Saturday, December 31, 2005
New Year's Prayin' Eve
I'm keeping up the Dawn Patrol tradition of praying for readers this New Year's Eve. If you'd like a prayer, please leave your request below or e-mail me, dawn -at- dawneden.com . If you don't want to give your name, you can leave an anonymous comment--just put "xxxxx" where the name and e-mail should go, and I'll pray for "the person who left the comment." God will know who it is even if I don't. Likewise, if you'd rather send an e-mail but don't want to give your name, I'll pray for "the person who sent the e-mail."
I would especially appreciate requests before midnight tonight, as I'll be home working on my book and would like to be able to say some prayers for readers as midnight approaches.
The comments section below is for prayer requests only, please. Thanks and may God bless you in the New Year.
UPDATE, 7:25 p.m.: Thanks to everyone who's posted or e-mailed requests—it makes me happy to be able to pray for others as the New Year approaches. I'm praying for each request individually and will also pray a rosary with all the requests in mind. It'll only be the second time I've said a rosary. Nightfly sent me a rosary from the Blue Army Shrine a while back and now seems like a good time to break it in.
UPDATE #2, 1/1/06: Prayers accomplished. I prayed for all the requests in the comments section and all those that were e-mailed. Thanks so much again to everyone who gave me the opportunity to pray for them. I liked praying the rosary; the Rosary Center's guide to the Glorious Mysteries helped. If anyone reads this late and would like to put in a prayer request, feel free—there's no statute of limitations.
2:34 AM
|
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Rated Ex Nihilo
I'm happy to announce that my most recent post about Planned Parenthood's positive contributions to society has made it into Sean Gleeson's popular blog carnival.
I heard the Raving Atheist has an entry there as well, but there were so many that I couldn't find his—perhaps he'll enlighten us in the comments section below.
2:33 AM
|
Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret Sanger
In the view of Planned Parenthood, the only wrong way to think about sex is to believe that sexual behavior contains within itself an intrinsic and inseparable moral dimension.
I've been saying the above message in various ways for a while—you can read it in my "Everybody's Doing It" article on Planned Parenthood's Teenwire in Crux. It's also in my Touchstone article "The Young and the Hot-Wired, where I wrote, "Instead of treating sexuality as but one aspect of a person’s identity, Planned Parenthood assumes that sexual impulses control us, rather than the other way around."
Today, I have an example from Planned Parenthood's own Web site of how the organization is about not only abortion, not only contraception, not only "sex-positive" sex ed, but rather about a philosophy—one that brazenly attacks the pillars of faith and family. By faith, I don't just mean the Christian or Jewish faith, but every faith.
From the Planned Parenthood Federation of America's Web site, a "classroom activity for educators": "Two World Views: Fixed and Relativist": Audience: Adults
Time Needed: 30 minutes
Materials: Handout of outline of two world views, or overhead
Session Objectives:
To clarify the continuum of world views and the cultural polarization we are facing.
Activity Description:
While reading the description of the view of sexuality by the fixed world view and the relativist world view, instruct participants to stand on the continuum of the poles to represent their own values. By seeing the cultural war as a continuum of changing or fixed values, the participants understand their resistance to the open discussion of sexuality.
Download the Two World Views activity handout (75K PDF) Here is the text of the activity handout:The Sexual Values of Two Systems
| Fixed or Absolutist World View | Process or Relativist World View
|
|---|
| 1. Sexuality is basically animal passion and lust, genital, and must be controlled. | 1. Sexuality is a natural and positive life force with both sensual and spiritual aspects. | | 2. The main goal of sex is marriage and reproduction. | 2. Sex does not have to be confined to marriage; pleasure, love, and celebration are goals in themselves. | | 3. Sex is only acceptable in heterosexual marriages. | 3. Tolerance or acceptance of same-gender relationships. | | 4. Masturbation, oral sex, same-gender relationships, and contraception all thwart God’s purposes for sex and are forbidden. | 4. God’s purpose for sex is to celebrate life; masturbation, oral sex, and same-gender relationships can express the celebratory and communion nature of sex. | | 5. Strict gender roles in relationships with male active and superior. | 5. Flexible, egalitarian gender roles. | | 6. Emphasis on sex as genitality and on genital acts. | 6. Emphasis on people and their relationships rather than on what they do genitally. | Adapted from a summary by Linda L. Hendrixson, 1990. I'll keep my comments short, as I'm more interested in what readers such as Nightfly, Robert, Emily and Annie, Steve Huff, Kate B., D------, C.J., and The Raving Atheist have to say.
It's obvious that Planned Parenthood is setting up what it purports to be the "Christian" worldview as a straw man, guaranteeing that no one taking part in its classroom activity will want to put themselves on the side of the "anti-choicers." For example, notice how, not once but twice, it purports that "absolutists"—read "Christians"—believe that sex is merely a "genital" act.
From section 2361 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:"Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death." Oh, those Catholics—always telling people that sex is "dirty." How dare they have so many children. Disgusting.
On the "relativist," Planned Parenthood-approved side of the activity's table, the characterization of sexuality as "a natural and positive life force with both sensual and spiritual aspects" is merely a restating of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's claim that "through sex, mankind may attain the great spiritual illumination which will transform the world, which will light up the only path to an earthly paradise."
In that same book, Sanger wrote:Birth Control, which has been criticized as negative and destructive, is really the greatest and most truly eugenic method, and its adoption as part of the program of Eugenics would immediately give a concrete and realistic power to that science… as the most constructive and necessary of the means to racial health. As regular readers of this blog know, taxpayers pay for Planned Parenthood's assault on American values each year. Write your representative or your senator, as well as your local officials, if you'd like to see your money spent elsewhere.
RELATED: Commenter The Raving Atheist notes that Maxed Out Mama took a comprehensive look at Planned Parenthood's "Faith-Based Sex Education."
12:29 AM
|
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Post Mortem
The current issue of Advertising Age lists their top ten New York Post cover headlines of 2005.
I wrote one Post cover headline this year—and it's there at No. 4: LADY IS A TRUMP.
* * *
Speaking of headlines, I wrote one for today's Daily News National Edition for this photo of a shark swimming by an aquarium's Nativity display:
SHARK! THE HERALD ANGELS SING
Note: This blog is in semi-hibernation until I finish my book.
2:36 AM
|
This is going to be cool.
1:50 AM
|
Me and Julia Down by the 'Schoolyard'
"In a classic schoolyard scenario, instead of facing up to the bully, [Anti-Defamation League head Abraham] Foxman and Eric Yoffie — the Union for Reform (i.e. Liberal) Judaism president who the following week compared Christians to Hitler — are taking their frustrations out on their friends. The Evangelicals — those people whose value system has a lot in common with the Judaic one that these nominal Jews lost touch with generations ago."
—Julia Gorin in her brilliant Jewish World Review column "Dumb Jews". (Thanks to Colin O'Brien for the tip.)
Gorin's writing may also be found this week on Alarming News, where she is guestblogging.
1:37 AM
|
Monday, December 26, 2005
My "Blog On!" column this week features messages from pastors and a rabbi about the meaning of Christmas and Chanukah.
12:00 AM
|
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Just discovered an excellent vintage blog entry by Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong of Cor ad cor loquitur (who also has a great G.K. Chesterton links page): "My Respect for Protestants." The title makes you think it's going to be like one of those Mad magazine "Very Thin Books," but he's sincere.
2:29 AM
|
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Abortion Blog Finds Abortion Display 'Disturbing' A Guest Post By The Raving Atheist
New York, New York, December 22, 2005 Special to The Dawn Patrol
Abortion blog BushvChoice has labeled a news item about a fetus tree in a women's-only gym as "the most disturbing story ever." The tree contained blue and pink stockings stuffed with plastic dolls, and coupons for a local crisis pregnancy center's pamphlets, children's clothes and informational abortion videos.
"Yeah, that's right--a frigging fetus tree," wrote blog author Jessica Valenti. Noting that several women cancelled their gym memberships in opposition, Valenti asked rhetorically, "Ya think?"
