Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘political correctness’

“All evil begins with a lie. If we can identify the lie, we succeed in unmasking the evil” Great homiletic wisdom from the late Msgr. William Smith, moral theologian and priest of the Archdiocese of New York. Following on those words were these: “All social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering.” In two sentences, Msgr. Smith has provided for us the key to identifying the false gods and decoding the lexicon of the Culture of Death. This lexicon is most easily decoded by considering the polar opposite definition of that which is held up to us by the opposition as virtue.

Most of societal reengineering has occurred in the area of sexual morality and family life. In the past few years the very definition of the family has come under withering assault by the homosexual and lesbian communities with a pitched battle that has ensued. We are assured that gay and lesbian partnerships and families are not motivated by anything other than love and that children raised in such homes are not subject to any distortions in their psychological or faith formation. We are told that gay marriages are no different than heterosexual marriages, and can be just as healthy, and that heterosexuals need to practice the virtues of tolerance, openness, and inclusivity.

Children who are either adopted into, or born into such arrangements are taught implicitly that either a mother or a father is not essential to the wellbeing of children, that they are optional, that a second mother or father is a suitable replacement. Implicit in such a statement resides the evidence of the war against the opposite sex from those with same-sex attraction. It also denies the mountain of social scientific literature that consistently indicates the absolute necessity of a mother and a father in a stable marriage for children’s optimal development.

Gay and lesbian partnerships/marriages also open the floodgates to the perversion of sexual morality and the utilization of the immoral and unethical practices of surrogate motherhood, artificial insemination, and in vitro fertilization. Such grotesque manipulations of human sexuality mock the very nature of conjugal union in marriage as designed by the Creator, along with the denigration of motherhood or fatherhood, depending on which parental role is being deemed not essential.

Here the false virtues come into sharp relief. Openness in this context is the false virtue, being the diametric opposite of fidelity. If we are open to the concept that each person is free to define morality for him or herself, then we absolve ourselves of our divine mandate through Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, and Holy Orders to be faithful witnesses to the gospels and to be a sign of contradiction in the world. We also simultaneously obliterate the need for bioethics, thereby descending into the morass of moral anarchy where each person is his or her own source of moral norms.

The tolerance demanded by the gay and lesbian communities is the deadliest of the false virtues. The very word conjures minimalistic visages. Who aspires to being tolerated? Love, respect and discernment are the virtues that oppose tolerance.

Because we are called to embrace God’s wise design for His creation, we are necessarily called to discern that which opposes what God has revealed in His plan. We are called to witness that plan in both word and deed. We are called to love and respect all persons as children of God, but also to engage in fraternal correction using the revealed Word (2 Timothy 3:16). True love demands that we not tolerate sin in our midst, much less condone it.

Fidelity and love call us to acknowledge the limits laid down by God for all of humanity, the goods contained within those limits and the perils that await those who seek to live beyond those limits. This necessarily implies that we cannot be tolerant of every lifestyle, be open to every redefinition of morality, or include within our moral boundaries those behaviors that God forbids.

The opposition is very skilled in the rhetoric of presenting false virtue as authentic civic virtue, with far too many Christians having been cowed into silence. The result has been the lightning disintegration of society, beginning with conjugal fidelity and leading to divorce, abortion, rampant sexually transmitted diseases, the scourge of AIDS, and a majority of Americans now eschewing marriage altogether.

In Part II, science as the new Ba’al.

Read Full Post »

“The first casualty when war comes is truth.”

So said Senator Hiram Johnson a century ago, and remains true today in the war declared on Christian Civilization. The pivotal battle in this war is the issue of abortion, as abortion strikes at the very sanctity of human life, of motherhood, fatherhood, family, and the very essence of who we are, in Whose image we are made. So desperate are abortion’s proponents to present it as an absolute good, that clear and consistent data establishing a link between abortion and breast cancer have been actively denied by some of the very authors who discovered them, as they drafted a National Cancer Institute policy paper denying the existence of fifty years of data linking abortion and breast cancer.

The biology behind the issue is relatively straightforward. During puberty, girls produce 15-25 lobes in the breast, which will produce milk after the births of their babies. Each lobe may be thought of as a main branch of a tree. These lobes branch into several lobules. Under the influence of the menstrual hormones estrogen and progesterone, immature and cancer-susceptible Type-1 and Type-2 lobules form.

During normal pregnancy the ovaries secrete elevated levels of estrogen and progesterone, which cause the Type-1 and Type-2 lobules to increase in number. By mid-second trimester the breast size has doubled and rapidly matures under the influence of human placental lactogen. By 40 weeks of pregnancy, 85% of all lobule cells will be cancer-resistant Type-4 cells.

After a woman is finished nursing, many Type-4 cells will revert to Type-3 cells with evidence existing that genetic changes in these cells leave them cancer-resistant.

The mechanism by which abortion, oral contraceptives and combined hormone replacement therapy leaves women susceptible to breast cancer becomes evident since the biological basis for all three risks is the same. In terminating a pregnancy before a first full term pregnancy, the breasts have drastically increased Type-1 and Type-2 cells (leaving the breasts with more places for cancers to start), but have been denied the maturational and protective benefits of the last trimester. The birth control pill mimics this process on a monthly basis.

Miscarriage is an exception, as most women never produce significantly elevated levels of estrogen in these pregnancies.

Dozens of studies dating to the late 1950’s have established links between abortion and breast cancer, ranging from over doubled risks in teens to an incalculably high breast cancer risk for women who have abortions before age 18 as well as family history of the disease. Most of these studies are retrospective. That is, they take breast cancer patients and a group of healthy control subjects and ask questions about past gynecologic and reproductive history, including answering questions about prior abortions.

Incredibly, Dr. Louise Brinton of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (NCI), chaired a panel in 2003 that dismissed the findings of these peer-reviewed studies (including her own), claiming the women involved were subject to “recall bias”, as though women who have had abortions are likely to forget.

Scientists have tested for recall bias on many occasions, in several different countries, but no scientists today claim to have found credible evidence of it. Nevertheless, Brinton’s workshop produced a “Fact Sheet” which summarily dismissed all credible data establishing a link between abortion and breast cancer.

The NCI workshop looked at only a few prospective studies, those relying on medical records before a patient developed breast cancer, and which were subsequently shown in medical journals to be methodologically flawed. The depth and breadth of the methodological flaws exceeds the limits of this article, but may be found at the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer (ABC):

http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf
and
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/Brind_NCBQ.PDF

ABC links to excellent articles by Joel Brind, Ph.D. of Baruch College, City University of New York, which critique the flaws in NCI’s workshop and in the prospective studies used.

Brinton was part of a research team led by respected cancer researchers Janet R. Daling and Jessica M. Dolle of the world-renowned Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, which published a paper last year: Risk Factors for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Women Under the Age of 45 Years, in the Journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.

This 2009 paper, under known and suspected risk factors, reports a statistically significant 40% increased risk of breast cancer. That’s an astounding admission from coauthor Brinton, in light of her NCI denial of such a link, as is this quote from the results section of the paper,

“In analyses of all 897 breast cancer cases, the multivariate-adjusted odds ratios for examined risk factors were consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women. Specifically, older age, family history of breast cancer, earlier menarche age, induced abortion, and oral contraceptive use were associated with an increased risk for breast cancer.”

The “previous studies” which Brinton’s study mentions include studies conducted in 1994 and 1996 by this same team of researchers. Brinton served as co-author in the 1996 study. Although Brinton and the NCI had said that studies relying on women’s reports of abortion histories were flawed, Dolle’s team (which included Brinton) relied on women’s self-reports of abortion histories.

This 2009 paper was picked up by the pro-life blogosphere in January of this year and created a firestorm. A notation was subsequently added to the NCI Fact Sheet that states: “Reviewed 1/12/2010”. No change in policy or the webpage was made.

Thus, there is a compelling incongruity between the NCI and its branch chief’s denial of the link between abortion and breast cancer on the one hand, and what its branch chief’s research has reported before and since.

Women are dying, and continue to contract breast cancer at frightening rates. Yet abortion’s proponents have engaged in scientific misconduct at the highest levels: reporting the truth in journals, then publicly dismissing those data in a Procrustean attempt to accommodate a political agenda, leaving millions of women’s lives compromised as a result.

Read Full Post »

In November, ABC (abortionbreastcancer.com) reported two studies demonstrating the link between abortion and breast cancer.

Scientist Argues Researchers Underestimated Risk

“Chinese researchers Peng Xing and his colleagues conducted a case-control study in Northeast China examining reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer. They found a statistically significant overall odds ratio of 1.17 (17% increased breast cancer risk for all subtypes combined) among women with induced abortions. [1]

“Earlier this year, a Turkish study reported a statistically significant 66% increased risk for women with abortions. [2] Both studies show that, when honest research is conducted outside the control of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and other Western governmental agencies or organizations tethered to abortion ideology and politics, the truth emerges that abortion raises risk. Studies reporting no abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link were proven in medical journals to be stupendously flawed (fraudulent). [3-13] “

Read the rest of the study as well as the link to researcher Joel Brind, Ph.D., who believes the Chinese numbers to be an underestimation.

As this blog moves forward, it will continue to demonstrate the extent to which the public health community in the US has been engaged in the political correcting of scientific data that challenge the collectively cherished radicalized autonomy that has corroded the public health for the past half-century. This post begins that process, and our study of the link between abortion and breast cancer, in earnest.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: