Posted on 10/30/2008 4:37:25 AM PDT by topher
Just Look
October 23, 2008
The picture on this page is an untouched photograph of a being that has been within its mother for 20 weeks. Please do me the favor of looking at it carefully.
Have you any doubt that it is a human being?
If you do not have any such doubt, have you any doubt that it is an innocent human being?
If you have no doubt about this either, have you any doubt that the authorities in a civilized society are duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if anyone were to wish to kill it?
If your answer to this last query is negative, that is, if you have no doubt that the authorities in a civilized society would be duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if someone were to wish to kill it, I would suggest—even insist—that there is not a lot more to be said about the issue of abortion in our society. It is wrong, and it cannot—must not—be tolerated.
* * *
But you might protest that all of this is too easy. Why, you might inquire, have I not delved into the opinion of philosophers and theologians about the matter? And even worse: Why have I not raised the usual questions about what a “human being” is, what a “person” is, what it means to be “living,” and such? People who write books and articles about abortion always concern themselves with these kinds of things. Even the justices of the Supreme Court who gave us “Roe v. Wade” address them. Why do I neglect philosophers and theologians? Why do I not get into defining “human being,” “person,” “living,” and the rest? Because, I respond, I am sound of mind and endowed with a fine set of eyes, into which I do not believe it is well to cast sand. I looked at the photograph, and I have no doubt about what I saw and what are the duties of a civilized society if what I saw is in danger of being killed by someone who wishes to kill it or, if you prefer, someone who “chooses” to kill it. In brief: I looked, and I know what I saw.
* * *
But what about the being that has been in its mother for only 15 weeks or only 10? Have you photographs of that too? Yes, I do. However, I hardly think it necessary to show them. For if we agree that the being in the photograph printed on this page is an innocent human being, you have no choice but to admit that it may not be legitimately killed even before 20 weeks unless you can indicate with scientific proof the point in the development of the being before which it was other than an innocent human being and, therefore, available to be legitimately killed. Nor have Aristotle, Aquinas or even the most brilliant embryologists of our era or any other era been able to do so. If there is a time when something less than a human being in a mother morphs into a human being, it is not a time that anyone has ever been able to identify, though many have made guesses. However, guesses are of no help. A man with a shotgun who decides to shoot a being that he believes may be a human being is properly hauled before a judge. And hopefully, the judge in question knows what a “human being” is and what the implications of someone’s wishing to kill it are. The word “incarceration” comes to mind.
* * *
However, we must not stop here. The matter becomes even clearer and simpler if you obtain from the National Geographic Society two extraordinary DVDs. One is entitled “In the Womb” and illustrates in color and in motion the development of one innocent human being within its mother. The other is entitled “In the Womb—Multiples” and illustrates in color and in motion the development of two innocent human beings—twin boys—within their mother. If you have ever allowed yourself to wonder, for example, what “living” means, these two DVDs will be a great help. The one innocent human being squirms about, waves its arms, sucks its thumb, smiles broadly and even yawns; and the two innocent human beings do all of that and more: They fight each other. One gives his brother a kick, and the other responds with a sock to the jaw. If you can convince yourself that these beings are something other than innocent and living human beings (perhaps “mere clusters of tissues,” as one national newsmagazine suggests), you have a problem far more basic than merely not appreciating the wrongness of abortion. And that problem is—forgive me—self-deceit in a most extreme form.
* * *
Adolf Hitler convinced himself and his subjects that Jews and homosexuals were other than human beings. Joseph Stalin did the same as regards Cossacks and Russian aristocrats. And this despite the fact that Hitler and his subjects had seen both Jews and homosexuals with their own eyes, and Stalin and his subjects had seen both Cossacks and Russian aristocrats with theirs. Happily, there are few today who would hesitate to condemn in the roundest terms the self-deceit of Hitler, Stalin or even their subjects to the extent that their subjects could have done something to end the madness and protect living, innocent human beings.
It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing—and approving—with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers. We know full well that to kill what is clearly seen to be an innocent human being or what cannot be proved to be other than an innocent human being is as wrong as wrong gets. Nor can we honorably cover our shame (1) by appealing to the thoughts of Aristotle or Aquinas on the subject, inasmuch as we are all well aware that their understanding of matters embryological was hopelessly mistaken, (2) by suggesting that “killing” and “choosing to kill” are somehow distinct ethically, morally or criminally, (3) by feigning ignorance of the meaning of “human being,” “person,” “living,” and such, (4) by maintaining that among the acts covered by the right to privacy is the act of killing an innocent human being, and (5) by claiming that the being within the mother is “part” of the mother, so as to sustain the oft-repeated slogan that a mother may kill or authorize the killing of the being within her “because she is free to do as she wishes with her own body.”
* * *
One day, please God, when the stranglehold on public opinion in the United States has been released by the extremists for whom abortion is the center of their political and moral life, our nation will, in my judgment, look back on what we have been doing to innocent human beings within their mothers as a crime no less heinous than what was approved by the Supreme Court in the “Dred Scott Decision” in the 19th century, and no less heinous than what was perpetrated by Hitler and Stalin in the 20th. There is nothing at all complicated about the utter wrongness of abortion, and making it all seem complicated mitigates that wrongness not at all. On the contrary, it intensifies it.
Do me a favor. Look at the photograph again. Look and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me as the horror of “legalized” abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act.
Cardinal Egan: Abortion support equal to Nazism
New York, Oct 28, 2008 / 09:37 am (CNA).- In a strongly worded article published next to a moving photo of an unborn baby in the womb, Cardinal Edward Egan, Archbishop of New York, compared tolerating abortions to the reasoning used by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin to commit mass murders.
The cardinal begins his column for the latest edition of the archdiocesan newspaper “Catholic New York” by explaining that “the picture on this page is an untouched photograph of a being that has been within its mother for 20 weeks. Please do me the favor of looking at it carefully.”
“Have you any doubt that it is a human being?” Cardinal Egan asks.
“If your answer to this last query is negative, that is, if you have no doubt that the authorities in a civilized society would be duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if someone were to wish to kill it, I would suggest—even insist—that there is not a lot more to be said about the issue of abortion in our society. It is wrong, and it cannot—must not—be tolerated.”
The Archbishop of New York continues by asking: “Why do I not get into defining ‘human being,’ defining ‘person,’ defining ‘living,’ and the rest?”
“Because, I respond, I am sound of mind and endowed with a fine set of eyes, into which I do not believe it is well to cast sand. I looked at the photograph, and I have no doubt about what I saw and what are the duties of a civilized society if what I saw is in danger of being killed by someone who wishes to kill it or, if you prefer, someone who ‘chooses’ to kill it.”
After describing a recent video depicting the humanity of babies in their mothers’ wombs, the Archbishop of New York says that “if you can convince yourself that these beings are something other than living and innocent human beings, something, for example, such as ‘mere clusters of tissues,’ you have a problem far more basic than merely not appreciating the wrongness of abortion. And that problem is—forgive me—self-deceit in a most extreme form.”
Cardinal Egan continues: “Adolf Hitler convinced himself and his subjects that Jews and homosexuals were other than human beings. Joseph Stalin did the same as regards Cossacks and Russian aristocrats. And this despite the fact that Hitler and his subjects had seen both Jews and homosexuals with their own eyes, and Stalin and his subjects had seen both Cossacks and Russian aristocrats with theirs.”
...
I am surprised that people on Freerepublic did not catch either the column or the Catholic News Agency article (which was on the EWTN.com news webpage)...
This is old news for us long time Freepers -- more than 24 hours old from EWTN and Catholic News Agency...
Actually NYer posted it in one of her many threads.
By contrast, to “undo” anything implies that it must first be done. Many computer programs have an “undo” option, meaning to reverse the last operation. To “unborn” someone would be to put them back in the womb.
Maybe it's just nitpicky with the language but terms can make a difference. For example, the term “homeless” softens the reality that most of them are just “bums”. Most people are against “Partial Birth Abortion” partly because we were successful in having that become the accepted term as opposed to something liberals might use to describe it.
This is extremely bold talk for someone who is recognized nationally. The NY Slimes must be aware of this column...
Passing this along might be worthwhile since New York City is the Abortion Capital of the United States
There are about 700+ abortions for every 1000 live births in New York City.
Most red state areas are 40 to 150 abortions per 1000 live births (which is still bad)...
I was surprised that his eminence Cardinal Egan spoke out so strongly. He tends to be one of the more quieter and congenial of Bishops.
I missed it because the title was too simple (Just Look) and not under the Catholic Religion...
The title I used was to catch people's attention... Just as the Catholic News Agency article was an attention getter -- Abortion equals Nazism.
(shrugs) Fine with me. I was just pointing out, to your statement, that somebody had posted it.
But that is an interesting story, as I got Father Frank Pavone in hot water over that (I was working with Priests for Life at the time, and Father Frank said to use our Priests for Life email for private email.
When the controversy over Hillary Clinton came up, Pope Benedict had just been elected Pope.
We were able to get this email on a Freerepublic thread.
I emailed the Pope with a cc: to the President of the College -- not thinking anyone would read it.
But I forgot that an email from Priests for Life domain (at that time priestsforlife.com) might actually be inspected by the Vatican. And it is possible that the President of the college was upset about Priests for Life sending emails to the Pope about this college.
The President of the college may have made the mistake of complaining to Cardinal Egan.
Cardinal Egan probably decided he could satisfy the Vatican but not the college over this, so he just simply kicked the college out of the Catholic Church... End of Story...
Hillary Clinton spoke at the commencement. But it was then a secular college and not a Catholic College... And it would have to appear as a "goof" on Hillary's resume -- getting a college kicked out of the Catholic Church just because she was going to speak at it...
Father Frank just real mad at me and just did not explain why he was mad.
I think he caught Hell over this issue.
And this was at the time that he was negotiating with the Archdiocese to go to Diocese of Amarillo -- which had just previously been approved...
If I knew all the facts, it would make for a most interesting story...
I also STRONGLY ENCOURAGED CBR to bring their ABORTION TRUCKS (RCC Campaign) to drive around Marymount Manhattan during the Commencement (with Hillary speaking)...
I also used my Priests for Life email for that...
I’m happy others are making this connection because I think Benedict made this connection much more profoundly in his April visit.
“Before Pope Benedict came to America to celebrate Mass in New York and Washington, it was revealed that as a young boy in Germany he had had a cousin with Down Syndrome. One day a Nazi doctor came and claimed his cousin for the Third Reich. Taken to be “cared for” at the “hospital” young Joseph Ratzinger never saw his cousin again: one of the host of “useless eaters” marked for extermination by that brutal regime.
My wife and I operate St. Joseph’s House, a daycare and respite care home for handicapped children. As it happened one of the children we care for, a wheelchair bound young lady, was chosen along with three other handicapped folks to carry the gifts up to the altar before the consecration at the Mass at Nationals Stadium in Washington D.C. on April 17, 2008. One of these was James, a 30ish man who works in the Officer’s Club at Andrews AFB. James has Down Syndrome. He was chosen to carry the large host which would become the Body of Christ lifted up before the assembled. As James with great ceremony advanced toward the Pope, his native enthusiasm overcame his reserve and he started to run. Simultaneously the Holy Father leapt from his chair and walked towards James with his arms outstretched. We have a picture of this moment which I cannot look at without tearing up. What did he see as he gazed so lovingly at James? I believe he saw his cousin. I believe he saw the face of Jesus. And I believe that his great prayer as he elevated that host on that impossibly beautiful day was “As long as you did to these the least of my brethren, you did it to Me.”
The next day April 18th, a boy was born to of all people, the Governor of Alaska. They named him Trig.”
I would add that the day Trig was born was the day Benedict met with the handicapped children at Dunwoodie. Read the accounts and we will know that this Sign of the Times is a Sign we dare not ignore.
But one does not normally look for a Cardinal of the Catholic Church's column under News/Activism.
And the title is just sooooo plain and vanilla -- Just Look...
More like Gomer Pyle saying: Surpise! Surprise! Surprise!...
My wife and I operate St. Joseph’s House, a daycare and respite care home for handicapped children. As it happened one of the children we care for, a wheelchair bound young lady, was chosen along with three other handicapped folks to carry the gifts up to the altar before the consecration at the Mass at Nationals Stadium in Washington D.C. on April 17, 2008. One of these was James, a 30ish man who works in the Officer’s Club at Andrews AFB. James has Down Syndrome. ......
The next day April 18th, a boy was born to of all people, the Governor of Alaska. They named him Trig.”
God knows why the events are so closely tied together. It is supposedly quoted of Albert Schweitzer that when God does not want to make His way known, He uses co-incidence...
When Trig was born was an important of God's plan...
I haven’t seen the videos yet, but will after this post. These were recommended to me by a friend.
http://www.fathercorapi.com/election.aspx
“And it is possible that the President of the college was upset about Priests for Life sending emails to the Pope about this college.”
LOL! You should mailed them the world’s smallest violin, with charity of course. :D
... As James with great ceremony advanced toward the Pope, his native enthusiasm overcame his reserve and he started to run. Simultaneously the Holy Father leapt from his chair and walked towards James with his arms outstretched. We have a picture of this moment which I cannot look at without tearing up. ...
I have encountered several Mystics in my travels -- including one that I asked Mother Angelica of EWTN about (before one of her TV shows)...
One of these "Mystics" stated that the suddened welling of tears is [perhaps] the sign of a very Holy Presence at the time.
For this person, it was the Mother of Jesus that she associated with it.
It might be good to prepare yourself before viewing the picture by trying to pray and prepare yourself beforehand...
That is for more for the sake of the Holy Presence you may be in... Which I could not tell you who (and how many from heaven) that could be at time... Mother Mary might have a legion of Holy Angels just as escort for such a presence...
You might want to read John 3:12 about this:
John 3:12 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? (NIV)
[Jesus speaking]
There may be aspects of heaven in our lives that we may not be able to imagine.
+God bless.
I literally had a plank before my eyes, as Jesus says in the Gospel...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.