Category: Uncategorized

After trying to access my website to provide updates, I found that my site had been blocked…restricted. It appears the DNS I was using had blocked it for some reason. This could be due to the router, or it could be that the local DNS is blacklisting me. I’m not sure at the moment – will need to investigate it.

I have actually moved the whole site from one server to another, so at the moment, there are no previous posts. Not sure what I’ll do about this, but I have retrieved the posts, so will possibly try to provide an archive, or repost.

UPDATE I have taken down the sales listing for the time being. I will update if it is made available again.

My Entwined Pregnancy Print is now available through the shop at kalimetric.com.

I decided to run the sale through sister site kalimetric as that has the set up for a shop already. Selling on AlmosLataan would require a large overhaul. So, for the time being, the two sites are combined in a fashion.

For a long time I wondered whether I should sell something associated with pro-life. I felt that it might be inappropriate to do so. But I guess that in religious areas, by way of comparison, artists create and sell work, so there is a precident. If this is a success, I can perhaps think about producing more large format work.

The print run is limited in a fashion. 10 prints are available in the first batch, with each successive print raising in price (in example, batch 1 print 1 will be cheaper than batch 1 print 2). Once all of the prints are sold in the batch, the print will then become unavailable for 5 years. This ensures that the print will always remain in circulation, but in low numbers, as long as the initial file and negative are still available.

If you are interested then head over to kalimetric.com

I was reading this wonderful paper on the importance of maintaining dialogue in the abortion debate (and of course other debates). I was struck by the idea that arguments/debates are sometimes a reflection of where we are in life. So the question of how to maintain dialogue is a difficult one, especially when most people change by increments, rather than large sudden changes. The positions that some hold follow years of experiences and knowledge acquisition, right or wrong. On the other side of the spectrum, there are those who possess little knowledge or experience. So, in a sense, advocating for your position in a public manner becomes difficult. Who is your target audience? How well versed are they in the arguments? How well versed are you?

The other point that struck me was that we must have charity towards the other, whilst ensuring that we don’t fall into relativism. Ultimately, as the paper points out, we must listen, and do so honestly, so that we can be receptive not only to the other, but also to the truth, which we are ultimately trying to attain.

A further difficulty lies in desire and truth. What exactly are we debating for? My perspective is that truth is something fundamental which goes beyond shallow desires. However, perhaps we could say that in our (hopefully) ultimate destination, desire will in fact match truth. Is it, then, even possible to debate with someone whose primary goal is a desire fulfillment which is at odds with truth? How do we even discern or prove when desire is at odds with truth?

The authors of the papers seek to combat this by returning to base principles that are perhaps building blocks for what eventually becomes our opinions, and in this case, our abortion opinions. Understanding the Catholic position then, requires not only a contemporary understanding of affairs, but a long chain of philosophy and history. We can first treasure the human from conception using reason, and then untangle the choices that lead to abortion through exploring love and freedom.

It’s a great paper for anyone working hard to change minds in the debate, as the method of communication is just as important as the content of the communication.

From a personal perspective, it has helped me to understand that debating from the endpoints is perhaps futile when the base points are not very well understood, and that we must have charity for others in understanding that we exist on a spectrum of experiences. In understanding the other’s experiences better, we may find a better position to help them. It also helps me see that I am being uncharitable in perhaps being a little heavy handed in discussion of what I feel is the truth, alienating perhaps, where I should instead be persuading.

Ongoing are my struggles with Instagram ever since posting a pro-life image of a vase with a flower on it. I was reported for inappropriate content. Since then, all my accounts are locked down for reach. I can only presume that initially my post was flagged by a user. However, multiple reports sent to Instagram since then would appear to indicate that Instagram has no intention of lifting the lockdown. It’s possible that using art in celebration of pregnancy from a pro-life position is not permitted (this is an inferred opinion. Only Instagram can know what is really going on).

But there is a wider issue in locking down pro-life accounts, and that is the locking down of the dehumanisation conversation. Dehumanization often occurs in tandem with mass murder of a segment of the populace. Obviously, with abortion, we are looking at numbers of 73,000,000 world wide each year.

