Skip to comments.Bobby Schindler: The Presidentís Torturous Dilemma
Posted on 05/31/2009 9:33:51 AM PDT by wagglebee
I spent a lot of time watching news coverage of President Obamas recent speech at Notre Dame. I couldnt help but be reminded of my sister Terris two-week ordeal that took place at the hospice facility where she was killed in March of 2005.
The was so much that was eerily similarfrom the amount of media present and the pro-lifers who were there in prayer, to the dozens of people who were arrested for protesting against what was taking place.
Along with so many other Catholics, I found it profoundly disturbing that President Obama was not only invited to speak at a Catholic university but that he was given an honorary Doctor of Laws degree. It was what Vatican official Archbishop Raymond Burke referred to as the source of the greatest scandal.
However, just as disturbing to me was watching the Catholic students, parents and faculty praising President Obama by giving him standing ovations for his cant we all just get along about abortion speech.
They seem to have forgotten the presidents extreme pro-abortion record when he was in the Illinois state senate and his already-lengthy actions in favor of abortion as president. His direct assault on the value and dignity of life and human rights runs completely contrary to Catholic teaching.
But that didnt seem to diminish the red carpet treatment he received from Notre Dame President John Jenkins who invited Obama to speak. It is shocking and disheartening that a Catholic university would show such adoration for a president who has already been categorized as one of the most pro-death politicians to ever be elected to office.
Of course watching and listening to the medias fawning coverage was just as difficult as listening to Obama himself. Indeed, the media would repeatedly insist that pro-lifers should try and find common ground with Obamas position on abortion and embryonic stem cell research. It seems that the mainstream media wants to portray conservatives as a group that needs to adhere to the Obama administrations policies and his vision of change or risk becoming extinct. As is frequently the case, they clearly just dont get it.
Amidst all this media coverage I also reflected on Obamas position on euthanasia and his offensive remark about Terri during the campaign. Then candidate Obama claimed his biggest regret as a senator was trying to stop Terris imposed death. This is especially scary because a growing number of health care experts are already warning us that Obamas new health care plan could potentially open wide the door to euthanasia in our nation.
Make no mistake: President Obamas position on how we should treat the most vulnerable members of our society is the same for disabled and medically vulnerable people as it is for innocent unborn children. In short, he seems to believe they fall outside the protection our nation offers. This is especially absurd, given his crusade to protect Americas sworn enemies from methods of torture (his word) that fall far short of what happens during an abortion or a euthanasia death by dehydration and starvation.
This same man who advocates unlimited abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy and regrets trying to save the innocent from a horrifying death by dehydration is doing everything is his power to protect the rights of the most merciless terrorists in our custody. His administration has even expressed outrage that caterpillars were put in a room with a terrorist as a form of torture. Since the average caterpillar is neither scary nor dangerous, it made me wonder how that would compare to depriving our most vulnerable American citizensinnocent of any crimeof food and water until they dehydrate to death. I find it ironic that he doesnt seem worried about regretting what might happen if any of these terrorists are set free to attack America again.
During all this Notre Dame controversy I also heard more than once from our media that 54 percent of Catholics voted for Obama. That is a number I never agreed with because I believe that zero percent of true Catholics voted for Obama. If you adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church, you did not vote for him. Catholics who voted for Obama chose the change and false hope offered by a dynamic candidate over the values of their faith. To my mind, they are not Catholics at all.
It was, however, heartening to read of the hundreds of thousands of Catholics (including nearly 100 cardinals and bishops) who did object to the president speaking at Notre Dame and also to see all of the people who showed up to protest Notre Dames decision.
Words have meaning and one can only hope that Obama believes in his own rhetoric about change, because if his position does not change with respect to lifeand he remains an advocate for the continued death of our most vulnerablethen Notre Dame will be forever associated with giving such a person not only a platform for his position but a prestigious award for it as well. What a badge of shame for a previously great university.
Thanks for the ping!
“Those of us protesting Tiller, during the national Operation
Save America event in Wichita, were showered with the ashes
of that weeks babies killed, as he fired up his ovens.”
Do you mean that literally? It just gets more evil!!
Those people whow threw the ashes should have been arrested for physical assault.
It wouldn’t be accurate to say ashes were thrown. Seems
more likely that he intentionally fired up his oven during
the protest week and the natural result was the ash floating
down from the flue.
I recall a neighbor pointing out that the ash negatively impacted
landscape in the area.
Thread by rhema.
Mortality indeed stalks us all. But I'm talking about the death cultureabortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.
