Author archives: Cathy Ruse

Media Paints Pope as Sympatico with Environmental Extremists

by Cathy Ruse

December 17, 2009

News reports on Pope Benedicts recent statement on the environment left out significant quotes relating the Churchs grave misgivings of the modern environmental movement. True, the Pope supports efforts to promote a greater sense of ecological responsibility — but only those that would safeguard an authentic human ecology and thus forcefully reaffirm the inviolability of human life at every stage and in every condition, the dignity of the person and the unique mission of the family, where one is trained in love of neighbour and respect for nature.

For a good analysis of how the mainstream media is spinning the Popes World Day of Peace message — and for important quotes you wont read elsewhere — see John-Henry Westens editorial in LifeSiteNews.com.

To read the Popes full World Day of Peace Message click here.

Maybe There Is Hope: Most Americans Still Think Viewing Porn is Immoral

by Cathy Ruse

October 30, 2009

A recent survey of 1,000 adults by Harris Interactive found that 76% of Americans disagree with the proposition that viewing hardcore adult pornography on the Internet is morally acceptable and 74% disagree that it is harmless entertainment. The survey was commissioned by Morality in Media in connection with the White Ribbon Against Pornography week this week.

There is a perception held by many that hardcore adult pornography has become acceptable in American society. But the perception is false, according to Robert Peters, President of Morality in Media. This is evidence that, what primarily fuels the market is sexual addiction, not casual viewing, said Peters in a press release. For full survey results and more information about WRAP week, contact Bob Peters at Morality in Media.

White Ribbon Against Pornography Week

by Cathy Ruse

October 28, 2009

According to Bob Peters of Morality in Media, our nation is facing a moral crisis, including, among other things, teen promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases (including AIDS), abortion, illegitimacy, divorce, sexual abuse of children, rape, trafficking in women and children, on-the-job sexual harassment and lost worker productivity. And what is fueling this crisis is the spread of hardcore pornography, on the Internet and elsewhere.

Thats why one week every October we observe White Ribbon Against Pornography week, where people display white ribbons and inform their public officials about the harms of pornography and the need to enforce our obscenity laws.

The 22nd annual WRAP week runs Sunday, October 25 through Sunday, November 1st, and its chief promoter is Morality in Media. (Resources for individuals and groups can be found at www.moralityinmedia.org under WRAP Campaign and include information about ordering white ribbons, sample letters to Attorney General Holder and state prosecutors, and sample prayers and sermons.

If you think about it, someone is going to define the culture. The Porn Industry and their friends at the ACLU seek an America where there are no legal limits on pornography no limit to how graphic it may be, no limit to the people it can exploit for profit, including children.

And theyre winning, not because what theyre doing is legal, but because theyre getting away with it. But the Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity laws can be enforced against hardcore pornography when a jury finds the material appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive, and lacks serious value.

So it doesnt matter what the Porn Industry or the ACLU thinks. All that matters is what a jury thinks, and that means ultimately its up to the American people to decide whats illegal or not.

But the people become disenfranchised when obscenity laws are not vigorously enforced.

Our voice is the jury verdict. Without obscenity prosecutions there are no juries, and no juries mean no verdicts, and no verdicts mean the people have no voice. And that leaves the Porn Industry to set the standards for the culture.

An important way to attack the moral crisis is so simple its deceptive: enforcement of our already-existing obscenity laws.

We call on President Obama and Attorney General Holder give us back our voice, and to vigorously enforce this nations obscenity laws.

D.C. Woman Leaves Baby to Die in Plastic Bag, Gets 13 years

by Cathy Ruse

October 15, 2009

How can anyone ignore the irony in this awful story reported in the Washington Post yesterday?

A young woman walks out into a field with a pink towel, scissors, and a plastic bag, gives birth to a daughter, cuts the umbilical cord and leaves the baby to die.

Of course she could have had an abortionist legally kill the child.

The Supreme Court case of Doe v. Bolton mandates that an abortion be legal even after viability if an abortion doctor cites emotional or familial reasons for the abortion. During a post-arrest interview the woman said she had been raped, and the prosecutor said the woman got rid of the baby because she was afraid the man she was living with, whom she considered her husband, would break up with her for having another mans child. Plenty of legal grounds for a late-term abortion.

Assistant State’s Attorney Renee Battle-Brooks argued that whether she was impregnated because she was raped was irrelevant. That doesn’t make [the baby’s] life any less valuable,” Battle-Brooks said. “That baby struggled for breath in that plastic bag. She was alone, she was cold and she was hungry.”

Last month a 33-year old Rhode Island woman was sentenced to 25 years for killing her newborn daughter.

The baby was found in a plastic garbage bag under a laundry appliance in the womans parents home. Judge Robert Krause of Providence County said, Not to impose a substantial jail sentence … would simply devalue the life of a child. Krause added: No civilized society is prepared to do that and neither am I.

