Shameful Advice from the Pontifical Academy for Life on the Use of Vaccines Containing Aborted Tissue

The Pontifical Academy for Life advice on vaccines containing cells from murdered (aborted) babies is legalistic fudge - The Academy expressed the right of parents to use or abstain from aborted fetal vaccines “if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis.". The Academy expressed the right of parents to use or abstain from aborted fetal vaccines “if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis. The moral reason is that the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience.”  (The central concern in their document was for pregnant women and the possible transmission of rubella to her unborn child.)

Let me explain my position by way of analogy.

In a wartime concentration camp run by military police, food is insufficient to keep the slave labour force (of whom there is no shortage) strong enough for work. No extra food can be imported from outside because of shortages.

The commandant decides that those prisoners who are unable to work will be killed and made into sausages, meat  pies, and soup, and fed to the prisoners still capable of work.

Amongst the prisoners is a Catholic Bishop, who, relies on the reasoning in this passage, dealing with vaccine containing cells from aborted babies, from the Pontifical Academy for Life:

 “The Academy expressed the right of parents to use or abstain from aborted foetal vaccines:

 “if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis. The moral reason is that the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience.”

The Bishop states that the prisoners may eat the human flesh food products because:

Not to do so would cause them grave inconvenience, and

The work which they are doing, manufacturing sanitary equipment, e.g. lavatories, for hospitals, is vital for the health and welfare of the public. Its non-performance would cause the public grave inconvenience.

I would treat him, and his opinion, with the contempt they deserve and hope that, after the end of hostilities and the defeat of the nation whose camp it was, he would be dismissed the clerical state.

A Target for the Aborters

A child's untrained voice singing to the Infant Jesus among the millions of voices stifled before birth, but heard by God.

An old Polish Carol: a tiny piece of Heaven.

Well, perhaps the little performer has a cleft palate, or a deformed left hand?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcPzxWHIIt4

MOLOCH, horrid King besmear'd with blood

"First MOLOCH, horrid King besmear'd with blood
Of human sacrifice, and parents tears,
Though, for the noyse of Drums and Timbrels loud,
Their children's cries unheard that passed through fire
To his grim Idol. Him the AMMONITE
Worshipt in RABBA and her watry Plain,
In ARGOB and in BASAN, to the stream
Of utmost ARNON. Nor content with such
Audacious neighbourhood, the wisest heart
Of SOLOMON he led by fraud to build
His Temple right against the Temple of God
On that opprobrious Hill, and made his Grove
The pleasant Vally of HINNOM, TOPHET thence
And black GEHENNA call'd, the Type of Hell."       (Milton, Paradise Lost)

From the Daily Telegraph:

The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.

Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.

Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’

At least 15,500 foetal remains were incinerated by 27 NHS trusts over the last two years alone, Channel 4’s Dispatches discovered.

The programme, which will air tonight, found that parents who lose children in early pregnancy were often treated without compassion and were not consulted about what they wanted to happen to the remains.

One of the country’s leading hospitals, Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge, incinerated 797 babies below 13 weeks gestation at their own ‘waste to energy’ plant. The mothers were told the remains had been ‘cremated.’

Another ‘waste to energy’ facility at Ipswich Hospital, operated by a private contractor, incinerated 1,101 foetal remains between 2011 and 2013.

They were brought in from another hospital before being burned, generating energy for the hospital site. Ipswich Hospital itself disposes of remains by cremation.

“This practice is totally unacceptable,” said Dr Poulter.

“While the vast majority of hospitals are acting in the appropriate way, that must be the case for all hospitals and the Human Tissue Authority has now been asked to ensure that it acts on this issue without delay.”

Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS Medical Director, has written to all NHS trusts to tell them the practice must stop.

The Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, has also written to the Human Tissue Authority to ask them make sure that guidance is clear.

And the Care Quality Commission said it would investigate the programme's findings.

Prof Sir Mike Richards, Chief Inspector of Hospitals, said: “I am disappointed trusts may not be informing or consulting women and their families.

“This breaches our standard on respecting and involving people who use services and I’m keen for Dispatches to share their evidence with us.

“We scrutinise information of concern and can inspect unannounced, if required.”

A total of one in seven pregnancies ends in a miscarriage, while NHS figures show there are around 4,000 stillbirths each year in the UK, or 11 each day.

Ipswich Hospital Trust said it was concerned to discover that foetal remains from another hospital had been incinerated on its site.

A spokeswoman said: “The Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust does not incinerate foetal remains.”

She added that the trust “takes great care over foetal remains”

A spokesman for the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust said that trained health professionals discuss the options with parents ‘both verbally and in writing.’

"The parents are given exactly the same choice on the disposal of foetal remains as for a stillborn child and their personal wishes are respected,” they added.

This is foul beyond words.

Already a soft drink company is using aborted foetal cells to test flavourings, and there are skin creams containing such cells.

I do not understand why, in the insane, Godless moral climate of western Europe and the USA, no one is turning aborted children into pet-food. Perhaps they are, and no one has thought it worth commenting on.

Interesting that Dr Poulter descibes this abomination as "unacceptable". Strong word! 

Is it conceivable that the Church will one day be prepared to call an abomination what it is?

Hi Mummy, it's me ... That's how I looked when ...

One of my Liceum former pupils published this on Facebook. I read it and choked on tears. The text below the picture is translated by me from the Polish.

You might wish to reblog, Tweet, or Facebook it.

Hi Mummy, it's me ... That's how I looked when ... You know, you said that you couldn't deal with it, not now ... and you bought the pills, which made me quietly die in you ... I'm a little sad because I wanted so much to love you and hug you tightly, I wanted you to be proud of me, so many things I wanted to do with you! Now it is no longer important ... I just wanted to say that I forgive you, and I still love you. Until we meet again Mummy, I'll be waiting for you!

Killing Off the Customers - Smart Idea!

Well worth reading. 

Why teachers should oppose abortion, here, cogently presents the purely economic effects of abortion in Chicago. 

Did Biden and Pelosi receive Holy Communion?

It is reported that Biden and Pelosi, keen enthusiasts for the murder of the unborn, received Holy Communion at the Pope's inaugural Mass; that they were neither warned earlier not to present themselves for Communion, nor turned away when they did so.

If this has happened, the massacre of the innocent would seem to have received the approval of the Church, and mere diplomacy has trumped the Body and Blood of our Lord.

I devoutly hope that reports of such horrible profanation are untrue. 

If they are true, the Church is grave trouble. So are we, for the evil which is promoted by self-styled Catholic supporters of abortion, for me at least, exceeds any consensual act short of murder performed by and between adult homosexuals. The Soho Masses, now moved to Farm Street, are of far less moral significance than what may have taken place in Rome.

Please feel free to correct me if I you think that I am wrong.

Comic Relief - Huh! Don't Make Me Laugh!

In the highly unlikely event that any genuine Catholics are thinking of supporting "Comic Relief", they should read read John Smeaton's S.P.U.C. recent post , which is reproduced below.

[To:]
Gregory Pope
Deputy Director
Catholic Education Service
39 Eccleston Square
London SW1V 1BX

4th February 2013

Dear Mr Pope,

We know that misinformed publicity about Comic Relief has caused considerable confusion and distress in the past, particularly among Catholic schools wanting to support Red Nose Day and Sport Relief. So in 2000, we opened up a dialogue with the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales to help communicate the facts.

At that time, they issued a statement confirming that, after careful examination of our records, they were satisfied with Comic Relief’s assurance that we do not fund and have never funded abortion services or the promotion of abortions. The Bishops’ Conference and the Department of International Affairs confirmed that they were confident that Catholics may continue to support Comic Relief’s fundraising initiatives in good faith. Our commitment remains the same.

Our international funding goes to all kinds of projects – providing education, rehabilitating child soldiers, peace-building, fair trade, supporting street children and a range of other work helping people in the world's poorest countries to turn their lives around.

This includes over £13.6m of grants to more than 50 projects managed by the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (CAFOD) and the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund (SCIAF) for work across Africa, Asia and South America.

Yours sincerely,

Aleks Leimanis
Schools & Youth Manager
Comic Relief

Comic Relief’s "assurance that [it] do[es] not fund and have never funded abortion services or the promotion of abortions" is highly misleading. Comic Relief has for many years funded organisations which perform and/or promote abortion - see our charities bulletin entry dated 6 February this year and older information in our 2006 charities bulletin. Comic Relief has funded, among others:

• the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)(screenshot below from Comic Relief website), the world's largest provider and promoter of abortion
• African Initiatives (screenshot below from Comic Relief website), for a project "on women's rights specifically in the areas of sexual and reproductive health". Such language is commonly used, either as technical language or euphemistically, to denote abortion on demand
• Womankind (screenshot below from Comic Relief website), a radical pro-abortion group which attacks the Catholic Church for upholding the sanctity of human life - see my blog "The Tablet helps radical pro-abortion group raise money"
• Brook (screenshot below from Comic Relief website), one of the UK's leading pro-abortion organisations
• Marie Stopes International (MSI), another of the world's largest abortion providers
• Population Concern, which promotes abortion out of 'concern that the world is over-populated
• Reproductive Health Alliance Europe
• Save the Children (screenshot below from Comic Relief website), which supports abortion and promotes contraception
• Oxfam (screenshot below from Comic Relief website), which has a long history of support for abortion
• The African Women's Development fund (AWDF) (screenshot below from Comic Relief website), for a project supporting "reproductive health" and "sexual minorities". The AWDF charter of feminist principles proclaims its commitment to "Freedom of choice and autonomy regarding bodily integrity issues, including reproductive rights, abortion, sexual identity and sexual orientation"
• Barnardo's (screenshot below from Comic Relief website). Barnardo's runs the Young Womens London Project which offers a 'sexual health service'. Through the service "young women can access a nurse for free condoms, contraception (including emergency contraception) pregnancy testing and advice about abortion/termination." The Barnardo's website recommends the websites of Marie Stopes International and the Family Planning Association, two of the UK's leading abortion agencies
• Terrence Higgins Trust (screenshot below from Comic Relief website), one of the leading lobby groups promoting homosexuality.

This list is by no means exhaustive  - go tohttp://www.comicrelief.com/how-we-help , click on 'Search' on the bottom right-hand corner of the map, and in the 'Type keywords' box, enter the search-terms "sexual" or "reproductive" or "gay".

It is simply unethical for anyone - let alone Catholic schools - to raise money for Comic Relief, that massive bankroller of the culture of death.

The Cry of an Aborted Child, from Richard Collins's Blog

 Please read this poem , written by Richard's brother, and circulate it during Lent. It needs no praise or endorsement from me.

Thank you, and God bless!

Justifiable Abortion?

Proposition, of which I am unconvinced: God sees all time, past, present, and future, as now. The future, therefore, already exists. The child in the womb is already guilty of whatever sins and crimes he or she will later commit.

If this were true, and if a method of travelling in time existed, would it be morally justifiable to visit the past in order, with or without risk to one's own safety, to kill or abort in the womb a future evil-doer, tyrant, or murderer, and so save millions of innocent lives, or even one innocent life?

And thus save the soul of the person killed?

And would you do it?

Cruddas MP & Diocese of Brentwood II

Further to my post yesterday here, I have replied to CJSR at the Diocese of Brentwood, thus:

"Dear CJSR,

Thank you for noting the comments of my email, which contained a request or question.
When may I expect a further email, answering mine, not merely acknowledging it?
Christopher Wright".

We shall see.

Do I make myself Clear?

SPUC's Blog reports that the egregious Cruddas M.P., a "Catholic" supporter of abortion, will address a meeting of the Catholic Commission for Justice and Social Responsibility/Peace group, or whatever it calls itself. Bishop Thomas McMahon, it seems, will introduce this theological prodigy.

So much the worse for Bishop Thomas McMahon.

No doubt, if Cruddas were a Hindu, his diet would include beef: if a Jew or a Muslim, pork and lobster milkshakes. Either way, I guess his co-religionists would, quite properly, have nothing to do with him.

And I want nothing to do with him, or with any supposedly Catholic organisation which gives him a hearing. 

Common Sense Morality: Paper I

Question 1.


The abolition of the death penalty, far from being a step towards a more compassionate society, displays a disturbing lack of horror and outrage at the unjust taking of human life. Discuss.

A pox on't! Clifford Longley fears that the illegalisation of abortion could endanger democracy

H/T for picture to John Smeaton

So the Olympian mind of brain-and-a-half Clifford Longley fears that the illegalisation of abortion could endanger respect for democracy and the rule of law. As he writes, with Cruddas, MP in mind:

Would it not be reasonable for Catholic MPs to want to take into account the damage to respect for democracy and the rule of law that would follow if the criminalisation of all abortion had somehow been forced through Parliament in defiance of public opinion?

If democracy was perfect, and a wise electorate elected a good government, it would, even so, not be worth the life of one innocent unborn child.

An imperfect political system that has delivered abortion, Thatcherism, Blairism, Homosexualism, poltroons like Crossland, education ministers like Shirley Williams, and the ruin of state education is not worth the life of a maggot.

A pox on't!

A Polish child, Whose Ancestors Hitler Did Not Get Round to Aborting, Sings to the Infant Jesus

Just a reminder of what Clifford Longley seems to think is worth sacrificing to preserve democracy: a Polish child, whose ancestors Hitler did not get round to aborting, sings to the Infant Jesus.

Am I too shrill? Should I 'nuance' this?

Longley, Cruddas, Old Uncle Vince Wobbly and all!

I beg you, provided your blood pressure is low and stable, to read John Smeaton's excellent post here which contains his letter to the Tablet in reply to Clifford Longley's article, which I reproduce below.

I find it hard to comment on Longley's piece without recourse to foul language, but will offer the following observations:

1. Longley's tendentious arguments might equally be advanced in defence of not making slavery illegal.

He argues that public opinion would never accept the criminalisation of abortion, and that judges and juries would work to make such legislation ineffective. The G.B.P. (Great British Public), with honorourable exceptions, swallowed Dirty Harry's stealthily introduced so-called reformation and Bloody Betsy's anti Catholicism, as they swallowed Cromwell, slavery, the Test Acts, the Abortion Act, and the more recent pro-homosexualist legislation, even though the majority were probably not in favour. As any fool knows, but not Longley, public opinion is fickle.

Unfortunately, the G.B.P. will swallow nearly anything, just as there are Catholics who swallow the Tablet, Cruddas, Longley, ++Uncle Vin Wobbly and all.

2. He attempts to draw a parallel between the defensive killing of an enemy and the killing of an innocent unborn child, an argument beneath contempt.

3. He suggests that respect for democracy trumps morality.

I shall stop here, as I feel a surge of expletives coming on.

A candidate, perhaps, for this.

Here is Longley's piece:

Is it plausible for a Catholic MP to be “pro-choice”? The issue is raised once more by the case of Jon Cruddas, Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham and a practising Catholic, who has incurred church disapproval for saying that he thinks abortion should be – to quote President Bill Clinton – “safe, legal and rare”.
Cruddas has also said he is happy with the law as it stands in Britain, which is not quite a standard pro-choice position because of the 24-week time limit and because two doctors have to confirm that the statutory criteria have been met. But Cruddas’ views were nonetheless described by a spokesman from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales as “significantly at variance with the Church’s position”.

That position is set forth in general in the 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, that “direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder”. It therefore follows, it goes on to argue, that the law must protect all unborn human life, from the moment of conception, from deliberate harm. It would not surprise me if a Catholic MP held the first of these two points, yet hesitated about the second. Indeed the first of these two positions is probably not far from what most people feel.

