15 February, 2010

Bringing a comment discussion to the floor for consideration by any and all

reddog said...

The anti abortion movement, as it has developed over the last 40 years, in America, has lost.

Nobody minds if abortion becomes less popular as an option in cases of unwanted pregnancy. Nobody mourns the decrease in the numbers of abortion clinics. If Planned Parenthood is hounded out of business because of a too stident and militant attitude about abortion, that's OK. Whether or not abortion is health care and should be subsidized by the government or healthcare insurance is a civil matter, unrelated to the legality of abortion.

Currently, girls and women have the choice of whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. Thay can raise the child as their own, it can be raised within the family by others, with participation by the mother or given up for adoption. These options have always been legal, never threatened and never will be.

The goal of the hard core anti abortion movement is and always has been the recriminalization of abortion. Not only will that never happen but the more the anti abortion movement agitates for this goal, the more they demonize themselves in the public eye. Good, that's the way it should be. These people, most of them operatives of the Catholic Church, do more against their cause than for it. They rail against an enemy that really isn't there. Look hard, you will find no opposing hard core pro abortion movement. Even Planned Parenthood isn't that. Abortion is just a small part of their program.

Chastity, artificial birth control, STD prevention, Church sanctioned heterosexual marriage, obediance to Catholic teachings and any number of other issues, pro and con, that Catholic sponsored, Right to Life activists espouse, are not associated in most peoples minds with abortion and almost nobody thinks they should be regulated, prohibited or encouraged by civil law.

In the end, the Church hides behind the barricade of its assertion that core teachings of Catholicism constitute somekind of bizarre, arbitrary "natural law", that must be recognized as true and inviolable by all of humanity. This is in direct opposition to the protection of minorities and dissidents that is a cornerstone of our democracy and that the Church itself has used for generations to secure its place in society. If you want to overturn this principle with "natural law", go ahead. Let me warn you though, it's a sword that cuts both ways.
15 February, 2010
Fr. Tim Moyle said...

Reddog: I appreciate you taking the time to write but I beg to disagree. A clear majority of people in the USA now support legislation that reflects most of what the pro-life position is asking for.

I know that P.P. might be responsible for a great deal of good, but so long as they are the agents of abortion, either directly or indirectly, they are to be opposed. For anyone who believes that, well before birth, a separate human entity comes into existence, it is akin to saying that someone was a good father, husband and all round "bon vivant," if you can just over look his being a serial killer!

A pre-born human may depend upon its mother's body for nutrition and a safe environment within which to mature, but it is an independent human person all the same a some time before the end of its gestation.

A majority of state governments now have on the books, or are currently enacting (from the pro-life point of view,) legislation that more and more is limiting the right of choice on the part of the mother to a point, prior to birth. This is, in my opinion, a very good thing.

When the only reason for terminating that life is the decision on the part of the woman who brought it into existence not to want to take responsibility for its life after birth, (especially when there are tens of thousands of infertile couples who want to adopt - many of them rendered such by various sexually transmitted diseases contracted in their youth) it does not meet a standard sufficient to permit the termination of another's life.

Does this mean the recriminalization of abortion? Yes it does. However though, just as infanticide is illegal under the criminal code today yet those convicted of it are most likely to receive mandatory treatment than punishment.

And yes, compassion, understanding and sufficient societal resources need to be provided to sustain the woman when needed. I do point out however, that the overwhelming number of women who birth, continue with their normal daily routines to within a few weeks of delivery. Perhaps such women could be afforded maternity leave prior to birth, and for sufficient time afterward to regain one's normal health if they choose to place the child for adoption. There certainly is no moral stigma attached to being pregnant and offering the child up for adoption. It is even possible if desired, for her to maintain a role in her child's offspring if that is found to be the most successful method of adaptation for all the parents involved and in the best interests of the child.

This seems only logical to me.

IF it is wrong for one human person to deliberately end the life of another simply as an expression of free will (I can't kill anyone I choose to eliminate - it's called murder!), then it should also be wrong to take a life just because it is dependent upon its another for sustenance and life. Any infant would meet that qualification of life, pre-or post birth!

Freedom does not stand in opposition to the authority of truth (and yes, I freely admit to believing that there is such a things as "absolute truth," at least as it is expressed by the law of the land,) but rather it forms itself in accordance with that truth.

The law by times may be "an ass" as the saying goes, but there is a reason behind its depiction as the balance scales of justice. The key of a successful society is that it is based upon the principle that everyone is "equal under the law"; to understand that which passes from conventional wisdom in a culture or society, is oft times, in a flash replaced by an entirely new understanding of a question. An understanding brought forth into the public's consciousness by new knowledge, as the logical outcome of the fruits of science and technology.


There is an excellent chance that similar progress can be made within our Canadian culture as well, if voices that speak for the pro-life cause are not silent in the face of demands from the pro-choice partisans to be quiet. I intend to do what I can to make the argument for life where ever and whenever I can. As a Catholic and a priest, I must do so; and it is a commitment I wholly and freely believe accept as worthy, and because I am free to do so.

I hope this blog will continue to be a spot where many people will read and perhaps participate in this debate so that maybe we can find a common understanding as to how to balance the rights of the mother and the pre-born child that grows within her, particularly if the gestation of the child is not a DIRECT PHYSICAL THREAT to the health of the mother.

This will not satisfy everyone in this debate, but it can save thousands of Canadians who will carry forth our genetic stock, diversity in genetics being a "good" in human and non-human biological health.

This act must be seen in that context. Just as cleaning the environment does not simply depend upon the acts of governments or corporations, but firstly upon the acceptance of citizens to pay the price for the good of all, so too the protection of species demands we ensure future generations the same freedoms we enjoy today.

Fr. Tim

10 comments:

  1. Since when does the Church concern itself with carrying on Canadian genetic stock and what exactly is that, anyway? Who is the eugenicist now?

    Your arguments remind me of an old joke, told by thousands of sailors over many generations, in my case thirty some years ago, a thousand feet below the surface of the Western Pacific.

    One sailor says to another, "I almost made love with (insert some famous beauty's name) last night. I was laying in my bunk and felt tremendous love for her. I could feel she was feeling the same for me. She was unable to get to me and never showed up. That was the only thing missing. Maybe tonight will be the night."

    As with the case of the poor love starved sailor, the pro life cause is only missing one thing. Good luck. Maybe tonight will be your night.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Reddog: The fact that my faith and my reason both bring me to the same logical conclusion is a happy coincidence. Please don't accuse me of being a eugenics proponent for simply pointing out a scientific and demographic truth when you know that to argue the wisdom of ensuring genetic diversity as a defense against a future genetic challenge to our species.

    Your allegory certainly brought to mind some old adolescent memories from long, long ago, but forgive me for not accepting it as an apt expression of truth in this discussion.

    As Bob Hope would sing on TV at the end of every of his shows throughout the holiday seasons..."Thanks for the memories!"

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just a poke with the same sharp stick you guys like to use on poor, dead, Maggie. No offense meant.

    As for my analogy, I think it's apt enough. The brass ring always seems tantalizingly close but how many of us ever actually ever holds it in his grasp?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Reddog,

    Your above discourse seems to lack the background of research, science and technology. These now are coming to the aid of religion and proving that life begins at conception. You may attempt to discredit religion, but when you take science out of the equation, you lose all credibility.

    The pro-life side is winning the war for public opinion and your subjective opinions cannot overturn reason. The majority of Americans now believe in some form of protection for the unborn. Canadians too are realizing that it is a baby and not a fetus, and is entitled to protection as well. See the Envirornics. http://www.lifecanada.org/html/resources/polling/2009_Environics_Poll_on_Abortion.pdfpoll commissioned by LifeCanada.

    So, if you are a reasonable person, you can see that your point of view is more and more slipping into the minority opinion.


    Cliff

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cliff,

    Your comments are very thought provoking. If you and I are both children of God, they must certainly be different Gods.

    Voila!

    Polytheism rediscovered.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is my personal opinion and observation as a female. Majority of people especially females do not like abortions. There is no problem in expressing one's views on abortions or any other topic.

    As far as I can see there is propaganda going on on both sides of Pro-life and Pro-Choice groups.

    You may not like this but I am going to say it anyway. Lots of females DO NOT like (especially) males telling them what to do when it comes to their own bodies and life. (maybe it has something to do in what happened in that famous garden of Eden place where Adam & Eve fell in love...assuming one still believes in that?)

    Good people, so what is a person to do even the numerous females who are anti-abortion for whatever reasons?

    Keep on praying, do more penance, spread the good news, etc.. As for Father Tim, you will do whatever you were trained to do by the Holy Roman Catholic Church because it is your calling and vocation.

    I am not anti-male. I love my husband of over 35years and all my children.

    This is my last post on this blog as a matter of fact on any blog or on any message board. Why? Well that is between God and myself.

    I am sure you will keep me in your prayers especially Father Tim. I sincerely thank you for all your prayers.

    As for Father Tim I will see you in another place at another time.

    Blessings and good wishes to all!

    Lina

    ReplyDelete
  7. Northern Exposure16 February, 2010

    Sometimes, the unborn child is spoken of as though he or she were merely an appendage of a woman's body. Yet, the unborn child is someone other than its mother and father, and its body is neither its mother's body nor its father's. The genetic makeup is distinct.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lina: Thanks for your participation. You're welcome back anytime!

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  9. Reddog: Your polytheist remark intrigues me. Would you mind explaining it? I think it actually is saying something important about something that I've been pondering re: the various scholastic definitions of God ever since I've been chatting with Martin.

    Thanks.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  10. If my concept of God and your concept of God differ greatly, you, as a monotheist, would be obligated at the very least, in saying that my understanding of God is imperfect and might even be moved to say that my God is a false God and doesn't exist. Both of these approaches are pretty inflammatory, when spoken to a fella who is, in general, happy with the nature of his Deity, like Cliff, for example.

    As a polytheist, I am able to say to you that we believe in different Gods. This is much less confrontational than anything a monotheist can say and allows us to coexist peacefully, each with our own personally valid God, if we choose. Thus polytheism is the more evolved, nuanced and socially sophisticated religious choice. Monotheists tend toward large spiked clubs and knuckle dragging in their diplomatic endeavors.

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics