Thanks Mom?

My mother was a very good woman, of that I am as certain as anything I have ever known in this life. She loved God, loved her family, and despite being overwhelmed by a debilitating illness that robbed her of much of her life's full enjoyment, she never ceased to express that love to either.

My mom mattered. She mattered in my life, the life of my brother, the lives of my children, and the lives of a great number of other friends and family members. She touched us all in a way that will always be with us. But for as much as she was to everyone else, what she was to my brother Mike and I was extra special. But did she choose life for us? Roe did not exist then, should it have, should we have been her 'choice'?

This is an important idea to discuss, as yesterday was the awful anniversary of the 'Roe v Wade' court decision that made abortion a legal medical procedure here in the United States. What 'Roe' effectively did was lead to the mass slaughter of more than 50 million American babies over the next three and a half decades.

Supporters of that decision would argue that had 'Roe' been in effect in 1961, my birth would not have been the miracle from God that it was considered at that time, but instead it would have been a medical 'choice' made by my mom. And it would have been a 'choice' that she could make regardless of what my dad wanted.

Of course her 'choosing' to nurture and birth me out into the world should probably be something that would make me happy, right? What is better, to be considered just some random accident of nature, or something forced on her by God, or a conscious choice made by one's mother or parents together?

The fact of the matter is that having been born, in the end my own 'choice' has to be that I would rather my mom did not have such a one herself. For with that 'choice' comes the possibility that hers could have been different. Play a little game with me here.

Had my mother made the choice to not have me, I would never have been born in the first place. Without even considering myself as anything special in the grand scheme of existence, it is a simple fact that the world would never be the same. My brother either would not have been born either, or his life would also be completely different if for no other reason than his growing up without my interactions.

Anyone with whom I came in contact over the course of my life would be different, particularly if there was anyone: a friend, girlfriend, co-worker with whom I interacted and made some even small difference in their lives. My children would not have been born, nor my grandchildren. Generations would not exist. What could their contributions have been to the world?

What about her own mother? What if her mother had chosen not to have my mom? What if somehow there was a test that could have told my grandmother that my mom would end up as sick as she was? Would that have been a legitimate reason to 'choose' to terminate the pregnancy, to kill my mom? Was my mom's life worth less somehow because some illness would eventually overwhelm her?

For those who consider 'choice' as a woman's natural 'right', have you ever bothered to take a minute to consider the 'right' of the unborn child to actually have a life? You know, the life that is enabling you to read this posting right now? The gift of your life is not a gift of your mother's choice. It is a gift from God Himself, to your parents, your family, your friends, and to you.

The arguments on behalf of abortion always come down to a handful: saving the life of the mother or terminating a pregnancy that happened due to rape or incest. These arguments simply do not hold up under close examination. The fact of the matter is that abortion is used as birth control.

In both 1987 and 2004, the AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute) surveyed women who had actually had abortions as to the reasons that they did it. Feel free to do the research yourself as to the validity of the organization or their methods, but you will find that they are professional, reputable and scientifically sound.

In 1987, only 1% of respondents had an abortion due to rape or incest, and only 3% due to some medical condition of the mother. Even taking into account the 3% additional who claimed that some fetal health issue was the reason, this means that 93% of those who had abortions did so simply because it would make their lives easier. They killed their child so that things would supposedly be easier on them.

In 2004, the respondents only claimed that rape or incest was the reason in less than half of one percent of the cases. Mother's health was the reason in 4%, fetal health issues in 3%. So once again, roughly 93% of respondents gave reasons for their 'choice' that boiled down to making their own lives easier at the cost of the life of the baby.

Women who support a 'right' to a 'choice', who are you kidding? The only 'choice' that you want to be able to make is to reverse the effects of some decision to have unprotected sex that you made in an irresponsible moment. That is the simple fact for more than 9 out of 10 women who walk into an abortion clinic or hospital to take this action.

It would be easy for you to get mad at me and say that my position is easy for some man to take. But the fact of the matter is that those who fight for life include tens of millions of women and girls, so save that attack for someone who will be intimidated. If you are 'pro-abortion' then you have made the decision to support the killing of babies so that irresponsible people can have supposedly easier lives. Live with it, or change.

Of course the fact is also an ironic one, that a large number of women who do have abortions simply do not have easier lives. Survey after survey reveals that many women suffer for years, decades, even the rest of their lives due to the effects of the guilt feelings that follow this 'choice'. Why would that be so? Is it just that society makes them feel guilty, or do they know inside that their 'choice' was morally bankrupt?

These are harsh words for some to hear, but when more than 50 million babies have been slaughtered across the United States of America for reasons that end up not being valid in the end anyway, that is nothing short of a holocaust. The unknown and untold loss of their lives and what they may have brought to their individual families and to humanity in general will never be known or measurable, but they are indeed missed, and their lives while in the womb are indeed worth fighting over.

The babies that should have been born in the most painful situations and under the most awful circumstances could have been given up for adoption, or could have been kept, raised, nurtured lovingly, and become the very blessing that would have made an intolerable and impossible situation into a healing and healthy one.

There is always another side to every story. For too long the side of the baby has been silent. The baby cannot speak for itself. Anyone who has ever had a child, held a fragile young infant in their arms, especially one that they themselves have given birth to or whom they have loved knows this instinctively. Someone needs to stand up and speak for their right to live.

If you have ever had an abortion or been a party to one, it is not too late for you to ask for forgiveness, to seek your own healing, and to begin to join the fight for life. If there is one thing that Jesus Christ taught us it was that the reason He died for us all on the cross was for the forgiveness and healing of our sins. You can make that 'choice' right now.

So in the end, I thank my mom for many things. For the good woman that she was in her life. For her love of God and family that rubbed off on me and eventually helped to make me the man that I am today. But one thing that I do not thank her for is my life. That life was given to her, to me, by God. It is all of our responsibility to stand up for life, not as a 'choice', but as every human beings real natural right.

NOTE: this is a continuation of the regular 'Sunday Sermon' series, all articles of which can be read by clicking on the link below this article at the www.mattveasey.com website

A Critical Role for Fathers

The celebration of Father's Day allows our nation a moment to pause and reflect on the memories and experiences of childhood and fatherhood alike.

Aside from the typical gift selection of a new tie, putter or power tools, no serious consideration is given to this holiday. This Father's Day, take a break from the barbecue grill, playing catch or listening to another one of dad's widely exaggerated stories (that you've already heard at least a thousand times), and ponder a more broad subject, the rights of a father.

A father's rights have remained a largely hidden issue, tucked away beneath America's fiery and passionate opinions on abortion. In many ways, the parental rights of expectant fathers are blatantly ignored, and fathers are, in a court of law, unable to voice their opinion in regard to childbirth.

A fundamental assumption leading to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was that because women are biologically tied to the birth process, they should therefore bear all responsibility in deciding the life or death of their children. The reason for this perspective is straightforward: Roe v. Wade rejected the idea that another person controlled a woman's body.

On the one hand, this shattered patriarchal stereotypes that regarded women as little more than vessels. Plainly, that is a good thing. But in the continued fight for equality, various feminist groups have refused to acknowledge the basic human rights of the co-equal contributors to pregnancy: the unborn child and the father. Plainly, that is a bad thing.

Just ask John Stachokus.

Not long ago, Mr. Stachokus planned to have a child with his 23-year-old girlfriend. Together, they picked out the child's name and godparents. He proudly imagined what it would be like to start a family; this made him happy. Then one day, his girlfriend abruptly decided to terminate her pregnancy. She was reacting to pressure from her parents, Mr. Stachokus says. He responded by obtaining an injunction, temporarily prohibiting her from having an abortion, which a court rejected. And just that quickly, Mr. Stachokus' hopes and dreams for his child dissolved.

It did not matter to the court that Mr. Stachokus was willing to take full responsibility for nurturing and providing for the child. His basic human rights did not factor into the court's decision. All that mattered was that his girlfriend suddenly changed her mind and decided to murder their unborn baby. As far as the court was concerned, Mr. Stachokus had no say in the life of his own child. The court regarded him as little more than a soulless contributor of DNA.

Of course, the response of abortion rights advocates is predictable. They greeted news of the demise of Mr. Stachokus' child with cheers and the standard rhetoric about a woman's right to choose. "An adult woman has a fundamental constitutional right to privacy," said Linda Rosenthal, an attorney representing the girlfriend.

Indeed, it is her body, but her body does not exist in a vacuum. She shared that body with Mr. Stachokus - as he did with her - and together they made a decision that led to the creation of a baby (a feat neither of them could have accomplished individually).

Doesn't this symbiotic act give the father some say in the matter of whether his girlfriend may have an abortion? After all, if the baby had been carried to term, Mr. Stachokus, irrespective of his own preferences, would have been legally obligated to pay child support. Society would have demanded that he take responsibility. And yet when it comes to the decision of whether to abort that same child, he is denied any say whatsoever. That is an appalling contradiction.

We live in an age of eroding family values, in which fathers routinely abandon their children and disregard their familial responsibilities. Mr. Stachokus' desire to raise and care responsibly for his child should be commended and encouraged. Instead, the law brutally and arbitrarily denies that he has any right to his child whatsoever.

Countless men are faced with the same nightmare of having no voice in the execution of their children.

"Men's rights are trampled on all the time when it comes to reproductive rights," said Dianna Thompson, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. It is time to fight back, to force our government to re-evaluate the logic of treating men as little more than fertilizers.

This case raises serious questions about a father's say in the life of his own child, as well as the extent of the government's duty to help project human rights and encourage the family unit. Sadly, these profound questions fall by the wayside in a society that worships at the golden calf of individual choice, and relegates the voice of fathers and unborn babies to the margin.

The outcome of the Stachokus case and other, similar cases points to a need to widen the consideration of abortion beyond just the rights of the mother to the rights of fathers and - of central importance - the unborn child. Only by placing abortion within its proper context will we get a better understanding of its full implications.

Fatherhood is a lifetime commitment, deserving of much more than a single day's celebration. We should not allow the failed father figures of these modern times, or the negative examples of parenting portrayed on television to define or represent every father in the country. This Father's Day, don't limit your thoughts to only fatherhood. Instead, reflect upon the larger concept at hand, the celebration of two individuals uniting together, prayerfully in marriage, to perform one of the most challenging tasks ever known, parenthood.

WRITTEN by Armstrong Williams at The Washington Times on June 17th, 2009

Hands That Shed Innocent Blood

For the past couple of weeks this 'Sunday Sermon' series (each entry can be read by clicking on the label at the bottom of this post) has been focusing on Proverbs 6:16-19 which covers the six things that the Lord hates, and a 7th which is an abomination. The 3rd item in this list would be "hands that shed innocent blood" which is sadly ironic considering Friday night's murder of Philadelphia police officer John Pawlowski. Whether or not John's killer will end up spending an eternity in hell, whether anyone who takes an innocent human life will suffer that fate, is not for us to say or know. But one thing that Proverbs makes undeniably clear is that this murder of innocents is particularly detestable to God Himself. On Friday night, John Pawlowski was an innocent man. Perhaps more than that, he was working actively to try and help keep peace and order in his community. He was a police officer in an increasingly violent major American city that is itself ironically nicknamed 'The City of Brotherly Love'. It is a moniker that is no longer appropriate. John and his partner exited their police vehicle after being flagged down to handle a disturbance on the highway. While handling this dispute, one of the individuals involved reached into his own pocket and shot right through his jacket, killing John Pawlowski there and then. Innocent blood once again shed in one of the acts that God hates. Each year, hundreds and hundreds of Philadelphians are murdered in cold blood by their fellow citizens. Webster defines 'murder' as "unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought." Sometimes as a legal definition it has been divided into 'degrees' of murder based on the intent of the killer as well as other accompanying actions. But it is not only murder which sheds innocent blood. The taking of another life is, as a legal matter, usually acceptable to the larger society when that action comes in self-defense or in a justifiable military or police action. A police officer who kills someone that is trying to kill that officer or someone else is justified. A member of the military fighting in a war in defense of the overall freedom and liberty of others is justified. A regular citizen taking the life of someone who is actively attempting to take the life of that person is justified. There are times in each of those actions when the taking of life is not justified. Any time that any of those actions is taken and innocent blood is shed, this God hates. A military or police action that results in the death of someone truly innocent, what is sometimes referred to as 'collateral damage', is no different to God just because the intent of the actor did not involve killing those innocents. That isn't to say that the person acting in what most would deem to be a just manner, and who in doing so takes the life of an innocent by mistake or happenstance, will answer to God for that life in eternity. But it is nonetheless something that God hates, and it is something that we should always take the time to evaluate within our own conscience. There is no one on earth more innocent than a tiny child, one that has had no opportunity to commit evil. Yet the fact is that over 11 million Americans have had their innocent blood shed in the womb just since the turn of the century in the act of abortion. Hundreds of millions of Americans have been murdered in the womb since the SCOTUS decision of Roe vs. Wade legalized this type of killing. God does not distinguish using human terms such as 'legal' or 'moral', He is concerned with 'innocence', and there is no one more innocent than a baby in the womb. To take such a life, one that has done nothing wrong, one that is rarely threatening the life of the mother, may indeed be the most selfish and immoral act someone can take. It most certainly is the shedding of innocent blood, no matter how we might try to justify it in our own minds and to our own conscience. Catholic and most Christian morality speaks to the taking of innocent blood in the topics of murder, abortion, euthanasia, and suicide as always wrong. Certainly God sees all of these situations as resulting in the shedding of innocent blood, which He hates. Be it that of an innocent police officer just doing his job of protecting and serving others, or an innocent baby in the womb, God hates the shedding of innocent blood as much as He hates anything. NOTE: This series from Proverbs will continue with the 4th item as next week's entry in the 'Sunday Sermon' series.

Obama-Dem Mistake #2

It's bad enough that the United States supports by law the murder of our most innocent citizens, the helpless babies aborted by the millions each year simply to make their parents lives a bit easier. As we discussed last week during the 'March for Life' recognition, with the 'Roe vs. Wade' decision by the SCOTUS in 1973 the U.S. began officially supporting the legality of most forms of abortion. But now we are no longer happy with actively supporting this policy creating a culture of death in our own country. Now we are actively supporting the policy worldwide, not just with ideals, but with taxpayer dollars. During the administration of perhaps the greatest President of the last century, Ronald Reagan, the 'Great Communicator' instituted what became known as the 'Mexico City Policy'. In this policy, Reagan made it clear that any recipient of U.S. foreign aid would not be permitted to promote abortion as a method of family planning. According to ABC News, the American "government under Reagan would not provide funding for family planning services to clinics or groups that offered abortion-related services overseas." When Bill Clinton was elected the policy was overturned, but it was reinstated under President George W. Bush and has been in place for the past eight years. In renewing the policy, President Bush stated "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad." This past week, on the January 22nd anniversary of the 'Roe' decision, new U.S. President Barack Obama again reversed the policy. In announcing his decision, Obama once again made the classic liberal Democrat philosophical and moral mistake. He only recognized one party in this process when he said that the decision "protects women's health and reproductive freedom", ignoring the rights and the very life of the unborn child who it is his sworn duty to protect to the best of his ability. The closing of Guantanamo Bay highlighted in last week's 'Obama-Dem Mistake #1' article is likely to result in American deaths. This decision on allowing taxpayer funding of overseas abortions will absolutely result in the deaths of Americans and foreigners. It is hard to believe that any self-respecting Catholic could possibly support Obama or any congressional Democrat who would actively and outwardly support the murder of innocents as a key part of their agenda. It is another clear difference in liberal and conservative positions in American politics. It is a moral stain on the American way of life. And it is clearly the 'Obama-Dem Mistake #2'. As each one is highlighted and explained you can click on the below label of that name to see the full listing of the accumulated mistakes of the Obama administration and the Democratic congress that is supporting them.

Marching For Life

January 22nd, 1973 was one of the worst dates in the history of the United States of America. On that date 36 years ago today, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) delivered its opinion in the case of 'Roe vs. Wade'. According to the SCOTUS decision, most laws restricting abortion in America violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling basically overturned all state and federal laws restricting abortions. It centrally held that a mother could abort her pregnancy for any reason up until the point at which the baby, referred to in the ruling by its scientific developmental stage name 'fetus', became 'viable'. It defined viability as the baby having the potential to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid, and placed this term at between 24-28 weeks. The court also held that abortion after viability must also be available in order to protect a woman's health, and this 'health' was defined broadly in a companion case called 'Doe vs. Bolton'. The court based its ruling on its desire to protect personal freedoms and privacy. A woman should be able to make medical decisions involving her health along with her doctor, and the government should in no way be interfering in this process. Of course never anywhere in their ruling did the court recognize the very apparent fact that there is not just one life, not just one person's health, being affected by a decision to abort. There is a baby alive inside of the mother. Unfortunately for that baby, it can not yet speak for itself. It cannot stand up for its own rights. It cannot vote for politicians who will support its cause. And there is, of course, only one 'cause' for which these babies are fighting at this early stage of their development - their very lives. A year after the 'Roe v. Wade' ruling was handed down a group of grassroots Americans who recognized the fundamental importance of standing up for these lives got together and organized a relatively small memorial. On January 22nd, 1974 the very first 'March for Life' took place with 20,000 participants marching on the U.S. Capitol in protest of the SCOTUS decision. By the following year of 1975, that number more than doubled to 50,000 and has grown now to the point where approximately 200,000 people regularly flood the Capitol steps and the surrounding areas each year. The 'March for Life' movement supports a set of 'Life Principles' that simply sound like common sense. They support the self-evident truth that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which is the right to life. They support the preservation of every human life by every other human life, from the moment that the father's sperm fertilizes the mother's ovum. This factually and truthfully results in the creation of life, which will result in the birth of a human being, which will result in that human being growing into a child, and finally into an adult. The actual march begins on 4th Street in Washington, D.C. near the U.S. District Court. It then proceeds along Constitution Avenue past the U.S. Capitol and on to 7th Street, between the Capitol and the Supreme Court building. This evening the annual 'Rose Dinner' (the rose being the symbol of the movement) will be held at the Hyatt Regency. There will be speeches by a few key players in the movement, awards for a half dozen student activists, learning opportunities on the issues, some fine dining, and a toast to success for life issues during the coming year. You know, it just seems to me to be incredible that we need a 'movement' dedicated to life itself. I mean, where would all of the pro-abortion folks be if their parents had made what they determine to be the 'choice' not to give birth to them? Dead, that's where they would be today. Just like the hundreds of millions of babies who have been killed since that infamously egregious 'Roe v. Wade' decision decades ago. Approximately 47 years ago, a young single mother gave birth to a child whose father had abandoned them both. Three months later, my own mother gave birth to me. The son of that single mother, who raised him sometimes in poverty, often in difficulty, was sworn in this week as the 44th President of the United States of America. Many of his supporters decry the more than 4,000 American lives lost by people who by their own choice fought and died for our country. But most of those same supporters hold their tongues for the 7.5 million babies killed by abortion in America since the war began in Iraq. Or worse, they support these deaths. The same streets on which Barack Obama was inaugurated and on which parades honored him just two short days ago were filled today with people marching for human life. Thanks to the hundreds of thousands who flooded the streets of Washington, D.C. today we may one day live to see Americans overturn that immoral and murderous court ruling.