If we look closer at the abortion debate, we’ll notice that the “personhood debate” is being used to dehumanize. Despite the biological fact that we are fully human from conception, personhood is used to indicate that there is a further categorization of human that the unborn don’t quite fill (according to those promoting the view). With the holocaust, Jews were referred to as subhuman and “rats”, and in the Rwandan genocide, the Tutsis were referred to as cockroaches (see here). In these cases, and others, the dehumanization was used prior to mass violence. Dehumanization, then, enables the populace to kill, as the targeted no longer possess the categorization of human. Instead, they are viewed similarly to vermin. Of course, it’s not only the personhood (dehumanization) “debate”, if you read forums you may also hear words like “parasite” being mentioned.

David Livingstone Smith does not argee with the dehumanization label for abortion. Yet, in his attempt to rebuke this claim, he says that a dehumanized human must be spoken of in subhuman language, and must also be thought of as “dangerous” and unclean. It seems strange that David has not acknowledged that the “personhood debate” is language used to categorise the unborn as sub human. This is before we get to the “parasite” phraseology also often used in “unofficial” channels, which is perhaps representative of a wider held private perspective (although we must hope, not too wide). Secondly, the unborn are viewed as dangerous. They are viewed as a danger to ideology, namely that of mainstream feminism, which seems to posit that abortion-choice is needed in order to empower women. Furthermore, word meanings are not representative of fixed sets…the sets can be expanded to include further cases. In this case, the word “dehumanization” is clearly applicable to the unborn, whether or not the word has been used in this way before or not. To be clear on this, if abortion awareness came before the holocaust due to millions of dead children, then it seems probable this word, or one similar, would have come into existence (if the same justifications were being used).

Unfortunately, the violence has already been perpetrated with abortion. But there is still the possibility of halting further violence. The language that is used to dehumanize needs to be halted. In order to do this, the mainstream media and social media need to permit the dehumanization discussion, otherwise they risk being proponents of the dehumanization process themselves.

I was speaking to someone recently about how we must have objective morality as defined by God, otherwise we as humans can create societies that favour, for instance, child sacrifice (practiced, for example, by the Mayans). Essentially, the wish to maximise pleasure or contentment within this life can lead to certain horrors becoming “the good”. In this, there must exist an element of doublethink in order to overcome the conscience.

Of course, the real parallel here is that we have such a society in existence today. Not only are we encouraged to take the path of least resistance in satisfying shallow desires, thus forming a society of contentment but not goodness, we also have the modern take on child sacrifice which is abortion. For how can it be anything else when a person kills their own child for the sake of a better individual life? It may not be “a sacrifice to the gods”, but it is a sacrifice. This is hard for people to process, as ingrained within the mind is the view of “primitive” times and cultures, where child sacrifice was practiced. To accept that we live in a similar age now, and that we have perhaps been a proponent of such actions is difficult. Forgiveness is available for those that truly seek it, but the denial is so strong that some people even discuss “personhood” with relation to the unborn, despite the biological fact that we are human from conception. When we have such attacks on the human person, when the dehumanisation is so strong, it becomes difficult to change minds.

Perhaps one reason for the high prevalence of abortion is that it falls in the path of least resistance. A mother can take a pill to abort and forget, thus enabling the mother to continue life with the least disruption. The ease of access to services which fail to provide the prospective mother with the truth that a human is alive within her also contribute. It seems at first that there are minimal costs. Later, heavy weights such as guilt can come, making the path chosen far more burdensome.

What is being missed, however, is that the narrow path is more rewarding. Having a child is one of the greatest joys one can experience. It is hard, there is no doubt about that, and for some it is especially hard, but nothing can compare to splendour of seeing your own child smile.

It seems that society often offers this path of least resistance. Brave New World we might in fact be. But surely humans can be something better than this; can achieve a higher and more holy state, a true reward. Taking the narrow path may often seem like more work, but is ultimately more satisfying to the human spirit.

However, without God, it can be hard to discern this path. When your gods are human in nature, for example, a political alignment, then it becomes hard to know right from wrong. You are a slave to ideology.

Instead, we must trust and believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God The Holy Spirit, have intervened in human affairs, prescribing to us the rules that will save us and give us true contentment and happiness.

I have decided to run a regular post where I upload some free Pro-life Images. These will differ to those I am submitting to Instagram and Pxlmo (pixelfed server). This should give people a reason to visit the webpage!

As I mentioned before, the images are free to use for Pro-Life and Catholic image and meme makers. If people want the high-res files, then use my new Contact page to get in touch.