lifesitenews--2020-04-15--How a ‘consequence-free’ sex culture actually destroys young people

April 15 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The world into which we send our young people is unlike our ancestors ’ world in many ways .
It is organized on principles of reward and punishment that combine in an incoherent way , and therefore send mixed signals .
In certain respects , it has become difficult to combine virtue and natural happiness with worldly success , and this creates painful choices .
Modernity likes to claim that the opposite is true : that it was our ancestors who suffered this dilemma on account of their “ artificial ” social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activity outside marriage less attractive , and that is something many people in all ages have been tempted to do .
So , the modern argument goes , that was artificial , and everyone is better off now that those conventions have , for nearly everyone and for practical purposes , disappeared .
People can do what they like , and this is obviously a good thing , isn ’ t it ?
It is not , however , a foregone conclusion that satisfying our immediate , natural , sexual desires is compatible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question requires some serious thought .
It is overwhelmingly likely for each person embarking on adult life that he or she will at some point want to marry and have children .
Setting aside the possibility of a religious vocation , most people do marry , and many of those who do not would have liked to do so .
This includes many who dismissed the thought at a younger age , so it is not a possibility that should lightly be excluded in advance .
For women , the desire to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up with you .
The demands of full-time education and modern social convention have pushed the age at first marriage upward .
In 2018 , it was 27.8 for women in the USA , and two years later for men .
This leaves young men and women with something like a decade of adulthood before marriage .
What kind of romantic relationships can you or should you have during that long interval ?
The normal answer is to “ have fun , ” and the modern claim , essentially , is that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To resist it , on the contrary , is in most social settings to make oneself not so much a rebel as an anti-social freak .
The standard lifestyle of serial monogamy shading into promiscuity does have drawbacks , however .
The first and most obvious consideration is physical .
A decade of sexual activity during one ’ s time of peak fertility will naturally lead to pregnancy .
That is not usually part of the plan , so this lifestyle implies long-term commitment to contraception .
This amount of time using contraception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negligible levels of contraceptive failure are far from negligible , and the same goes for sexually-transmitted disease .
In the case of pregnancy , this means that the culture of consequence-free sex must also be a culture of abortion .
The only forms of contraception that a woman can control herself are those with potentially bad consequences for her health , and especially for her future fertility .
Again , this might seem a negligible issue , but use them for 10 years and the probabilities start adding up .
Readers can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ psychological perspective , consequence-free sex is not , in reality , free of emotional consequences .
The heartbreak , betrayal , jealousy , and disappointment that are part and parcel of this lifestyle are , we are told by the modern ideology , the price you have to pay for emotionally rewarding relationships .
This is at right angles to the truth .
Yes , emotional engagement with another human being brings with it the possibility of betrayal , but the likelihood of betrayal is the result of a lack of real commitment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficulty is to try to hold back from emotional involvement as much as possible .
This is difficult , but practice makes perfect .
After a decade or so of constant effort , it can be second nature to divorce sexuality from affection .
This is not a training for marriage , however , but for divorce .
From a spiritual perspective , let us hope and pray that all of our young people repent of their youthful indiscretions when they finally get married .
Many of the greatest saints have had much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not impossible .
But repentance of a serious sin requires recognizing that what one did was seriously wrong .
One can never say it doesn ’ t matter too much because later repentance is possible .
If it doesn ’ t matter , then later repentance is unnecessary .
If one thinks it didn ’ t matter , later repentance is impossible .
The reality is that a great many young Catholics get married without purifying their consciences , and therefore fail to gain the fullness of the graces of the sacrament .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the friendship of God , and brings to an end the life of grace .
To spend a prolonged period in this state is not only bad because of the perhaps remote possibility of death .
It is bad because it is death , the death of the soul .

April 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The world into which we send our young people is unlike our ancestors’ world in many ways. It is organized on principles of reward and punishment that combine in an incoherent way, and therefore send mixed signals. In certain respects, it has become difficult to combine virtue and natural happiness with worldly success, and this creates painful choices.
Modernity likes to claim that the opposite is true: that it was our ancestors who suffered this dilemma on account of their “artificial” social conventions. Notably, these made sexual activity outside marriage less attractive, and that is something many people in all ages have been tempted to do. So, the modern argument goes, that was artificial, and everyone is better off now that those conventions have, for nearly everyone and for practical purposes, disappeared. People can do what they like, and this is obviously a good thing, isn’t it?
It is not, however, a foregone conclusion that satisfying our immediate, natural, sexual desires is compatible with our dearest long-term objectives. The question requires some serious thought.
It is overwhelmingly likely for each person embarking on adult life that he or she will at some point want to marry and have children. Setting aside the possibility of a religious vocation, most people do marry, and many of those who do not would have liked to do so. This includes many who dismissed the thought at a younger age, so it is not a possibility that should lightly be excluded in advance. For women, the desire to have children has a particular tendency to catch up with you.
The demands of full-time education and modern social convention have pushed the age at first marriage upward. In 2018, it was 27.8 for women in the USA, and two years later for men. This leaves young men and women with something like a decade of adulthood before marriage. What kind of romantic relationships can you or should you have during that long interval?
The normal answer is to “have fun,” and the modern claim, essentially, is that there is no downside to this lifestyle. To resist it, on the contrary, is in most social settings to make oneself not so much a rebel as an anti-social freak. The standard lifestyle of serial monogamy shading into promiscuity does have drawbacks, however.
The first and most obvious consideration is physical. A decade of sexual activity during one’s time of peak fertility will naturally lead to pregnancy. That is not usually part of the plan, so this lifestyle implies long-term commitment to contraception. This amount of time using contraception means that what seems on paper like negligible levels of contraceptive failure are far from negligible, and the same goes for sexually-transmitted disease. In the case of pregnancy, this means that the culture of consequence-free sex must also be a culture of abortion.
