. So far I have never been unable to find support for a client in her new city, by starting at a pregnancy support center in the city to which she is moving.

These centers are where the beauty happens, not in the pharmacy where she gets cheap contraception or the abortion clinic that EVERY client I have spoken to explains to be a cold place, devoid of hope and help.

First Way is a great model for crisis pregnancy centers. My husband serves as a volunteer board member, and we willingly support the center financially and with material goods for the women and children and families in need, unlike our forced "support" of Planned Parenthood via our tax dollars.

Other amazing local crisis pregnancy centers in my neck of the woods are Life Choices Women's Clinic (medical clinic) in two locations plus a mobile clinic, and Aid to Women Center Pregnancy and Medical Clinic, which produced the following video with testimonials (starting at about the :40 mark) from the women helped. Note that they were treated like family, truly loved and cared for as human beings, not as a number or a means to a bottom line:

I have witnessed these stories over and over and over again. This type of care is loving, selfless, redemptive, healing, and fully human.

Mary Ann is another of my personal friends, and as the receptionist at First Way, she reports: "The girls who have come to us after Planned Parenthood repeatedly mention how nice we are, and how PP treated them badly."

Is that really a surprise?

Check the first video on this post again. Then check the edited or unedited videos from the Center For Medical Progress, which exposed barbaric, inhumane practices and the selling of human baby parts at Planned Parenthood, and which were not doctored.

Compare and contrast. In whose hands would you wish your daughter to be?

Or any human being, for that matter?

Spread the word. Support your local crisis pregnancy center. And, please, help abortion workers leave the abortion industry.

So much evil out there, but also so much good. Never stop doing the good.

Planned Parenthood video tutorials teach your teens how to negotiate sex.

PlannedParenthood.org

I wasn't going to post this because it makes me physically ill. I have ruminated on it for a couple of days and decided to go ahead, because we need to be aware of what Planned Parenthood is up to when it's not killing thousands of children a day -- namely, corrupting the rest of them.

Normally, I would embed the video right in the post so you could click it and watch immediately, but I don't want to do it. I just can't have it on my blog. So, I am simply providing a link and a warning that you will be (should be!) greatly disturbed, even as Planned Parenthood and the secular left is quite proud of these "educational videos":

New Consent Videos and Lesson Plans 

to Enhance Consent Education

These videos are important, you see, because, as we all, know, our young people "need" to have the "skills" to "communicate" and "negotiate" recreational sex. And Planned Parenthood is just the organization to do that. Thankfully they get half a billion dollars of our tax money every year to be able to put out quality material such as this! 

And please note that two out of the three examples of "enthusiastic consent" are homosexual encounters. No agenda there, of course. 

Please, any "progressives" out there reading this: Are you okay with this? And tell me, I beg you, where are we "progressing" to? 

Lord, have mercy.

Sorry, ABC: even the devil works at the service of God

St. Augustine said of evil:

God is so good that in His hand, even evil brings about good. He would never have permitted evil to occur if He had not, thanks to His perfect goodness, been able to use it.

I thought of that when I saw the description of ABC's recent episode of Scandal, which, after aggressively pushing Planned Parenthood's talking points, included this bit of depravity:

Kerry Washington's character, Olivia, who is the President's girlfriend, gets an abortion. We see the surgical instruments; we see the abortionist begin the horrific act of killing an unborn child; and, in the background, we hear “Silent Night” playing. Silent. Night.

ABC's Scandal

And apparently, later, after her womb has been violently emptied of her child, she sits by her Christmas tree while Ave Maria plays in the background.

Predictably, the accolades from the pro-abort crowd have been copious. Not only was abortion promoted, but Christianity was mocked. A two-fer!

Now. You all can imagine what I might say about the myriad ironies that abound in this episode. I could write all night long about them.

But I'm not going to even go there. What I want to do is back up and look at the big picture, which is always about salvation history and the supernatural battle.

We know that when Satan first undertakes to woo us, he comes as an angel of light. He is initially attractive. Sin is pleasurable, fun, tantalizing. Sin is seen as freedom, as liberation, as a beautiful unshackling from the burdensome, painful, heavy chains of virtue. Satan is so careful, so nuanced during the courtship; he whispers, he entices gently. He has to be subtle, or else we would never let this liar and murderer in.

Later, when we are addicted to our sin, the devil does not attempt to disguise himself any longer. He doesn't have to. He can expose evil openly, show its ugliness to our face, and we still accept it. We will even embrace it and call it good.

One Catholic friend, Nicole, put it this way, when discussing the twisted Scandal episode:

Here's how we know that the devil is behind it: the evil is getting more brazen, more egregious, more bold. And yet, more than in my lifetime, people are defending abortion, pornography, perversion, and all manner of evil. 

And another friend, Laura, responded to Nicole:

Not just defending it, they are now demanding more of it.

Who can deny it?

For undeniable confirmation of embraced evil in our midst, how about a peak into a recent conference of abortionists. You are a fly on the wall, and you get to hear how abortionists and abortion workers talk amongst themselves. The video below is half an hour out of many hours of video that a judge blocked at the behest of the abortion industry, but which was later released by a third party. Satan is not hiding here; the people who profit in abortions are very clear about what they do.

If you can't bear to watch all those horrifying hours from the conference (you can see them here), just note the frequent uproarious laughter that permeates this particular segment. And if you can't watch even this one video, go at least to the 9:27 point and you'll know all you need to know about the brazenness of the devil. No more subtlety. No nuance.

Here is the transcript of that small part:

An eyeball just fell down into my lap and that’s gross [laughter], and I say to myself, ‘This abortion is going well; it’s going safely.' [laughter, cackles, and applause]

If you watch it all, you will be left with no doubt that these people know exactly what they are doing -- forget all the euphemisms and catchy slogans. They know without a doubt that they are brutally, violently killing babies. They say it outright! And listen to the one abortionist warn about pesky hospital nurses who get upset when they see babies being killed; also how it's important to make sure that babies at the "extreme" of gestational age are not ever in a position to be "resuscitated" (translation: "sometimes the babies we're aborting have the gall to be born alive, and we can't have that"). Again, there are hours and hours of this candid, sickening talk, and this is only one conference.

All this evil is so obvious, so clear, so undeniable that anyone of goodwill will see it. Only those who have completely closed their hearts and minds, only those who are spiritually blind, will not see the ugliness and darkness here and will continue to defend it. The evil is in-your-face!

Satan is not hiding when Silent Night plays as the background to an abortion; he's openly mocking.

Satan is not hiding when abortion workers laugh and applaud the gruesome details of their trade; he is proudly showing his work.


So, let's bring it back to the opening statement by St. Augustine, and the truth that God only allows evil in order to bring about a greater good. What could God be doing here? Well, I could not begin to fathom all the good that the Lord can bring out of evil (if so, I'd be able to fully grasp the mystery of the Cross, whereby the greatest sin of all led to the greatest good of all), but I can say one thing for certain: By allowing the devil to be this brazen, this bold, this in-your-face -- in other words, by unmasking Satan -- God is making it easier and easier for us to see the difference between good and evil.

God is making things very clear.  

Praise God for the clarity! We have to choose good over evil and we need Light to see. The devil at his bloody, mocking worst -- whether manifested in slick TV shows or conferences of "medical professionals" -- does nothing more than shine a brighter spotlight on all that is Good.

What a Great and Almighty God have we, that even Satan unwittingly works at the service of His plans!

....

And... how cool that as I finish up this post, I just realized it's The Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe! More commonly known as the Feast of Christ the King, and the culminating Sunday of the liturgical year! What a glorious Feast! What a worthy, benevolent, all-powerful King!

This jovial, pretty, young Planned Parenthood abortionist is striving for intact human heads

She's truly beautiful, quite likable, charismatic, obviously with gifts that propelled her to become a medical doctor. The world was her oyster -- and she chose to be an abortionist.

But she still has "something to strive for", as she laughingly says, and one of those goals is someday to get an intact fetal head when she performs her later-term abortions. So far, darnit all, she has not been able to keep the child's head intact upon extraction.

Check out 5:07 on the video. Or better yet, watch it all. It's will take less than ten minutes of your time.

Her equally young and lovely colleague, at 7:32, exclaims that fetal hearts at 9 weeks or so are "cute"! (I can almost imagine her thinking of little dolly hearts! Miniatures! So fun to play with!) And the abortionist just "has so much respect" for "development" -- it's "amazing".

Yes, that's right: She is in awe, she is reverent, she has "so much respect" for the development of the little human beings whose lives she has just violently ended, whose growing, living bodies she has just targeted and destroyed. Their parts are "cute", their development is "amazing", but the babies themselves? Trash.

This is a glimpse into the world of cognitive dissonance.

Recently, and completely due to these horrific and damning Center for Medical Progress videos, Planned Parenthood has decided to stop receiving reimbursements for its "donation" of baby parts. Let's put aside the glaring question of why PP would stop this practice if it was doing nothing wrong in the first place, and ask: Is this concession enough to justify continued taxpayer funding of PP? To the tune of half a billion dollars a year?

I mean, I get that PP is no longer selling body parts like a baby chop shop, but when young doctors are still striving for intact human heads from their victims, don't we still have a huge problem here?

Blown away: Our Lady hidden for decades in a Phoenix Planned Parenthood abortion clinic!

WOW, WOW, WOW! Sometimes the signs from Heaven are unmistakable.

This story happened locally, here in Phoenix, and involved my personal friends. It blew me away, and I know you will be amazed as well at the beauty and power of God's Providence!

I will let my dear friend Christine Accurso, the Executive Director of First Way Pregnancy Center, tell the story that she first told us at First Way's recent fundraising gala:



In the Spring of this year, Planned Parenthood Arizona announced that they were going to close their state headquarters (of almost 30 years) and move less than a mile from us at First Way Pregnancy Center. They did in fact sell their old building on 7th Street to a new owner, purchased a new building less than a mile from our center, and opened it over the summer. The new owner of the 7th Street building decided to demolish the existing building.

On April 15, 2015, the building went down, and I stood across the street with two women who had had abortions in that very building, many years before. Watching the building be turned into a pile of rubble was a healing moment for both of these women. It was a powerful experience to stand silently with them as the building disappeared.

Before it was torn down, a demolition company was hired to clear out the building. In the process of clearing it out, they made a surprising discovery in the janitorial closet, where the mop buckets and cleaning supplies were housed. One of the wooden floor panels was turned over, and on the backside, face-down, was a huge image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. It surprised the crew, and when they found it, one of the workers called me. I had never met this man before, but he is pro-life and knew that our pro-life pregnancy center was just a few miles away. He explained to me what he had found, and he brought it over to us.

Christine Accurso tells the incredible story, with Bishop Olmsted looking on. 

It really is amazing to think about all the possibilities of how this image got there. We will probably never know the whole story, this side of heaven.

I immediately called Bishop Olmsted when I learned of this discovery. I brought the image to the Bishop, he gave it a special blessing, and he began to recall the special significance of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Mary is mother of God, and Our Lady of Guadalupe’s specific patronage has been dedicated to the unborn. She is even depicted with a ribbon around her womb because in this image, she is pregnant with Jesus.

I kept thinking, what in the world was this precious image of such a holy woman doing inside of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic? I’m not exactly sure, but I do know that my confidence in all of heaven “having our back” in this important fight for life, has been absolutely strengthened.

We are grateful to the man who brought it to us, who wishes to remain anonymous. This beautiful discovery has brought joy to our staff, volunteers, and donors. This special piece of flooring (from Planned Parenthood, no less) now hangs in the chapel at First Way Pregnancy Center here in Phoenix, Arizona.



Thank you, Christine! I am just in awe, thinking of the Blessed Mother -- Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the unborn -- dwelling there in that killing place, never far from her children. Praise God!




First Way Pregnancy Center is a 501(c)(3) non-profit that provides free resources which support life affirming choices. This is accomplished through a loving and non-judgmental approach with peer counseling, education and practical services [and they even have a thriving men's program and peer counseling for the fathers of the babies, which has been enormously successful!].  www.1stway.net

Ninth and tenth undercover Planned Parenthood videos, and thoughts on sex as idol

As you watch the ninth and tenths videos (no graphic images, just the banality of evil amid laughter), I wonder if you feel as I do: These women have lost touch with their own humanity. 

Let's begin with the tenth video, where PP execs talk openly about "generating a fair amount of income" from baby parts trafficking and another speaks of not wanting to be "bullied by the ridiculous laws" on the books, that PP "should not curtail our business for ridiculousness". This is the same Planned Parenthood that gets -- and feels righteously entitled to! -- half a billion taxpayer dollars a year. And, note the executive caught in a lie (start around 9:40) regarding PP's routine altering of abortion procedures to obtain better, more intact body parts (which is illegal).

If you are a Planned Parenthood or abortion supporter, watch what you are supporting, and shame on you if you do not watch it all:

And back to video #9, which should shock the conscience, assuming the conscience is still alive:

From fetal organs procurement manager, Perrin Larton, at 4:50 on the video:

"...the whole point is not to have a live birth" (Oh, really? How good of you to have a goal of a dead baby before delivery!), but sometimes, especially if the mother has had many previous children, the baby "just falls out" (alive! whoops! But hey, they actually get an "intact specimen" that way. Score!)

And when she talks about the babies' body parts, I wonder at the irony. For example, at 6:12, we hear that "...a lot of times the [baby's] abdomen presents first and they [the abortionists] just go in and start pulling" and rip apart the baby's liver. That really "pisses off" this laughing lady, who is looking to procure good smooth baby livers, darnit!

I find myself thinking, "But, she has her abdomen, her liver, her head and her limbs. She has them all intact. She got to stay alive and keep her body parts. She's strong and has a voice, so she has her life and her limbs. The unborn are weak and voiceless, so they get to have their body parts pulled and ripped and sold for scrap.

The irony, the irony of all these embodied women, going through the decades with all their parts, all intact from head to toe, growing up and growing old, living valuable lives, being worthy and important and untouchable. Protected by law.

Laughing and chatting about the other ones -- the ones they kill and package and sell.

But that abdomen, that liver, that body belonged to someone. And you had no right to touch it. You had no right to harm the integrity of that human being. Human, just like you.

The ABR procurement manager, by appearances, seems like such a nice lady. Someone's mom or grandma. I can picture her at a PTA meeting, a band concert, a church function. She could be a kindergarten teacher. And yet, she is in the business of trafficking human baby parts. Surreal.

And yet, sin blinds us as well as binds us.

I was thinking about our idols in this nation and the western world in general. 

What was it, exactly, that trumped the fundamental right to life itself? 

Sexual license.

What was it, exactly, that first weakened marriage and then ultimately led to its un-defining? 

Sexual license.

What is it that is threatening religious liberty more and more each day? 

Sexual license. 

How sad that the idolization of sexual pleasure has trumped the most fundamental of human rights (life and religious liberty), and dismantled society's fundamental building block (marriage). Sexual pleasure has become the most important good on the face of the planet for those who have or know nothing more, nothing higher. Sex is the idol. We kill for it (abortion, sex trafficking) and we die for it (AIDS, disease).

We take sexual pleasure out of its proper and sublime context and we put it above every other good, including human life itself, which is the very fruit of human sexuality and the communion of persons. 

And then we find ourselves having lost our own humanity. If you still don't believe me, then you have not watched the videos, or you have become terrifyingly blinded by sin. 

It is never too late to turn around.

If you still support Planned Parenthood, turn around. 

The 8th undercover video with transcript, plus some hope

The judge's restraining order was recently dissolved, and Center for Medical Progress was allowed to release the StemExpress undercover video. There are no gruesome shots of tiny victims in this latest video, but the horror is still all there:

Partial transcript of the video:


1) StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer admits that StemExpress gets intact fetuses from the abortion clinics they work with shipped to their laboratory. “Case” is the clinical term for an individual abortion (cross reference with Planned Parenthood Senior Director of Medical Services Dr.  Deborah Nucatola’s discussion of “this case, that case” in lunch video), so an “intact case” means an “intact abortion.”:

SE: Realistically, if we were to do an agreement with you, what do we think you could get?
Buyer: Volume-wise?
SE: On specifically liver tissue, because that’s such an area of demand for us.
Buyer: So liver, and what about intact specimens, just—?
SE: Oh, yeah, I mean if you had intact cases, which we’ve done a lot, we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety.
Buyer: Okay.
SE: So that would also be great if you guys have those.
Buyer: The entire case.
SE: Yeah, yeah. Because it’s just, and the procurement for us, I mean it can go really sideways, depending on the facility, and then our samples are destroyed, and we’re like, “Really?” This was all so much work, and then just to have them be destroyed is awful. I mean we have researchers wait forever, and they want certain things, you know, perfectly done, so we started bringing them back even to manage it from a procurement expert standpoint.

2) Cate Dyer says that some of the abortion clinics StemExpress works with have unsanitary conditions:

SE: We’ll do testing on our side, so we’ll be able to see, you know. And sometimes we’ll find that it can be clinic-specific. I’ve seen really rampant, rampant problems with bacteria in certain clinics. [laughter] Some where you’re kind of in question of should they really, you know, [laughing]
Buyer: Right.
SE: I’ve seen staph come out of clinics.
Buyer: Wow.
SE: So, I mean, I’ve seen all sorts of things come out of clinics, so.

3) Cate Dyer estimates StemExpress is working with nearly 100 abortion clinics nationwide, and still can’t get enough fetal liver:

Buyer: What would make your lab happy? What would make your lab happy?
SE: Another fifty livers a week.
Buyer: Ok, so you can handle that?
SE: Yea. Just so you guys know, on the collection side for us, we’re also- as you see Megan out there in the clinic, we’re working with almost triple digit number clinics. So, it’s a lot on volume a little more than what we do. It’s a lot. So, I don’t think you’ll hit a capacity with us anytime in the next ten years. I think you’ll feel solid with that standpoint. So, I think, with that you’ll feel like doing an agreement with us. It will be consistent growth and our growth has been consistent, and it’s going to continue to grow from that standpoint.


4) Cate Dyer laughs and jokes about researchers being squeamish about receiving baby parts in the mail:

SE: As you probably know, one of the issues with neural tissue, it’s so fragile. It’s insanely fragile. And I don’t even know—I was gonna say, I know we get requests for neural, it’s the hardest thing in the world to ship.
Buyer: You do it as the whole calvarium.
SE: Yeah, that’s the easiest way. And we’ve actually had good success with that.
Buyer: Make sure the eyes are closed!
SE: Yeah! [laughter] Tell the lab it’s coming!
Buyer: Yeah.
SE: They’ll open the box, go, ”Oh God!” [laughter] So yeah, so many of the academic labs cannot fly like that, they’re not capable.
Buyer: Why is that? I don’t understand that.
SE: It’s almost like they don’t want to know where it comes from. I can see that. Where they’re like, “We need limbs, but no hands and feet need to be attached.” And you’re like, ? Or they want long bones, and they want you to take it all off, like, make it so that we don’t know what it is.
Buyer: Bone the chicken for me and then we’ll—
SE: That’s it.
Buyer: And then I’ll eat it, but.
SE: But we know what it is. I mean, [laughter], but their lab.
Buyer: But then it goes to that whole stigma.
SE: Oh yeah. And their lab techs freak out, and have meltdowns, and so it’s just like, yeah. I think, quite frankly, that’s why a lot of researchers ultimately, some of them  want to get into other things. They want to look at bone marrow, they want to look at adipose- sort of adult human, kind of adult based sampling. They want to avoid publishing a paper that says it was derived from fetal tissue.

5) Cate Dyer says StemExpress has a good relationship with Planned Parenthood leadership:

Buyer: Do you feel that support from Cecile [Richards] and from Deborah [Nucatola]?
SE: Yea, oh yea. You know, everyone at PPFA. I just think that you’re in the cause or you’re not. If you’re not in the cause, they don’t need you around. They need champions and if you’re not a champion, then you should go.  That’s just- I don’t know, the clinics are very guarded, as they should be. Who do they let in their house, they let champions in their house. Right? I think it’s that same concept and ABR has just never understood that.

6) Cate Dyer believes the breakdown of how many independent vs. Planned Parenthood clinics that StemExpress is working with could be split about 50-50:

Buyer: Are you seeing any trends between the independents versus Planned Parenthoods? Your breakdown right now, are things split pretty fifty-fifty?
SE: I think it probably is. I don’t know- it is different. I don’t think that one has more pro’s or con’s than the other. I mean, Planned Parenthood has volume, because they are a volume institution.

++++++++

Please, pray for Cate Dyer. I can't imagine her feelings at watching herself saying such terrible, horrible things. It must be an out-of-body experience. It must produce a sort of self-loathing (or else a rage and denial) that we cannot even begin to understand. She is a child of God. She deserves His mercy. She can turn from this evil. Please pray.

And if you need some hope in all this ugliness, here you go, from a former Planned Parenthood counselor:

My front-line report: At the Planned Parenthood protest!

*On Saturday, August 22, 2015, the Respect Life Committee of St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church (my own parish!) hosted one of hundreds of nationwide protests against Planned Parenthood, calling for an end to its federal funding. 



When my friends and I arrived at Planned Parenthood's Arizona headquarters in Phoenix, there were already plenty of people gathered on both sides. Planned Parenthood had closed all its clinics in town today, in anticipation of the protests, and directed its supporters to this location. So right off the bat, we can thank God that there were no abortions performed at Arizona PP clinics today. And we can also be proud that thousands turned out to all the locations in the state, positively dwarfing the number of PP supporters who showed up -- though I will concede that they had the better, louder sound system. 

There was the weird symbolism of the Planned Parenthood counter-rally being staged within the parking garage, which gave the appearance from the outside that they were in a cage, in the dark. Their loudspeaker was booming and there was plenty of cheering as the speakers (employees, volunteers, at least one doctor) spoke to the group. Never once did I hear mention of the undercover videos or the baby organ harvesting or the national scandal, and never once did it appear that anyone there had any clue why we were protesting on this particular day. There was only talk of the "good work" that Planned Parenthood accomplishes in the lives of women, and a defense of people's "freedom" to control their own bodies and the size of their families.

This was the scene when we first walked up. The PP gathering was nearing an end, and ours was soon to begin. 

The pro-life crowd you see here was not the main group; that gathering was down the sidewalk and around the corner, where we eventually planted ourselves.  

As their speakers finished, we realized that the main pro-life gathering was around the corner on the adjacent street, so we made our way over. While most of the pro-life crowd looked on toward the guest speakers which left their backs to the building, I was fascinated by the (ever-dwindling) group of Planned Parenthood supporters and kept facing their way. They stood under the garage roof holding signs while their loudspeakers blared some tunes. Because their system was so loud, I pretty much missed all of the wonderful pro-life speakers, but was able to observe the pro-"choicers" as they observed us. One elderly man quietly held a sign that said: "Another Father Supporting PP". Clearly it was personal, and it made me sad, wondering what abortions he had supported in the past. There was the smiling, pretty blonde who held up a vulgar poster festooned with a colorful representation of her vagina, labeled "mine". What could bring a women to be so proud of such a display? Wounds, I kept thinking. These people are so wounded. Another woman held a sign with a vulgarity that I won't repeat, but thankfully, there were only two lewd signs in the bunch. 

One PP supporter held her sweet baby girl, about a year old, and the friends around me got that little one to wave at us. She was adorable, and I prayed for her, that she might grow up to be a strong pro-life warrior some day, as so many of the friends around me had -- even those raised to be staunchly pro-abortion, even those with abortions in their own pasts. 

Then there was the uncomfortable-looking young man (dragged there by his girlfriend, perhaps?) who awkwardly held a "REAL MEN STAND WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD" sign. He was putting on a good face, but to my friends and I, he was unconvincing. A pro-life man started challenging him in a loud voice across the concrete, "Real men don't kill babies, they protect their women and their children! That's what real men do!" Over and over, he called the young man out, while the young man looked away or down. On the one hand, the pro-life man was right to challenge this other man to authentic masculinity, and to the protection of women and children which exists in a man's DNA. But his emotions pushed him too far, and it eventually denigrated into a berating of the younger man. People, this is not necessary! We must not scream or berate or spew ugliness, no matter how much evil exists in front of our eyes. There is enough ugliness, darkness, and violence within the walls of a Planned Parenthood, and we do not do our cause any good by adding to it from the outside.  

As I looked, not with hatred or fear, at the faces across the concrete, I wondered about each one, praying as I wondered: How did they get to a place in their lives that would put them here, defending an organization that is responsible for so much death, so many innocent lives lost, and now exposed to all as butchers, selling the prime cuts of human organs to a willing research market? How did they get to a place of defending the indefensible? Again, I thought of the wounds that must have brought them here.

I held my sign aloft ("Planned Parenthood LIES to you") and looked pleasantly at the PP supporters, even swaying along to the cool tunes blasting out of their speakers. I swung my sign back and forth to the beat, and occasionally pointed to the words. I received some befuddled smirks. I kept wondering: Have any of you even watched the videos? Sitting over to the right, on the stairwell were some grim looking abortion advocates, watching us with flat affect. Meanwhile, the road in front of them was filling up with what was ultimately estimated to be 1,200 to 1,600 pro-lifers (with several thousand more at other Phoenix-area PP locations). 

I couldn't see above the crowd to observe how far it reached, so I just turned my attention back to the Planned Parenthood supporters. There was a city official, a news crew, and police officers standing and patrolling between the two sides, and the music was so loud in the clinic garage that it was not really feasible to initiate a conversation. I never felt unsafe, not for a moment, which was nice, because I hadn't known what to expect.

My 360° view of the gathering. I couldn't see most of our own people, so I concentrated on the pro-"choice" group, who looked visually "caged" to me, even the folks on the stairwell. Two of their signs were overtly vulgar, but thankfully the rest were not obscene, unless you count the "Pro-choice CATHOLIC! I'll pray for YOU" sign. That was the saddest of all.

I was blessed to be in a rare patch of shade, so I lifted my sunglasses and started to look directly into the eyes of my "opponents". I felt concern, sadness, incredulity, maternal care, and utter confidence as I searched their eyes for any signs of ... what? I don't know, but I kept searching. I looked into the eyes of successive PP supporters and smiled at them. Each one of them met my gaze for about one second, then quickly looked away. Every time. It almost became a game to me. Will the next one look away as soon as I catch his or her eye? Yup. It was uncanny! 

Finally I came to an older man standing quietly to the side:

There he is! My new friend, to the right.

His face was kind, and I could see his friendly blue eyes clearly, even from so far away. I looked at him with a smile, and he was the first to hold my gaze. He smiled back at me politely and didn't look away. I decided to ask him the burning question. I yelled out above the music and the pro-life speakers (whom I could barely hear): "Did you watch the videos?!" He mouthed something back, but I did not understand. My friends and I started to yell together, in hopes he could hear: "Did you watch the videos?!" Still he could not hear us, and we both chuckled our frustration and tried again. Nope. My friend Alishia turned to me and said, "Give me your sign! Do you have a pen?" Brilliant! I dug a pen out of my purse and she began to write, big and bold enough for him to see it. I smiled back at him while I waited, and then looked at the woman with the "Medical Students for Choice" sign. I smiled at her and shouted: "My son is a medical student!" She smiled back, and I said, "He's pro-life!" I wish I could have talked more to her. I just envision her ending up as an abortionist, and my heart breaks. Abortion is not healthcare, my dear, because killing is not healing. Don't waste or pervert your degree! Do good! Be a healer! Do no harm!

Alishia completed the sign, I held it up for the man I had engaged, and I pointed to the words: "Did you watch the videos?" He shook his head no. He had not. I wonder now if he even knew, or if any of them knew, what the videos are? I turned to the others across the way who were looking on with amusement at this unexpected and friendly interaction between sides, and I pointed to the sign and asked the same question: "Did you watch the videos?" One woman nodded yes, and I nodded back, smiled and gave her a big thumbs up. At least she had bothered to watch. At least she knew what heinousness she was defending. 

Alishia's awesome, hastily made sign.

I felt we had really made a connection with that nice man, so Alishia whipped up a second sign that said, "Come talk!" and he agreed! We made our way to the side of the building where he met us just outside the garage. We shook hands and introduced ourselves, he on his side of the caution tape, I on mine, police nearby. We joked that neither of us was dangerous, and then I asked him why he was here. And for the first few minutes, I simply listened attentively, without interrupting. Most of his initial explanation was that he truly believes that "a woman has the right to choose to do what she wants with her own body", and he wants to support that "right".

He had a very kind and gentle demeanor, very open and sincere. We talked for 45 minutes, and for most of the conversation he even moved out of the taped off area and into the middle of the "pro-life sidewalk". I was vaguely aware that there were some curious pro-lifers listening as best they could, and some people were taking pictures, but for my part, I was truly engrossed in our conversation. I will not divulge anything he said to me of a personal nature, of course. Aside from the personal, we spoke of science and religion, of fetal development, of integrity and principles.

I was able to ask the questions I have asked on this blog, and I was hopeful to get answers. For example, when we were talking about the humanity of the unborn, he was not convinced that a pre-viable baby was a baby at all. I asked him if he had ever been conceived. I looked at him and he looked at me. No answer. I asked again. He didn't know what to say. To spare the awkward silence, I told him that, well, I had been conceived, and reemphasized: "I was conceived in my mother's womb, and I even know where I was conceived! TMI, I know!" So I asked him again, and he joked by saying, "I wasn't conceived..." and pointed to the sky, and Alishia said, "The stork brought you!" He laughed and agreed.

I still hope someone will answer that question for me one day.

He brought up Richard Dawkins (whom he admires) and I brought up Peter Singer (whom he hadn't heard of), and I challenged him on both a personal level and a scientific one. When he gently suggested that my views on abortion were merely religion-based, I reminded him that I was using only secular arguments and science, and I informed him of secularprolife.org. When I told him that the "ends don't justify the means" (we don't do bad things in order to bring about a good) is a principle for both religious and non-religious, he disagreed. So I asked him: "When your children wanted to get into a good college, did you tell them it was okay for them to lie and cheat to get there?" Of course not, he concurred. So, I repeated, we don't do bad things in order to achieve a good end. He agreed that this was a "general, broad principle" with which he agreed, but somehow it didn't apply to killing innocent children in the womb.

When he spoke of drone strikes and we discussed war and bombs, I assured him that I don't believe in targeting and killing anyone, especially the innocent. And even the guilty must not be killed unless we are acting in proportionate self-defense, or battling an armed combatant in a just war. I hope he apprehended the consistency of my views, which of course are the Catholic Church's views, reflecting natural law -- i.e., the moral law, accessible by the use of human reason alone.

When I or one of my friends gave him a fact about Planned Parenthood's profits or their practices or their callous mindset, he admitted that he was "cynical" about our claims. That's okay, we said, look it all up for yourself. It's all there, nothing hidden. You don't have to take our word for it.

We talked about much, much more in that 45 minutes, and others came in and out of the conversation (including my friends Mary and Bridget, and a pro-life man holding a sign listing the price of baby parts, a sign which my new friend took great offense to), and I gave him my email and blog info, which he took. We left without coming to an agreement, but we are not enemies.

It was a good day.

Another Planned Parenthood video for abortion supporters to ignore.

WARNING: Graphic!! If you are vocally, publicly pro-life, you don't have a moral obligation to read or watch further, but if you support Planned Parenthood and legal abortion, you had better understand what you are supporting. Don't look away.

In the latest Planned Parenthood exposé we learn that live babies, with hearts still beating, have their faces cut open with scissors so that their brains can be harvested for research. This, in what we consider a civilized society. 

Some abortion supporters have lately begun to rethink their position, usually because they are humble and honest enough to watch the videos and testimony. Their consciences are sputtering back into life, awakening, and that is reason enough to keep shining the light on these evil deeds.

Of course, not all abortion supporters are moved by the horrors of seeing small bodies, dismembered, piled upon their own entrails and laughed at. We had Alyssa say the following after finally agreeing to watch video #5, where a little boy lay desecrated in full view:

"As I watched the video, I was actually pretty underwhelmed by it--not because I don't understand how some might be alarmed or disgusted by the subject matter (I do), but because the videos have been hyped as SO DISTURBING AND GRAPHIC AND OUT OF LINE that I was a little surprised to find that, when it comes down to it, this was a medical professional discussing candidly (and not at all cruelly) a procedure and medical research.... I admit that shots of the aborted parts weren't the most pleasant to view, but that doesn't change my opinion about how the laws should serve their people."

I don't expect someone like Alyssa to be moved by the latest video, either. After all, cutting open a child's face while his heart is still beating is just "a procedure". It's just "medical research". It's not so disturbing and out of line as we pro-lifers insist, it's simply "not the most pleasant".

Indeed.

But at least Alyssa actually conceded to watch one of the videos, unlike many abortion advocates who have doubled down on their support for Planned Parenthood after refusing to watch the ever-more ghoulish and heartbreaking recordings of what goes on in those dark pits of hell.

Let us watch the latest video released by the Center for Medical Progress, below. It's not long; surely you have a few minutes. Then, I have a request.

Okay, my request is that I want to hear from my pro-life readers about how their pro-abortion friends and relatives have reacted to this scandal. Have they watched the videos? Have they refused outright? Have they gone even further than Planned Parenthood has and claimed that these babies' broken bodies are "doll parts" or "photoshopped"? Remember, all Planned Parenthood can say is that the videos are "deceptive" (but in what way?) or "heavily edited" (well, like any news story or clip, whittled down from hours of footage; the full videos are available to all). Planned Parenthood cannot and does not deny that the film, words, people, and images are authentic -- because they are authentic. So, why are some of PP's supporters saying things that even PP is not saying? Let me know what you are hearing.

I also want to hear from my pro-"choice" readers. So far I have only heard from two. One ("CS"/"Emily Rogers") was indeed disturbed by video #5 but still wants abortion to be legal; the other was Alyssa, and you've read her comment above.

I get that we are seeing the avenging conscience at work, and that there is no new sin (and no "moral evolution" as secularists tend to believe), but part of me still cannot believe that humans are so bored and complacent about this level of evil, even when it's right in their own neighborhoods and right in front of their eyes. They just yawn and keep going. 

As for our "leaders", those US Senators who receive LARGE campaign donations from Planned Parenthood have voted to keep funding Planned Parenthood baby chop shops to the tune of half a billion of our tax dollars a year. However, some courageous governors and state legislators have moved to defund PP on a state level, which is heartening!

But the best thing I've seen so far is from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal:

Isn't that incredible?? 

And isn't it sad that we consider this man courageous (and he is!) simply for making Planned Parenthood fawners look and see what they reflexively, sycophantly support, instead of allowing them to close their eyes while spouting PP talking points?

Knowing the truth, seeing the truth, not running from the truth but facing it head on: This is honesty, this is integrity, this is maturity. This is what will set us free. 

UPDATE: A judge has dissolved the temporary restraining order against CMP's release of the StemExpress undercover videos. A victory for free speech and truth!

Abortion dialogue: Where Alyssa went wrong

I promise, I am not trying to pick on Alyssa. But she is representative, so I am going to use her as an example of what frustrates me and others as we attempt to have a pseudo-socratic dialogue about abortion. 

If you missed the discussion (or if you want the unedited, unfiltered conversation to compare to my summary here), read the comments on the last post.

[Alyssa's words here are in red.]

Essentially, Alyssa knew that we would challenge her ideas, and then she asked, quite reasonably:

Any chance you'd be willing to have your ideas similarly challenged?

Yes. Absolutely. Challenge us with some questions. Make your case that the unborn are not human beings and/or not deserving of the right to live.

But none of that happened as far as I can tell. 

What I believe happened is that we got a lot of pro-"choice" talking points, sort of removed from anything we were actually saying. For example, Alyssa started by asserting that, although science and morality were considerations in law,

...the overarching point of a law is to maintain and protect peace and cooperation within a group.

JoAnna pointed out the massive (and obvious!) flaw in that view by pointing out that, by that logic,

...both the Holocaust and slavery were just. The Holocaust "maintained and protected peace and cooperation within" German society. Slavery "maintained and protected peace and cooperation within" the South. 

This legitimate point (which shows the logical consequences of Alyssa's premise) was answered by Alyssa with sarcasm. 

No real discussion of the implications of Alyssa's premise was ever undertaken. 

In fact, when JoAnna and jrfjosh both posited Natural Law as the basis for just law, Alyssa dismissed it:

You bring up a very tired, fallacious argument. By that incredibly useless token, I bet you agreed with how England was run in the Dark Ages because they were all about "natural and moral law".

When jrfjosh discussed Martin Luther King, Jr.'s position on just and unjust laws based on Natural Law, Alyssa said:

I also agree with MLK that we should be enforcing and following just laws.

... but she did not address the fact that MLK's entire basis for determining just vs. unjust law is based on the natural and moral law!* So how could she agree with MLK, when she had already rejected the very premise of his argument? She did not follow up on that when asked to clarify.

Alyssa had a standard narrative about Catholic pro-lifers when discussing our (supposed) approach to the law:

You're working from a flawed premise (that your Catholic faith and values should dictate not only the behavior of others, but the laws of a diverse and secular nation), so the logic that proceeds from it doesn't wash.

She tried to claim, more than once, that we were using a "because my God said so" foundation for our position.

And she was corrected more than once. She was told that we Catholics, in fact, do not work from that premise and we never have. Nubby put it to her clearly:

Alyssa: No one—Not a person—here has ever “proceeded from a religious foundation” as pertains to law...

...We never say, “Because God said so.” We go about 10 steps previous to that.

...We back track and start at the same “zero” as any secularist. So bring it. All day. Bring it. Let's reason forward. Catholics actually propelled that kind of thinking.

And yet Alyssa says again later:

The issue I take--particularly on a blog so focused on doctrine--is that there is no other reference point. Everything can be explained or justified by the doctrine. And that is a closely-held Catholic belief, and I respect and appreciate it. But that can't be a factor in deciding laws.

(Cue every Catholic on the board pulling out his/her hair.)

Alyssa expressed a desire for our enlightenment on the issue of abortion (emphasis mine):

I'm introducing an alternative premise--one that aligns more closely with how the majority thinks in order to inspire a little understanding.

There is a bizarre, inexplicable implication that we pro-life Catholics do not know about any "alternate premise" -- that we somehow need to be inspired to understand the popular opinion about abortion in America.

And just what are we supposed to be "inspired" to "understand"? What "alternative premise" is Alyssa "introducing"?

Nothing other than the same, tired pro-"choice" talking points that we have heard for over 40 years. They are hardly inspired, and often they are ideas that many of the pro-life commenters on this blog once held themselves, in their pro-"choice" pasts. 

In her words:

The fundamental difference in our arguments is that you believe that a sperm and egg have human dignity and rights from the moment they meet. I disagree with that, so we can't meet from the same premise. All we can do is reason from our own. If it helps, your logic is sound if we're in agreement that a fertilized egg has equivalent dignity to the woman carrying it. However, we're not. My logic can't justify your premise and vice-versa. It's a circular argument.

But it's not circular. It's linear. First, we must know the facts before we can embrace our values and positions. First, we must establish if the unborn is a human being. Thankfully, that doesn't take long. Science says "yes" (read here for quote after quote from science textbooks). Objective truth: A new human being is begun at conception/fertilization. 

"Reasoning from our own premise" is not "all we can do" if we have not backed up and examined our premise in the first place. If the premise is flawed or subjective, then we must not base life or death decisions upon it. Back up and examine the premise. Alyssa, we ask you to meet us there! 

