John Jalsevac

Blogs

Pregnant in Auschwitz: Holocaust survivor recalls split-second decision that saved her and her son

John Jalsevac

The following story was printed last week in the National Post:

Miriam Rosenthal was four-months pregnant, starving, bone-tired, cold, filthy and afraid when an SS officer in big black boots and a crisp uniform appeared before the barracks in Auschwitz with a loudspeaker in hand.

All pregnant women line up, he barked. Line up, line up — your food portions are being doubled.

“Can you imagine?” Miriam asks. “Even women who were not pregnant stepped forward. I was standing with my younger cousin, but I wouldn’t go. She says, ‘Miriam, what are you doing?’ ”

“Something was holding me back. Someone was watching over me. I feel maybe my mother, maybe God. Two hundred women stepped forward and 200 women went to the gas chamber. And I don’t know why I didn’t step forward.

“I have asked rabbis. I have asked some big people and no one can give me an answer. If you believe in God, then God did it. If you believe it was my parents, then it was my parents, which is what I believe.

“They were such good people, generous, kind. And maybe for their sake, maybe that’s why I didn’t step forward. I have asked myself this question so many times as I lay in bed upstairs.”

Read more about Miriam Rosenthal’s incredible survival story here, including an account of her emotional reunion with her husband after the war.

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image

Blogs

The best response yet to the pro-abort freak-out over that Doritos Superbowl ad

John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John

Pro-aborts lost their minds yesterday after Doritos aired a commercial that...*gasp*...showed an ultrasound of an unborn baby.

Seriously.

The humorous commercial showed a dad eating a bag of Doritos while his wife gets an ultrasound, and the baby tries to grab at the Doritos in his hands.

Watch it for yourself:

Funny, right? And kind of cute, in a silly way. But not for NARAL Pro-Choice America.

They tweeted their disgust:

Get that? "Humanizing" a fetus.

Since last night there hasn't been any shortage of responses to NARAL's bizarre anti-scientific, anti-baby, and anti-human extremism.

But one of the best responses I've read comes from Dr. Robert George, a pro-life professor at Princeton University, who posted this on Facebook:

I gather that the really big news, as always, had to do with a commercial advertisement that was broadcast in the course of the game. Evidently, a potato chip manufacurer, or some such profit-driven purveyor of packaged foodstuffs, showed a video image of an unborn baby. This shocked and appalled the folks at NARAL, the big abortion lobby, who promptly accused the company responsible for the ad of "humanizing the fetus." Since, however, the fetus in the video was, by all accounts, a human fetus, the offspring of human parents, and not a bovine, canine, or feline fetus, it's less than clear how it is that the potato chip company (or whatever it was) is to blame for the humanization. Surely NARAL's complaint would be more fairly lodged against God, or nature, or plain old biological reality.

Memo to NARAL: that's what an unborn baby actually looks like.

Every couple who has ever had an ultrasound has watched their baby being "humanized" right in front of their eyes, which is why having an ultrasound is such a beautiful and moving experience.

Nowadays, with crystal-clear "4D" ultrasounds, couples can watch their babies kick about, suck their thumbs, respond to noises in the room, move away from the doctor's or nurse's touch, etc.

RELATED: ‘I saw little arms, little legs, and a head!’: Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

And that's why pro-life activists are working furiously to pass laws ensuring that women are given the opportunity to see an ultrasound of their babies before they go through with an abortion. It's called "informed consent." That means, telling a patient everything they need to know to make an informed decision before going through with an irrevocable medical procedure.

But pro-abortion groups like NARAL are fighting these commonsense laws tooth and nail. Why? Because they know what pro-lifers who work in crisis pregnancy centers have learned through long experience: when women see their baby in front of their eyes on an ultrasound, they are far, far less likely to go through with the abortion. And that means lost income for abortion clinics.

RELATED: UK parents reject abortion after seeing son smile on ultrasound

That's why story after story has come out of women saying that even when they asked to see the ultrasound of their baby before their abortion at an abortion clinic, the staff at the clinic refusedBecause feminism. 

So, a question for abortion supporters out there: If your whole ideology has to be propped up on a stubborn denial of one of the most clearly proven scientific facts - i.e. the humanity of the human unborn child - what does that say about the value of your ideology? And if the only way you can get women to buy your product - abortion - is by lying to them, what does that say about your view of women? 



Advertisement
Featured Image
Gone are atheists like George Bernard Shaw, eager to take on apologists like G.K. Chesterton in battle. Instead, we have snarky, mocking snipes like Bill Maher, men who do not seek to understand.

Blogs

Atheists aren’t even trying any more…and why that’s terrifying

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Christian scholars, speakers, authors and apologists are beginning to notice a trend: Atheists no longer even try to understand Christianity. They don’t take Christian beliefs seriously, and they don’t find them relevant. Worse: They find Christians ridiculous, unintelligent idiots who believe in all sorts of ludicrous notions. Gone are atheists like George Bernard Shaw, eager to take on apologists like G.K. Chesterton in battle. Gone, it seems, are even atheists like Christopher Hitchens, willing to spar with philosophers like William Lane Craig. Instead, we have snarky, mocking snipes like Bill Maher, men who do not seek to engage or understand.

Simply put, secularists cannot understand why Christians act the way that they do, because their perception of reality is fundamentally different. For the secularist, there is only the physical. Things are what they are. For the Christian, the metaphysical is as real as the physical, and these realms interact on every level. A miracle may strike a Christian with awe, but the Christian possesses a worldview that allows him to understand what a miracle is—the Creator intervening directly in the created order in a visible way. A secularist insists that the miracle could not have happened, pointing out that the natural order does not function that way—in essence, accusing a miracle of being…a miracle.

Secularists claim to have placed their faith in “reason,” when in reality this is simply another way of saying that they have placed their faith in themselves. They will only believe in what they can understand. The problem is that the Religion of Reason is a circular feedback loop: Reason cannot in and of itself prove that reason is rational. One must have faith that it is. The secularist must believe that his brain, supposedly created by chance and programmed over millions of years of natural selection to react instinctively in certain ways, is capable of independent thought. A rather ludicrous notion, when you think about it.

As I said to one university student in debate: “Any god that can fit within the confines of your skull is a god too small for anyone to worship.” He was offended by this statement—a true secularist. As Chesterton wrote: “The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.” 

It’s important for us to realize that secularists and Christians don’t just believe different things, but see everything differently. In the secularist world, there is no Heaven, no Hell, no angels, no devils, no world unseen—or at least, no world that could not be seen.

Adding to that, of course, this means there is no soul, no good, and no evil. This is a fact that no secularist truly wants to confront: I remember my psychology professor calling off our seminar a half hour early after I asked her repeatedly to give me one philosophically coherent reason that rape was wrong in a world that slouched into existence by accident. Besides a few feeble appeals to subjective “social contracts” and the like, she could not. For there to be any objective moral law, there has to be a Lawgiver.

The chasm between the world as Christians see it and the world as secularists see it is deep, dark, and wide. That is why the presently raging culture wars so often seem as if the two sides are simply yelling into the abyss—because these battles mean very different things to the opposing armies.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

As I noted in my column on euthanasia last week, secularists see euthanasia more or less in terms of ushering a suffering animal out of his or her misery. Humans, in the materialist view, are soulless animals, and thus it may actually be more compassionate or merciful to kill someone suffering awful pain than it would be to consider palliative care. When secularism put the idea of human exceptionalism to death, it guaranteed that many humans would be put to death, too. After all, why not?

So it is too with abortion. Every once in a while when an abortion activist tells me that the human being in the womb is just a clump of cells, I like to point out that she is just a clump of cells, as well. But this argument isn’t always indicative of scientific illiteracy—although that is often the case. Sometimes, it is an accurate depiction of how they see human life. For people to value human life, they have to have a reason to value human life. Secularism has yet to mount a truly consistent, much less philosophically coherent, reason to value human beings. Instead, it puts forward the inherently discriminatory notion of “personhood,” which has been used to exclude and oppress women, African Americans, aboriginals, Jews, and now the pre-born. At no point in recent human history have all human beings been considered persons, and at no point in recent human history have we stopped killing those excluded from this subjective category invented by the strong to oppress the weak.

This chasm is also why secularists cannot agree with Christians on the Sexual Revolution—because no one can even agree on a definition of what sex is to begin with. For Christians, sex was created to be unitive and procreative, serving to bond the husband and the wife, with that love at times being blessed with the miraculous creation of a new human being. From the metaphysical standpoint, marriage represents the relationship between the Lord Jesus and His church.

While the secularist may agree that those are certainly options for sex, in their relativist world, sex is whatever makes you feel good. If one of those engaging in the interaction can extract some measure of pleasure, then it is “good”—and any orifice will do: two animals moving their soulless bodies about with one another to produce a pleasant sensation. Thus, hollowing out and redefining marriage, disregarding gender, and abandoning the traditional family structure are an inevitable result of the spread of secularism. Physical heresies multiply.

The culture wars have been fought for decades, and Christians have been losing. Secularists have long stopped trying to debate Christians or understand the Judeo-Christian building blocks upon which Western civilization has been precariously perched these last few centuries. From late night TV to Hollywood to the mainstream media, Christians are treated with contempt and scorn. That contempt is turning swiftly into intolerance, as many Christian beliefs are being recast as bigoted and hateful.

It is paramount that Christians arm themselves with the tools to fight back.

Editor’s Note: This is Part I of a Two-Part Series

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Few consider the implications of giving doctors the right to kill. Shutterstock

Blogs

Keeping the piranhas busy: the terrifying implications of legalizing assisted suicide

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Jan. 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Reading the news these days, I’m reminded of a practice used for generations by the inhabitants of the Amazonian jungles. When crossing rivers with their cattle, they would need to ensure that the razor-toothed piranhas wouldn’t detect them splashing through the water. So a weak, old, or sickly cow would be led upstream and forced into the water. As the piranhas shot in for the kill and reduced the hapless animal to glistening bones in a matter of minutes, the rest of the herd would cross the river before the piranhas were done devouring the scapegoat. One dies so the others can escape without being noticed.

It’s hard not to get the feeling that the same thing is happening in our culture right now. Euthanasia, for example, is creeping in with barely a whimper. Sure, the same few tireless anti-euthanasia warriors who have fought this in the courts for decades are still trying to rouse people to action. But who else seems to care, really? Many church communities feel secure in the knowledge that they run their own faith-based care facilities and thus their beloved elderly ones will be safe. Others take their aging parents into their own homes if the time comes, and so do not think such policies will impact them.

Few consider the implications of giving doctors the right to kill.

Each time a rule is broken, society shrugs its shoulders, and says, “I’ll allow it.” And the piranhas are kept busy for just a little longer.

Because that’s what boils down to. Those advocating for truncation of human lives are carefully sanitizing every term so we won’t notice what is actually happening. The promotion and facilitation of suicide as a “medical option,” for example, is now nauseatingly referred to in virtually every media outlet as “physician-assisted dying.” Rather than pointing out that doctors are ending the lives of patients and discussing what could go wrong in such scenarios, we’re told that we would be inhumane to deny people “death with dignity.”

We should know, instinctively, that this is all rather disturbing. Andrew Coyne highlighted this brilliantly in the National Post when he asked whether doctors preparing to give the “patient” a lethal injection would have to sterilize the needle. I wondered in a column last week how doctors summon the next victim from the waiting room: “Excuse me, Ms. Adams, the doctor will kill you now.”

Those advocating for euthanasia ceaselessly appeal to our humanity, begging us to consider someone in the final, agonizing stages of dying, insultingly insinuating that there can be no dignity in such circumstances. They let slip their true beliefs, lurking just beneath the surface of their eye-watering words: Their lives aren’t worth anything anymore. They have no quality of life anymore. Let them die with dignity. Or, just as accurately: Let us kill them with medical efficiency.

In reality, it is humanity that is being lost. We no longer believe in human exceptionalism, because the underlying belief here is that we have no soul. That once the poison finishes coursing through our veins and we breathe our last, that’s it. Curtains closed. There’s no sense that death might not be the end, and that self-murder being our final action might have consequences. That’s why it’s okay to talk about putting Grandma to sleep like some beloved family pet. There’s no awe for the precious gift of life, and no solemn reflection about what implications these actions might have for the life beyond.

It’s the unspoken reality in the current debate—as muted as it is—on euthanasia. Those of us who oppose euthanasia have a much different view of life and death than our materialist opponents. We have a much different view on what dignity really is. We don’t see death as a solution. We especially don’t see killing as a solution.

But we’ve come a long way down this road now. Decades of horror stories leaking out of the abortion industry have not swayed those who championed its legalization—with a few prominent exceptions. That euthanasia is being used not as a last resort, but as suicide-on-demand in Europe is ignored by those who argue that for the dying to have dignity, they must die faster. More specifically, we must kill them. And we Christians plod stolidly on, deluding ourselves in the belief that the piranhas will not eventually turn their attention back downstream.

Whether or not one believes that humans have souls, and that there is life after death, surely we can all agree that giving medical professionals the right to kill people is a horrifying mistake. Surely we can look across the ocean to countries who have already been where we are, at this moment, and chose to step forward into a world where the depressed, the disabled, the blind, the old, the very young, and even the unwilling can be dispatched by doctors. Each time a rule is broken, society shrugs its shoulders, and says, “I’ll allow it.”

And the piranhas are kept busy for just a little longer.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook



Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook