From a random pro-life blog discussing the recent goings-on in Brazil:
There are many details that people do not seem to know or care about.
These wackos really do have a fondness for a conspiratorial blogging style. They’re always prepared to offer information that they’re just certain others haven’t heard about.
The Church recognizes, through the theory of Double Effect, that when the pregnant woman’s life is in danger, the pregnancy can be terminated PROVIDING there is no alternative, and that no direct killing or any other evil is performed on the fetus.
There is no reason why those unborn children could not have been delivered intact, without feticide.
Hmmm…medical opinions on one side, voracious pro-Jesus ravings on the other…I think I’ll go with the idea that the girl could not have carried her twins to term.
In other words, it is acceptable to let nature its course– that is, allow the fetuses to die once delivered– but it is never okay to provoke death.
This sort of moral confusion would seemingly make someone’s head explode, but the blogger was really just warming up:
The abortion proponents wanted the unborn twins dead.
Let me re-state it: they didn’t just want the girl to be free of a pregnancy that might have killed her. They wanted those fetuses dead.
That’s right, because abortion proponents are not merely people who personally enjoy their abortions, but have a frankly murderous bent.
The Church wants as many as possible to live. It’s not always possible– pregnancies are sometimes lethal to the mother, and to save the mother, a termination is necessary. But the pregnancy termination does not have to result in a dead baby.
Abortion always does.
Someone will have to explain how an elective abortion differs materially from a prengancy termination, since that’s, you know, the definition.
I actually do grasp what this idiot is saying–that if you attempt to force a delivery (again, a virtual impossibility in the Brazilian girl) and let the newborns die peacefully on their own, this is morally acceptable, but a formal, outright abortion is not. Again, the mental gymnastics these people engage in can be boggling..
But that’s not what this is about. This is a PR campaign to ge Brazil to legalize abortion. The abortion lobby is intensely pressuring Latin American countries to legalize killing its unborn citizens.
There’s no such thing as an unborn citizen, but at this point who’s keeping track?
This is nice too:
As the publisher of a 13 year old periodical which targets Black gays and lesbians, I have had the opportunity to publicly address thousands, influencing closeted people to ‘come out’ and stand up for them selves, which is particularly difficult in the African-American community.
I’m concerned because people who abandon homosexual behaviour only to go back to it give the faithful bad PR. The liberal press often does not scrutinize their story. We don’t know how much these “ex-ex-gays” prayed; we don’t know their theology; we don’t know anything of their personal life. And so there’s no way to “cross-examine” them on their decision to leave the faith. For all we know, they have been extremely orthodox and observant, but inside their hearts, they still harboured many unseen sins and nurtured evil inclinations that may have had nothing to do with homosexual behaviour, but sparked a rejection of Christ that eventually led to the return to homosexual behaviour. Or they may have had unresolved psychological issues that they led them to reject the faith.
The last sentence is a real winner. Yes, people do reject faith on the grounds of a psychological condition. It’s called “sanity.”
Finally, in a different post:
“[T]he tone of public discourse on the internet is very abrasive and anti-intellectual.”
But….but you just…aw, never mind!