UN Committee Accuses RCC of Torture

The Committee Against Torture (CAT) has accused the Catholic Church's stand on abortion as "torture!"  In a statement I heard on the radio this morning (Phoenix, KFYI) the CAT says that the Church's position on abortion amounts to torture in countries where abortion is completely illegal because it forces young girls and women to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, even those due to rape or incest.  The Washington Examiner reports the CAT as saying the Church position "amounts to torture" and that it also leads women to seek out "unsafe abortions" reports Ashley E. McGuire of the group Catholic Voices USA (ibid), McGuire continues: "The church doesn’t believe there is anything as a safe abortion."

What is really taking place here is a coordinated effort by the CAT, and others who share the pro-abortion and anti-Catholic bigotry, to get the Vatican removed from the United Nations.  The irony of their position is they are allegedly against torture and yet abortion is one of the cruelest forms of torture which can be forced upon an innocent life, and they don't even consider the psychological affects abortion has on the would-have-been mothers when they come to realize they murdered their own child (or children, in cases of multiple abortions).  Being Pro-Life is what a committee like the CAT should be all about supporting!  No, what is really going on here is anti-Catholic bigotry - but will anyone (besides Catholics) stand up to the bullying bigots?

Addendum, May 12, 2014:
I was accused of "hyperbole" because I posted this article, so let me demonstrate that it was not merely me seeking some sort of sensationalism...

(CNSNews.com) - The Center for Reproductive Rights, a non-governmental organization that advocates for legalized abortion, is urging the United Nations Committee Against Torture to tell the Catholic Church that “the freedom of speech and of religion” do not give the church the right to advocate against abortion.
When the committee met in Geneva on Monday for a hearing on the Vatican’s compliance with the Convention Against Torture, Vice Chairperson Felice Gaer, an American, said in her opening statement that laws that ban all abortion—which is the position of the Catholic Church--may violate the convention.

Lifenews.com - Vatican officials are blasting the Untied Nations after a UN panel made wild-eyed claims that the Catholic Church’s pro-life teachings “promote torture.” The UN panel is expected to release its report on the Catholic Church at the end of the month.

NCR: GENEVA — The Holy See’s representative to the United Nations in Geneva is hoping for a “sense of moderation and respect” in the final conclusions of a U.N. committee after it questioned the Holy See May 5-6 on clerical sex abuse in the context of torture.

Wall Street Journal:  The United Nations committee that monitors compliance with the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment is being urged by several influential nongovernmental organizations to condemn the Vatican when the committee meets this week in Geneva. These groups, including the Center for Constitutional Rights, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, and the Center for Reproductive Rights, claim that the Catholic Church's handling of child-sexual-abuse accusations against priests and the church's stand on birth control and abortion amount to violations of the Convention Against Torture.

If the U.N. committee were to grant the groups' request and conclude that the Vatican has violated the Convention Against Torture, this would represent a legally insupportable and perverse interpretation of the treaty, actually weakening its effectiveness. It would also represent a blatant attack on religious freedom.

Pregnant and Brain Dead

Currently there is no decision in the case of Marlise Munoz and her unborn child.  A judge has ruled that Munoz be removed from life support by 5pm Monday (tomorrow, as of this writing) but the hospital has made no decision to actually do so... yet.  They are citing the precedent that since there is no written advanced directives that they are not permitted to remove life support when there is an unborn child involved.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/25/no-decision-on-order-to-end-life-support-for-pregnant-brain-dead-woman-hospital/

Another report is citing evidence that the child is "abnormal" and that it has hydrocephalus (water on the brain), putting into question the health of the child.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-eyes-turn-to-texas-courtroom-weighing-fate-of-brain-dead-woman-fetus-20140124,0,501153.story

From a Catholic perspective, whether or not the child MAY be born with "abnormalities" is not really to be part of the equation.  However, it may also be argued, not taking the child into consideration, that "heroic" efforts to preserve "life" in Marlise Munoz are NOT required, from a Catholic perspective.  Now, especially since "life" has apparently left Mrs. Munoz, there can be grounds for them to remove life support from her.  Again, those who are supporting removal of life support due to the "distinct abnomality" of the child, are not gaining any ground - from a Catholic perspective.  If the life of the child is being brought into the equation, then support must be maintained.

