Introducing Lucille Katherine … Reply


By Tom Quiner

My wife and I adopted a baby yesterday.

To be more precise, we “spiritually adopted” a baby who was conceived this month. We named her Lucille Katherine.

We will never meet this little girl. But by committing to spiritually adopt her, we have embarked on a 9 month journey of daily prayer for this real human being. We pray that her mother makes the choice to honor the life in her womb.

Would you join us in praying for this singular soul, Lucille Katherine? Here is the prayer we are using:

“O God, our Heavenly Father,

you sent Your Son into this world

that He might bless and consecrate all

life to You.

Enlighten our minds with awareness

and to a renewed conviction

that all human life is sacred

because it is created

in your image and likeness.

In a special way we ask and pray

that you grace and protect

the unborn child, Lucille Katherine,

that I have spiritually adopted

with your ever caring love.

We pray this in the name of Jesus,

who is Lord, forever and ever. Amen.”

As my wife handed out spiritual adoption cards yesterday, she was accosted by a parishioner who “challenged” her to demonstrate that she really cares about life by doing something after the baby is born.

Why do social justice types always have the word “but” after anything pertaining to abortion? You know what I mean, “Well that is fine and dandy, but your type don’t care about the child after it is born. What about about the starving kids in Darfur?”

Life demands dignity at every stage, from conception to a natural death. There’s no “but” involved. But the ultimate indignity is abortion, which snuffs out all of life’s beautiful possibilities.

The premise that pro lifers don’t care about the baby after she is born is nonsense. From adoption services, clinics, and even post abortion counseling for women racked by the guilt of  terminating their pregnancies, the Life community works on behalf of real people before and after they are born.

All of us at our church who spiritually adopted a baby will hold a baby shower in nine months. The shower gifts we bring will go to real women and real babies.

Join me in praying for Lucille Katherine.

Thank-you.

The tyranny of tolerance 2


By Tom Quiner

I bet you’re like me. You have friends, family, acquaintances with same-sex attractions.

You love them regardless.

You want them to be safe.

You want them to be happy.

For many people of faith, there’s more to it, though. They care about their soul. They worry that acting on same-sex impulses threatens their salvation.

You may agree or disagree.

But you can’t take away the legitimate concerns people with this faith belief hold.

Today, though, if you disagree with the idea of gay marriage, you are immediately labeled as being a “homophobe.”

You are publicly decried as being a human being who hates another, simply because you disagree with his/her political position on this issue.

The debate on same-sex attractions began evolving in the 90s. Then, the political call was for tolerance. Americans are very tolerant, very accepting of many things. Sometimes we’re slow to get it, but by and large, this has been a nation of great compassion.

So although Americans did not want the same-sex lifestyle to be woven into the fabric of our nation as a legitimate, alternative lifestyle, they took the stance that what goes on in the bedroom is private.

Fair enough.

Times have changed.

Those who called for tolerance in the 90s had a different agenda. They really wanted acceptance of their lifestyle and  political  power.

They got it, and boy are they intolerant.

Ask Jerry Buell.

This former teacher of the year in Mount Dora, Florida, was temporarily suspended from his teaching duties at Mount Dora High School.

His offense? He made a politically incorrect post on his Facebook page as follows:

“I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up. And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”

He added a second post a few minutes later:

“By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”

Free speech has been replaced by politically-correct speech in this new age of intolerance. Mr. Buell learned the hard way.

Intolerance has spread to the abortion debate.

How many times have you heard someone say, “although I’m personally against abortion, I don’t see how I can impose my will on someone else.”

Let me translate this “tolerant” view:  “although I personally think that the object in the womb is a human being and that it would be infanticide to kill him or her, I don’t see how I can impose my opinion on someone else.”

This “tolerant” approach has led to an intolerance breathtaking in its brazenness.

Catholic doctors and hospitals that refuse to perform abortions are under attack. Pro-borts, with the financial backing of Planned Parenthood, are pulling out the stops to undo conscious-protections for people with ethical concerns about abortion.

Congress refused to omit abortion from Obamacare.

Here in Des Moines, Dr. Alveda King was disinvited from speaking at Roosevelt High School because a couple of parents didn’t like her politically-incorrect pro-life position.

There is no tolerance on the political Left when it comes to these issues.

How do we handle these issues? By making a case with unwavering intelligence, respect, and conviction.

The Catholic Church says it beautifully in its Catechism. They call for people with same-sex attractions to live chastely, and that they:

“… must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in this regard must be avoided.”

Jesus accepted people the way they were. But he called on them to change their lives.

And he called on us to love, or as Mother Teresa of Calcutta put it, to “love ’til it hurts.”

Peace begins in the womb 3


By Tom Quiner

If a society allows the weakest in society to be exterminated without raising a finger, anything is possible.

For a generation, America has turned its back on our most vulnerable little ones with unfettered abortion “rights” at the expense of the pre-born.

Does it matter?

The Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973 negated all legal protections for the pre-born on the books at the state level. Overnight, they were hung out to dry, so to speak.

Since then, America has changed.

The divorce rate went up.

Child abuse increased.

Drug abuse increased.

Illegitimacy exploded.

The African-American community was decimated.

Pornography use increased.

The nation’s replacement birth rate plummeted.

Is there any connection?

How can there not be a correlation? When a nation’s top legal body says human life is expendable when it is in the womb, it suggests that the value of human life is conditional, not absolute.

In one fell swoop, the Court degraded the value of humanity, and we have experienced a dramatic increase in social pathology ever since. We invest tremendous resources trying to fix the problems created by the Court’s decision to declare war on the womb.

This country has many great human beings who are vocal peace advocates. I notice something about so many of them, though. The same people critical of our wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, these ardent peace advocates, are far too frequently advocates of abortion rights.

And yet one of their fellow peace advocates, the late John Paul II, a man who shared their opinions on those wars, had this to say:

“America you are beautiful . . . and blessed . . . . The ultimate test of your greatness is the way you treat every human being, but especially the weakest and most defenseless. If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life.”

In other words, peace begins in the womb.

Another peace advocate, Mother Teresa of Calcutta put it this way:

“I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is Abortion, because it is a war against the child… A direct killing of the innocent child, Murder by the mother herself… And if we can accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love… And we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts…”

Mother Teresa puts it quite simply when she says:

“We must not be surprised when we hear of murders, killings, of wars, or of hatred…If a mother can kill her own child, what is left but for us to kill each other?”

Ronald Reagan put it this way:

“Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Simple morality doesn’t seem so simple in light of America’s 53 million abortions since the Roe decision.

And yet it seems so obvious when we listen to Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa, and Ronald Reagan.

Peace begins in the womb.

[Quiner’s Diner subscription drive continues. If you enjoyed this post, please e-mail it to a friend or post it on your Facebook page. Encourage them to sign up for a free subscription. You may also enjoy this post: “Vending machine abortions victimize women.”]

Vending machine abortions victimize women 1


By Jeane Bishop

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Four years ago I helped my daughter and her friend with their National History Day project.  The 10 year old girls studied Dr. Nancy Hill, a pioneer female doctor in Iowa.

The girls and I discovered that Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, (1821-1910) the first female physician in this country, became a doctor in order to help women.  She wanted to give the women of her time medical care that was equivalent to the care that men received.

The idea of Blackwell becoming a physician was suggested by a friend dying of cancer, who told her, “If I could have been treated by a lady doctor, my worst sufferings would have been spared me.”

Blackwell saw that women were not getting the same care due to archaic Victorian standards of modesty that kept physicians from adequately examining a patient.  Layers of clothing were preventing doctors from seeing what they needed to see in order to assess and treat their female patients.  Ridiculously, even mirrors were used instead of a doctor looking directly at a female body in need of examination and diagnosis.

I thought about these things as I attended the Iowa Board of Medicine meeting on October 22nd here  in Des Moines.  I listened as speakers voiced concerns about an illegal practice going on in our state which allows a woman to receive medications which will kill the developing baby within her and then send her into “labor” while at home, delivering her dead baby there.