Even Ann Furedi, director of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and therefore a major lobbyist on the pro-choice side of the argument, has said abortion is “always a personal tragedy”. She and many like her, however, would say it is sometimes the lesser of two evils. I have heard her liken a woman who seeks an abortion to a hunted animal caught in a trap, which gnaws off its own foot in terror in order to escape.
The argument that the criminal law must in all respects mirror the moral law – and specifically the moral law as interpreted by the Catholic Church – is surely not tenable. Almost nobody thinks adultery, for instance, should be a crime. And while it is characteristic of the Catholic way of thinking about morality to say that ends can never justify means, there are instances where the “lesser of two evils” – killing an enemy in war, for instance – is regarded as acceptable.

Nor can we ignore the political reality. The present UK abortion law is supported by a large majority of public opinion and a large majority of MPs. The absolutist position – that every abortion from the moment of conception onwards should be punished as a crime – has minimal support. As far as I am aware, no attempt has ever been made in the House of Commons to repeal the Abortion Act, and the probability of such an attempt succeeding is zero.

Were such a law by some undemocratic means ever to be passed, with public opinion in its present state, the difficulties would be insuperable. Would juries ever convict anyone under a law they so strongly disagreed with? Would judges, similarly ill-disposed, ever pass deterrent sentences? If not, where would be the law’s protection of the unborn? And what would this do for respect for the law, not to mention democracy?
This picture presents real dilemmas for a conscientious Catholic MP. He or she cannot simply advocate repeal of the Abortion Act without saying what should be put in its place. Repealing it would simply make all abortion legal. Yet the only option the Catholic Church would approve of on the basis of its teaching cited above, complete criminalisation, is in practice unrealistic. Are any Catholic MPs who would not support complete criminalisation for such reasons as these, therefore, to be deemed “pro-choice”?
This is the heart of the problem. Anything less than complete criminalisation would involve someone having to decide which abortions to allow and which to prohibit. The “choice” of the pregnant woman would necessarily figure in that decision. MPs in this situation would naturally prefer them to be as few as possible – or “rare”, to use one of Mr Cruddas’ terms. They would be bound to prefer them to be “safe”, to use another, rather than unsafe; and “legal”, to use the third, rather than illegal.

Would it not be reasonable for Catholic MPs to want to take into account the damage to respect for democracy and the rule of law that would follow if the criminalisation of all abortion had somehow been forced through Parliament in defiance of public opinion? Is that course of action really “the Church’s position” with which Mr Cruddas is said to be “significantly at variance”? Catholic MPs are not the only ones with a moral dilemma – it seems the bishops face one too.

PUBLIC HYGIENE NOTICE: NOW WASH YOUR HANDS!

Polite Discourse with the Unspeakable

Several blogs, among them Countercultural Father , have recently pointed out a perceived need for respect and courtesy when arguing with those who support abortion. It has been suggested that they will never be convinced of the rightness of the pro-life cause if they are vilified with insulting slogans or expressions like 'murderer'. Polite persuasion will work better. Their correspondents seem to agree.

They have, it seems, like racists, nazis, proponents of legalised pederasty, slave-traders and holocaust deniers, a right to their point of view.

With me so far? Good!

Pornography, contraception, and abortion are big business. Abortion feeds off unreliable contraception, the demand for which is stimulated by pornography. Nice little earners.

As to slavery, William Cowper wrote a poem in which he decried slavery, but said he felt bound to support it, as he liked plantation sugar in his tea, as did so many of his compatriots. A source of comfort for the evil men who were able to profit from cheaper sugar, and cotton. Slavery helped make Britain richer. Dulwich College was founded with the pofits of slavery. Cui bono indeed.

Nazism, too, was big business, supported by German tycoons who could smell a fast buck a mile off, and had a gluttonous appetite for slave labour. If there is a moral distinction to be made between between the enslavement and murder of innocent Jews and the very profitable murder of unborn children, someone should perhaps explain it to me, for it is beyond my feeble powers of comprehension.

You can argue that abortion is not murder because it is legal. So were the massacre, destruction, ruin and enslavement of nations which Germany wrought on Europe. The Nuremberg Laws and the diktats of Hitler were, after all, German law.

Would you have conducted your dealings with the unspeakable - people like Hans Frank, Joseph Mengele, Marie Stopes, or Margaret Sanger, with courtesy? I think and hope not.  What would be the point? The hope that through courteous discussion you might change what they were pleased to call their minds? I don't think so. Better speak the noble truth and tell them to their face what they were. It might even have served a secondary purpose and forced them to try to think.

In the UK, the end of the slave trade, one of the vilest blots on the nation's history, came about through the work of abolitionists like Wilberforce and his supporters, who were fortunate and successful because the country they addressed with reason, passion, and rhetoric was still receptive to reason, passion, and rhetoric, and still to an extent a Christian nation.

The modern UK, with its wrecked education, its addiction to sensation, fatuous television, catchpenny lying newspapers, and in possession of the powers of reasoning of an imbecile, would be immune to Wilberforce. Britain is forever largely a prey to slogans, catchphrases, advertising, the tenth rate, and the comfortable, and incapable of recognising, not just the truth, but the possibility that the truth can be ascertained.

In the USA, the end of slavery came about through heroes like John Brown, and through civil war.

Polite discourse will not stop the evil of abortion.

Sadly, I do not know what will.

Some Good News

A triumph for faithful Catholic nurses and doctors: please read about it here - Neil Addison on Religion Law Blog

HEAR WHAT THE "pro-choicers" ARE OUT TO KILL

A child's untrained voice singing to the Infant Jesus among the millions of voices stifled before birth, but heard by God.

An old Polish Carol: a tiny piece of Heaven.

Well, perhaps the little performer has a cleft palate?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcPzxWHIIt4

I AM A THINKING CATHOLIC

I am a Thinking Catholic, above the vulgar strife
Of those pontificating ranters, Smeaton's SPUC, and LIFE,
Who drone about abortion, and sex-ed, as they keep
The Narrow Way of bigotry, and bore us all to sleep.

For mine is not the Narrow Way, of carping bile and scorn
-I am an Easter Person, and know that we were born
For Joy, Compassion, Peace, and Love, Inclusiveness and Truth
(Nuanced, of course, not rigorously red in nail and tooth).


Oh how I loathe the "traddies"! They're such dingy little dorks,
Their manners less than pleasing - can they handle knives and forks?
Suburban, lower middle-class, grey, narrow-minded squirts!
Were I less sensitive, urbane, I'd kick them where it hurts.

But I hurt with all those women whom the Catholic Church denies
The role of Priesthood: mournful, shrill, I hear their plangent cries
For recognition, Ministry, the rights they rightly crave,
While round them the embattled hordes of Tridentiners rave.

So please do not embarrass me with talk of foetal pain,
There are politer issues: Intolerance the main.
Clericalism, Latinism, homophobes,  small of mind
Who make the Church seem common, They're really not our kind!

I am a Modern Catholic. Papal Infallibility,
A human construct, fallible, or so it seems to me,
Conceived by paranoia, while Rome was under threat
Enacted by a Pope it would be nicer to forget.

I am a Catholic Christian, elegant, suave and grand.
My name has some authority, my voice is warm and bland,
And when I speak on BBC, or blog, or give support
To Thinking Bishops, remember! Respect me as you ought.

I am no ignorant Papist Mick, but went to Public School,
Belong to an Exclusive Club, enjoy un jeu de boules,
Have a second home in Tuscany, not far from You Know Who,
And unlike the Catholic Taliban, I know a Thing Or Two.

A VERY THEORETICAL MORAL QUESTION

In the days before global villagism, there was a tired old moral question expressed thus:

If there was a button on your desk, and every time you pressed it, you would be a million pounds richer, and someone would die in far-away China, how often would you press the button?

I've never found money very interesting, but change the results a little, and my ears do indeed prick up.

If I had a button on my desk, and every time I pressed it a child would be saved from abortion, and lightning would strike and kill an abortionist, or pro-abortion legislator, or facilitator, or vociferous and effectual promoter, or someone who legislates or agitates to forcibly teach my grandchildren the rightness of intrinsically immoral acts, then what would I do?

And what would you do?