Thumbnail image for blog buzz.jpgby Kelli
Spotlighting important information gleaned from other pro-life blogs…

  • 2 Seconds Faster reports on a Daily Mail article regarding the position of Catholic adoption agencies in the UK. The Mail writes…

    The adoption agency headed by Britain’s most senior Roman Catholic churchman declared yesterday that gay rights laws have forced it to stop trying to find potential homes for children….
    The charity has pulled out of its principal role because it cannot reconcile Church teaching on marriage and the family with the demands of the Sexual Orientation Regulations, Labour’s gay rights laws that compel adoption agencies to assess same-sex couples as prospective parents as well as heterosexuals.

    Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, stated:

    The trustees are convinced that what is best for children is that they be brought up by married couples. This is shown by research but it is also consonant with the teaching of the Church.
    It would be totally unacceptable for our Catholic agency to act in a way that is at odds with the teaching of the Church.


  • Pro-Life With Christ draws attention to a Life Site News article which claims NE Attorney General Jon Bruning is not a fan of late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart (pictured left):

    “I’m disgusted and I’m saddened and I hate it that he’s here in Nebraska, and I hate it that he’s in America,” Bruning told KETV7. “I mean, this guy is one sick individual.”
    … Carhart testified that he would sometimes dismember advanced-stage unborn babies during abortions, while the babies were still alive. Carhart described in detail the process of grasping the limb of the baby to be removed, and then twisting it off. When asked if the babies usually die during the process of dismemberment, Carhart responded, “I don’t really know. I know that the fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see the fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.”

  • Christina at Real Choice exposes the inconsistency between the way abortion and other surgeries are viewed:

    A plastic surgeon who just operates on all comers would be considered a quack. It’s his job to make sure the patient’s expectations about what this surgery will do for her are realistic.
    Not so with abortion. She asked for it and that’s all he needs to know….
    Imagine if any other surgery was being performed, on a self-referral basis, on patients suffering from a temporary condition that they’re not told is temporary. And I don’t mean that women don’t know pregnancy is temporary. I mean they don’t know that the feeling of being unable to cope – which is why they’re seeking abortion – is temporary.
    If a patient stung by a stone fish begged a doctor to amputate his arm, and the doctor complied without telling that patient that the pain of a stone fish sting will fade in time and he’ll be glad to still have his arm, that doctor would probably not only have his license yanked, he’d probably be charged with assault against the patient.
    But doctors… let women think that their normal and self-limiting distress is permanent and that the only way to escape it is abortion. They perform irreversible surgery which can do the patient real, lasting harm.
    And this is considered somehow noble and responsible.

    [Photo attribution:]

    Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...