I wondered what Dr. Blackwell, suffragists Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other of our foremothers would think of the shoddy way women in Iowa are being treated by this vending machine attitude to gynecological care.

Women that are not examined by a doctor are at an even higher risk as they may be experiencing an ectopic pregnancy or be unsure of the gestational age of their baby.  Failures and complications exponentially increase when the doctor does not examine her/his patient.

These feminist foremothers worked for equality without apologies.  These brave visionaries struggled for an America where women had the right to be in the workplace, school and home.  They believed women did not need to sacrifice their children to be anywhere.

Stanton, the first champion of women’s suffrage and a mother of seven, said, “When you consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.”

Interestingly, these women came from families involved in the abolition movement.  Abolishing slavery and enfranchising women made perfect sense to these clear-thinking Americans.

What makes perfect sense to me is that the remote-control abortion system discussed at the Iowa Board of Medicine meeting victimizes women further with substandard care.  Women deserve better.

Why Reduce the Number of Abortions? Reply


As seen in the Des Moines Register on October 4th, 2009

By Tom Quiner

“The president explicitly expressed his commitment to reducing the numbers of abortions and to listen to the church’s concern on moral issues.”

This is the news release much of the media missed on July 16th after President Obama met with Pope Benedict.

Think about this statement. It is relevant today, October 4th, 2009.  This is Life Chain Sunday across America.  In Des Moines, you’ll see members of your community standing along Merle Hay Road in respectful support of life.

I once believed there were only two positions on abortion: one believing the object in a mother’s womb is a person; the other believing it isn’t.  It follows that group one believes the unborn are entitled to human rights, group two doesn’t.

I was mistaken.  There is a third group, the one President Obama and much of his party are in.  This group tacitly acknowledges that the object in the womb is a person, but is unwilling to grant it human rights.  Why else should we reduce the number of abortions?

If the fetus is simply a collection of cells, much like a gall bladder, why did the President feel a need to reduce the number of abortions?

Scientists are universal in their assertion that life begins at conception, at which time its genetic code is complete.

In defense of my pro-choice friends, it is fair to ask:  “is the life in the womb really a person?” In other words, is it a “full” human entitled to full human rights?  Or is it, in fact, some sort of subhuman not entitled to human rights?

The implications are enormous.  The President’s party prides itself on looking out for the little guy.  If they’re wrong, they have abetted violence on an unimaginable scale directed at the most vulnerable persons in society, the unborn.

To my pro-choice friends, what if you’re wrong?  What if there is only a one-in-ten chance that we’re dealing with a human person in the womb?  Is the risk to our humanity worth it?

Some of you tell me you’re personally opposed to abortion, but that you can’t impose your view on someone else.  I don’t think you’re shooting straight with yourself.  Are you personally opposed to killing a baby with colic that cries all night?  Of course you are.  Are you willing to impose this view on the parent up all night with the crying kid?  Of course you are.   We impose values on others all the time. That’s why we pass laws:  to protect us from each other.

I know this is a tough issue.  None expressed the dilemma more eloquently than a famous Senator: “While the deep concern of a woman  bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion-on-demand is not in accordance with the values our civilization places on human life.  Wanted or unwanted,  I believe that human life even at its earliest stages has certain rights which must be recognized.  The right to be born; the right to love; the right to grow old.”

Ted Kennedy said it so well.  Yes, that was the late Senator Kennedy’s beautiful defense of life in 1971.  Then he changed his position.  He didn’t change this core position for scientific reasons or moral ones.  It came down to politics.

Today, on these pages in the Register, notable Republicans suggest that we, too, should be less concerned about this issue.  I think not.  If anything, Republicans should stand up for the little guy more than ever.

Either all humans possess personhood or they don’t. In America, all are created equal. Today’s Life Chain simply recognizes that whether embryonic, fetal, infantile, young, old, or dying, we’re entitled to human rights.  This is an American value.  Join us on Merle Hay Road at 2 PM today.