The only forms of contraception that a woman can control herself are those with potentially bad consequences for her health, and especially for her future fertility. Again, this might seem a negligible issue, but use them for 10 years and the probabilities start adding up. Readers can do internet searches for themselves.
From a psychological perspective, consequence-free sex is not, in reality, free of emotional consequences. The heartbreak, betrayal, jealousy, and disappointment that are part and parcel of this lifestyle are, we are told by the modern ideology, the price you have to pay for emotionally rewarding relationships. This is at right angles to the truth. Yes, emotional engagement with another human being brings with it the possibility of betrayal, but the likelihood of betrayal is the result of a lack of real commitment. The only possible answer to this difficulty is to try to hold back from emotional involvement as much as possible. This is difficult, but practice makes perfect. After a decade or so of constant effort, it can be second nature to divorce sexuality from affection. This is not a training for marriage, however, but for divorce.
From a spiritual perspective, let us hope and pray that all of our young people repent of their youthful indiscretions when they finally get married. Many of the greatest saints have had much to repent, so this is certainly not impossible. But repentance of a serious sin requires recognizing that what one did was seriously wrong. One can never say it doesn’t matter too much because later repentance is possible. If it doesn’t matter, then later repentance is unnecessary. If one thinks it didn’t matter, later repentance is impossible. The reality is that a great many young Catholics get married without purifying their consciences, and therefore fail to gain the fullness of the graces of the sacrament.
A single mortal sin makes one lose the friendship of God, and brings to an end the life of grace. To spend a prolonged period in this state is not only bad because of the perhaps remote possibility of death. It is bad because it is death, the death of the soul.
Follow Joseph Dr Joseph Shaw has a Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford University, where he also gained a first degree in Politics and Philosophy and a graduate Diploma in Theology. He has published on Ethics and Philosophy of Religion and is the editor of The Case for Liturgical Restoration: Una Voce Position Papers on the Extraordinary Form (Angelico Press). He is the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales and Secretary of Una Voce International. He teaches Philosophy in Oxford University and lives nearby with his wife and nine children.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-15--Trudeau Liberals plan laws to punish citizens who ‘spread misinformation’ about COVID-19

April 15 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A Canadian Liberal politician who wants a law that would punish anyone spreading “ misinformation ” about the coronavirus online has the backing of a politician who said “ extraordinary times require extraordinary measures.
” Canadian Privy Council president Dominic LeBlanc was quoted in a CBC report as saying he is interested in drafting legislation that would make it a criminal offense in Canada to “ spread misinformation ” regarding the coronavirus that could “ harm people.
” NDP MP Charlie Angus said in the CBC report that he fully backs any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are actually actively working to spread disinformation.
” '' I think it would be reasonable to enact with the RCMP , with our security officials and some public officials , a team to monitor disinformation and have the power to shut it down so it does not interfere with the efforts of our front-line medical workers , '' Angus said in the CBC report .
The Privy Council works closely with the prime minister and cabinet to implement “ its vision , goals , and decisions in a timely manner.
” LeBlanc told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a similar law to stop “ disinformation ” in the United Kingdom that ’ s being advocated by British MP Damian Collins .
Collins has called for stiff punishment of those who “ knowingly , willingly and at scale and maliciously spread this content.
” He wants laws in place in the UK combating online disinformation potentially built around German online hate speech laws .
Angus is a supporter of a website launched by Collins called “ Infotagion , ” which is a site that “ seeks to fight the disinformation contagion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official sources , like public health services and the World Health Organisation ( WHO ) .
” Collins ’ site , which claims to be independent , has the support of another Canadian MP , Liberal Nate Erskine .
Recently , the WHO ’ s credibility has come into question , with U.S. President Donald Trump yesterday telling his administration to halt funding to the organization .
Trump said the WHO failed to do its “ basic duty ” to ensure that “ accurate information about international health ” was shared quickly with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already discussed this idea with other high-ranking ministers , such as Justice Minister David Lametti .
It is expected that it will take some time to draft such a law .
`` Legislatures and parliaments are meeting scarcely because of the current context of the pandemic , so it 's not a quick solution , but it 's certainly something that we would be open ( to ) as a government , '' LeBlanc told the CBC .
Lisa D.S .
Bildy , a lawyer for the Canada-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the CBC media report , “ the devil is in the wiggle words , like ‘ misinformation ’ and ‘ harm.
’ ” “ From media reports , it seems the government is conflating concerns about fraudulent actors taking advantage of the crisis , with concerns about ‘ misinformation ’ being spread and causing ‘ harm.
’ Obviously , if someone is taking advantage of the crisis to commit fraud , they should be prosecuted , ” Bildy said .
Bildy added that when so much information is not known about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree on everything.
” “ With the benefit of hindsight , much of what was said about the virus and the appropriate response to it , including by governments themselves , will prove to be misinformation , ” Bildy said .
Bildy went on to note that governments must ensure that a citizen ’ s ability to communicate freely their ideas and strategies must be respected .
“ Any attempt to muzzle peoples ' ability to communicate their theories , ideas , strategies or other viewpoints that go against the government 's current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Bildy said .
“ It also sounds like a convenient continuation of this government 's efforts to monitor and control information on the internet .
People should n't take advantage of a crisis to defraud others ; but likewise , the government should n't take advantage of a crisis to start censoring expression.
” In March , the UK government announced an online “ rapid response team ” in the name of combating “ misinformation ” about the coronavirus .
UK Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden said that his government is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ll be pressing them this week for further action to stem the spread of falsehoods and rumours which could cost lives.
