Friday, July 17, 2015

Whereas Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards throws one of her best abortionists/organ harvesters under the bus

So, first we had Dr. Deborah Nucatola, abortionist and senior director of medical services for Planned Parenthood, sipping wine over lunch as she describes how she harvests the organs of the babies she aborts:

If you can't stomach the video, here's a little taste of what Nucatola describes to the undercover actors posing as organ brokers, when they ask her how she decides which body parts to harvest:

Nucatola: You know I asked her at the beginning of the day what she wanted, yesterday she wanted, she’s been asking, a lot of people want intact hearts these days, they’re looking for specific nodes. AV nodes, yesterday I was like wow, I didn’t even know, good for them. Yesterday was the first time she said people wanted lungs. And then, like I said, always as many intact livers as possible. People just want—

Buyer: Yeah, liver is huge right now.

Nucatola: Some people want lower extremities too, which, that’s simple. That’s easy. I don’t know what they’re doing with it, I guess if they want muscle. 


Nucatola: So then you’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium [head], in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex, because when it’s vertex presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact calvarium.

The banality of evil, folks. It's on display here for all to see. For those who claim that the video is deceptive, or "heavily edited", or a "hoax" (Planned Parenthood's desperate term for it), the entire video, spanning nearly three hours, can be seen here.

Surprisingly, the video got a tiny bit of play in the mainstream press (usually they ignore the things that don't fit the narrative), and controversy ensued.

Planned Parenthood is expert at damage control, so after the initial frenzy of self-righteous indignation from various PP operatives and supporters, Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, issued a video "apology" of sorts, which I find very curious. You simply must watch, from beginning to end:

This is so perplexing. Although the bulk of the statement is Richards lauding the humanitarianism of Planned Parenthood and lambasting pro-lifers, she throws in a "personal apology" for the "tone and statements" of Dr. Nucatola in the video, calling them "unacceptable" and claiming that they lack "compassion". 


Dr. Nucatola actually had quite a pleasant, breezy, happy tone when she spoke of the work she does, work of which she is obviously quite proud. What should her "tone" have been, when discussing the disposal of "tissue", i.e., "medical waste"? What would that have sounded like? Why must Nucatola have a "compassionate tone" when discussing a simple medical procedure over lunch with potential business colleagues? This makes no sense to me. Someone help me out. 

Why is Cecile Richards apologizing for the abortionist's tone? Why was Nucatola "reprimanded"?

And the "statements" Nucatola made are also "unacceptable". But which ones, exactly? Richards does not specify which statements of the abortionist warranted a national apology. Why didn't she name the offending statements? To omit them seems bizarre. 

Obviously, as pro-life Catholics who understand the absolute horror of abortion and thus the horror of the video (which shocks the conscience), we know that every single thing about that video is "unacceptable" and demands more than an apology. But Cecile Richards is all about the business of abortion and the denial of unborn children's humanity, and her abortionist is speaking quite as she should for someone who believes that it's perfectly fine to abort babies. They are just "tissue" after all, (albeit with lungs and livers and heads and limbs and such), but "tissue" doesn't need to be spoken about with any sort of compassion, right? And nothing that she describes about the procedure should be seen as anything different from, say, an appendectomy. I mean, who apologizes for a casual, easy description of an appendectomy?

So, what was Cecile Richards apologizing for, exactly? Thoughts?

I'm especially interested in hearing from our readers who are pro-"choice".



Our friend and former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson, who was herself involved in the dirty business of harvesting fetal organs after abortions, wrote a heartfelt open letter to Dr. Nucatola, in hopes of bringing her out of the evil of the abortion industry:

Let us pray fervently for the soul of Dr. Deborah Nucatola, who was made in the image and likeness of God, and was not made to destroy other human beings. Pray that she might find her own humanity so that she will see that same humanity in the children she is paid to kill. We must not concede even one soul to the devil, including Dr. Nucatola. We can be sure that her thousands of victims are praying for her repentance and conversion before the Throne of God.

Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven 
over one sinner who repents 
than over ninety-nine righteous persons 
who need no repentance.  -- Luke 15:7

(PS: If you are seeing this in script font, it's your computer. I don't know why that happens for some readers. Sorry!)


  1. Richards is apologizing for the inconvenient poke to her supporters consciences. All the people who know in their gut that this is a human being but have allowed themselves to make this special moral exception. She is saying " I know this seams ugly and I'm sorry you had to see it, but remember the importance of our purpose. We take care of the insurmountable problem of pregnancy and insure your sexual freedom against natures harsh design. It's all OK xoxox! "
    And did she say " life giving research" ? How heroic of them to stay in the fight for all mighty medical research. Her reminder of the high calling of medical research provides great moral cover for those numbed supporters who aren't sure what to think about this one. I'm surprised they didn't insert a clip of a trembling Michael J Fox.
    So it's all good. We crush tiny skulls of helpless little people to help alleviate the symptoms of big people medical issues. Nice!

  2. It's a puzzler, for sure. Cecile Richards is on record as stating that "life begins at delivery." So by her (incorrect) logic, this abortionist's tone was perfectly fine consider she was only discussing non-living tissue (which somehow produced human organs, I guess?).

    I would really like to see a PP defender explain that viewpoint, because I don't get it at all. If unborn children aren't human beings, how is it that PP is able to harvest intact human organs from them? Isn't it scientific fact that human organs are inside human beings?

  3. Chris, I think you are absolutely right. I wonder if the PP supporters know that this is really what it's all about? I wonder if Nucatola is pretty put out by being the fall guy?

    JoAnna, those last questions are logical and good. I have posted this link on Cecile Richard's Facebook page and asked for any PP supporters to come and discuss with us. I hope they do.

  4. This is Cecile' frenzied attempt at diversion and smoke & mirrors. Doublespeak at it's best. Abortion is compassionate health care; but selling human organs is illegal and unethical; but the "uterine contents" aren't human really; but the livers and hearts and kidneys are human organs that are valuable for research; what we're doing here is nothing to be ashamed of; but selling those non-human-yet-human organs would certainly be unthinkable... what a dizzying, vomitous circle she's spinning.

    The REAL horror, of course, is the fact that PP makes obscene profits from tearing little babies limb from limb, crushing their bodies (even is strategically), and discarding them as medical waste. Trying to portray all of THAT as humanitarian, compassionate health care is her full-time job. She's got a heavy illusion to maintain.

  5. This makes me heartsick and sick to my stomach. God help us!

  6. I don't even have words. This makes me feel sick.

  7. Well, this is just bizarre. I mean, work is work, right? What's the b.s. apology for? Bizarre in an awkward way to apologize for a gaffe when, according to their line of work, there is no logical gaffe, no professional malpractice mistake, not even a a breach of etiquette. Just a doctor explaining the horrors of her gloriously evil day job.

    Why the hell is there a half baked apology given? What kind of ludicrous defense did they glob together for this charade from the pits of hell?

    Repent and be baptized, all of you. -Acts 2:23

  8. Wow! That snarl on Richards' face (trying so desperately to disguise itself as righteous anger) was truly something else to watch!!! The devil within! How long before the big "O" himself is beckoned to add his smooth, soothing mouth to this crucial exercise in damage control?

  9. Yeah, during Richards' tenure, we've seen the whole, Abortion: On demand, no apologies plank pounded firmly into the democratic party. So why the apology? Talk to Abby Johnson and this is exactly what goes on. They talk shop when they go out for drinks. So what is it Cecile, compassion or no apologies... scratching my head, truly.

  10. Okay, so I think she actually pulled this off pretty well. I am sickened by it, for sure, but if I stand in pro-choice shoes, she looks a bit sincere. We know otherwise, so our reactions come from that perspective. What she is saying (paraphrased) is 'hey, we don't do what this video is showing. Period. It's edited Our staff member's tone was not compassionate in how she spoke. For this, I apologize.' (We all know this kind of apology is expected in the professional world.) That's the part that is not logical in that if the video is edited as she states, then no apology should be necessary. But nonetheless, she is excusing for the actual words and tone of Nucatola. But she is also implying is that the edit makes it sound worse. Of course, none of this will hold up under an actual investigation, when the raw footage is hopefully subpoenaed and studied. I understand more footage is being released next week of the insiders/investigators who managed to land a job at PP and attended many administrative meetings, where conversations like this took place on a regular basis.
    This is not over. Leila, next post: another one on the morality and ethics of mole/sting operations. I know you've covered it before.

  11. April, but she said more than just "apologies for the tone". She said that she apologizes for the "statements". Which statements, and why? What does that mean? She does not specify. And, again, even from an abortion-supporter's perspective, what is wrong with the "tone"? I am seriously asking. How should she have spoken? I'm not getting it at all.

    Ah, the question of sting operations. Well, when no less than Chesterton, Kreeft and George (my heroes) disagree, that leads me to believe there is no clarity on some of these issues of undercover investigative stuff. I've seen other very good Catholics square off on the issues, and I just listen and watch, not really philosophical enough to understand!

  12. Yes, I did hear that. And then she goes on to say that, "As always if there is any aspect of our work that can be strengthened we want to know about it, and we take swift action to address it." Bleh. That is indicating a problem, perhaps even admitting one, or at least preparing for backlash. I love how she gingerly used the term "strengthened." That's marketing if I've ever heard it. I think the "statements" may refer to the actual wording Nucatola used. There is no way that Nucatola's wording could be "edited" or manipulated to sound worse than it does, and PP knows that. It obviously is not "compassionate". What is wrong with the tone, you ask from even an abortion supporter's perspective is the flippant way in which Nucatola is speaking. Richards acknowledges that and has to. Everyone can see Nucatola is just plain gross and flippant as she consumes her food and discusses "tissue donation," as Richards would have us believe. Thus the gratuitous apology. These folks, all of them, are masters of perception, trying to change ours through wording and language. It's all marketing: perception is reality, as I used to hear when I sold radio ads.

  13. April, totally agreed! But here's what I don't understand (and maybe I need clarification from a pro-"choice" person): If they are proud of their work (which they are), and if they don't believe that unborn children are human persons (which they claim they don't), then why (from their perspective) is there anything to apologize for? Why would we speak of the crushing and dismembering of "tissue" or "products of conception" or "part of the woman's own body" in a way that needs nuance or care or "compassion"? I mean, for me, I believe it's because they absolutely know on some core level, that this is macabre. That these are the parts of a human being that they are killing and dismembering. And they can't get around that. But it doesn't fit the narrative at all. This is good, this whole abortion thing. They believe it's good and it's healthy and fine and no one is getting hurt or killed, so from their perspective why is she apologizing for tone and words?

    It makes no sense to me, but I'm hopeful someone fully in favor of abortion can tell me what I am missing.

  14. From Lifenews:

    The promised Congressional investigation of a shocking new expose’ video that caught Planned Parenthood’s top doctor describing how the abortion business sells the body parts of aborted babies has begun.

    House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders today sent a letter requesting that the Planned Parenthood abortion business make Dr. Deborah Nucatola available to brief the committee on Planned Parenthood’s practice of selling the body parts of babies victimized by abortion.

    “Dr. Nucatola’s statements raise most troubling questions with regard to your organization’s practices when performing abortions and whether those practices are consistent with federal law, including those laws restricting partial birth abortions and the sale of human fetal tissue,” wrote the members of the committee in the letter to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

    The members continued, “Given your statement that this video falsely portrays Planned Parenthood and the questions raised by the video, we respectfully request that Dr. Nucatola provide a briefing to committee staff no later than July 31, 2015, to explain specifically the context and MEANING OF HER STATEMENTS ON THE VIDEO, WHAT COMMENTS WERE EDITED OR NOT PORTRAYED ACCURATELY, and to provide information so that we may better understand your organization’s practices and standards relating to the collection and sale of fetal tissue.”

    The leaders also requested that Planned Parenthood and its affiliates “preserve and retain all documents relating or referring to the collection, sale, and/or donation of fetal tissue.”

    The letter was signed by 15 Republican members of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

    Now you understand the background to the spurious "apology" from Nucatola's boss. Not long before the big "O" too chimes in. His spokesperson Josh Ernest is defending the abortion giant, despite not having seen the video. Although he said he has not viewed the video, Earnest says Planned Parenthood follows “the highest ethical guidelines” on medical research. All these murderers will be compelled to tightly close ranks on this one.

  15. Francis, thank you! Yes! Leila, agreed, it makes no sense. One thing is for sure, natural law is written on everyone's heart, mind and soul, and yes, they all know at some level it's wrong. Thank you for your plea to pray for Dr. Nucatola. The five o' clock hour may be close (or not), but the bell hasn't rung yet! I hope to see her in heaven.

  16. Amen! I think of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, and Norma McCorvey ("Roe"), the former who was a co-founder or NARAL, performed tens of thousands of abortions, and even aborted his own child without a blink of an eye, and the latter who ran an abortion clinic with her lesbian lover and was a pro-abortion icon for decades. Both of them became devout Catholics and pro-life warriors! And of course our friend Abby Johnson! We must not tire of praying for those caught up in this evil business.

    1. You are absolutely right but it is so hard, especially after seeing that video.

  17. This sounds so vile. Why was this barely mentioned in the media? I guess they were too busy talking about courageous "Caitlyn" Jenner and the Kardashians. Our society seems to be circling the drain. The "cool" people don't care what I think anyway.

  18. Night Cruller, everyone's voice is important, and I care what you think (although I'm not one of the "cool people", ha).

    It was barely mentioned in the media for the same reason that Gosnell's house of horrors was barely mentioned. And it's the same reason that Jenner gets lots of coverage: It's whatever fits the "acceptable" narrative.

  19. AND, another video is released. So disturbing. Does anyone else notice how hardened these women seem? Cecile and Nucatola and now this lady? So cold and hard:

  20. If you're in THAT business, there is no joy. It must be a living hell. As to Leila's invitation to pro-choicers to come and debate: the silence is deafening. Thanks to all who provide these videos. Invaluable.

  21. you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above,

    “… a less crunchy technique to get more whole specimens.”

    Gosh, for a minute there, I thought we were out to lunch with suppliers and buyers doing some business swag, negotiating costs, bragging up the technology and technique, and yukking it up with the purchasing guys over a crisp Chardonnay to get the gig for the next vehicle program. I was waiting for the hand-off of some season tickets to the suite for the next home hockey game, you know, as a night capper ‘thank-you’. But then, it's about the business of murder; not legit business dealings in the least moral sense.

    That’s how remote the PP conversations are from any human compassion.

    The use of the words “crush” and “less crunchy” when we’re talking about tiny humans and their upcoming murder is outright sickening.

    How is all of this going to shake out? Front page news? Nah, but it should be. It bleeds innocent blood so the criteria is there for a ratings pull, and yet … let’s just watch the spin doctors at work on this fall out.

    * typo- my last comment scripture ref. should be Acts 2:38, not 2:23.

  22. Nubby, yes! That is it exactly! And Sebastian, I was thinking the same thing. Where are the pro-"choicers" to discuss this? Silence, just silence.

  23. Yeah, I'd like to know, too. Where's the Bubble pro-choicers? Michelle? Alan? Johanne? CS? Are you guys out there...hellllooo? Feeling any disgust? Feeling like there should be some justice served here, as far as the PP investigation for harvesting and trafficking human body parts go? Because that's what they are ... human body parts, not "tissue", not "globs of cells". Real. Measurable. Observable Body Parts. Feeling like there's a cascading waterfall of bullcrap from the PP "defense"?

  24. And this bit about the videos being "heavily edited":
    Heavily edited, as in, there's a huge chunk of the footage missing, where the doctor said, "Haha, just kidding! None of this is true!"?? Or heavily edited, as in, tapered down sound bites to get the gist across.

    And as far as the angle goes for these people crying, "It's heavily edited, and they got it by sneak attack", I say, "So what? We're not prosecuting when we discuss these things, we're sharing public opinion. So look at the edited version and the unedited version and contrast. Is something vital missing from the context?? If not, then you've got nothing to gripe against."

    If the cry is against the "editing", then that's a non-thinking reaction. Unless someone can show where these doctors were just joking around all lunch hour over wine and buyer chitchat, then, no. "Heavily edited" is a very very weak angle.

  25. Yes, and every single mainstream news story every day is "heavily edited! How come no one howls? Goodness, Pope Francis is "heavily edited" by the press every day!

  26. As horrific as the organ harvesting is, just think of the demand side of it all: Scientists and researchers in labs all over the land, happily, hungrily BUYING these baby's organs and parts to use (to me, it's not different than cannibalism). My friend Alishia pointed out that the baby parts are valuable, but the babies themselves are not.

  27. It’s beyond sicko.
    The babies are only good in so far as they can be used as objects. It is evidence that there's a market for everything and anything, no matter which pit of hell it springs from.

    And, to me, it’s not even about “pro-life” vs. “pro-choice” movements gaining or losing momentum based on how they obtained the info or edited anything, etc., like I see blowing up in other comboxes.

    It’s not about pro-lifers denying any rights to “healthcare”, puhleeze. Like that’s what pro-life people are all about -- enough with the stupidity. It’s about people opening their sealed eyes to evil and seeing it for what it is. It’s not about recruits, it’s about waking up and smelling the coffee, maybe for the first time.

    What it really illustrates at the end of the day is that human beings are sick in the head and heart, and we all need to be saved from our own grotesque-ness (sin and faults) because we sure as hell can’t stop to save ourselves. That's basically the bottom line.

    Anyone taking even casual field notes on this disgusting PP operation and these video conversations should all be coming away with that key observation as the bolded bullet point. No soft matrix expressions of abortion defense or wordsmithing required to come away with this obvious truth.

    “My people perish for lack of knowledge.” – Hosea 4:6
    Well, now you know, people. Now what?

  28. I read about an analysis the other day explaining why opinion shifted so quickly on gay "marriage". Once people noticed that opinion leaders and their own friends changed their views, they did so too, for fear of being viewed as "odd", unloving, on the side of "reactionary weirdos". More than anything, we don't want to threaten our social relationships.

    Something like that must be at work here too. "Right-thinking people" defend a woman's right to choose. Oh, and btw, "do the haters (i.e. us) really want to go back to back-alley abortions? Is that their goal?" People only have the strength to question their milieu's axioms if they are either very self-confident, or simply can't bear the coldness (veiled as love) anymore. Those who know that Jesus Christ, the living God, died on the Cross for them, for their sins, and was resurrected so that they may live, know that they will be laughed at, cast aside, persecuted. But what sweetness they find in the embrace of the Father, Who always waits for His children to come home, and in the loving community of all who love Life Himself.

  29. @ Nubby: our pro-choice friends from the Bubble must be seeing the light, therefore the silence. They're busy drafting their conversion stories, no? Whether I am ironic or not is for each to decide for themselves. In any case, I'll be praying for them. I hope some will hear God's call through their conscience when reading about the butchered babies. Each one an eternal soul, praying for our souls.

  30. Hi Sebastian!

    Yes, there is so much to chew on in these videos. Really, there is no defense against such vile acts, as the pro-aborts must know. No argument of "it's just tissue", no argument of "gestational age makes it human", no argument of "location makes it human, outside the womb only", no argument of "size makes it human", as the tiny hearts are still human hearts and the tiny livers, still human livers. No argument. Just God's light pouring into the minds of those who will choose to understand.

    On a positive note, and relating to your comment on social relationships, I've had 2 unexpected ‘divine appointments’ recently with some people IRL (one openly anti-religious). Nothing religious was even remotely mentioned in the chat I had with the anti-religious person, but something has intrigued her pertaining to our relationship, so I will keep the door open, always. And she will see more of what she's already commented on about me personally... and that will open the door to God, cuz if she's interested in how I live and how I consider things, then she's bound to meet Him sooner than later. He's all over it. Shazam! Lol For his glory. ;)

  31. Nubby, I confess that so far I've considered you America's 21st century intellectual answer to St. Joan of Arc. Battling tirelessly and against the odds. But now you display traits of friends of the young atheist CS Lewis, the later ones who led him to reluctantly consider, and eventually embrace, Christianity. What's next, itinerant preacher in rags à la St. Francis of Assisi, rebuilding God's Church? Seriously, you've been blessed with gifts (as have so many others on the Bubble).

    1. Gosh, thanks. You are v. kind. St. Joan of Arc, I love it. I saw this saying on a workout shirt that I think she'd love, and I'm buying it:
      "Forget skinny. I'm training to be a badass."

      Gonna add a decal of her holy card somewhere on there... lol

      Leila, I'd love to join, but I detest Facebook. Bring those FB'ers here ; )

  32. Sebastian, I agree with your assessment of Nubby! If only she could also join my Facebook debates!

    She is a warrior for Christ. That Confirmation grace really stuck!!

    Sebastian, you're no slouch yourself! And, I do hope we hear from our pro-"choice" friends in the Bubble. It's much too silent, but like you, I hope it's because of scales being dropped from the eyes....

  33. Yes, Sebastian is very kind and always adds a lot to the conversation. His gift is charity.

  34. So I imagine the classic picture of Joan of Arc with the sword looking up to heaven, But replace the sword with a hockey stick that has a couple of bloody incisors stuck in the wood. And there is St.Nick with a little turned up smile looking down. hahaha
    Yes, it's really hard to harvest a human liver from anything but a ....(wait for it)... Human!

  35. Chris, what a great image of Nubby's future holy card, ha ha!! You guys really, truly, need to take this show on the road. You are good.

  36. Hahaha

    Wait, stick work makes me a hack. No hacks. Subtract the stick but add two hockey gloves dropped from the hands onto the ground revealing bloody knuckles. Hockey stigmata? That’s an honorable symbol of punching evil straight in the face. St. Nick would be thumbs up, “I dig!”

    God help me… 8 billion yrs in purgatory before I can even hope for a personal holy card. St. Joan of Arc is the whip, though.

    Still waiting for the pro-aborts to provide a solid defense regarding any of the videos. ::Crickets::
    Leila will have to let us know their arguments from Facebook so we can discuss.

  37. Personally, I have only heard from one abortion supporter, and that person thought the video was disgusting and thanked me for posting it.

    The only other I have discussed this with on another page is a woman who kept saying that she would never have an abortion (former Catholic, now atheist) but that she (a scientist/lab worker) doesn't personally think an embryo is a baby because it doesn't "look like a baby". That literally was her criteria. Looks. And, she said since it's legal to abort children, why not use those organs instead of let them go to waste?

    You can imagine.

    JoAnna and I and Nicole engaged her for a while. Hopefully, there were lurkers. It was the most bizarre convo.

    8 billion years? Nah.... Heaven can't wait that long for Nubby!

  38. The category of "Looks" is not the only variable in any scientific observation, nor do "looks" alone drive us to any robust conclusion of any particular object. Consider wave-particle duality in simple physics. Or look at the moon in its phases, how it "looks" hidden during waxing and waning. Does that mean it's not a moon, because its celestial body is not always fully visible? Geesh.

    Where's her converging data that supports this?
    Doesn't she calibrate her lab work/experiments to modern science?
    What exactly does a baby need to look like before she'll record it as such?

    Doesn't look like a baby, therefore, I conclude it must not be a baby.
    Hey, you don't look like Einstein, therefore, you must not be a physicist.

    I assume between the three of you that you nailed this point through the ground...

    1. * typo
      among the three... not between the three

      Derp. Math.

  39. Yes, we politely but firmly challenged her until she just said she was done (without answering) because she said we were just "going round and round". JoAnna even mentioned that in fact an embryo looks exactly as a human being is supposed to look at that age. :)

    No response on that.

  40. So because the embryo doesn't have full grown limbs or a fully developed body, she posits that it, conclusively, is not a baby.

    Developmental stage has no bearing on what it is- a baby. It has no potential to be anything else, biologically. It's not going to metabolize into something else.

    If she re-engages, I'd pin her to her own methodology.

    What does she calibrate to? Meaning, if she works in a lab like you mentioned she does, she should be familiar with some type of calibration/measurement methodology (esp if it's an electronics lab or something very technical involved in the manufacturing of a product), and she should know about the reality that all technical work progresses from the nominal. Which means you don't define the thing on your own, you follow the design of the part or the specs of the part that show what the final product will be. You don’t reassign meaning to it in stage 1.

    Why doesn’t she apply her own scientific methodology to the reality of embryo=baby?

  41. Nubby, if asked a logical series of questions like that, I promise you she would run further away. Logic is secondary to the "I feel" "my opinion" I believe" "the way I see it" (phrases she used all the time to prove her points.... oy!!!!!!!!!).

    We have such suicide of thought in this culture. No one knows how to think anymore. Thank God for the Nubbys of the world.

  42. No, I know, you're right. The lack of thought is dismal.
    The questions serve a rhetorical purpose more than anything, because they won't get answered. But I see the value in at least asking, like you do, to get other readers thinking.

    The key with her is to get her to define "baby" and then work backwards. I know it won't probably happen, but that would be the logical start. Define and then analyze. Meantime, I'll be printing up bumper stickers, "Calibrate Your Thoughts" lol no one would get it, but still...

  43. May I interject a question to Leila and friends on the Bubble: What do you make of Fr. Barron's appointment by Pope Francis as auxiliary bishop of L.A.? I know he will continue with his new media evangelization, and Archbishop Gomez can surely use Fr. Barron in this diocese, but what about the seminarians in Mundelein? Could this be a move to appoint somebody less orthodox, or is this worry unwarranted? Until now I was simply excited by the news, an unmitigated joy, but then I realized that Chicago's new archbishop Cupich is cut from a different cloth than Cardinal Francis George. Any thoughts from anyone familiar with church politics?

  44. Sebastian, good question and I don't know the answer! I guess time will tell. I will see what I can find out, though.

  45. As a Chicagoan (well suburban part to be exact), we are most definitely concerned about what'll happen to Mundelein with Bishop-Elect Barron gone :( I do not like or trust Cupich at all and am worried about who he'll appoint as the new rector. Ugh! How I miss Cardinal George even though I know he's praying hard for us from Heaven.


PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest.