Photo originally found at:
http://www.rolandgarros.com/images/pics/misc/f_06-05-Portrait-henin.jpg
On a Saturday morning in the spring of 1987, Pamela McGee sat on the shore at Dockweiler State Beach in Los Angeles, 72 hours from a scheduled abortion. "Do you want to be pregnant?" the counselor at the clinic had asked her. "No," McGee replied. She was a single, 24-year-old professional basketball player, and she could not take maternity leave. And even if she could, she couldn't imagine hauling an infant to Italy and parking the stroller next to the bench. But as McGee looked out over the Pacific, she began to reconsider. "I prayed and prayed and prayed and felt like I heard a voice from God," McGee says. "He was telling me, 'This is your gift.' " The next day she went to Faithful Central Bible Church in Inglewood, and the pastor delivered a sermon about not aborting one's blessings. O.K., God, McGee thought. You don't have to beat it into my head. She called the clinic to cancel, and on Jan. 19, 1988, gave birth to a boy with physical abilities that would border on the supernatural. ...
The day after last year's dunk contest in L.A., JaVale called his mother at 8 a.m. and told her he wanted to go to church. Pamela was exhausted, with only five hours sleep, and surprised. But she knew just the place. During the sermon at Faithful Central Bible, JaVale looked over at his mom, tears streaking her cheeks. "Why are you crying?" he asked. There, for the first time, Pamela told him about the clinic and the beach and the reason she cannot get all that upset about alley-oops gone awry. "For me," she told her son, "you've been such a blessing."
Later that night, an exhausted Nicholas, who is four, snuggled next to me as we watched a replay of the announcement on the balcony."I see Benedict," he said."Yes," I encouraged my tender-hearted boy, "What does he look like to you?""He has very white hair, Nicholas observed. "And his cassock is white, too. That?s for celebration. He wears white for celebration."I waited a moment, watching with him."I wonder," Nicholas said quietly, "what color his hair will be in ordinary time."Fighting laughter, I let him wonder and watched him fall asleep. I was so grateful for our beautiful day. My children will always remember the day as one of celebration and they will always have a sense of having participated in a momentous event as members of the Universal Church. A beautiful, holy day, indeed.
Actually, this and other cases could be totally avoided if we did not allow mass manufacturing and freezing of human lives in a laboratory. These couples are already parents. The question is not whether parenthood is forced on them (they freely chose to become parents in undergoing IVF), but whether these embryos deserve a chance to finish their lives.
Step back and realize how surreal this situation is. These offspring have had their fates decided by a court where one parent wants to give at least some of them a chance to finish the lives that IVF started and the other parent just wants them destroyed. How far have we come in this world of “reproductive rights” for the parents that this scenario, where children’s lives are at the mercy of a court, is becoming more common place?
....
This is an untenable situation that we should never have allowed to happen. Until we regulate the fertility industry and realize that embryos are not “potential human life”, but instead “human life with potential”, our courts will continue to be charged with deciding the fate of these littlest of human lives. A decision they should never be charged to make.
Right now, there is no heavy truck careening toward you. There is no doctor pointing out the shadow of a deadly blood clot. There is no airplane heading toward the building where you sit at your desk. Right now, there are signs in every parish yard reminding you that you will lose everything. They say “The Light is On for You.” Right now, you are being invited — begged really — to bathe in grace of the sacrament of reconciliation.
Taking a look at this from the perspective of deep ecology---is there something to be said for the idea that because climate change is human caused, that humans ought to be the ones that change to mitigate it---that somehow we ought to bear the cost to fix this?Liao: That was actually one of the ideas that motivated us to write this paper, the idea that we caused anthropogenic climate change, and so perhaps we ought to bear some of the costs required to address it. But having said that, we also want to make this attractive to people---we don't want this to be a zero sum game where it's just a cost that we have to bear. Many of the solutions we propose might actually be quite desirable to people, particularly the meat patch. I recently gave a talk about this paper at Yale and there was a man in the audience who worked for a pharmaceuticals company; he seemed to think there might be a huge market for modifications like this.
Judging from your paper, you seem skeptical about current efforts to mitigate climate change, including market based solutions like carbon pricing or even more radical solutions like geoengineering. Why is that?Liao: It's not that I don't think that some of those solutions could succeed under the right conditions; it's more that I think that they might turn out to be inadequate, or in some cases too risky. Take market solutions---so far it seems like it's pretty difficult to orchestrate workable international agreements to affect international emissions trading. The Kyoto Protocol, for instance, has not produced demonstrable reductions in global emissions, and in any event demand for petrol and for electricity seems to be pretty inelastic. And so it's questionable whether carbon taxation alone can deliver the kind of reduction that we need to really take on climate change.With respect to geoengineering, the worry is that it's just too risky---many of the technologies involved have never been attempted on such a large scale, and so you have to worry that by implementing these techniques we could endanger ourselves or future generations. For example it's been suggested that we could alter the reflectivity of the atmosphere using sulfate aerosol so as to turn away a portion of the sun's heat, but it could be that doing so would destroy the ozone layer, which would obviously be problematic. Others have argued that we ought to fertilize the ocean with iron, because doing so might encourage a massive bloom of carbon-sucking plankton. But doing so could potentially render the ocean inhospitable to fish, which would obviously also be quite problematic.
I also point out that from a medical viewpoint, the charge of trespassing a business holds only if that business is legitimate. In this case the medical “business” of aborting babies cannot be legal because: a) It is not proper medical practice; women are never given any alternative to abortion to “treat” a very wide range of problems, b) It is not conducted by a physician acting in good faith, (they don’t know the results of their procedure because they don’t do long term follow-up and they don’t keep up-to-date on the scientific literature etc. c) There are no scientifically established benefits to abortion, d) There are many harms and hazards. e) They don’t inform the patient fully and accurately so don’t obtain an informed consent, f) They don’t try less invasive and more reversible treatments first. Moreover, if it is, as they claim, a “business”, they cannot: charge the medical insurance scheme and taxpayers for costs, (large doctors fees etc) and they are using false advertising. In short this “business” only harms women and does so at taxpayer’s expense....Using “duty to warn” as a defense for counseling pre-abortion women, might encourage a wider variety of people to follow their conscience or scientifically determined convictions to protect women from harm and to defend innocent life. Let us pray they will.
True. Why indeed?It was supposed to be a fairly quiet week at Chardon High School.
The boys basketball team, the Hilltoppers, was scheduled to play a game Monday night. Parent-Teacher conferences were set for Thursday.
It was just a normal day in Chardon, Ohio.
But normal changed at approximately 7:30 Monday morning.
Gunfire. Screams. Chaos.
A teenager – an outcast – armed with a gun – walked into the school cafeteria. In a matter of moments, five students were gunned down. At least one child died.
Terrified students huddled in classrooms. They called 911. They texted and tweeted. Teachers locked doors and implemented emergency procedures.
And at least one teacher chased the gunman out of the school – an act of bravery that possibly saved lives.
As police try to make sense of the senseless, the school superintendent called on people to pray.
It was a wise decision.
But perhaps lost in the chaos is the irony that in American public schools – people are not allowed to pray.
Liberals have successfully banished God from the classroom, replacing Him with the manmade god of secularism.
Yet in times of great tragedy, school leaders inevitably seek guidance and solace from the same God they’ve expelled. I’ve often wondered – if God is good enough for the bad times, shouldn’t He be good enough for the good times?
It’s a lesson I sadly suspect our nation’s educators will never learn.
That's what libs do, and more. Like stealing documents (by deceit) and forging memos. Much like what AGW environitwit Peter Gleick confessed to. Although it does not seem that any apology, real apology, is forthcoming. For these types of people, ethics sure goes out the window. Especially if it is for Mother Earth.
Here's Heartland Institute's response to what Gleick fessed to. “Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views. “Gleick’s crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety. “An additional document Gleick represented as coming from The Heartland Institute, a forged memo purporting to set out our strategies on global warming, has been extensively cited by newspapers and in news releases and articles posted on Web sites and blogs around the world. It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists, policy experts, and organizations we work with. “A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage. “In his statement, Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a “rational debate” from taking place over global warming. This is unbelievable. Heartland has repeatedly asked for real debate on this important topic. Gleick himself was specifically invited to attend a Heartland event to debate global warming just days before he stole the documents. He turned down the invitation. “Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick. “We hope Gleick will make a more complete confession in the next few days. “We are consulting with legal counsel to determine our next steps and plan to release a more complete statement about the situation tomorrow. In the meantime, we ask again that publishers, bloggers, and Web site hosts take the stolen and fraudulent documents off their sites, remove defamatory commentary based on them, and issue retractions.” The Heartland Institute is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site or call 312/377-4000.
But where are mainstream media and AGW supporters now? Where is the outrage? The deafening silence is way opposite the noise from MSM and global warming advocates in the case of the "stolen" emails from East Anglia.
|
Eden uses her own story as a backdrop to introduce numerous holy people— like Laura Vicuña, Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux—who suffered sexual abuse or sexual inappropriateness, as well as saints such as Ignatius of Loyola who suffered other forms of mistreatment and abandonment. Readers seeking wholeness will discover saints with wounds like their own, whose stories bear witness to the transforming power of grace. Eden explores different dimensions of divine love—sheltering, compassionate, purifying, etc.—to help those sexually wounded in childhood understand their identity in the abiding love of Christ.
“An inspired work . . . powerfully moving and hope-filled. . . It is my hope that this book may become a resource readily available: in churches, schools, counseling centers, young adult ministries, libraries, and hospitals. Through it may many whose human dignity has been offended come to know their beauty in the eyes of God, and learn to sing in joy of His love and His mercy. I pray that for every reader this book will be an instrument of grace and instruction.”
Take on? What are you saying, son? Take on?
Take on. Aren't we to take off shortly? Take off, then take on.