Loading....

IT OCCURS TO ME {Anthony Pamelia)

If our pro-life candidates did not win in this recent election, we can lose hope or we can determine to continue our efforts to save our unborn brothers and sisters.

What would these innocent children ask us to do for them if they could speak? “Please continue your labor of love to save us from death”.

On Thanksgiving eve, let’s remember to thank God and our benefactors for their gifts of love to us.

IT OCCURS TO ME (Anthony Pamelia)

Legislatures earmark funds for sex education in public schools. Watch the animated video to learn that the money should be used for other purposes

 hli.org Thursday Nov 10, 2022

The data presented there might surprise you.

IT OCCURS TO ME (Anthony Pamelia)

What is threatening you? Who told you? Where is it coming from? Is it real or politicized?

Choose one or more and add your own:

1)The world population of humans (see www.hli.org)

2) The excess of carbon dioxide in the air

3) The shortage of potable water

4) Being the victim of violent crime

5) Monetary Inflation

6) A Pandemic

7) Life threatening illness

8) Unemployment

9)

10)

If you are a child in the womb, you may be facing a real threat to your life.

IT OCCURS TO ME (Anthony Pamelia)

How would Anthony vote using the guidelines above? (see Blog October 26, 27, 2022 )

Situation 1:  Candidate A favors housing, education and subsidies for the poor but supports unrestricted abortion using tax funds.  Candidate B opposes abortion and supports job creation and tax credits for families.  All else being equal, I would vote for candidate B

Situation 2:  Candidate C is endorsed by the political party our family always supported in the past but that party does not oppose the killing of non-combatants in war.  Candidate D is a member of another party and supports the death penalty for repeat offenders of serious crimes.  All else being equal, I would vote for candidate D.

Situation 3:  Candidate E supports the death penalty for repeat offenders of serious crimes but opposes abortion in all circumstances.  Candidate F opposes the death penalty but supports abortion for rape and incest.  All else being equal, I would vote for Candidate E.

Situation 4:  Candidate G supports spending taxpayer money to provide clean drinking water to the people of Africa and also supports funding abortion clinics in Africa.  Candidate H supports spending tax-payer money for pre-natal care for African mothers, but not abortion clinics.  All else being equal, I would vote for Candidate H.

Situation 5: Candidate J supports energy controls to address climate change and also supports population control through free abortion services for third-world mothers. Candidate K supports tax cuts for low and middle income families, the careful use of fossil fuels and pre-natal care for the needy. All else being equal, I would vote for Candidate K.

Situation 6.: Candidate L supports school vouchers and parent approved chastity programs for health classes. Candidate M supports public school teachers’ unions and state mandated sex education courses from 6th through 12th grades. All else being equal, I would vote for candidate L.

Situation7: Candidate N supports increasing food stamp allocations and housing vouchers for the poor and also supports funding abortion clinics for poor women. Candidate P supports funding programs for home health care for the elderly and requires voter ID for all elections. All else being equal, I would vote for candidate P.

IT OCCURS TO ME (Anthony Pamelia)

Conclusions from the 10/26/2022 posting…

Those who knowingly, willingly, and directly support public policies or legislation that promote actions that are always opposed to the authentic good of human beings or that undermine the sanctity and dignity of human life, cooperate with evil.

The conscientious voter must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death.

A conscientious voter chooses a candidate who accepts the grave responsibility to support laws shaped by human values, and opposes laws and policies that violate life and dignity at any stage from conception to natural death.

The conscientious citizen cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, if the voter’s intent is to support that position.

The conscientious voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify his/her indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

A conscientious citizen should not vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental understanding of human dignity.   The voter should not isolate some particular element of an apparent good to the detriment of the good of society. A voter’s commitment to a single isolated aspect of the common good does not exhaust his/her responsibility toward securing the common good.

There may be times when the conscientious voter, who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act, may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely pursue other authentic human goods.

All else being equal, a conscientious voter should also take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.

The conscientious voter should realize that all issues in a society do not carry the same depth of the good and that the obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on the voter’s conscience, choices and action.

The political choices faced by voters not only have an impact on the general peace and prosperity of society in genera; but also seriously impact the lives of the individuals of that society.

The conscientious voter strives to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose a political leader according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest.

Pre-Election Quiz: Anthony Pamelia Suggests That How You Answer These Questions Indicates How You Make Moral Judgments On Issues Of Human Life

Yes or No:

Do objective moral norms which are valid for everyone, exist.

Do you think that the flourishing of peace and justice depend on the society’s members believing in a benevolent God Who is the source of the good and the author of moral norms?

Do you think that the family—based on marriage between a man and a woman—is the first and fundamental unit of society and is a sanctuary for the creation and nurturing of children and that it should be defended and strengthened, not redefined or undermined?

Does the good of our society depend on the strength of healthy families?

Does the good of a society depend on its members having a good conscience?

Should a person of good conscience always attempt to make a sound moral judgment based on the truth by examining facts and background?

Should a person of good conscience discern the true good in every circumstance and then choose the right means of achieving it?

Basic human rights will never conflict with objective moral norms?

Does achieving a good end ever justify using immoral means?

Does a good conscience coupled with good moral norms offer the most effective means to protect that the weak and vulnerable and defend human rights and dignity?

Can human reason grasp as true, respect for the dignity of every person?

Does every member of a society have a direct duty to work for a just ordering of that society?

Does a society have an obligation to protect its most vulnerable members?

Are there some things that we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons and as such are intrinsically evil and must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned?

Are these examples of violations of human dignity that we must never do because they are intrinsically evil: genocide, torture, the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, human cloning, destructive research on human embryos, and other acts that directly violate the sanctity and dignity of human life e.g., the direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death?

Are these examples of violations of human dignity that we must never do because they are intrinsically evil: acts of racism, treating workers as mere means to an end, deliberately subjecting workers to subhuman living conditions, and treating the poor as disposable?

An individual should not choose to do something that is always opposed to the authentic good of human beings merely as an exercise of his/her personal freedom?

Is a legal system, that supports individual choice to do something that is always opposed to the authentic good of human beings, fundamentally flawed? 

Should we avoid making ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity even if the issue is always opposed to the authentic good of human beings?

Should we avoid considering a particular issue involving human life and dignity as just one issue among many and avoid not assigning priority?

Should we dismiss or ignore serious threats to human life and dignity, to focus on one particular threat? 

IT OCCURS TO ME (Anthony Pamelia)

You have seen the ads for the upcoming election. I’ve seen those produced by pro-choice advocates that appeal to, and exaggerate, fear in the minds of women of child-bearing age. These advertisements shamelessly champion abortion rights to win the election. Tragically these power-starved advocates are sacrificing the emotional, physical and spiritual health of women and sacrificing children in the womb–only wanting to be born–on the altar of the god of greed. May their tactics fail.

IT OCCURS TO ME (Anthony Pamelia)

Have you seen or heard pro-choice advocates’ scare-tactic ads about pro-life legislation endangering the life of the mother?  Prolife legislation would address procured abortion, but would not interfere with medical procedures.  A procured abortion is one where an agent wills or intends, either as a means or an end, the death of an unborn child.  Examples of medical procedures that are not procured abortions:

 …when a pregnant woman develops appendicitis.   The doctor treats the pathology, meaning that an appendectomy is performed even though an undesired secondary effect may be the loss of the unborn baby. 

…when a pregnant woman develops cancer.   She may choose whether or not to have chemotherapy and/or radiation or choose alternative treatment even though the course of treatment may result in the undesired secondary effect of the loss of the unborn baby.

…when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy. The doctor treats the condition even though the undesired secondary effect is the loss of the unborn baby.

Pro-life advocates have the welfare of the mother, the unborn child and the born child at heart.

It Occurs To Me (Anthony Pamelia)

The Political Gulag is an island where the Party leadership controls its members by threatening restrictions, imposing restrictions, then effecting elimination for insubordination.

A scenario (hopefully rarely occurring) in the context of a discussion on a particular piece of legislation:

 Legislator X, in response to his constituency and after careful analysis of the facts, determines to vote his conscience.  Party leader Y decides that the vote Legislator X intends to cast should be changed because it would conflict with the goals he has set for the Party.  Party leader Y communicates his orders to Legislator X with the advice that Legislator X should vote as Party leady Y dictates or else be removed from committee membership and be opposed by the Party in the next election.  In this scenario truth does not prevail, the foundation of a democracy is shaken, the good of the society is not served and Legislator X loses his self-respect.

May God liberate us from this island of tyranny.

IT OCCURS TO ME (Anthony Pamelia)

Does God Care About Marriage, Babies and Sound Bites?  Do you?

You need not be Catholic to believe that God the Creator uses the fertility of human beings to continue His plan for the ensoulment of the new creatures He desires. You need not be religious to understand why the dissolution of marriage (as God intended it), viz.  the union of one man and one woman, results in abortion.  If you believe there is no God, then you can conclude that humans are nothing more than intelligent animals evolved from apes(?) and marriage is only an optional human contract.

Many believe that God exists and designed marriage for His purposes.  When man denies God’s existence and God’s plan for the purpose of marriage, then man will destroy the fruit of the sexual union between a man and a woman.

Why did the efforts of so many to pass a prolife amendment to the Kanas Constitution fail?  Fundamentally the reason is that man has lost faith in God and what God intends.  Secondarily the reasons are the tactics (e.g., sound bites) used by the pro-choice to distort the facts.  See  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci9k8XztOMg&list=PLLj_bYHqrHFncphaI0wM7gdA_lP3u3XHN&index=5

Pro-life champions need time to answer the objections the pro-abortion advocates advertised.  Sound bites that are intended to confuse, to instill fear and to deceive, cannot be refuted with a one word response. A large amount of money is being spent by the pro-abortion advocates to repeat these soundbites.

Back To Top