Valenti did not explain precisely what she found "disturbing" about the tree story. However, sources have speculated that she may consider there to be something mildly distasteful about exposing women to the public discussion of abortion, the procedure upon which every post at her blog fanatically centers. Others suggested that Valenti may be upset that the tree was not hung with Choice on Earth cards celebrating Planned Parenthood's gift last year of a quarter-million abortions, a number which Valenti has termed "the least disturbing statistic ever."
1:48 PM
|
Annie Banno of After Abortion has put up a great storehouse of links to news articles giving background on accusations that have been made against Planned Parenthood in this blog and others (such as the organization's pattern of intentional failure to report statutory rape).
Kudos to Joel of On the Other Foot for showing patience, wisdom, and dignity among those who show him none.
12:49 PM
|
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Planned Parenthood Tells 13-Year-Olds One Swallow Does Not a Bummer Make
Children as young as 13 may register on Planned Parenthood's sex-ed site Teenwire, where they will learn that eating semen is good for you.
One of Teenwire's current features, the "Penis Pop Quiz," offers the multiple-choice question, "Approximately how many calories are there in a tablespoon of semen?"
Enter the right answer—six—and this is your reward:
 The quiz never informs its middle-school-age audience that there might be something vaguely, well, unhealthy about taking out their bubble gum, engaging in oral sex without a condom, and ingesting semen. It also shows remarkable trust in the child's judgment; there's no suggestion that anyone who'd tell a 13-year-old boy or girl to perform oral sex on him might, just might, be a very bad man. There are references on Teenwire to the fact that oral sex without a condom carries a risk of sexual transmitted infections (though the "experts" always add that the risk is "relatively" lower than that of intercourse without a condom). However, there are other times when the experts are so eager to recommend semen's nutritive capabilities that oral sex's dangers simply escape their pointy little heads. Take, for example, the answer to a question in Teenwire's "Ask the Experts" section asking, "I want to know if swallowing sperm makes you fat. I heard that it is 100% protien and 50 calories per squirt, is that true?"  So, kids, go ahead! Give that pushy pedophile what he wants—it'll help you grow! And when you discover you've gotten herpes along with your calcium and Vitamin B12, just go to your friendly neighborhood Planned Parenthood. They'll take care of you—and those mean old men in blue uniforms and badges will never have to know. ______________________________________________________________ Note: I plan to go back into hibernation to finish my book right about now...
2:54 AM
|
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Because Someone Has to Stand Up for the Rapists
If you'd like to see how a Planned Parenthood advocate responds to my and Steve Huff's uncovering that the organization covered up an 11-year-old's rape—a story that's now prompting a campaign to get California's Attorney General to investigate—you'll find it on Pandagon. I seem to recall that Marcotte works or volunteers for Planned Parenthood, but there's no mention of such a connection in the piece. There are quite a few ad hominem attacks, but I wouldn't expect anything else from her. She knows that the only way to elevate her defense of enabling predators is to personally bring down her opponents.
This is as cogent as Marcotte gets: Steve and Dawn are pretending that PP was choosing between letting a rapist walk and obtaining justice, but it seems to me that the health professionals in this case probably saw it as a choice between honoring the patient's confidentiality and keeping her trust or alienating her so that she would leave and never come back for help again. Because we all know that a raped 11-year-old's right to get "treatment" at Planned Parenthood without her parents' knowledge trumps the right of other little girls not to be raped.
Leave your comment at Pandagon's entry.
12:20 PM
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Planned Parenthood Covers Its Tracks
Planned Parenthood Golden Gate has removed from its Web site all traces of the testimonial from a girl who lauded the organization for treating her after she was raped at age 11 without telling her parents or, presumably, the authorities. The American Life League and the Family Research Council have called upon the California Attorney General to investigate. Visit ProLifeBlogs for updates.
The organization's attempt to remove evidence from its site is reminiscent of what happened several months ago when the very same Planned Parenthood chapter created an animated video showing a "Superhero for Choice" blowing up peaceful pro-lifers.
4:55 PM
|
Monday, December 12, 2005
Planned Parenthood Boasts It Covered Up an 11-Year-Old's Rape
UPDATE, 12/15, 4:52 p.m.: PLANNED PARENTHOOD GOLDEN GATE IS COVERING ITS TRACKS! The organization has removed the link to the "It Keeps Us Safe" story (described below) from its "Shared Stories" page and has removed the actual story, which used to be at this link. (As of this writing, you'll see a blank page when you click there.) To see what was originally on that page, click here to see it via the Internet Archive.
THE AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE AND THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL ARE CALLING ON THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE TO INVESTIGATE PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S COVER-UP. For updates, visit ProLifeBlogs.com.
Original post follows:
The Web site for Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, the San Francisco chapter of Margaret Sanger's organization, features a section of "Shared Stories,", which it describes as "real stories" from its customers. Here is what was, at the time this post originally appeared (Dec. 12), the top story listed in the section, exactly as it appeared on the site (before Planned Parenthood Golden Gate covered its tracks): It Keeps Us Safe
I was raped at 11, by my 17 year old boyfriend. I chose not to tell my parents because I didn't think their involvement would help, that was the right choice for me. Planned Parethood helped me deal with the aftermath of the rape allowing me to deal and cope as best as I could in my own way. I was 14 when I decided to start having sex, the day I made that choice I made an appointment to get birth control pills. I'm 17 now, I've been with my current boyfriend for about two years. During that time i've been HIV and STD tested four times. Right now I'm sitting in the waiting room while my boyfriend gets the results for his HIV test. We love each other so we're responsible and Planned Parenthood helps us to do that.
- name withheld - "It Keeps Us Safe"? Safe from what? Safe from parents finding out their little girls were raped? It certainly doesn't keep children safe from rapists.
To recap: An 11-year-old girl walked into Planned Parenthood, saying she had been raped. Not just statutory rape, either; forcible rape.
Planned Parenthood assured the girl that it would not contact her parents, and it was true to its word. Likewise, it must not have contacted the authorities either, otherwise the parents would certainly have been notified.
Thanks to Planned Parenthood, the rapist remained at large, still free to attack other little girls.
(Meanwhile, the girl decided at 14 to have sex and has been on oral contraceptives ever since, thanks too to Planned Parenthood. The National Cancer Institute reports that girls who begin menstruation before age 12 and take oral contraceptives are at a higher risk for breast cancer. If Planned Parenthood's rape-victim client was pregnant when she sought treatment at age 11, she would fall into that risk group.)
Planned Parenthood is required by law to report statutory rape and other forms of sexual abuse.
According to a U.S. government report, "in California, all sexual activity involving minors is illegal...[T]he reporting requirements only apply to the violations of certain criminal offenses—namely, those addressing situations involving victims under 16 years of age where there is an especially large difference in the age of the two parties."
There's no doubt that in this case, the age difference between the 11-year-old victim and the 17-year-old rapist was wide enough to warrant informing the authorities. In any case, the authorities should have been notified because it was a forcible rape.
The idea that Planned Parenthood would not only flout the law by hiding the girl's rape, but then openly congratulate itself by putting the girl's story on its site, is beyond belief.
Then again, what would you expect from the Planned Parenthood branch that produced "A Superhero for Choice"—the animation featuring a heroine who gleefully slaughtered peaceful pro-lifers?
RELATED:
11:46 PM
|
Thursday, December 8, 2005
Don't Ask, Don't Care A Guest Post by the Raving Atheist
[The Dawn Patrol steps briefly out of hibernation on this Feast of the Immaculate Conception for two pro-life posts. I'm honored to publish the following one by the Raving Atheist. — Dawn]
"Being pro-choice," cautions Debbie Nathan, "is a morality that takes you morally out of the picture."
The words of a pro-life advocate decrying the abortion culture's abandonment of any pretext of principle? In fact, Ms. Nathan is a proud volunteer for the Haven Coalition, an organization that provides overnight housing for women who flock to New York for elective, late second-trimester abortions. Its clients come from states lacking clinics capable of stomaching the procedure -- and Ms. Nathan's statement is a celebration of her own indifference to the practice, or more specifically, her ability to fully recognize it as evil without really caring.
The New York Magazine article which glorifies Ms. Nathan's work with Haven spotlights her stint as hostess to "Adeena," a Pennsylvania refugee who is is 24 years old and 24 weeks pregnant. Adeena has, in Nathan's own words, a "disturbingly" large belly. Disturbing, as Nathan concedes, because "[l]ate-term abortion is serious, hard-core": This afternoon, sticks made of seaweed were inserted into her cervix, and a drug that causes fetal heart failure was injected into her belly. Now the seaweed is getting moist and swelling, and Adeena no longer feels movement in her womb. By tomorrow the swelling will have opened her cervix a few centimeters, allowing a doctor to extract the dead fetus with surgical tools and a vacuum machine. Nothing about this procedure is so disturbing, serious or hardcore, however, that Haven's helpers would ever consider discouraging Adeena from undergoing it. The volunteers understand that there are side effects and that "some complications go beyond the medical," but Adeena's state of mind, like their morality, is out of the picture. "I don't know how much Adeena knows about these details," confesses Nathan. Indeed, nothing about their clients' circumstances seems to provoke enough curiosity for the simplest of inquiries. "Why did she wait so long? we all wonder. We never ask."Don't ask, don't care. Never mind that sometimes after hosting a guest Nathan has "bad dreams about sick babies." She simply reminds herself that "my dreams are just dreams, and that they're less important than my guests' realities." But what are her guests' realities? Don't ask. At one point Adeena seems on the verge of volunteering her reasons -- while watching a video about a girl who aborts to further her boyfriend's basketball career only to discover that he decided to support the baby -- "[b]ut the movie credits are rolling and she asks for lights out . . . I set the alarm, fluff the quilt, and tuck her in." No need to know. To Nathan, all that matters is that in a few hours, Adeena will "be back on a bus to Philadelphia, free to do her thing, whatever that may be." Unclear, too, is why Nathan's dreams are "just dreams" and not "realities." As Nathan admits, "[a]t 24 weeks, a fetus is at the same stage of development as those gruesome images shown on pro-lifers' protest placards." And one volunteer, Jennifer, reported that a client showed her a sonogram and pointed out that the fetus was a boy: "God! I didn't know what to say." So just as they ask no questions, they have no answers. Occasionally, however, enough is learned about a case to be certain that there is no reason for the abortion. And so while Nathan frets that her "worst story is really no story at all" -- she then showcases it as a triumph for choice for the sake of mere choice: The first woman [Haven volunteer] Levine ever hosted was here having a late-term abortion because she had simply "put off" dealing with her pregnancy until it was almost too late. The delay certainly didn't seem to be for financial reasons: "She had a late-model pickup truck that was better than my car," remembers Levine, "and I wondered, Why am I the one paying for dinner?" Levine rolled out the red carpet anyway. "I had to tell myself, 'Every abortion is the choice of the woman having the abortion'". Judgment, nevertheless, is not withheld with respect to some of the clients' lesser choices. "[S]ome Havenites insist that their guests eat 'healthy' food -- fresh fish, for instance, or vegetarian." And Nathan is "annoyed" at her guests' "crude manners" at a cozy Dominican restaurant. A patient who wanted to go out dancing to 2 a.m. is condemned for "shocking obliviousness." Silent on the ethics of the procedure that brought Adeena to her home, the bedtime issue makes Nathan "all chatty and gingerbready and just a little bossy. (Now, honey, no staying up too late. We've got to get up bright and early to go to the clinic tomorrow!) Entitled "The New Underground Railroad," the New York article lacks the courage to devote a single word to justifying the comparison with Miss Tubman's enterprise. It does summon the effrontry to reframe the entire issue in terms of class. In aid of this cynical diversion we learn that "[m]ost Haven hosts are white, Jewish, well schooled, and political" while "most of the women helped by Haven are black and Latina, with GEDs or less, low literacy skills, and not much civic moxie." The relevance of any of this to the moral question of abortion question is never explained. What's important is that Nathan's tastes run to Film Forum, Cuban bolero and Yiddish theater, so she finds Adeena's aforementioned video selection, Coach Carter, to be as unsubtle as Adeena finds her hostess's own CD collection to be "uncool." This conceit, which pervades the article, itself has all the subtlety of most Hollywood interracial buddy movies. As Nathan said of Coach Carter, "the plot is so thin it's obvious they'll all be hugging by the end." At the clinic goodbye scene, Adeena thanks Nathan for making her feel "just like you was my moms." The hugging is made easier than when they first met by the intervening extraction of swollen seaweed sticks and a dead fetus with surgical tools and a vacuum machine -- details which, as noted, Nathan's sense of noblesse oblige for some reason never compelled her to disclose.
Haven volunteer Katha Pollitt preciously ponders whether she is patronizing her charges by offering them People Magazine. "Maybe they’d rather read The Nicomachean Ethics," she muses. The reader is then patronized by the suggestion every serious moral issue raised can be explained in terms of class differences. "Sometimes, bridging the divide is just impossible: One patient walked into a volunteer's home, looked around, said she was going out for a smoke, and never came back," writes Nathan. Perhaps if these poor, desperate, immature women would only develop a taste for Bolero, Yiddish theater and Aristotle, they'd more fully appreciate Mademoiselle Nathan's gift of abortion.
Nathan's white woman's burden, however, is not shared by all of her race. One day outside the clinic another "white, well dressed" woman scolds a young Latina about "killing your baby." Although this is precisely how, for all intents and purposes, Nathan views the "serious, hardcore" act, the protester's willingness to articulate it -- to actually care -- now somehow renders her "birdlike," i.e., birdbrained, flighty, inhuman. And despite her presumed illiteracy and lack of civic moxie, for the purpose of the anecdote the young patient is suddenly transformed into a fully informed, empowered moral agent who deflects her detractor with a blast of urban sass: "Get the hell outta my way what business is it of yours f---in' goddamned puta bitch!"*
In short, the Haven Coalition exploits the powerlessness, ignorance and trust of impoverished minority strangers to insure that they kill their unborn children without a second thought. Its volunteers do not bother to discover or understand their clients' individual circumstances, nor do they care what they are. Their sole mission is to encourage conduct they consider reprehensible for no better reason than the lack of any reason at all.
1:40 AM
|
Slippery Slope's Shabbat Slalom
"Machines will perform euthanasia on terminally ill patients in Israel under legislation devised not to offend Jewish law, which forbids people taking human life," says an article in today's Daily Telegraph: A special timer will be fitted to a patient's respirator which will sound an alarm 12 hours before turning it off.
Normally, carers would override the alarm and keep the respirator turned on but, if various stringent conditions are met, including the giving of consent by the patient or legal guardian, the alarm would not be overridden.
Similar timing devices, known as Sabbath clocks, are used in the homes of orthodox Jews so that light switches and electrical devices can be turned on during the Sabbath without offending religious strictures. I have never seen a better example of St. James' dictum:If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. And so, thanks to their elected leaders, the same device that some (not all) orthodox Jews use to break one commandment—"Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy"—will enable them to break another one—"Thou shalt not kill."
I realize that a respirator qualifies as an extraordinary means of sustaining life, but the parliament's vote appears to be based on an incredibly disingenuous reading of Jewish law, one that poses troubling questions:"The point was that it is wrong, under Jewish law, for a person's life to be taken by a person but, for a machine, it is acceptable," a parliamentary spokesman said.
"A man would not be able to shorten human life but a machine can." Try following that line of thinking to its logical conclusion.
Even a child knows that ordering a machine to commit murder is still murder. I suppose the machine is just following orders.
Lest you think that orthodox Israelis have a lock on such hypocrisy, I recall a certain abortion provider that advocated killing its nonviolent opponents in the name of "choice."
I would welcome comments from Jews who do not support Israel's new law, and especially look forward to reading what pro-life Jewish blogger Chana Meira has to say about it. I myself am a Jewish convert to Christianity who is currently taking the catechism.
12:55 AM
|
|
|