I never had much regard for him, but I can definitively cross Ben Carson off my list:
Women who get pregnant from rape or incest should be able to go to the emergency room for an “abortion pill,” Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Thursday.
Speaking on Fox News Channel’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto,” the anchor asked Carson if he believes women should be able to get abortions in cases of rape or incest.
“I would hope that they would very quickly avail themselves of the emergency room, and in the emergency room, they have the ability to administer RU-486 and other possibilities before you have a developing fetus,” Carson said, more than five minutes into the interview.
Yes but if there is a “developing fetus” then RU-486 kills it, and we have no way of knowing how soon that may occur.
Is there any candidate aside from Huckabee who is 100% pro-life in all situations?
Sorry for limited and not so great content today, I had a really dumb meeting chew up my morning.
Men’s prayer vigil next Friday outside The Men’s Club!
I’ve seen a few videos from “Funny or Die” or “College Humor” before. They are usually immature, broad, and not very funny. Occasionally one will be genuinely clever or funny. Most are too suggestive or plainly immoral to watch.
Funny or Die struck out again by trying to play down the Planned Barrenhood scandal by pretending it was really about people being scandalized by their purported “inoffensive” services like providing counseling or something:
First of all, as others have noted, many of Planned Barrenhood’s claims to provide “women’s health” services beyond contraception and abortion, like mammmograms, have been proven false. Secondly, even their ostensibly “inoffensive” services like sex education materials are often totally age-inappropriate, encourage highly risky and destructive behavior, and are often gravely immoral in and of themselves.
I agree with this article that this video is an attempt to provide cover for Planned Barrenhood in this crisis by propagandizing low-information, younger people into believing this is just an ideological crusade against a basically “good” organization. These videos appeal largely to the Jon Stewart crowd who get their infotainment on basic cabal and through videos like the above. I also agree that the producers of this video have probably steadfastly avoided watching any of the expose’s on Planned Butcherhood, which date back years before the most recent series of revelations. Like Obama, they don’t want their ideological bubble pierced, so they refuse to watch the indefensible while trying half-heartedly to make the crisis about something else.
Having said that, I am proud to admit that I find Banned Parenthood so thoroughly amoral and perverse on so many levels that I do work and pray for its total destruction. It is an crusade for me, but more of a moral one than an ideological one. There is virtually nothing that Planned Barrenhood does that can be called morally good. Contraception? Evil. Sex education? Evil. Abortion. Diabolically evil. Selling baby parts after murdering babies in the womb? Do I even have to say it? Even their few, relatively benign services are tainted with evil and violate the principle that one may not do evil that some other good may come from it. Planned Butcherhood is inextricably linked to abortion, it is their reason for existence, they are the primary advocates for it, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either willfully blind or morally bankrupt.
Sadly, it seems many young people today fall into both categories.
Commenter JL apprised me (well, all of us, but I noticed it first – heh) of a new book by David Wehmoff with the ponderous title: John Courtney Murray, Time/Life, and the American Proposition: How the CIA’s Doctrine Warfare Program Changed the Catholic Church.
From the Amazon synopsis, the books aims at revealing the following:
In 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt gave his famous “Four Freedoms” speech. In that speech, FDR set forth a vision for the reengineering of societies around the globe. The means was psychological warfare, involving the manipulation of ideas, words and symbols to divide target societies and convince these societies of the ideology that formed America. The most important society America targeted was the Roman Catholic Church. Media mogul Henry R. Luce, founder and publisher of enormously influential magazines like Time and Life, used the CIA’s doctrinal warfare program to turn the Catholic Church into a promoter of American ideas. This struggle reached its culmination at the Second Vatican Council with the promulgation of the document Declaration on Religious Liberty. Catholic doctrine did not change, but, defeated at the Council, the Americanists used their media power to win the battle over who got to interpret the Council with disastrous consequences for both the Church and the world.
I haven’t read the book. It weighs in at essentially 1000 pages, which is a bit daunting even for a voracious reader like me. Given that I read about a dozen books simultaneously, anywhere from 5-15 pages a day each, it would take me 2-3 months to finish that book.
Also, I think the writer has some association with E. Michael Jones. I’ll admit I was not overly impressed by Jones’ biography of Cardinal Krol, it felt pretty dated when I read it almost 20 years after it was written. I’ll admit to also having a problem with that sort of Neil Sheehan-esque biography. But maybe this is totally different.
However this subject is right in my wheelhouse – how on earth did the Church, or at least the the vast preponderance of the leadership of the Church – come to embrace such novel views at Vatican II, even over the strenuous objections of a minority of bishops? Assuming that Doctrine was not formally changed – thank God – even the broaching of these subjects as a matter of debate gave the enemies of the Church, and particularly the press, a PR bonanza in which they could, rightly or wrongly, present the Church as having turned some huge corner and basically repudiated much of her former character and belief! The mere fact of even discussing potential changes to what had previously been settled matters of faith and morals was in and of itself a signal of a massive shift in the Church. Anything that sheds light on how that happened is profoundly interesting to me.
Here is an interview with the author made when the book was still being written:
And another interview, I think this is more recent:
I only had time to listen to the beginning of the first interview. What I heard was cogent and well thought out if not particularly revelatory. I think the “meat” is further on, but I simply haven’t the time right now to listen.
However, I thought I’d throw out a post to see if anyone has read the book, or knows more about it, and maybe provide some motivation for me to buy it. Also, I thought some readers might be interested in acquiring a copy for themselves.