LIFE In The Womb

Life begins at conception, and this short video - just over 4 minutes long - takes us from conception to birth.  It is absolutely undeniable that once conceived, there is LIFE!

How anyone could watch something like this and still consider abortion as an "alternative" is just beyond comprehension!  

How About Artificial Birth Control?

Most probably don't realize it, but most forms of artificial birth control (ABC) are actually abortifacients.  Why?  Because most do not prevent conception!  Sperm and egg still "get together" and the ABC prevents implantation in the uterine wall either chemically or by "tricking" the body into thinking it is not a fertile time, and thus this newly conceived LIFE is artificially prohibited from its NATURAL process - and it DIES. 

How About Cases of Rape or Incest?

In God's timing, when we are blessed with conception - it is absolutely wrong (evil) to try to overrule what has begun.  God has given to you a LIFE to love and care for!  Regardless of the circumstances of how that LIFE has begun - it is not the child's fault he/she has began their existence.  It is wrong (evil) to kill that child for something they are not guilty of.

Sacred Life

Have to share another Facebook picture.

Abortifacient Pill?

In a recent discussion about contraception I pointed out that "the pill" can be and sometimes (perhaps often) an abortifacient as it does not always prevent ovulation.  When ovulation occurs so can conception.  Due to another "side effect" of "the pill" if conception does occur, the uterine wall is not in a condition to accept the newly conceived child, and thus it is expelled from the uterus and dies.  When this does occur "the pill" is not contraceptive - for it did not stop conception, rather it is abortifacient - it causes an early abortion.  A life which had just begun has ended all too soon.  

Now the person I was speaking to insisted that "the pill" is not an abortifacient, or that perhaps in the case of "the mini pill," if you miss a dose, it could be.  The person insisted that while on "the pill," if taken as prescribed, ovulation cannot occur - and where there is no egg, there can be no conception.   I do not expect that everyone reading this will be convinced, but I do believe that if one reads through the articles objectively, there should be enough irrefutable evidence here to at least get even the toughest to convince to question and do their own research.

Well, rather than argue without having my facts ready and documented, I let it go and went back to do some research to post here.

Ovulation While On "The Pill?"

Can you ovulate while on "the pill?"  YES!  While the "combination pill" is designed to prevent ovulation, there are "break-through ovulations" and while rare, they DO happen.  When this DOES happen the egg can be fertilized, thus conception CAN occur - but due to the other properties of the "combination pill" the uterus will not be in a condition to accept the fertilized egg, thus the newly conceived baby will be aborted.

http://www.ivillage.com/can-you-ovulate-while-pill/6-n-145796

Changes in the Pill

The original contraceptive pills, 30 years ago, contained a high dose of the hormone estrogen.  Because of this, almost 100% of their effect was to suppress ovulation.  But there were side effects from this high estrogen content, and that was primarily the substantial risk of blood clots.  If these broke loose and went to the heart, lung or brain, they were very dangerous, and sometimes fatal, even for young women.

During the years since that time, the drug companies have progressively reduced the amount of estrogen in the pill so that now, depending on the pill, it is only 1/20^th, or even 1/30^th as much as it was when the pill was first introduced.  With this reduction in estrogen, there has been a drop in the complication of blood clots, but, with the reduced estrogen, there has been an increase in what we call “breakthrough ovulation.”  The estrogen level is so low that it doesn’t suppress ovulation all of the time anymore, and sometimes there is what we call a breakthrough ovulation—ovulation which breaks through the effect of the drug and is simply a plain old ovulation.  It just happens.  Fertilization, then, can occur.  But if fertilization occurs, implantation within the nutrient lining of the womb is prevented by another action of the same pill.  That action is a hardening of the lining of the womb.  What occurs, then, is an induced micro-abortion at one week of life.

The bottom line, then, for the commonly used contraceptive pill is this:  In 97 or 98% of the time, the effect is one of preventing pregnancy.  But, in perhaps two or more percent of the time, the effect is abortifacient.  There is no way in the normal clinical practice of obstetrics of knowing which is happening, or when.

http://www.lifeissues.org/abortifacients/pill.html

Conception - Life Begins!

3-7% of Women on The Pill Actually Get Pregnant!

Based upon what we know of "break-through ovulations" we must ask, if 3-7% of women on "the Pill" actually get pregnant, how many more of these "break-through ovulations" occur and conception happens?   Due to the other effect of "the Pill" in making implantation in the uterus nearly impossible (again pointing to the 3-7% where it was actually successful!) what is really happening is an early abortion.  In these cases after about one week of life the embryonic baby dies and is aborted.  The article linked to this section is a doctor's explanation of these facts.

http://www.ccli.org/contraception/mdexplains.php

More Evidence of Break-Through Ovulation and Even Pregnancy

Q. But none of these things happened to my girl friend. She always took her tablet at breakfast time, has not had any stomach upset and hadn’t taken any other medicines. How come she is now pregnant?

A. One possible answer is that your girl friend had what is known as ‘break-through ovulation’. As the name suggests, a woman ovulates even though she always takes her daily dose of the pill, is not sick, and is not taking any other medications.

Proof that break-through ovulation (sometimes also called ‘escape-ovulation’) does occur even under perfect health conditions was first shown by Dr. Nine Van der Vange, State University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, Dept. of Obstetrics. & Gynaecology in 1984.

Dr Van der Vange’s research used high resolution ultra-sound which visually showed that women ovulate on the popularly prescribed low dose pill. A blood test confirmed that ovulation had occurred. The pill can have a break-through ovulation rate that can be as high as 17 ovulations per 100 women who used the pill for one year.

Other researchers have shown that the low dose pill has an even higher rate of break-through ovulation of almost 27 ovulations per 100 women per year.

http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html 

Pregnancy Does Occur While On The Pill

Ovulation can occasionally occur even when a woman never misses a pill [between 1 and 3 of very 100 women get pregnant while on the pill, and "research indicates that figure may be considerably higher, up to 4% for 'good compliers' and 8% for 'poor compliers'" (Potter, "How Effective Are Contraceptives?" Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996; 135:13S-23S.)].

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-bcpill.html

All Forms of "The Pill" are Abortifacient 

Convenience-minded women in general either do not know or no longer care that all birth control pills on the market today are abortifacients. 

http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/249?task=view

If you're still reading to this point, GOOD!  I pray that God guides you to make the proper decisions in your life - and decisions which do not prematurely end the life of any human being.

Feel free to leave a comment here on this blog.

Answering Pro-Abortion

Image of an 8 week old baby.

I found this blog entry through cathmom5's blog, and the answers given in this discussion are quite good, so I want to pass along the link and hope you'll read through it too.

 http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2010/09/answering-sophie-mother-teresa-vs.html




This reminds me of someone close to me who recently found out she was pregnant.  She had some definite "pro-choice" leanings... that is until she saw the ultrasound at 8 weeks!  Here is an actual picture from that ultrasound:

8 week old - ultrasound image

Now, you can't see what SHE saw during the ultrasound, but you can definitely see the head and body of her newly conceived CHILD.  What SHE saw was a BABY which was MOVING AROUND and REACTING to the stimulus of the ultrasound tech who was poking and prodding the sensor around MOMMY'S belly!  Upon seeing this and hearing the heartbeat of her CHILD, well, she's no longer "pro-choice" at all.  Her words, "How could anyone KILL that CHILD?" (emphasis mine).  The first image is not of the same child, but they are the same age.  It is amazing, and clearly human and if you could SEE it move, you could see it is ALIVE!

Speaking from my own experiences, being the biological father of 5 children (we've adopted another too), once that CHILD gets a little bigger and you can FEEL THE MOVEMENT (Mommy always gets to feel that before Daddy), there is just no denying how ALIVE and RESPONSIVE the CHILD is to not only Mommy, but to outside pokings from Daddy (and others) and even to noises from the world this BABY will soon be released into.

I hope this message reaches some out there who might have considered terminating the life of a young one within them, and that they have changed their mind.

No Communion for Pro Abort Politicians

Vatican Official: Bishops Have no Choice But to Refuse Communion to Pro-Abort Politicians

By Hilary White

ROME, January 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Archbishop Raymond Burke, in an exclusive interview last week, told LifeSiteNews.com that the issue of pro-abortion politicians continuing to receive Holy Communion is still one of major concern and that it is the duty of bishops to ensure that they are refused.

He told LifeSiteNews.com, "I don't understand the continual debate that goes on about it. There's not a question that a Catholic who publicly, and after admonition, supports pro-abortion legislation is not to receive Holy Communion and is not to be given Holy Communion."

"The Church's law is very clear," said Archbishop Burke, who was appointed last year by Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Church's highest court, the Apostolic Signatura. "The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn't say that the bishop shall decide this. It's an absolute."

Among the US bishops directly to address the issue, Archbishop Burke was one of around a dozen who vigorously supported a directive of the Vatican that said pro-abortion Catholic politicians "must be refused" Holy Communion if they attempt to receive at Mass. Others have refused to abide by the Vatican instruction and the Church's own Code of Canon Law, saying they would rather focus on "education" of such politicians.

Archbishop Burke called "nonsense" the accusation, regularly made by some bishops, that refusing Holy Communion "makes the Communion rail a [political] battle ground". In fact, he said, the precise opposite is true. The politician who insists on being seen receiving Holy Communion, despite his opposition to the Church's central teachings, is using that reception for political leverage.

In 2004, when self-proclaimed Catholic and candidate for the Democrat party, Sen. John Kerry, was frequently photographed receiving Holy Communion despite his vigorous support of abortion, the US Bishops Conference issued a document which said only that it is up to individual bishops whether to implement the Church's code of Canon Law and refuse Communion. The issue has remained prominent with the appointment of Joe Biden, another pro-abortion Catholic politician, as Vice President of the United States of America.

Archbishop Burke recalled previous experiences with Kerry, pointing to the several occasions when the senator was pictured in Time magazine receiving Communion from Papal representatives at various public events. Burke said that it is clear that Kerry was using his reception of Holy Communion to send a message.

"He wants to not only receive Holy Communion from a bishop but from the papal representative. I think that's what his point was. Get it in Time magazine, so people read it and say to themselves, 'He must be in good standing'."

"What are they doing? They're using the Eucharist as a political tool."

In refusing, far from politicising the Eucharist, the Church is returning the matter to its religious reality. The most important reasons to refuse, he said, are pastoral and religious in nature.

"The Holy Eucharist, the most sacred reality of our life in the Church, has to be protected against sacrilege. At the same time, individuals have to be protected for the sake of their own salvation from committing one of the gravest sins, namely to receive Holy Communion unworthily."

Archbishop Burke also dismissed the commonly proffered excuse that such politicians need more "education". Speaking from his own direct experience, he said that Catholic politicians who are informed by their pastors or bishops that their positions in support of pro-abortion legislation makes it impossible for them to receive Holy Communion, "I've always found that they don't come forward."

"When you talk to these people, they know," he said. "They know what they're doing is very wrong. They have to answer to God for that, but why through our pastoral negligence add on to that, that they have to answer to God for who knows how many unworthy receptions of Holy Communion?"

Archbishop Burke said that the issue had been debated enough. He rejected the idea that the matter should be left to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, saying the Conference has no authority in the matter. "This is a law of the universal Church and it should be applied."

"I think this argument too is being used by people who don't want to confront the issue, this whole 'wait 'til the Conference decides'...well the Conference has been discussing this since at least 2004. And nothing happens."

When asked what the solution was, he responded, "Individual bishops and priests simply have to do their duty. They have to confront politicians, Catholic politicians, who are sinning gravely and publicly in this regard. And that's their duty.

"And if they carry it out, not only can they not be reproached for that, but they should be praised for confronting this situation."