Babies without sex

Picked up from Jill's Quote of the Day:

A child is not a right. Unfortunately in todays society, children are seen as product to be had rather than gifts. If you don't want that product, you may abort it. If you want that product, we can create one in a lab for you. The problem that the Church has with IVF is the same problem it has with contraception; it destroys and separates the two aspects of the conjugal act, the unitive and the pro-creative. Contraception is sex without babies. IVF is babies without sex. The two go hand-in-hand, to artificially separate them goes against God's design of the conjugal act. This is so beautifully and throughly hammered out in JPII's Theology of the Body, and as I am now learning, especially in Christopher West's commentary "Theology of the Body Explained."

JillStanek.com moderator Bobby Bambino, as quoted by Stanek post Céline Dion pregnant with 8-year-old frozen embryo

Conspiracy theory

One of the reasons I don't go for legislated, big government-run health care programs may be explained in this post at CWA on the brewing health care reform in the US. Excerpts:

As the House of Representatives prepares to debate health care legislation (without reading it, of course), the term “No health care for you!” comes to mind. Liberal representatives are pushing hard for a “public option” insurance plan, a government-run insurance program that they claim would provide “a little healthy competition for private insurers.” The long-term reality of a public option, however, is that millions of Americans would be dumped by their employers on the cheaper government plan, and private insurers would eventually be run out of business. The government cannot insert itself as a competitor in a game that it also referees.

To add insult to injury (no pun intended), once the government had a majority stake in health insurance, health care would then be categorized into the overall grouping of government programs that must fight for funding. This would ultimately lead to “rationing,” or the government’s ability to regulate what kinds of treatments it deems necessary for patients. Consequently, the government could even deny procedures in the name of “cost-savings.” As we’ve seen in Canada and England, health care rationing often creates immense moral crises for those concerned with the sanctity of life. In government-run health care programs, end-of-life dilemmas arise in which older patients are deemed unworthy of treatment because of their age, or individuals die waiting for crucial treatments.

The same possible big-government interventionism on health care can happen in the Philippines. Far-fetched it would seem but allow me a conspiracy theory. The One's liberal policy changes concerning women, children, and health care are not only for domestic use. His appointments to various posts do not make me comfortable, and for good reason:

For pro-life advocates, naming the pro-abortion Tchen as the director of an agency devoted to the interests of women is yet another example of how Obama is falling short when it comes to pro-life issues.

Today's announcement comes on the heels of Obama announcing the creation of a new foreign policy position to focus on women's issues.

Melanne Verveer, an abortion advocate who served as chief of staff to former First Lady Hillary Clinton, will occupy the new post and serve as a United States ambassador.

Her role as the new Obama ambassador to women abroad? Promote abortion and overturn pro-life laws in nations across the world.

Now, shouldn't we think even harder how this impacts our RP?

The one thing that we did not know ...

... about Eunice Kennedy-Shriver was that she was a pro-lifer. Some even say that she was the only pro-lifer among the siblings. Even as I have no proof of the previous statement except that I remember reading about it sometime back, what is certain is that she would have been so much different from her brother Sen. Ted in the pro-life - pro-choice debate. Fr. Raymond J. de Sousa has a piece in National Post about the extremes that the siblings found themselves in this matter.

Excerpts:

The Shrivers were devout Catholics who lived their faith with integrity privately before bringing its implications to the public square. Before Alzheimer's took its toll on Sargent, he was a daily communicant, attending Mass either in Maryland or in Hyannis, Mass., a well-worn rosary often in hand. He shared his Marian devotion with his wife; in a statement upon Eunice's death, her family noted that "she was forever devoted to the Blessed Mother. May she be welcomed now by Mary to the joy and love of life everlasting, in the certain truth that her love and spirit will live forever."

Such lines will not be written of Ted Kennedy who, as one of America's most prominent Catholics, blazed the trail of making religious belief an entirely private matter. His debauchery was the opposite of the Shrivers' piety. Having broken up his own family, he degenerated into a dissoluteness that reached its nadir on Good Friday, 1991, when instead of doing the Stations of the Cross at the local parish, he took his son and nephew out for a night of bar-hopping and skirt-chasing. The details of Ted's behaviour that night were embarrassingly sordid. It gave rise to the joke that Senator Kennedy's religion was so private he refused to impose it on himself.

What's the matter, SJ? #?

Perhaps she is not speaking for Gonzaga University or as Jill says, she just might have been having a bad day, but Susie, how could you think this way? Is this the Jesuit way now? Crickey!

Who is?

Who would do such a thing?
The original is found here.
It comes from the website of a leftist.
What? Honeymoon's over?

Check this for context. Or this.

Joker

Reaping what they have not sown.

Update 18Aug: the original artist has been found.

9th Commandment?

Sunstar Cebu quotes one of the city's congressmen as saying: “Though shall not bear false witness against thy neighbors." The congressman apparently said this after reminding the mayor of the 9th Commandment.

Hey, I'm sure so many things, with the corresponding emotion of the press conference, clouded his mind a bit, that he made this mistake. Yep, that's it. Heh!

TIRED of being continuously accused by Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña as having abandoned the south district barangay captains, Rep. Antonio Cuenco yesterday showed reporters receipts of cash allies received during the October 2007 elections.

He also reminded the mayor of the Ninth Commandment, saying what Osmeña is doing violates the laws the Lord sets for the faithful.

False witness

“Though shall not bear false witness against thy neighbors.

A thousand words #2

What does this show?

American Thinker has a take on this. Would you agree?

When green sees red

Blood. We've said it many times. The greenies want to kill your babies. They don't want you to have babies. They don't want any people besides themselves.

Another proof is a study that Steve mentions in Green Hell Blog: "Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals" authored by Paul A. Murtaugh and Michael G. Schlax.

Steve quotes the Oregonian:

Some people who are serious about wanting to reduce their "carbon footprint" on the Earth have one choice available to them that may yield a large long-term benefit - have one less child.

It's bad enough to have these types lurking around, but even worse that the laws in support of bad-green initiatives might make more people see even more red (as in red figures in the financial statements). The WT has a report of a government study that shows that the US Congress bill on global warming could do more harm to employment, especially if (worst case): technology doesn't materialize and other countries refuse to cooperate on offsets. (H/T: ST)

Good luck to us all!

Who would pay P2.25M for this?

Two months ago, Toyota Philippines started offering the Prius for Filipinos. Stories here, here, and here.

The retail price is pegged at P2.25M, although I also heard that some dealers were selling at P2.5M. Who would spend that much money for a car?

Maybe the die-hard greenies? I don't think so. Perhaps the wealthy who want to take off a little of the guilt in buying a car so expensive in these trying times? Most likely.

But driving hybrids is not without problems.

A recent study of SF-based Quality Planning concluded:

Hybrid drivers typically drive farther, get more tickets, and have significantly more expensive insurance claims.

Can we risk the cons of having hybrids run in RP's streets in favor of the green agenda? These problems would take a long time still in presenting themselves, I assume, as the price to pay for a hybrid is just too hard on the pocketbook.

A similar story is that of the Indian-made Tata Nano, the USD 2T car that has raised issue whether making cheaper cars available for more people would actually be environmentally safe. It seems that there is a new spin though:

There has been some debate about whether providing inexpensive volume cars to millions of the world's currently car-less citizens is environmentally responsible. But the huge demand for safe, basic mobility seems likely to render the question moot.

H/T: Sis

SONA update

It's been a week and not much refutations still. But attacks have not stopped. Much like Michelle Malkin getting attacked for her new book.

Boy, it's been only 6 months of the One's presidency and Michelle's got a book out!

Contempt is the emotion ...

A thousand words

What's in a picture?
I thought they got past this.
H/T: Michelle