My point in raising these cases is not to argue for criminal penalties for women who have abortions no one in the pro-life movement seeks that but to show the irony in our law, and the striking quotes from those in the legal system as they recognize and defend the humanity of the youngest of babies. They sound so much like pro-lifers. One day, God willing, everyone will speak this way about children, even before birth.

President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize for…funding abortions overseas?

by Cathy Ruse

October 9, 2009

It was announced this morning that President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Reuters reports that The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for his

extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation

between peoples.

But this prize was apparently awarded *prospectively*, since the nomination

deadline for the prize came less than two weeks after Obama took office.

So what actions did Obama as President take before the February 1st deadline

that gave the committee such assurance of his future worthiness of the

prize?

On January 20 he called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and

declared his intention to give multiple rights and privileges to homosexual

couples.

On January 22 he issued an order announcing his intention to close

Guantanamo Bay.

On January 23 he issued an order authorizing tax dollars for abortions

abroad.

As Michael Novak wrote in National Review Online at the time: These first

steps were unworthy of a great nation and unworthy of a serious leader.

Mother Teresa called abortion the greatest destroyer of peace. But

according to the Nobel committee, forcing taxpayers to fund it gets you a

peace prize.

Living Will Suicide Was Lawful, Says UK Coroner Inquest

by Cathy Ruse

October 7, 2009

Last week I mentioned the tragic death of a depressed young woman who drank antifreeze and presented a Living Will forbidding treatment to save here. According to a Coroners Inquest this week, the doctors who let poor Keri Wooltorton, 26, die acted lawfully:

Doctors who allowed a young British woman to die in hospital after she swallowed poison and declared her intention to commit suicide acted lawfully, according to the findings of an inquest this week. Under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the coroner’s inquest ruled that doctors had no choice but to allow the woman to die after she had written a letter saying she did not want to be saved.

Read the full story here.

Living Will as Suicide Note

by Cathy Ruse

October 5, 2009

Read this story of a poor young woman, just 26 years old, who was depressed about not being able to have a child. Shes now dead, thanks to her Living Will which forbade emergency medical treatment to save her life after she swallowed antifreeze.

Whether the doctors were actually forbidden from saving her life or not, I dont know mightnt her depression have impacted her competency to refuse live-saving treatment? — but they believed they were and the result is now irrevocable.

The story calls this the first case of a Living Will used to commit suicide. How can we know this? Perhaps its only the first obvious case.

The point here: these are powerful legal documents, and Congress is poised to create a government-run health care system which will pay doctors to encourage patients to execute them. Think of the perils. People who are sick or in pain are inherently vulnerable. They are also often depressed. It would not take much to persuade them to sign away their right to future care. Remember, the Hemlock Society drafted this section of the heatlh care bill. I wonder what they think of the death of poor Kerrie Woolterton.

Praise for Tufts Universitys New Policy on Dorm Room Sex

by Cathy Ruse

October 2, 2009

The state of morality on the American college campus seems to be in perpetual decline, and I have shuddered to think about what it will be like in a dozen years when my own daughters will be getting ready for college. But from a liberal college in a liberal state comes a small ray of hope. Tufts University has revised its guest policy for dorm visitors for the new school year to include the following new rule: You may not engage in sexual activity while your roommate is present in the room.

Shouldnt this be obvious? Word from my friends with kids in college is that, shockingly, its not. Nor is it a problem unique to Tufts.

So a tip of the hat to the Tufts administration for having the courage to draw a line. And if Tufts can do it, any school can.

On Abortion, Obama Chose His Words Carefully

by Cathy Ruse

May 1, 2009

In his answer to the question on the Freedom of Choice Act, President Obama first said abortion was a “moral issue” and then went on to say:

[T]his is an issue that… individual women have to wrestle with… And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States… So that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion…

These were careful words. Notice that Obama avoided any phrasing that would suggest that he believes abortions per se ought to be reduced. He doesn’t ever assert that we ought to reduce the number of abortions because that would cast abortion in a negative light; wanting fewer abortions suggests abortion is a negative thing that ought to be reduced. Rather he is always careful to say that he wants to reduce the need for abortion, which leaves abortion as a “good” and casts the pregnancy (or rather the child) as the bad that should be reduced.

The Democrat platform under Obama was changed from making abortion “rare” to reducing the need for abortion — a move deeper into pro-abortion orthodoxy. It’s like the child is the dreaded disease and abortion is the wonderful vaccine — why would we want fewer of those wonderful vaccines? It’s the dreaded disease we want to reduce!

Obama is careful in his choice of words and so should pro-lifers be: do not ever give Obama credit for wanting to reduce abortions.

Interesting column by George Will on food and sex.

by Cathy Ruse

February 27, 2009

I think Mary Eberstadt may be on to something, and I surely hope the theory follows through to mean more prudishness in sex will follow! But I have my doubts. People quite easily can measure the negative effects of gluttony by the numbers on the scale and their cholesterol count, etc. But an STD? Why that’s not MY fault, it was so-and-so who gave it to me. People who are honest and introspective, however, will be able to conclude that a lifestyle of serial monogamy has led to their unhappiness. Isn’t it interesting that the simplest answer that so many refuse to consider - faith in the God of Abraham rather than Lord Vegan — will make you both physically and psychologically healthier and happier?

By the way, my husband and I know Mary well and of course this article made me think of what she served us for dinner at her house not long ago — pulled pork sandwiches from a local deli!

 

Jewish World Review Feb. 26, 2009 2 Adar 5769

Prudes at Dinner, Gluttons in Bed

By George Will

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com  

Put down that cheeseburger and listen up: If food has become what sex was a generation ago - the intimidatingly intelligent Mary Eberstadt says it has - then a cheeseburger is akin to adultery, or worse. As eating has become highly charged with moral judgments, sex has become notably less so, and Eberstadt, a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, thinks these trends involving two primal appetites are related.

In a Policy Review essay, “Is Food the New Sex?” - it has a section titled “Broccoli, pornography, and Kant” - she notes that for the first time ever, most people in advanced nations “are more or less free to have all the sex and food they want.” One might think, she says, either that food and sex would both be pursued with an ardor heedless of consequences, or that both would be subjected to analogous codes constraining consumption. The opposite has happened - mindful eating and mindless sex.

Imagine, says Eberstadt, a 30-year-old Betty in 1958, and her 30-year-old granddaughter Jennifer today. Betty’s kitchen is replete with things - red meat, dairy products, refined sugars, etc. - that nutritionists now instruct us to minimize. She serves meat from her freezer, accompanied by this and that from jars. If she serves anything “fresh,” it would be a potato. If she thinks about food, she thinks only about what she enjoys, not what she, and everyone else, ought to eat.

Jennifer pays close attention to food, about which she has strong opinions. She eats neither red meat nor endangered fish, buys “organic” meat and produce, fresh fruits and vegetables, and has only ice in her freezer. These choices are, for her, matters of right and wrong. Regarding food, writes Eberstadt, Jennifer exemplifies Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative: She acts according to rules she thinks are universally valid and should be universally embraced.

Betty would be baffled by draping moral abstractions over food, a mere matter of personal taste. Regarding sex, however, she had her Categorical Imperative - the 1950s’ encompassing sexual ethic that proscribed almost all sex outside of marriage. Jennifer is a Whole Foods Woman, an apostle of thoroughly thought-out eating. She bristles with judgments - moral as well as nutritional - about eating, but she is essentially laissez-faire about sex.

In 50 years, Eberstadt writes, for many people “the moral poles of sex and food have been reversed.” Today, there is, concerning food, “a level of metaphysical attentiveness” previously invested in sex; there are more “schismatic differences” about food than about (other) religions.

If food is the new sex, Eberstadt asks, “where does that leave sex?” She says it leaves much of sex dumbed-down - junk sex akin to junk food. It also leaves sexual attitudes poised for a reversal. Since Betty’s era, abundant research has demonstrated that diet can have potent effects, beneficial or injurious. Now, says Eberstadt, an empirical record is being assembled about the societal costs of laissez-faire sex.

Eberstadt says two generations of “social science replete with studies, surveys and regression analyses galore” have produced clear findings: “The sexual revolution - meaning the widespread extension of sex outside of marriage and frequently outside commitment of any kind - has had negative effects on many people, chiefly the most vulnerable; and it has also had clear financial costs to society at large.”

In 1965, the Moynihan Report sounded an alarm about 23.6 percent of African American children born out of wedlock. Today the figure for the entire American population is 38.5 percent, and 70.7 percent for African Americans. To that, add AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, and the unquantifiable coarsening of the culture and devaluing of personal intimacy.

Today “the all-you-can-eat buffet” is stigmatized and the “sexual smorgasbord” is not. Eberstadt’s surmise about a society “puritanical about food, and licentious about sex” is this: “The rules being drawn around food receive some force from the fact that people are uncomfortable with how far the sexual revolution has gone - and not knowing what to do about it, they turn for increasing consolation to mining morality out of what they eat.”

Perhaps. Stigmas are compasses, pointing toward society’s sense of its prerequisites for self-protection. Furthermore, as increasing numbers of people are led to a materialist understanding of life - who say not that “I have a body” but that “I am a body” - society becomes more obsessive about the body’s maintenance. Alas, expiration is written into the leases we have on our bodies, so bon appetit.

Archives