” Angus said such a law in Canada would not be a question of “ free speech ” but an inquiry of going after state operators or “ conspiracy theorist cranks who seem to get their kicks out of creating havoc . ''
As it stands now , LeBlanc says Health Canada has the majority of the responsibility to monitor any “ misinformation ” that is being spread about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal election , pro-abortion Prime Minister Justin Trudeau , who recently tried to use the coronavirus as a “ totalitarian power grab , ” had a committee made up to combat election “ disinformation.
” This committee included using Canada ’ s official spy agency , the Communications Security Establishment ( CSE ) .
In early April , Minister of Canadian Heritage Steven Guilbeault announced that funding of $ 3 million would be distributed to various groups to counter online coronavirus misinformation .
In February , Guilbeault remarked during an interview with CTV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ websites should be required to be licensed , like radio and television broadcasters .
Despite backtracking from his comments , Guilbeault nevertheless was faced with a flurry of backlash that he was trying to regulate all news media in Canada .
One Conservative MP said the Trudeau government ’ s report recommending a “ media registry ” for news outlets in Canada scares the “ hell out of me.
” Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer told Trudeau that he was “ suspicious ” of the licensing proposal .
“ It ’ s no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about this , this is the same Prime Minister who has admiration for China ’ s basic dictatorship , the same prime minister who he praised on Fidel Castro , a man who is responsible for the death of millions , ” he said .
The Liberal government report is titled “ Canada 's communications future : Time to act.
” A part of the report called for increasing funding by a total of $ 1.2 billion to the state-owned and leftist Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ( CBC ) , going as far to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role to play ” in shutting down supposed fake news websites .
The pro-abortion Trudeau government has tried to censor independent media in Canada before .
In late 2019 , they went against social media companies to combat “ misinformation.
” JCFF lawyers sound the alarm of government overreach , holding the govt to account The JCCF has dedicated a portion of its website to hold the government accountable during the coronavirus pandemic , ensuring that “ in unprecedented times like these , the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms matters more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14 , the JCCF said governments must be held to account as people ’ s freedoms are curtailed .
“ The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires that the response of governments to this challenge must remain rational , and commensurate with demonstrable evidence , and the checks and balances of the rule of law , ” the JCFF statement read .
“ The severe curtailment of civil liberties without projected timelines for their rescission , the shutdown of economic activity and resulting job losses , the increase of human suffering through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the closure of courts of justice denying citizens a ready recourse , are all factors which bear close scrutiny.
” Bildy noted that it was the Chinese Communist Party 's censorship of doctors who tried to sound the alarm that “ got us into this mess in the first place.
” “ If the government of Canada believes that there is misinformation being spread , they are free to use their extensive platform , including daily televised briefings , to communicate better information.
” Along with the concerns noted by the JCCF , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in the running to become the next leader of the Conservative Party , stated in a Twitter message last week that “ I am greatly concerned that our civil liberties are being restricted with no real plan for when they will come back .
Temporary safety measures are necessary when warranted , but governments must also be seized with the urgency to restore our freedoms and should demonstrate a clear plan to restore society to a state of normalcy.
” Last week , the JCCF voiced their concern that the Canadian province @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens via cell phones to “ deal with ” those who break quarantine is government overreach .
Trudeau said in late March that “ all options are on the table ” when it comes to combating the coronavirus .
This includes leaving the door open to the possibility of tracking Canadians ’ cell phones via a dedicated app or through one ’ s cell phone provider .
Canada has been in a nationwide lockdown since early March , with all public schools , churches , sporting events , and sit-down restaurants , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As of today , Canada has registered under 28,205 cases with 1,007 deaths .
Trudeau said Canadians ’ lives would not return to “ normal ” without a vaccine , which could take between 12 to 18 months .
The Honourable Dominic LeBlanc President of the Queen ’ s Privy Council for Canada Constituency Office Main office - Shediac 328 Main Street Suite I Shediac , New Brunswick E4P 2E3 Telephone : 506-533-5700 Fax : 506-533-5888 Justin Trudeau - Office of the Prime Minister 80 Wellington Street Ottawa , ON K1A 0A2 Fax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] https : //pm.gc.ca/en/connect/contact

Legislation is being discussed to make what the government determines to be 'disinformation' a criminal offense.
April 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A Canadian Liberal politician who wants a law that would punish anyone spreading “misinformation” about the coronavirus online has the backing of a politician who said “extraordinary times require extraordinary measures.”
Canadian Privy Council president Dominic LeBlanc was quoted in a CBC report as saying he is interested in drafting legislation that would make it a criminal offense in Canada to “spread misinformation” regarding the coronavirus that could “harm people.”
NDP MP Charlie Angus said in the CBC report that he fully backs any legislation that would punish “people who are actually actively working to spread disinformation.”
“I think it would be reasonable to enact with the RCMP, with our security officials and some public officials, a team to monitor disinformation and have the power to shut it down so it does not interfere with the efforts of our front-line medical workers,” Angus said in the CBC report.
The Privy Council works closely with the prime minister and cabinet to implement “its vision, goals, and decisions in a timely manner.”
LeBlanc told the CBC that he has an interest in a similar law to stop “disinformation” in the United Kingdom that’s being advocated by British MP Damian Collins.
Collins has called for stiff punishment of those who “knowingly, willingly and at scale and maliciously spread this content.” He wants laws in place in the UK combating online disinformation potentially built around German online hate speech laws.
Angus is a supporter of a website launched by Collins called “Infotagion,” which is a site that “seeks to fight the disinformation contagion about COVID-19” using “trusted and official sources, like public health services and the World Health Organisation (WHO).”
Collins’ site, which claims to be independent, has the support of another Canadian MP, Liberal Nate Erskine.
Recently, the WHO’s credibility has come into question, with U.S. President Donald Trump yesterday telling his administration to halt funding to the organization. Trump said the WHO failed to do its “basic duty” to ensure that “accurate information about international health” was shared quickly with other nations.
LeBlanc said he has already discussed this idea with other high-ranking ministers, such as Justice Minister David Lametti. It is expected that it will take some time to draft such a law.
“Legislatures and parliaments are meeting scarcely because of the current context of the pandemic, so it's not a quick solution, but it's certainly something that we would be open (to) as a government,” LeBlanc told the CBC.
Lisa D.S. Bildy, a lawyer for the Canada-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, told LifeSiteNews that when it comes to the CBC media report, “the devil is in the wiggle words, like ‘misinformation’ and ‘harm.’”
“From media reports, it seems the government is conflating concerns about fraudulent actors taking advantage of the crisis, with concerns about ‘misinformation’ being spread and causing ‘harm.’ Obviously, if someone is taking advantage of the crisis to commit fraud, they should be prosecuted,” Bildy said.
Bildy added that when so much information is not known about the virus, “even epidemiologists can't agree on everything.”
“With the benefit of hindsight, much of what was said about the virus and the appropriate response to it, including by governments themselves, will prove to be misinformation,” Bildy said.
Bildy went on to note that governments must ensure that a citizen’s ability to communicate freely their ideas and strategies must be respected.
“Any attempt to muzzle peoples' ability to communicate their theories, ideas, strategies or other viewpoints that go against the government's current position is censorship and it is unconstitutional,” Bildy said.
“It also sounds like a convenient continuation of this government's efforts to monitor and control information on the internet. People shouldn't take advantage of a crisis to defraud others; but likewise, the government shouldn't take advantage of a crisis to start censoring expression.”
In March, the UK government announced an online “rapid response team” in the name of combating “misinformation” about the coronavirus.
UK Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden said that his government is “working with social media companies, and I’ll be pressing them this week for further action to stem the spread of falsehoods and rumours which could cost lives.”
Angus said such a law in Canada would not be a question of “free speech” but an inquiry of going after state operators or “conspiracy theorist cranks who seem to get their kicks out of creating havoc.”
As it stands now, LeBlanc says Health Canada has the majority of the responsibility to monitor any “misinformation” that is being spread about the coronavirus.
In the fall 2019 Canadian federal election, pro-abortion Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who recently tried to use the coronavirus as a “totalitarian power grab,” had a committee made up to combat election “disinformation.” This committee included using Canada’s Communications Security Establishment (CSE), one of the nation's main security and intelligence organizations responsible for foreign signals intelligence.
In early April, Minister of Canadian Heritage Steven Guilbeault announced that funding of $3 million would be distributed to various groups to counter online coronavirus misinformation.
In February, Guilbeault remarked during an interview with CTV’s Evan Solomon that online news websites should be required to be licensed, like radio and television broadcasters.
Despite backtracking from his comments, Guilbeault nevertheless was faced with a flurry of backlash that he was trying to regulate all news media in Canada. One Conservative MP said the Trudeau government’s report recommending a “media registry” for news outlets in Canada scares the “hell out of me.”
Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer told Trudeau that he was “suspicious” of the licensing proposal.
“It’s no wonder that Canadian’s are suspicious about this, this is the same Prime Minister who has admiration for China’s basic dictatorship, the same prime minister who he praised on Fidel Castro, a man who is responsible for the death of millions,” he said.
The Liberal government report is titled “Canada's communications future: Time to act.” A part of the report called for increasing funding by a total of $1.2 billion to the state-owned and leftist Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), going as far to say the CBC has a “critical role to play” in shutting down supposed fake news websites.
The pro-abortion Trudeau government has tried to censor independent media in Canada before. In late 2019, they went against social media companies to combat “misinformation.”
JCFF lawyers sound the alarm of government overreach, holding the govt to account
The JCCF has dedicated a portion of its website to hold the government accountable during the coronavirus pandemic, ensuring that “in unprecedented times like these, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms matters more than ever.”
In a statement released April 14, the JCCF said governments must be held to account as people’s freedoms are curtailed.
“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires that the response of governments to this challenge must remain rational, and commensurate with demonstrable evidence, and the checks and balances of the rule of law,” the JCFF statement read.
“The severe curtailment of civil liberties without projected timelines for their rescission, the shutdown of economic activity and resulting job losses, the increase of human suffering through confinement and restriction of liberty, and the closure of courts of justice denying citizens a ready recourse, are all factors which bear close scrutiny.”
Bildy noted that it was the Chinese Communist Party's censorship of doctors who tried to sound the alarm that “got us into this mess in the first place.”
“If the government of Canada believes that there is misinformation being spread, they are free to use their extensive platform, including daily televised briefings, to communicate better information.”
Along with the concerns noted by the JCCF, Leslyn Lewis, a pro-life candidate who is in the running to become the next leader of the Conservative Party, stated in a Twitter message last week that “I am greatly concerned that our civil liberties are being restricted with no real plan for when they will come back. Temporary safety measures are necessary when warranted, but governments must also be seized with the urgency to restore our freedoms and should demonstrate a clear plan to restore society to a state of normalcy.”
Last week, the JCCF voiced their concern that the Canadian province of Alberta’s plan to track citizens via cell phones to “deal with” those who break quarantine is government overreach.
Trudeau said in late March that “all options are on the table” when it comes to combating the coronavirus. This includes leaving the door open to the possibility of tracking Canadians’ cell phones via a dedicated app or through one’s cell phone provider.
Canada has been in a nationwide lockdown since early March, with all public schools, churches, sporting events, and sit-down restaurants, and most stores deemed non-essential, shuttered. As of today, Canada has registered under 28,205 cases with 1,007 deaths.
Trudeau said Canadians’ lives would not return to “normal” without a vaccine, which could take between 12 to 18 months.
Contact:
The Honourable Dominic LeBlanc
President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada
Constituency Office
Main office – Shediac
328 Main Street
Suite I
Shediac, New Brunswick
E4P 2E3
Telephone: 506-533-5700
Fax: 506-533-5888
The Honourable Steven Guilbeault – Minister of Canadian Heritage
15 Eddy Street, 12th Floor
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0M5
Telephone: 819-997-7788
Email: [email protected]
Justin Trudeau – Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900
Email: [email protected]
https://pm.gc.ca/en/connect/contact
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-15--Bishops must tell Northern Ireland politicians that abortion is evil, there can be no compromise

April 15 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In July 2019 , Parliament in London passed the British government ’ s Northern Ireland ( Executive Formation , etc ) Act .
Section 9 of that Act threatened to impose on Northern Ireland one of the most extreme abortion regimes in Europe .
In my last blog , I expressed disappointment at the response from the Catholic bishops of Northern Ireland to the Abortion ( Northern Ireland ) Regulations 2020 , which were laid in Parliament by the British government last month ( March 25 ) .
I explained that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on an irrational interpretation of Section 73 of Evangelium Vitae , Pope St. John Paul II ’ s encyclical on the inviolability of human life .
The Catholic bishops advised local politicians as follows : I made the point that the “ strict requirements of the 2019 Act , ” to which the Northern Ireland Catholic bishops refer , involve the removal of legislation that , for nearly 140 years , has been the great bulwark – and virtually the only safeguard – against abortion in Northern Ireland : namely , Sections 58 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Person Act 1861 .
These “ strict requirements ” will also mean that Catholic schools are used to promote and facilitate abortions under the new regime … and that they enforce an abortion regime in Northern Ireland that permits the killing of babies in circumstances even more extreme than is currently permitted under the Abortion Act which prevails in Britain .
So what kind of abortion regulations do the Catholic bishops of Northern Ireland want the Province ’ s politicians to enact ?
What level of abortion would not exceed the strict requirements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the authors of a well-intentioned pro-life London-based initiative , no doubt keen to mitigate the worst effect of the government ’ s framework , circulated proposals for the regulation of abortion in Northern Ireland .
Through this initiative , MPs were asked to lobby the Prime Minister not to exceed the requirements of the 2019 Act by only allowing abortion under the following conditions : • First condition : The gestation is less than 12 weeks .
The pregnant woman has made a statement of alleged rape or incest to an approved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to two practitioners that the statement is consistent with the allegation of rape or incest .
• Second condition : The gestation is less than 12 weeks .
There is a threat to the woman ’ s physical or mental health in continuing the pregnancy .
• Third condition : There is a diagnosis that there is a substantial risk that the condition of the foetus is likely to cause death either before birth or , during birth ; or in the early period after birth .
Such abortions can be up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , these proposals would permit abortion on demand .
In England and Wales , 99.9 percent of abortions are carried out because of a risk to the woman ’ s mental health .
Just over 9 in 10 abortions are performed at 12 weeks or less .
The notes that accompanied these proposals made clear that a strict interpretation of the 2019 Act would allow abortion up to birth for babies with a life expectancy of fewer than four years .
Thus , pro-life MPs were asked to demand the implementation of legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago .
The acceptance of abortion within approved conditions , even on the specious reasoning that it will avoid something even worse , threatened to deal a lethal blow to the conscience of pro-life politicians who support such a strategy .
This may or may not be the legislative approach favoured by the Catholic bishops of Northern Ireland – perhaps they had something stricter in mind .
Nevertheless , whatever their intentions the point I made in my last blog still applies : Imagine for a moment that Section 9 of the 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Would anyone seriously propose amending the law to end the killing of Catholic children while the infanticide of Protestant children continued ?
Even if such legislation permitted the killing of just one child it would clearly be wrong to campaign or vote for such a proposal .
This would remain the case no matter how many lives we calculated might be saved .
The truth is abortion , like the murder of a newborn child , is an intrinsic evil .
And once pro-life legislators adopt a pragmatic approach to an intrinsic evil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their principles .
There is no acceptable level of violence against children .
And that is why the Catholic bishops , pro-life politicians and the whole of the pro-life movement must demand nothing less than the complete repeal of Section 9 of the Northern Ireland ( Executive Formation ) Act .

The hierarchy and pro-lifers need to let the government know that it's unacceptable to allow any violence against children.
PETITION: Urge state governors to stop abortions during coronavirus crisis Sign the petition here.
April 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In July 2019, Parliament in London passed the British government’s Northern Ireland (Executive Formation, etc) Act. Section 9 of that Act threatened to impose on Northern Ireland one of the most extreme abortion regimes in Europe.
In my last blog, I expressed disappointment at the response from the Catholic bishops of Northern Ireland to the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020, which were laid in Parliament by the British government last month (March 25).
I explained that the Northern Ireland bishops were basing their position on an irrational interpretation of Section 73 of Evangelium Vitae, Pope St. John Paul II’s encyclical on the inviolability of human life.
The Catholic bishops advised local politicians as follows:
“The Regulations themselves can be debated by the Assembly and insofar as they exceed the strict requirements of the 2019 Act, new Regulations can be enacted by the Assembly.”
I made the point that the “strict requirements of the 2019 Act,” to which the Northern Ireland Catholic bishops refer, involve the removal of legislation that, for nearly 140 years, has been the great bulwark – and virtually the only safeguard – against abortion in Northern Ireland: namely, Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. These “strict requirements” will also mean that Catholic schools are used to promote and facilitate abortions under the new regime … and that they enforce an abortion regime in Northern Ireland that permits the killing of babies in circumstances even more extreme than is currently permitted under the Abortion Act which prevails in Britain.
So what kind of abortion regulations do the Catholic bishops of Northern Ireland want the Province’s politicians to enact? What level of abortion would not exceed the strict requirements of the 2019 Act?
Last month, the authors of a well-intentioned pro-life London-based initiative, no doubt keen to mitigate the worst effect of the government’s framework, circulated proposals for the regulation of abortion in Northern Ireland. Through this initiative, MPs were asked to lobby the Prime Minister not to exceed the requirements of the 2019 Act by only allowing abortion under the following conditions:
First condition: The gestation is less than 12 weeks. The pregnant woman has made a statement of alleged rape or incest to an approved person and that approved person has confirmed to two practitioners that the statement is consistent with the allegation of rape or incest. Second condition: The gestation is less than 12 weeks. There is a threat to the woman’s physical or mental health in continuing the pregnancy. Third condition: There is a diagnosis that there is a substantial risk that the condition of the foetus is likely to cause death either before birth or, during birth; or in the early period after birth. Such abortions can be up to birth.
Despite the 12-week time limit, these proposals would permit abortion on demand. In England and Wales, 99.9 percent of abortions are carried out because of a risk to the woman’s mental health. Just over 9 in 10 abortions are performed at 12 weeks or less.
The notes that accompanied these proposals made clear that a strict interpretation of the 2019 Act would allow abortion up to birth for babies with a life expectancy of fewer than four years.
Thus, pro-life MPs were asked to demand the implementation of legislation that they opposed less than 12 months ago. The acceptance of abortion within approved conditions, even on the specious reasoning that it will avoid something even worse, threatened to deal a lethal blow to the conscience of pro-life politicians who support such a strategy.
This may or may not be the legislative approach favoured by the Catholic bishops of Northern Ireland – perhaps they had something stricter in mind. Nevertheless, whatever their intentions the point I made in my last blog still applies:
“ … Even if our intention is to save as many lives as possible we can never be complicit in the sacrifice of even one innocent life. This is the Caiaphas Principle, named after the Jewish high priest who condemned Jesus to death (Matthew 26: 57-66) and argued for the sacrifice of one innocent life to save many lives (John 11: 49-52).”
Imagine for a moment that Section 9 of the 2019 Act legalised infanticide rather than abortion. Would anyone seriously propose amending the law to end the killing of Catholic children while the infanticide of Protestant children continued? Even if such legislation permitted the killing of just one child it would clearly be wrong to campaign or vote for such a proposal. This would remain the case no matter how many lives we calculated might be saved.
The truth is abortion, like the murder of a newborn child, is an intrinsic evil. And once pro-life legislators adopt a pragmatic approach to an intrinsic evil they may find it impossible to recover their principles.
There is no acceptable level of violence against children. And that is why the Catholic bishops, pro-life politicians and the whole of the pro-life movement must demand nothing less than the complete repeal of Section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act.
John Smeaton is the Chief executive officer of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC). He has worked fulltime in the pro-life movement for more than four decades. He was educated at Salesian College, London, before going to Oxford where he graduated in English Language and Literature. He qualified as a teacher, becoming head of English at a secondary school. He is married to Josephine. He has a grown-up family and lives in north London.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-15--Trump-appointed judge defends ‘fundamental right’ to abortion. How did we get here?

April 15 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Last week , conservatives laughed and rejoiced at a particularly-dramatic headline in The Washington Post : “ Sitting on a throne of skulls , Mitch McConnell confirms his 8,999th judge.
” Social media was full of posts savoring the liberal tears and celebrating the massive number of judicial nominees confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate since President Donald Trump took office .
If only we could restrain our awe of quantity long enough to think about quality .
Two days earlier , Judge Charles Goodwin blocked Oklahoma from holding elective abortions to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical procedures all across the country .
This sort of thing has happened in multiple states recently , and it ’ s likely just a matter of time before it reaches the Supreme Court .
But what makes this instance the most important of them all is the fact that Goodwin is a Trump appointee , confirmed by a GOP Senate .
Worse , from reading Goodwin ’ s order it ’ s clear that he didn ’ t simply rule based on a technicality or submit to the controlling authority of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually believes .
He declares that the state “ acted in an ‘ unreasonable , ’ ‘ arbitrary , ’ and ‘ oppressive ’ way.
” He parrots the usual “ fundamental right ” and “ undue burden ” rhetoric .
He repeatedly claims outright that denying chemical abortions and substantially delaying surgical ones doesn ’ t just violate Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey , but the 14th Amendment itself ( fact-check : Pants on Fire ) .
How did this happen ?
How did Goodwin slip through despite being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judges that Trump promised ?
There ’ s plenty of blame to go around , so let ’ s start at the top .
Well before his election , Trump famously promised to outsource the judicial selection process to the conservative Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation .
Politically , it was a smart movie to reassure people who were still wary of Trump ’ s liberal past , but it 's clear that neither group ’ s seal of approval is enough to embrace their recommendations without independent review — which isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negligence , lack of devotion to originalism , or an assumption that more moderate-to-liberal judges will be easier to confirm .
While the president has obviously nominated many solid jurists , it ’ s equally obvious that nobody in his White House is bothering to weed out the potential hazards .
As a result , we get pro-aborts like Goodwin and Robert Colville , members of LGBT advocacy groups like Patrick Bumatay and Mary Rowland , or Michael Bogren , who went after a family farm in Michigan for “ discrimination ” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the high-profile hysterics over their nominations , even Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh remain open questions on far too many areas of jurisprudence .
In theory , the above problem is why the Senate reviews judicial nominees before they assume lifetime seats , to ensure thorough evaluation of individuals being considered for such vast power .
In practice … not so much .
All of the aforementioned nominees ( with the exception of Bogren ) went through the confirmation process facing varying degrees of hostility from Democrats , but almost none from Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative enough was not only ignored but attacked .
That brings us to the final reason why Trump , McConnell , and Senate Republicans keep letting us down on this point : because we keep letting them .
The messaging from the overwhelming majority of pro-life groups , publications , and activists is that the judges are a great achievement and Trump is doing just fine as the “ most pro-life president ever.
” To be sure , Trump has done a lot of good that deserves thanks and support .
But when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only about the good and politely ignoring the bad , there ’ s no pressure to improve .
And now we ’ re starting to see the price of our silence .
The danger isn ’ t theoretical anymore ; a judge nominated by a GOP president and rubber-stamped by a GOP Senate just did Planned Parenthood ’ s bidding .
It ’ s too late to know how many more judges are waiting to blow up in our face , but we can start to demand better of our elected leaders for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , assuming enough conservatives decide that protecting the Constitution is more important than making liberals cry .

PETITION: Pres. Trump don't give federal funds to COVID-19 vaccines made from aborted baby cells Sign the petition here.
April 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Last week, conservatives laughed and rejoiced at a particularly-dramatic headline in The Washington Post: “Sitting on a throne of skulls, Mitch McConnell confirms his 8,999th judge.” Social media was full of posts savoring the liberal tears and celebrating the massive number of judicial nominees confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate since President Donald Trump took office.
If only we could restrain our awe of quantity long enough to think about quality.
Two days earlier, Judge Charles Goodwin blocked Oklahoma from holding elective abortions to the same suspensions currently being applied to non-urgent medical procedures all across the country. This sort of thing has happened in multiple states recently, and it’s likely just a matter of time before it reaches the Supreme Court. But what makes this instance the most important of them all is the fact that Goodwin is a Trump appointee, confirmed by a GOP Senate.
Worse, from reading Goodwin’s order it’s clear that he didn’t simply rule based on a technicality or submit to the controlling authority of a higher court — this is what he actually believes.
He declares that the state “acted in an ‘unreasonable,’ ‘arbitrary,’ and ‘oppressive’ way.” He parrots the usual “fundamental right” and “undue burden” rhetoric. He repeatedly claims outright that denying chemical abortions and substantially delaying surgical ones doesn’t just violate Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, but the 14th Amendment itself (fact-check: Pants on Fire).
How did this happen? How did Goodwin slip through despite being the polar opposite of the type of judges that Trump promised?
There’s plenty of blame to go around, so let’s start at the top. Well before his election, Trump famously promised to outsource the judicial selection process to the conservative Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation. Politically, it was a smart move to reassure people who were still wary of Trump’s liberal past, but it's clear that neither group’s seal of approval is enough to embrace their recommendations without independent review — which isn’t happening, whether due to simple negligence, lack of devotion to originalism, or an assumption that more moderate-to-liberal judges will be easier to confirm.
While the president has obviously nominated many solid jurists, it’s equally obvious that nobody in his White House is bothering to weed out the potential hazards. As a result, we get pro-aborts like Goodwin and Robert Colville, members of LGBT advocacy groups like Patrick Bumatay and Mary Rowland, or Michael Bogren, who went after a family farm in Michigan for “discrimination” (translation: Christianity). For all the high-profile hysterics over their nominations, even Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh remain open questions on far too many areas of jurisprudence.
In theory, the above problem is why the Senate reviews judicial nominees before they assume lifetime seats, to ensure thorough evaluation of individuals being considered for such vast power. In practice … not so much. All of the aforementioned nominees (with the exception of Bogren) went through the confirmation process facing varying degrees of hostility from Democrats, but almost none from Republicans. Any questioning of whether nominees were conservative enough was not only ignored but attacked.
That brings us to the final reason why Trump, McConnell, and Senate Republicans keep letting us down on this point: because we keep letting them. The messaging from the overwhelming majority of pro-life groups, publications, and activists is that the judges are a great achievement and Trump is doing just fine as the “most pro-life president ever.” To be sure, Trump has done a lot of good that deserves thanks and support. But when key factions of his base are talking only about the good and politely ignoring the bad, there’s no pressure to improve.
And now we’re starting to see the price of our silence. The danger isn’t theoretical anymore; a judge nominated by a GOP president and rubber-stamped by a GOP Senate just did Planned Parenthood’s bidding. It’s too late to know how many more judges are waiting to blow up in our face, but we can start to demand better of our elected leaders for the next judicial vacancies … that is, assuming enough conservatives decide that protecting the Constitution is more important than making liberals cry.
Follow Calvin Calvin Freiburger is a Wisconsin-based conservative writer and 2011 graduate of Hillsdale College. His commentary and analysis have been featured on NewsReal Blog, Live Action, and various other conservative websites. Before joining LifeSiteNews, he spent two years in Washington, DC, working to build support for the Life at Conception Act with the National Pro-Life Alliance, then worked a year and a half as assistant editor of TheFederalistPapers.org. You can follow him on Twitter @CalFreiburger, and check out his personal website, ConservativeStandards.com.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-15--As political divisions rise in the US, secession may be closer than you think

April 15 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – As political tensions rise , the idea of secession begins to creep into the news and the minds of Americans .
Professor , author , and political philosopher Francis H. Buckley , aka FH Buckley , posits that the idea of secession may not be so far-fetched .
In today ’ s episode of The Van Maren Show , FH Buckley joins Jonathon Van Maren to discuss the current political situation in America and how secession could be looming on the horizon .
Buckley ’ s newest book , American Secession : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , explains how the current division and high tensions Americans face might just culminate in something we have n't seen since the civil war .
Buckley , originally born in Canada , teaches at George Mason University School of Law and has authored numerous books on government , law , and politics .
Buckley and Van Maren discuss the current state of American politics , which could make the United States ripe for secession pending the results of this year ’ s presidential election .
In 2008 , when Obama was elected , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2016 , when Trump was elected , there was chatter about California seceding .
Yet , it was just talk , nothing more .
What makes 2020 different ?
According to Buckley , if Trump wins a second term it will change the way the left views the political landscape .
Currently , the left thinks they control the government , the media , and the entire U.S. and that Trump ’ s first election was just a fluke .
“ Conservatives are pretty good about sucking things up .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was elected .
These guys on the left have thinner skins and they do n't suck things up , ” Buckley tells Van Maren .
If Trump wins again the left can no longer hang onto the illusion of control .
Instead , they will seek more serious changes to keep their power – likely secession , according to Buckley .
“ There are really two Constitutions .
There is a conservative Constitution which goes back to the framers and then you have a liberal Constitution , which means by any means necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets in the way , we ’ re not going to be able to amend it .
But somehow let 's try to do a work around , ” Buckley says .
If/when the left returns to power , Buckley foresees them stacking the courts to tighten the left ’ s control over politics .
As the left loses control of universities , education , and the media in general , Buckley sees the most logical step for the left to be to secede .
Buckley argues that this may not be as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Buckley claims , are better able to serve their citizens than larger countries .
“ Smaller countries are happier countries ; smaller countries are less corrupt .
Smaller countries are more attuned to the voters in their districts , ” Buckley tells listeners .
The Van Maren Show is hosted on numerous platforms , including Spotify , SoundCloud , YouTube , iTunes , and Google Play .
For a full listing of episodes , and to subscribe to various channels , visit our Acast webpage here .
To receive weekly emails when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below :

Could we start to see states seceding as early as the next few years? FH Buckley thinks so.
April 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – As political tensions rise, the idea of secession begins to creep into the news and the minds of Americans. Professor, author, and political philosopher Francis H. Buckley, aka FH Buckley, posits that the idea of secession may not be so far-fetched.
In today’s episode of The Van Maren Show, FH Buckley joins Jonathon Van Maren to discuss the current political situation in America and how secession could be looming on the horizon. Buckley’s newest book, American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup, explains how the current division and high tensions Americans face might just culminate in something we haven't seen since the civil war.
Buckley, originally born in Canada, teaches at George Mason University School of Law and has authored numerous books on government, law, and politics.
Watch the full interview:
Buckley and Van Maren discuss the current state of American politics, which could make the United States ripe for secession pending the results of this year’s presidential election. In 2008, when Obama was elected, there was talk of a Texas secession. In 2016, when Trump was elected, there was chatter about California seceding. Yet, it was just talk, nothing more.
What makes 2020 different? According to Buckley, if Trump wins a second term it will change the way the left views the political landscape. Currently, the left thinks they control the government, the media, and the entire U.S. and that Trump’s first election was just a fluke.
“Conservatives are pretty good about sucking things up. We sucked things up in 2008 when Obama was elected. These guys on the left have thinner skins and they don't suck things up,” Buckley tells Van Maren.
Listen to the full interview:
If Trump wins again the left can no longer hang onto the illusion of control. Instead, they will seek more serious changes to keep their power – likely secession, according to Buckley.
“There are really two Constitutions. There is a conservative Constitution which goes back to the framers and then you have a liberal Constitution, which means by any means necessary. Right. So if the Constitution gets in the way, we’re not going to be able to amend it. But somehow let's try to do a work around,” Buckley says.
If/when the left returns to power, Buckley foresees them stacking the courts to tighten the left’s control over politics.
As the left loses control of universities, education, and the media in general, Buckley sees the most logical step for the left to be to secede.
Buckley argues that this may not be as terrible as it sounds. Smaller countries, Buckley claims, are better able to serve their citizens than larger countries.
“Smaller countries are happier countries; smaller countries are less corrupt. Smaller countries are more attuned to the voters in their districts,” Buckley tells listeners.
The Van Maren Show is hosted on numerous platforms, including Spotify, SoundCloud, YouTube, iTunes, and Google Play.
For a full listing of episodes, and to subscribe to various channels, visit our Acast webpage here.
To receive weekly emails when a new episode is uploaded, subscribe below:
Email Address *
First Name *
Last Name *


lifesitenews--2020-04-15--Watch Trump’s coronavirus daily briefing for April 15 here

WASHINGTON , D.C. , April 15 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – LifeSite has begun streaming President Donald Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus crisis .
Here we present his April 15 briefing .
Follow LifeSiteNews for future @ @ @ @ @ s live updates on the coronavirus crisis and how it relates to issues our readers @ @ @ @

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – LifeSite has begun streaming President Donald Trump’s daily briefings about the coronavirus crisis. Here we present his April 15 briefing. Follow LifeSiteNews for future briefings.
Read LifeSite’s live updates on the coronavirus crisis and how it relates to issues our readers care about here .
Your support makes stories like this possible!
LifeSiteNews is completely donor supported, allowing us to report on what truly is happening in the world, free of charge and uncensored. A donation to LifeSite will ensure millions around the world can continue to come to our site to find the truth people are so desperately searching for on life, faith, family and freedom.