Irrevocable Choice

Irrevocable Choice is a blog about life issues. Those in favor of legalized abortion often use the word "choice." Once completed, the "choice" to destroy a human life either via abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem cell research is IRREVOCABLE. It is PERMANENT. It can NEVER be undone. The innocent life can NEVER be restored.

Friday, March 24, 2006

Grand Jury for Tiller

According to Catholic Fire, a coalition of citizens disgusted by the abortion-related death of Cristin Gilbert has a petition with enough signatures to require a Grand Jury investigation of Tiller, a man who makes a living killing children. Sometimes, Tiller's own customers end up dying shortly after partaking of his services. In the case of Cristin Gilbert, she was mentally disabled. Her family forced her to have an abortion.

Scroll halfway down Operation Save America: Wichita's homepage and learn how one of Tiller's staffers said "No lights, no sirens" to the 911 operator when they called to have Cristin taken to the hospital. This is what we have in pro-choice America. What about concern for the HEALTH AND SAFETY of the woman? Isn't this what pro-aborts continue to tell us? "No lights, no sirens" does not exactly demonstrate any concern for the woman. If she needs to be taken to the hospital by ambulance from Tiller's abortion mill, it should be done with lights and sirens so vehicles will make way for the ambulance. Of course, in my opinion, lights and sirens coming from an ambulance leaving or entering Tiller's abortion mill would not be good for bu$ine$$.

The Commissioner of the Kansas Board of "Healing Arts" is appointed by the governor of Kansas. The largest campaign contributor to the governor was Tiller. The governor is up for reelection this year. In late 2005, due to requests from many people, the Kansas Board of "Healing Arts" claims to have investigated death of Cristin Gilbert. They found Tiller to have committed no wrongdoing. Of course, since the Commissioner of this board is appointed by a pro-abortion governor whose major campaign contributor was Tiller, well, I personally cannot take much stock in what they say. But that's just my opinion. Had they appointed an independent investigator who has no ties to Tiller or the pro-abortion movement, I might be willing to accept the results whatever they were. But they didn't and I don't.

Anyway, I congratulate those who organized and signed this petition. An independent investigation is necessary in the death of two innocent people --- Cristin Gilbert and the baby she was carrying. Independence. Not a claim of an investigation by an agency run by political appointee of someone whose campaign was handsomely funded by the very man they are investigating.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

San Francisco: Separate the STATE from the church!

According to LifeSite NewsThe Board of Supervisors in San Francisco issued a hateful, bigotted resolution against the Catholic Church. They are upset that the Catholic Church has forbidden the Archdiocese of San Francisco to allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples. This is simply following God's Law. The Catholic Church is required to follow God's Law. There are those who might say "But the abuse scandal..." We are all accountable for our actions. We will all face judgment. Let us pray that we have sufficiently repented and performed enough penances prior to that event. Violations of God's Laws by one individual does not give license to another to violate His Laws.

For years, those who promote immoral sexual activity (adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, etc.) have said the government cannot come out against such actions because of the so-called "separation of church and state" (a phrase which is not even in the Constitution). This phrase is also sacrosanct among the purveyors of the Culture of Death (those who are pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-embryo-destroying stem cell research, pro-cloning, etc.).
Clearly, this phrase has been used as a tool (a sledgehammer, actually) to destroy traditional Judeo-Christian morals in society. When society ignores such morals, it provides a pathway to power and money for various individuals, businesses, and other organizations. By enslaving people to immoral sexual acts, the birth control/contraception/"protection" and abortion industries profit handsomely. The pornography and travel industries profit handsomely. Individuals are able to derive and retain political power by pushing this agenda.

Let us remember that the phrase "separation of church and state" is a TWO-WAY street. The government apparently is free to promote an "anything goes" agenda in terms of immoral sexual acts without allowing Christians (Catholic or non-Catholic) any ability to curb it via law. The government has literally kicked God out. By the same token, the goverment should stay out of the application of God's Holy Laws within the Catholic Church or any other Church. Taxpayer dollars should not be wasted on the City of San Francisco's attempts to have an Inquisition against the Catholic Church. This resolution reflects the personal views of those who voted for it. Remember, those who are pro-abortion or pro-homosexual-activities relegate disgust by Christians to mere "personal views." The personal views of the members of the city board of supervisors should never have been issued as an official act of the government, at taxpayer expense.

The resolution complains about what the supervisors refer to as "tradition." In my opinion, this sounds like an attempt by the San Francisco City Council to lecture the Catholic Church on morality as they (councilmembers) see it. Remember, thanks to separation of church and state, it is not the government's place to legislate morality on anyone. If San Francisco wants to even discuss morality, let them first put up a large monument to God's Ten Commandments (these are COMMANDMENTS, not options) in the center of City Hall.

The resolution complains about a "foreign country" claiming such country "meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great city's existing and established customs and traditions..." Clearly, in this capacity, the Vatican is NOT acting as a 'foreign country'; it is acting in its rightful place as head of the Catholic Church. This is a very appropriate stand the Vatican is taking and I hope they plan to do it more often. As to the Vatican 'meddling,' the hierarchy is merely giving a directive to one of its archdioceses. The Vatican is not issuing orders to the city or to any institution other than its own. UNLIKE the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, it is not attempting to go beyond its boundaries with its directive.

The resolution blasts Cardinal Levada as an "unqualified representative" of San Francisco. Cardinal Levada is a Cardinal in the CATHOLIC Church. Pope Benedict XVI did NOT bring him to Rome to convert the Catholic Church into a pro-homosexual-acts religion. Doing such would violate God's Laws.

San Francisco was named after St. Francis of Assissi, one of the greatest saints in the Catholic Church. He was an example of humility and purity for all of us to follow. In my opinion, this city is an absolute INSULT to the memory of St. Francis.

It is a mortal sin to commit homosexual acts. It is also a mortal sin to set a bad example for those in one's care and thus encourage them to mortally sin. For an unrepentant sinner, eternity may be spent in the fires of hell. We must pray that all who are currently separated from God will have sufficient opportunity to turn to God and perform penances accordingly. For Catholics, Confession is mandatory in the case of mortal sin.

Monday, March 20, 2006

Sandra Day O'Connor Complains About Alleged "Dictatorship"

According to Life News, EX-Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor has complained about the very lightweight attempts made by Congresspeople, Senators, and the President to save Terri Schiavo's life last year. Pro-abortion Sandra Day O'Connor feels attempts to save the life of an innocent person are equivalent to "strongarming" the judiciary.

Despite the fact that the Constitution calls for THREE EQUAL BRANCHES of government, in my opinion, Sandra Day O'Connor's statement is tantamount to saying there must be *NO* checks and balances on the judiciary beyond nomination by the President and consent by the Senate. In my opinion, any attempt by the weakened legislative or executive branches to exercise and preserve power provided to them by the Constitution is the "beginning of dictatorship" in her eyes.

Dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam Hussein, etc. have caused millions to be killed. Dictators are not usually interested in saving innocent lives. The Supreme Court has caused millions of innocents to be killed thanks to Roe v. Wade and various other cases (Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, for example, during O'Connor's co-reign). Hmm...

It is my opinion that there IS a dictatorship right now: a dictatorship by the Supreme Court. Laws seem to pop up when legislators feel the composition of the Supreme Court is favorable to a particular view. Take the recent law in South Dakota banning abortion. People think there is a chance of getting a 5-4 pro-life decision out of the Supreme Court. (I personally don't think it has a chance. One could HOPE that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito will vote pro-life. Even Alito, subjected to much slander and abuse by pro-aborts, does not have a straight pro-life voting record. Beyond those four, the other five can be counted on to make pro-abort decisions. It will still be 5-4 in favor of infanticide.) That is the only reason why this law has been put in place. While I am glad these legislators care about the right to life, it's sad when laws respecting the right to life can only be put in place depending on who is occupying the bench at the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court decisions are subject to the whims of whomever is sitting on the bench at the time. In 1857, there were enough racist justices on the Supreme Court to form a blatantly evil opinion in Dred Scott vs. Sanford. The ruling denied personhood to African Americans. It was a pro-slavery ruling. Read about it on Wikipedia. In 1973, there were enough pro-abortion justices on the Supreme Court to deny personhood to innocent human babies.

If "the law" truly says we have a right to slaughter innocent human babies, why were there ANY dissenters to the evil Roe v. Wade decision? It is often said that the justices on the Supreme Court have some of the most brilliant legal minds. If so, why couldn't they concur? Why was it not a 9-0 opinion?

Be her own CHOICE, Sandra Day O'Connor is, thankfully, no longer in power. She will be subject to the laws legislated from the bench of the Supreme Court just like the rest of us. She will no longer have the ability to hand out execution sentences to innocent human babies by voting pro-abortion in Supreme Court decisions.

By the efforts of some, society has taken God out of almost every aspect of society. He has given us Ten Commandments (one of which states Thou shalt not kill). We have an Infallible and Perfect Judge Who has given us all the laws we need. While we choose to ignore them on earth, each of us will eventually face that Perfect and Infallible Judge to give an accounting of our earthly life. Then we will be sent to Purgatory (with eventual eternity in Heaven) or we will be sent to hell.

Jesus said "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me." Innocent human babies and people like Terri Schiavo are the least of God's people. The brutal acts that have been done to them have been done to God Himself.

Let us pray that those who support child sacrifice and sacrifice of innocent born people like Terri Schiavo will turn around. Let us pray that they will convert, confess, and repent. And of course, let us remember that nobody is perfect. EVERYONE must continue to convert by avoiding every sin possible. With the exception of Jesus and His and our Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, no human being is without sin or some sort. May the peace of Jesus Christ be with you always.