The death peddlers here and abroad seek to remove legal protection from pro-life doctors who refuse to perform abortion, refer for abortion, or participate in euthanasia. Euphemisms like "reproductive freedom," the "right to choose," and "death with dignity" justify the assault on our patient's lives and our rights of conscience. But in the midst of this inversion of right and wrong, pro-life doctor groups worldwide are banding together to form a Hippocratic Registry of Physicians.
Admittedly, physicians were not always healers. Millennia ago, healers used their power and status in society to kill and otherwise take advantage of the weak and helpless. Hippocrates, or someone like him, recognized the problem, and that is how we came to have the oath the public thinks we doctors all take, the Oath of Hippocrates.
Physicians who sign on to the Hippocratic Registry acknowledge the oath's six concepts: transcendence, which means submission to a higher authority; medicine as a moral, not just technical, activity; respect for life, meaning no abortion or euthanasia; a covenant between the physician and patient, not just a code of conduct; physician honesty and integrity; and collegiality between like-minded physicians.
Of course, we doctors don't take Hippocrates' Oath any longer and haven't for decades. New doctors recite a much changed charge filled with superficial, contemporary language, if they recite anything at all. Hippocrates' Oath has been relegated to the dustbin of modern ethical thought. "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give a woman an abortive remedy," it reads.
The legalization of abortion in America meant the Oath was out. But even with abortion legalized, pro-life physicians could still practice according to their consciences. The American College of OB/GYN, however, threw down the gauntlet in November 2007 with its Ethics Statement No. 385, which defined any OB/GYN doctor who did not perform or refer for abortion as unethical. The American Board of OB/GYN quickly followed with a new requirement that an OB/GYN doctor had to agree with the ethics of the College to pass the OB/GYN boards. Washington state and Oregon have declared euthanasia (assisted suicide) a legal activity in their states. Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton, advocates infanticide when he writes, "killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."
So, how do I respond to this challenge to my rights of conscience as a pro-life OB/GYN physician in this age? If my rights of conscience are legislated away, how long before the state revokes my license to practice medicine for refusing to perform or refer for abortion? How long before admission to medical school requires a promise to support death? (Get rid of those troublesome pro-lifers at the front end.)
This Hippocratic Registry of Physicians encourages me. The group includes doctors of any faith who value life and the tenets of Hippocrates' Oath. Although in its infancy, one could imagine a similar registry of other medical organizations such as hospitals, nursing homes, hospice organizations, pharmaciesa literal competing health-care system that honors life.
As our society "advances" to barbarisms abandoned millennia ago, I pray Hippocrates' idea will again catch fire and people will once again seek care from doctors with whom their life is safe and sacredno matter what.
Thread by me.
Your views and Patricia Irelands may not be that different
This week, as a movement, the Pro-Life community has been fiercely attacked by the mainstream media. Unfortunately, because of the few who came out in support of Dr. Tillers murder, the many of us have suffered by being called terrorists and extremists. All of us who believe in the dignity of life from conception to death understand that this was a ruthless killing of what Kansas law considers to be an innocent man. Therefore, I am not writing about whether or not we are terrorists; I dont wish to dignify that accusation with a response. I do think, however, something far more worthy of discussion has come to light as a result of this controversy, and it starts with a quote from Patricia Ireland, former President of the National Organization for Women.
Ms. Ireland was on the OReilly Factor Tuesday night to discuss the medias portrayal of Dr. Tillers life as a late term abortionist versus the publics opinion on late term abortions. During the course of their conversation, OReilly asked Ms. Ireland when she believes life begins. She responded by saying, "I think immediately upon conception there is life." She believes just as you and I do that life begins at conception! How then does she reconcile the fact that abortion is murder with a womans right to choose? She went onto say, "but that is the wrong question. Fetuses do not grow inside Petri dishes, they grow inside real live women who have their own issues of health, their own responsibilities, their own dreams and hopes.
So, as long as a woman feels that a child wouldnt coincide with her plans for life, then she should be allowed to have an abortion? How far shall we carry out this ideology? I would assume that Ms. Ireland doesnt contend that you gain life as you move forward in it. So, if she feels that life begins at conception but it is okay to end that life at 28 weeks of pregnancy, what is to stop her from ending the childs life at 5 years old when the mother gets a job in another city and just doesnt feel like a child will fit in with those plans? Obviously Ms. Ireland wouldnt condone this, because it doesnt make any sense. Just like it doesnt make sense that one would condone an abortion for some arbitrary reason like the hopes and dreams of the pregnant woman, if you understand that life begins at conception.
Personally, I think this could prove to be the proverbial chink in the armor of the pro-abortion movement. I think we, in the pro-life community, need to hold her out as an example to demonstrate the absurdity of this position. I think they were able to pick up a lot of followers in the movement, because they sold them on the idea that life didnt begin at conception and therefore abortion wasnt murder. I dont think the general population of people who are pro-choice understand that life does begin at conception. What will be the impact now that one of their leaders has readily admitted on national television that it does?
Thread by me.
After failing in the High Court and Court of Appeal, Debbie Purdy has brought her high profile House of Lords bid to seek immunity from prosecution for her husband, should he accompany her abroad for assisted suicide.
Over 100 Britons have now died at the Swiss assisted suicide facility Dignitas, though this represents a tiny proportion of Britons who have died in the last 10 years. We are told that a further 800 have registered with the organisation, including 34 who have expressed their intention to travel to Zurich to end their lives.
Meanwhile, Lord Falconer and Baroness Jay have signalled their intention to lay down an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill in order to decriminalise assisting suicide for Britons travelling abroad.
These moves are the latest steps in a long-running, well-funded and carefully orchestrated campaign by the pro-euthanasia lobby to change the law on assisted suicide.
The Coroners and Justice Bill is aimed at tightening up the Suicide Act 1961 to prevent the internet promotion of youth suicide. Ironically, Lord Falconer is attempting to hijack the bill for a completely different purpose to allow terminally ill people to travel abroad for assisted suicide.
The clear intention of the pro-euthanasia lobby is to establish a beachhead for further assaults on the law in the next parliament.
The present law is there to protect vulnerable people and Parliament has firmly resisted three attempts in the last five years to change it. The current law acts as an effective deterrent by ensuring that all but the most determined individuals do not seek to push its boundaries.
But if the law were to change we would see a very different kind of case, where people who are depressed, disabled or elderly are placed under pressure, whether real or imagined, whether overt or subtle, to end their lives so as not to pose a financial or care burden to relatives or the state. . .
Thread by lewisglad.
News of Dr. George Tiller's death was only hours old last week when bloggers began asking the question: What kind of church accepts a doctor who performs abortions into its membership?
"I wonder what kind, if any, preaching against sin this church did since Tiller felt welcomed there," opined Blue Collar Todd, who declares on his blog that "liberalism, or sometimes called progressivism, is a false religion that stands in total antithesis to biblical Christianity."
Todd has already made up his mind, and so have others who called or e-mailed me this week to criticize a column I wrote describing the desperate circumstances that brought people to Wichita to obtain late-term abortions.
But I'll take a swing at the pitch anyway.
What kind of church would embrace George Tiller? A church that believes the creator endowed human beings with both conscience and intelligence, to enable us to wrestle with the complicated questions. A church that recognizes that one's relationship with that creator can't be dictated by a central authority, or proscribed by a narrow list of rules.
Tiller's church, Reformation Lutheran in Wichita, Kan., is one that trusts its members with the freedom to decide on matters of conscience. It holds that a choice made for good reasons and in good faith does not separate a human being from God.
Some call this "relativism," and blame it for a decline in morals and corruption of society. . .
Thanks for the ping!
65 years of age and up: death sentence = rationed care.
Australia has futile care policies. It’s not about treatment. It’s about depopulation. It’s no surprise the green movement is for euthanasia. They like trees way more than the human race.
I misunderstood, and thanks for clarifying.
When will this evil of abortion end?
At least, according to polls, more people are becoming prolife.
Thread by Baladas.
The family of Dr. George Tiller announced today that effective immediately, Women's Health Care Services, Inc., will be permanently closed. Notice is being given today to all concerned that the Tiller family is ceasing operation of the clinic and any involvement by family members in any other similar clinic. . .
Threads by pissant and me.
Dr. LeRoy Carhart, one of the nation's few providers of late-term abortions, called on the federal government to treat as hate crimes all activities by "anti-choice domestic terrorists," compared the slain Dr. George Tiller to Martin Luther King and said planting crosses was equivalent to actions by the Ku Klux Klan.
"This is the equivalent of Martin Luther King being assassinated," Dr. Carhart said of the May 31 slaying of one of America's best-known late-term abortion providers. "This is the equivalent of Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania and any other major historic event where we've tolerated the intolerable for too long."
. . .
ATLANTA, June 9 /Christian Newswire/ -- Dr. Alveda King, Pastoral Associate of Priests for Life and niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., today reacted to remarks by late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart that compared the killing of George Tiller to the assassination of her uncle.
"For LeRoy Carhart to mention the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who worked through peaceful and non-violent means, in the same breath with that of George Tiller, whose work ended peace and brought violence to babies in the womb, is offensive beyond belief," said Dr. King. "The analogy is just wrong."
"Dr. Carhart also speaks of hate crimes," added Dr. King. "I would simply ask him, is it not hateful to regard an entire class of people as non-human because they're unwanted?"
Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, also commented, "The message of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was that every human being has equal dignity. LeRoy Carhart and every other abortionist violate that message every time they dismember a baby. The comparison is ridiculous."
Thread by me.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 8, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - More light has been shed on the pro-abortion leanings of Supreme Court hopeful Sonia Sotomayor after news erupted of a brief Sotomayor apparently endorsed that urged the Supreme Court to uphold the "right" to abortion.
The amicus curiae brief, reported late last month by U.S. News and World Report's Bonnie Erbe, addressed the Supreme Court concerning the 1989 case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. The case involved a complaint by various Missouri abortion providers against a state law defining conception as the beginning of life and disallowing public facilities to be used for abortions. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), on whose Board of Directors Sonia Sotomayor served at the time, was among the many pro-abortion interest groups that signed the brief.
In summarizing the interests of the petitioning parties, the brief states: "All Amici share an urgent concern that the Court clearly and unequivocally reaffirm Roe v. Wade.... They fear that any tampering with the right to abortion recognized in Roe will have a powerful, adverse impact on the liberty, equality and health of poor women and women of color."
The brief also argues that laws requiring abortions to be performed in hospitals would place undue burden on minority and low-income women seeking abortions. . .
Thread by me.
Last week in Washington state a 66-year-old woman with terminal cancer made history as the first person to undergo physician-assisted suicide since that state legalized the practice in November of 2008.
Proponents of legalized suicide celebrated Washington's approval of this policy as a victory for the "death with dignity" movement. These suicide advocates, in keeping with the rhetorical tactic of their ideological cousins in the pro-abortion movement, equate "dignity" with "choice." Unfortunately, as with the abortion debate, the "choice" rhetoric of the right-to-die movement eclipses critical moral and ethical questions which ought to be at the forefront of the debate.
Is suicide really a way to honor life and preserve dignity? What are the social and cultural implications of normalizing the "right to die?" Will voluntary physician-assisted suicide give way to involuntary physician-assisted suicide where doctors decide whether their patients would be better off dead? Will the "right" to suicide be transmogrified into a "duty" to commit suicide? Will the elderly who consume more than they produce be deemed "resource hogs" that have a duty to die and get out of the way?
In an age of scarce economic resources, will the critically ill or the handicapped or the demented be viewed as expendable by their younger, healthier counterparts? How will the medical profession be transformed if those who are trained to cure are given a license to kill? These and many other questions should be asked and answered before we decide it's okay to encourage terminally-ill persons to choose self-destruction in the name of dignity.
But we won't get answers if we allow this debate to be defined solely in terms of the euphemistic "right to choose." Indeed, these questions won't even be asked.
Dying with dignity does not require suicide. The question, "Do you want to suffer and die or die with dignity?" presents a false choice and assumes that there are only two alternatives at the end of lifepain or death. Properly employed, modern medicine has the tools to mitigate pain. Hospice care, for example, employs a multi-disciplinary approach to ensure that terminally-ill patients endure their final time on earth with dignityfree from pain and nourished physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually.
Hospice care does not seek to stop the dying process. The goal of hospice care is to make a difficult time as comfortable and peaceful as possible for both the patient and their loved ones. The important distinction between palliative care and physician-assisted suicide is that the first respects the inviolability of human life in spite of the difficulties presented by illness while the second rejects the sanctity of life in favor of an expedient escape from pain and fear. . .
well there goes Rush Limbaugh’s tacit support for the bigot.
Thread by markomalley.
Last Sunday, late-term abortion doctor George Tiller was gunned down in the foyer of his Lutheran church, where he served as an usher. As anyone with even a cursory understanding of Lutheranism in America could surmise, that church was a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. Of the various Lutheran church bodies in America, the ELCA is the most mainline and has the most supportive position on legalized abortion.
As soon as the terrible news about Tillers murder hit the wire, many bloggers and liberal pundits noted that Tillers active church membership was at odds with the stereotype of how abortion and religion are related. It didnt take long for that same meme to make it to the mainstream media stories.
What none of these stories have explained is that Tiller had previously been excommunicated by a Lutheran congregation on account of his lack of repentance about and refusal to stop his occupation. That Lutheran congregation was a member of my church body, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Excommunication doesnt happen terribly frequently in this day and age but its not unheard of. I dont know any of the specifics about his past congregation or what led to the discipline and anticipated learning more about it when it was covered by the mainstream media. Unfortunately, that hasnt happened.
When the news broke, I had many people who know that Im Lutheran ask how it was possible that his church had not disciplined him or otherwise encouraged him to stop performing abortions. I had hoped that there would be stories exploring Tillers religious beliefs and church membership and that the stories would explain the difference between the ELCA and the LCMS. There is obviously quite a difference between a church body that would discipline a practicing abortion doctor and one that would welcome him in membership. . .