But she wouldn't.

In fact, she skipped the science and went to the metaphysical:

That [when a "cluster of cells" becomes a "person"] is not something science can measure, and therefore can't comment on.

and

...science can't even agree when "human life"--a nonscientific concept that implies an emotional/spiritual element---begins

And yet science can and does comment on when a new human comes into existence. Unfortunately, Alyssa breezily bypasses the objective, scientific facts, and uses only subjective premises to justify the killing of the unborn:

I would prefer to live in a world where women have the choice.

^ Subjective.

[I disagree] that a sperm and egg have human dignity and rights from the moment they meet.

^ Subjective. (And note carefully the wording she uses.)

Regarding the difference between a "premature baby chopped into pieces" versus an abortion: you're overlooking an essential piece of the equation, and that is the woman's consent. That is what makes these situations unequal and a poor comparison.

^ Subjective.

[It's about the] JUSTICE of a woman being able to make her own decisions about her own body.

^ Subjective.

...at the end of the day it's up to the lawmakers to make the decision that will best ensure peace and cooperation in this nation. 

^ Subjective.

And then there was this:

No one here is willing to allow that there is a REASON that people are supportive of legal abortion.

I had to re-read the sentence the first time I encountered it, because it's so obviously silly. In fact, the opposite is true. Everyone here is willing to allow that there is a REASON that people support legal abortion. Who would ever think otherwise? Isn't that a given? Even my grade schoolers know that people have REASONS for doing bad things. That is as true as it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Trying to get to the meat of things, we left copious questions, all linear, for Alyssa to engage.

From Nubby:

Your idea of law “maintaining and protecting peace” without a moral or scientific basis actually falls completely on its face when you look at Roe v. Wade and the very first two unalienable rights [life and liberty] listed in the Declaration while simultaneously looking at the Court's reasoning in the decision and how it came down. 

Do you see the ordering of those rights? 

Do you know those are ordered that way on purpose? 

Do you see how RvW never should’ve tampered with that ordering?

Do you realize those rights were never voted upon by any judiciary, but merely acknowledged and respected by the founders? 

Do you know what the judicial opinions were? Have you read the critiques?

Where do you think those unalienable rights came from? A vote? 

From JoAnna:

So basically, you're saying that the unborn are human beings (scientifically), but not all human beings are persons based on some random, arbitrary criteria. How is this any different than slaveowners deciding that human beings with black skin weren't persons? Or Hitler deciding that Jewish human beings weren't persons? 

What is your arbitrary criteria for why only some human beings are persons, and others are not?

And later, when JoAnna tried patiently, methodically, to go with Alyssa's own terms and get to a conclusion...

Can you agree with me that a "person" is "a human being who is entitled to basic human rights"? Is that a fair definition?

...she got this in response from Alyssa:

JoAnna, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. I think you know exactly what I mean, and I choose to end this nitpicky sidebar here.

Effectively shutting the dialogue down.

From me:

So, you say you agree with MLK that we should not follow unjust laws, but you leave off the part where he explains what that means. How do we determine which laws are just or unjust?

Do you think it's okay for some human beings to determine the humanity of others? I mean, it's common, yes. Not just in abortion, but in all history, in many cultures. But do you think that is how we determine a person's humanity? By others' judgement?

Can you name for me any law that is not based on someone's moral judgement? Isn't all law legislated morality? If not, how so? I don't see it. 

What is the source of morality? Not "how do we determine it", but what is its source? Or, another way to put it, what is the source of moral truth? If you say "self" or "societal norms", then you are saying it's subjective. And if so, does that mean you do not believe in objective moral truth?

My question to you (and it's just a logical question, looking for a logical response): Were you ever conceived? I can't get abortion-rights folks to answer. 

And so.many.other questions left unanswered. 

None of these questions was circular. All were socratic, designed to get us from Point A in the discussion to Point B, so that we could come to logical conclusions. Alyssa would not answer, would not follow the discussion forward.

So again, here is Point A on abortion:

Are the unborn human beings?

Because if they are not human beings, then I am in agreement with Alyssa that we may kill them at will. 

But if they are human beings (or if there is even the slightest chance that they are human beings), we must put on the brakes, because we all know and understand that it is wrong deliberately to take innocent human life.

The problem is that Alyssa wants to skip or dismiss the premise question altogether and go straight to explaining "why we may kill it", before determining what "it" is!

And yet she said:

I'm already exhausted by the way these goalposts keep moving and from all the words being shoveled into my mouth. 

The idea that she thought we were moving the goalposts when we were just begging her to focus on them was perplexing enough, but just when we should have been getting to the heart of the discussion, she abruptly ended:

I've said all I can say here, because diametrically-opposed premises (and about eight different logical fallacies--look up "strawman" and "appeal to emotion" specifically) are driving us around in circles. All I can say is that abortion has been part of women's reproductive lives for thousands of years, and isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Give me a clean, safe doctor's office over a wire hanger any day.

I doubt I'll be back, but thanks for the exercise.

(And she included a link to logical fallacies.)

It's so predictable, and it frustrates me. 

Again, this is not unique to Alyssa (who I would welcome back here in a heartbeat). It's almost universal among those who defend abortion. I wish abortion advocates would just come out and say that their criteria for killing the unborn are subjective and arbitrary. Why are they ashamed of just saying it? Why not just admit, "Yes, science tells us it's a human being, but I'm okay with some human beings killing other human beings, even human beings who are innocent and weaker than we are, and who cannot fight back." Just say it. I wish abortion advocates would take their cues from the likes of Peter Singer, because although I despise his beliefs, he speaks with clarity and consistency and cold logic, and we can all see exactly where we stand. 

And while I've got you, here's a great little science primer on the beginning of human life, with a quote from Peter Singer included:

** [T]here are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

-- Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter From a Birmingham Jail"