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"

Catholic Cuomo vs. Catholic Rubio -- Now THIS is how you answer the abortion question!!

This deserves its own blog post!

Way to go, Mr. Rubio! This is called a Truth smackdown!

And Mr. Cuomo (a staunch abortion supporter), please pick up both a science book and a catechism.

Thank you, Marco Rubio, for not backing down. Wow! This is courage!

Watch and cheer (shorter version):








Longer version, encompassing more about his Catholic Faith and science:

WAKE UP!! Don't hide. Watch the 5th Planned Parenthood video and share it. Live up to your calling.

WARNING: GRAPHIC!

I have a strong constitution. I don't easily get physically sick. This will test the strongest among us.

A Planned Parenthood executive, admitting that they willingly alter the abortion process of late-term abortions to procure "intact fetal cadavers", then an exposition of the latest "specimen". 

There is no getting around the evil of this. It's just not possible. 

We are taken to the "Products of Conception" (POC) Lab -- or as Abby Johnson has testified, what they jokingly called the "Parts of Children" Lab  -- and you will want to turn away from what you see. The tiny, murdered victim, with the staff happily, lightly, almost giddily, discussing his dismembered parts. Oh, the potential for money and "humanitarian research"!

This is the banality of evil, my dear readers. This is a display of deadened consciences. 

I don't do a lot of Nazi analogies, but tell me, could we ever now ask, "How did the German people not know?"  How can we ask that question anymore, after we have seen this video?

We have no more excuses. We are culpable if we do not speak and share and tell the truth.

We will be accountable before God who is the Father and Creator of all these innocent children.

When that baby's small hand is raised up in the glass dish above the rest of his remains, it reminded me of Genesis 4:10:

“What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground."

Yesterday, the United States Senate, essentially along party lines, defeated a bill that would have defunded Planned Parenthood. The bill would have ended taxpayers' subsidizing of the butchery and harvesting of children in those facilities, cutting out the half a billion dollars we pay out to this baby chop shop every single year.

Here is what Princeton Professor Robert P. George said about the vote yesterday:

This evening's Senate vote pertaining to de-funding Planned Parenthood reveals that there are 55 senators in favor of de-funding (53 of whom are Republicans) and 45 against (44 of whom are Democrats). Speaking for myself, it's hard to fathom how anyone could support continued funding of this organization, knowing what we know about what goes on in its "clinics" and the attitudes of its people, but it is beyond clear now that Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry owns the Democratic Party. I mean, they own it---lock, stock, and barrel. 

Even after pro-abortion forces gained the upper hand in the Party in the 1970s (causing me and countless others to bolt) there remained a substantial and, for a while, far from powerless "Democrats for Life" caucus. Even as an Independent (I hadn't yet joined the Republicans), I was proud to work for the Real Bob Casey when, as governor of Pennsylvania, he was the leader of the pro-life Democrats. We worked with Sargent Shriver and Eunice Kennedy, former New York Governor Hugh Carey (who had returned to the fold), liberal theologian Ron Sider, Village Voice writer Nat Hentoff, and many others. But those days are gone. The Democrats today are the Party of Abortion, and nothing the abortion industry does, however heinous, and nothing its leaders say, however callous, can shake their allegiance. No Wall Street fat cat or Hollywood mogul ever had a more willing or devoted mistress. 

As if to ratify my point and symbolically close the book on the idea of the pro-life Democrat, this evening, Senator Robert Casey, the son and namesake of the Real Bob Casey, cast his vote and his lot with Planned Parenthood. Senator Casey continues to claim to be pro-life, but his claim is now risible. He's supporting an organization that looks for "less crunchy techniques to secure whole specimens" and "crushes a little above, and a little below," to spare desirable organs, because, "you know, people want liver"---an organization that tries to "do a little better than break even" on the hearts, lungs, and kidneys their abortionists extract from "products of conception." 

As I said in an earlier post, somewhere the Real Bob Casey is weeping---for his son and for his party.

Lest you think that I am picking on Planned Parenthood, or that they are the only offender, please note that Dr. Stacy Trasancos is gathering copious information on the other half of the equation: Those who are the "demand" side, needing the supply of fetal parts for their research. They are our universities and research labs, and they are legion. This happens every day, in laboratories and teaching hospitals all over the nation. Here is just one company proudly demonstrating the use of human fetal kidneys and hearts implanted into rats:

Good Lord, listen to the inspiring music! Hey, this is humanitarianism, folks! Nothing to see here except life-saving research! Move along....

This is cannibalism. How is it otherwise?

One important warning! Don't be depressed or despairing! Be confident in Christ. We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us. This horror and evil is no surprise, no secret to Him. He's always known. God sees all. There are no new sins, just new and improved ways to commit them. 

God is still fully in control. 

But our part is still obligatory. Silence is consent. Stop being silent. Speak up, even if that means posting a video on your Facebook wall, or simply by saying to friends and relatives that abortion is immoral and that children are being killed and sold for parts. 

Speak. Educate. Expose the Truth.

That is your job here, along with prayer, prayer, prayer. Don't do any of it without prayer.

And do not hate those you see in the video, those who are laughing over the evil that they do. Remember that sin leads to spiritual blindness. We must not concede even one soul to the devil, so pray for the conversion of these souls. Look to Norma McCorvey, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, and Abby Johnson as examples of what happens when love and God's grace overpower the evil in lives and hearts. 

Rejoice in the Lord always! It is for the love and joy of Heaven that we fight evil on earth.

God is so good.

And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.  -- John 1:5

Abby Johnson showed up to testify before the Texas Senate; Planned Parenthood refused

For reference:

Undercover video #1 (unedited)

Undercover video #2 (unedited)

Undercover video #3 

Just in: Undercover video #4:

+++++++

Our friend Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood clinic director, testified today in front of the Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services regarding the Planned Parenthood baby organ harvesting scandal.

All I can say is, this woman is fearless. Absolutely fearless, and committed to telling the truth, no matter where the chips may fall. She is my kind of woman.

Okay, this is a long hearing. It's over four hours long. I watched it all. If you can't take that kind of time, be sure to see Abby's part.

She enters at about 2 hours, 22 minutes into the video. Her specific statement to the committee begins at about 2 hours, 30 minutes. And at about the 3 hour, 22 minute mark, there are some tense moments as Planned Parenthood's attorney interrupts proceedings to come forward and enter Planned Parenthood's written testimony into the record. The chairman asked PP's attorney if she would be willing to testify; the attorney declined. The chairman had, at the beginning of the hearing, already made clear his disappointment at Planned Parenthood's refusal to participate in these important proceedings.

Testimony before the Texas Senate Committee 

on Health and Human Services

On July 17, I first posted on the Planned Parenthood/baby organ harvesting story, and I have watched all the unedited videos (edited and unedited) to date. I invited our pro-"choice" readers to discuss this issue, and so far not a single one has come forward. The silence is deafening, and that's never really happened here before.

Abortion supporters, where are you? We are respectful here, as you know, so please tell us what you think. And it's okay (and even freeing) if you want to admit that Planned Parenthood is doing something that is, in fact, indefensible.

Be courageous, like Abby Johnson. Let's talk about the truth of it.

+++++++

PS: WOW! Take one minute and eight seconds to watch this brilliant video explaining how PP double-dips its profits:

To Dean, on our 25th wedding anniversary!

Looking back a quarter of a century to our wedding day, there is so much in my heart and mind. First, I can't believe it's been 25 years. How could that happen? We feel, in our spirits at least, like we are still 23 and 24, don't we? Our bodies tell us differently, as do the circumstances of our lives (eight children, a lovely home, an established career, and now two grandchildren!).

I sometimes think, Who were we then, and who are we now? Well, back then, we were highly immature and spiritually undeveloped. We were definitely products of the '80s. We swore like sailors, we didn't often go to church (I was a lapsed Catholic -- still thinking myself "devout", remember? -- and you were an agnostic Jew), and we contracepted without a thought.

But there was one thing that was never, ever in question: When we married, we would stay married until death parted us. I knew it in my Catholic bones, and instinctively you knew it, too. We were making our vows for life.

I've thought a lot about what I would write for our 25th anniversary. At 20 years, I wrote a fun pictorial. At 21 years, I recounted how our reversion/conversion affected our openness to life. And since then, I have revealed even some of our most difficult times, because there are always those.

I thought of pouring forth all the clichés that make sense now, all the sentimental musings, the lessons, cute stories, the profundities, and things I love about you.

But I keep coming back to something that I said to you in the car a few months ago, as we were simply driving along. It suddenly hit me, this thing that had happened when we weren't looking. In a state of wonder, I turned to you and said:

"We've built a life!"

And that's it. We've built a life. Not two lives, but a life. We started young and we built together, side by side, the way that God intended for us to grow in holiness, the only way life and love can exist on this earth: with and through God's grace.

Here is the sacred vow we made to each other before God and our loved ones on July 28, 1990:

"I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love and honor you all the days of my life."

I am blessed to be married to you, a man who took those vows seriously. And God has blessed us abundantly in return.

This very week I learned of a pre-Vatican II "Exhortation Before Marriage", which was read to every Catholic couple on their wedding day. Here's an excerpt from this gorgeous statement; I know you will appreciate it (emphases mine):

This union, then, is most serious, because it will bind you together for life in a relationship so close and so intimate, that it will profoundly influence your whole future, That future, with its hopes and disappointments, its successes and its failures, its pleasures and its pains, its joys and its sorrows, is hidden from your eyes. You know that these elements are mingled in every life, and are to be expected in your own. And so not knowing what is before you, you take each other for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death.

Truly, then, these words are most serious. It is a beautiful tribute to your undoubted faith in each other, that recognizing their full import, you are, nevertheless, so willing and ready to pronounce them. And because these words involve such solemn obligations, it is most fitting that you rest the security of your wedded life upon the great principle of self-sacrifice.

And so you begin your married life by the voluntary and complete surrender of your individual lives in the interest of that deeper and wider life which you are to have in common. Henceforth you will belong entirely to each other; you will be one in mind, one in heart, and one in affections. And whatever sacrifices you may hereafter be required to make to preserve this mutual life, always make them generously. Sacrifice is usually difficult and irksome. Only love can make it easy, and perfect love can make it a joy. We are willing to give in proportion as we love. And when love is perfect, the sacrifice is complete. 


I love you Dean-o, and I am looking forward to our next 25 years!

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". 

Huh?

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".

+++++++

Meanwhile...

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:

Dr. Nucatola, I used to harvest fetal tissue 

for Planned Parenthood, too

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!)

Gay "marriage" round-up and resources

I'm sure we are all sick of the whole topic, and yet there is so much error and misinformation out there that I've made this resource page for those of you who want to learn more about all aspects of the issues we now face. This would be a good page to bookmark.

In no particular order...

1. My brief and clear answers to nine secular arguments regarding gay "marriage":

My Answers to Questions About Gay "Marriage"

2. Why gay "marriage" is not analogous to interracial marriages:

Marriage is Not a Water Fountain

3. An excellent rebuttal to those misguided gay "marriage" flow charts floating around Facebook and social media:

About Those Gay Marriage Flow Charts...

4. For those who say that homosexuality is like the Old Testament Levitical prohibitions against wearing certain fabrics or eating shrimp:

The "God Hates Shrimp" Fallacy

5. To those who say Jesus was silent on gay "marriage":

Was Jesus Really Silent on Same-Sex Marriage?

6. For answering Christians who attempt to use the Bible to support gay "marriage":

Answers For Same-Sex “Marriage” Advocate Matthew Vines

7. When you are laughed at for claiming a slippery slope, direct your detractors to this respected gay-rights activist and professor who says it's time for his side to "fess up" to the slippery slope that he himself used to deny:

The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest

8. What to say to your small children about this whole mess:

Heather Does Not Have Two Mommies: 

Talking to Your Kids About Same Sex Attraction

9. Note that children's rights were tragically and completely ignored in the Court majority's written decision:

Child's Right to Have a Relationship With 

Both Mother and Father Totally Ignored by Supreme Court

10a. When you are asked how same-sex "marriage" will harm or affect you or society, you can explain that Canada is ten years ahead of us and so we are able take a look into the future:

A Warning From Canada: Same-Sex Marriage 

Erodes Fundamental Rights

10b. Of course, for many small businesses in America, the future is already here (two of many examples):

“It is the Price of Citizenship”?

An Elegy for Religious Liberty in America

State Silences Bakers

10c. And as I wrote four years ago, several Catholic charities and foster/adoption agencies have already been affected -- into oblivion:

Catholics, Your Misguided Compassion 
Will Come Back to Bite You in the Rear 

10d. Thoughts on the future in America:

Judicial Activism on Marriage Causes Harm: 

What Does the Future Hold?

11. What does the Catholic Church say about our role in the public square when these unjust laws are proposed and passed?

The Vatican is so incredibly clear about our duty as Catholics (emphasis mine):

Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil. 

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. 

Read the entire document here:

Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition 

to Unions Between Homosexual Persons

12. The U.S. Bishops released a statement regarding the recent "profoundly immoral and unjust" ruling on gay "marriage":

Supreme Court Decision a "Tragic Error"

13. Pope Francis has spoken clearly on the threats to marriage and family:

Pope Francis Shocks Liberals on Same-Sex "Marriage"

14. Answering the charge that the Church is "imposing" her beliefs on society:

Is the Church Imposing? Or is it Someone Else? 

15. Questions for Protestant evangelicals who are waving the rainbow flag for gay "marriage":

40 Questions for Christians Now Waving Rainbow Flags

16. If you've lost friends and family over the gay "marriage" fight:

Gay "Marriage" Sets Friend Against Friend, 

Brother Against Brother

17. What does it look like to be a Catholic who lives with same-sex attraction?

What Does it Look Like to be Gay and a Practicing Catholic?

Why Chose Celibacy? A Gay Catholic Speaks Out

18. And here is more on that, in the moving video, The Third Way:

19. Trent Horn comes in with the most innovative idea to help move us back to marriage sanity (can you imagine if we seriously embraced this approach?):

Marriage Has Been Redefined: Now What?

20. And when they ultimately tell you to "judge not!", you can inform them that when it comes to actions (not souls), we are commanded to judge:

Yes, Catholics Can Judge!

21. Books to read on the subject (secular arguments):


What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense, by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George

Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, by Ryan T. Anderson



22. A few previous Bubble posts on the topic of gay "marriage" or homosexuality:

Gay, Catholic, and Doing Fine

From "Awesome" Gay Lifestyle to Catholic: 

Marie's Story

A Catholic Mother and a Beloved Son Who Is Gay

Should the Children Sit Down and Shut Up?

The Most Important Question in the Gay Marriage Debate


Why Gay "Marriage" Can't Be 
Hitched to the Civil Rights Train

23: A really eye-opening summation, from the wonderful Shane Kapler, as we Christians walk our path to sanctity:

Something I have noticed through observation: I have never met, nor read, a person of great spiritual maturity (someone that you come away from feeling as if you had spent time with Jesus Himself) who ever begins a sentence with, "I'm a Christian, but...," or "I'm Catholic, but..." The people who truly inspire, who really make a difference in the life of the world, are so thoroughly in love with Christ that they have allowed His will to determine theirs; and as a result, they "ooze" divine life. The path to authentic union with Christ must begin with striking that word "but" from our moral vocabulary. We must be Christ's without qualification, as He is ours. (Otherwise we run the risk of hearing those words from Rev. 3:16.)

I will likely add to this page in the future. If something is not addressed here, please let me know!

And remember, let not your hearts be troubled! We were put on this earth at this time for a reason. 

Rejoice! The Church's Beacon Just Got Brighter

What a privilege and sacred honor to be a Catholic in such dark and troubled times! Go forth and become a saint! God has given you the means and the grace to do so, and He asks nothing less.

A Word About My Blog Title

This is just a random post that I've wanted to write for years.

I started this blog at the suggestion of some great and holy women, and I didn't expect that my readership would expand much from that first group of amazing Catholics.

I remember having a great time trying to think up blog names (I'm embarrassed to admit that I almost went with Musings of a Frustrated Yenta!!), and I got really excited when I thought of Little Catholic Bubble. For years after my reversion and finding some of the most amazing friends I could have ever hoped for, I felt positively giddy about what I jokingly referred to as my "little Catholic bubble" of friends. A community that was so fun, so good-hearted, so uplifting and faithful -- I was pinching myself every day. My greatest comfort and joy came from those who loved the Faith as much as I; the support and love and laughter and grace made a soft, safe place to land in a crazy, mixed-up world.

So, with tongue firmly in cheek, I staked my blog title and found a very pretty little bubble photo that made me feel happy! And off a-blogging I went! Wheeeee!

Fast forward five years and millions of page hits, and my cozy little blog has attracted a new and more diverse group of readers, for which I am profoundly grateful. All of you are what make the Bubble "ours", not just "mine", and I think of us as the Bubble Family, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

However, as with any public blog, there are always going to be detractors, meanies, and trolls. Thankfully, we don't have many here -- we can all pride ourselves on having made this one of the most respectful of the "controversial" blogs out there! -- but occasionally the same old tired digs come up (yawn!):

"Hey Bubble Lady, maybe you should get out of your little bubble once in a while and face the real world!"

"You definitely are in a bubble! Stay there!"

"She's in a bubble so that she can only hear herself and others like her. It's an echo chamber."

"Little Catholic Bubble says it all! Pathetic."


I must tell you that each time someone uses my blog title as an insult, I smile. Because these sad and angry souls don't see the obvious. I didn't start and name this blog in order to hunker down and shut people out. This blog is open to all and engages all ideas. Everyone is allowed to comment and disagree with me or the Catholic Church, and those comments will stand. Everyone who is respectful gets a fair hearing and then some. Everyone is permitted to make his case. (I rarely censor or ban people, and when that happens it's only in response to something truly obscene, or after repeated warnings to the offender.)

The blog's subtitle gives a big clue to the clueless, too:

A sphere of clarity, color and light -- with an infinite amount of room inside!

Get it? It's infinitely large. It can hold everyone. It excludes no one.

All are welcome here!

So, that's the history of my blog title. I liked the name. It seemed fun and playful. I love my Catholic community. I like the thought of bubbles. I found a picture of a bubble that makes me happy. And I love the irony, the subtle little joke of it all, since we are anything but an exclusive, censoring, echo chamber here.

Anyone who can't see that needs to lighten up -- maybe by blowing some pretty bubbles!

(These are some of the original bubble photos I liked, before deciding on "the" photo!)