I am writing the following as an individual, and is not an endorsement or rejection of any party or politician.
I am truly disappointed with many in the main stream media. So many are suggesting that those who voted against President-elect Obama are either racist or uninformed. He could not (or would not because it was not politically expedient) say when life began and was afforded rights. He refused to vote for a law that would have required medical care to those born alive in the process of abortion - the difference is that the woman wanted an abortion, not a baby. He supports of abortion on demand and the Freedom of Choice Act enshrining it as a right. He promised to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. He supports federal funding for fetal stem cell research. Because I am an informed Catholic, he removed himself from my support and vote for him as a candidate. It was not the color of his skin that I considered - it was the content of his character. I imagine that there was a fraction of those who did not vote for him primarily because of his ancestry, the same as I would be safe to assume some voted for him simply because of it - both are equally wrong! Dr. Martin Luther King said it best - when it is what is within that matters, not what is only skin deep.
This election was disappointing on the part of the pro-life cause. Measures aimed at limiting abortions, defining the start of human life (and rights) failed, while measures to allow embryonic research and assisted suicide passed. We by-and-large elected a pro-abortion slate into federal offices. The pro-abortion battle will not and cannot win based on logic and civil discourse, so now the politicians will force it upon us.
I 'predict' that under the new administration, access to abortion will be enshrined as a 'right', the limitations of abortion (conscience clauses, limiting federal funding, waiting periods, parental notifications, and partial birth abortion bans; so many gained only in these last years) will be removed. Abortionists and abortion mills will be allowed to relax safety and reporting regulations. Overall, we will see a declining number of reported abortions; it will be seen as a drop in abortions though they will be woefully underreported. The drop will be credited to some expensive and ultimately ineffective program, just as the 'rise' of abortion rates these last 8 years were blamed on the pro-life policies being failures, but not because of the mandatory reporting laws!
We must not be deceived - even if something is legal, it is not automatically moral. Abortion, and support of abortion, is always wrong. Life does begin at conception - it is a scientific fact in addition to being affirmed by the long teaching of the Catholic Church. The pro-life movement will have an uphill battle again, because we grew complacent.
These next years, we have a task to remind our politicians in all parties of the dignity of human life. We need not resign to the fact that abortion is here to stay, anymore than those before us gave up the cause of civil rights, the recognition of women's rights to vote, and the end of slavery. May God bless us with strength to defend the defenseless, and that He would bless our politicians and fellow citizens with the truth that life begins at conception, and that every life is precious in God's eyes.
That being written, we pray for President-Elect Obama. May he see the dignity of life from conception to natural death, and unite the nation for the good of all, not just the born (and wanted).
4 comments:
Dear Father
I ran across your blog about life beginning at conception and thought I'd ask you a couple of questions that someone posed to me regarding the subject.
If life begins at conception
1. can a pregnant woman be arrested for drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes or drinking too much caffinated coffee. You know, contributing to the delinquency of a minor?
2.If a pregnant woman attempt suicide but fails, can she be arrested and tried for attempted murder of her fetus?
3.If a mother's life is in danger and the choice comes down to aborting her child to save her life or allowing the child to live and the mother to die...why do people presume that the mother's life should have priority.
Just thought I'd ask since I've never heard anyone address those issues and I've always wondered about the questions
I'll drop back later to see if you had the time to respond
Thanks
Hamster,
Thanks for your question. First, we have to be clear that life does (not if) begin at conception. There is a completely different DNA structure in the embryo from the mother from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. The child has a dependance on the mother, of course, but the child is a complete other being from the mother. Eventually all the other elements that we can recognize as human (blood, organs, eyes, fingerprints, etc). Viability is irrelevant.
All three questions you pose are variations on a theme, often thrown to test the convictions of the anti-abortion position. No compassionate person would want to hold a position in which a woman's health, suicide attempt, or unintentional disregard for health would be criminalized. The principle of double effect (the choice to do something good knowing something bad though not directly intended might result) comes into play, as well as knowledge and intent.
Doctors may morally perform what could be called an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy as long as the intent is not to cause the abortion but to save the mother, even if in the process the child will be lost. It is a courageous choice that some make to forego medical treatment, say for cancer, but it is not necessary. Again, the intent cannot be to cause an abortion. Preservation of one's life is a good, but it is never permissible to directly cause death.
As for when a woman smokes or drinks, she is putting her child at jeopardy, but not knowingly. As misguided as this would be, I doubt whether she is not directly intending to do harm. Education is needed. If she is doing so knowingly and purposely, other factors are at play.
As for suicide attempts, she ought to be helped by those in the medical profession, not the legal profession. That being said, I have heard of some cases where a woman tried to cause a miscarriage and covered it up with a 'suicide' attempt, this even where abortion is now legal. Her intent was abortion, not suicide.
Note, too, that despite it being legal, there are huge consequences for abortion. Abortions can directly cause perforated uteruses, infections, sterility. There are at least links of abortion and increased rates of breast cancer, depression, and suicidal thoughts and attempts. Abortion is not safe for the woman, and almost always deadly for the unborn child (though some have survived the abortion process). Anecdotal evidence points to unclean conditions, and abortionists who care more for the money that the patient. Women deserve so much better than abortion. Even the waiting period, right to know, and parental notification laws are balked against - but a school cannot even give a child an aspirin without direct permission of a parent.
It is logically impossible to support abortion on demand, at any time, for any reason. One question that cannot be answered is when does the fetus cross the line and become a child? When does it receive rights? The pro-life position is from the first moment! Even if there is doubt, no direct action is the moral choice, than the position of 'it doesn't matter'. A radical pro-abortionist will always be disparate for an answer that is logically and medically consistent. Three months? SIx Months? Nine Months? The Abortion industry cannot say so, since they demand the 'right' of abortion at any time during gestation. Birth? Some are born less mature than unborn. Is it the magically moment of birth (when the child is fully outside the mother) that makes them a person? What of those that are born alive during abortion? Is it when the mother wants the child? A child is a child whether the mother wants a child or not. Any action that directly ends that child's life ought to be seen as direct homicide.
There is objective truth, and it trumps subjective truth (what we think and feel about reality). There is a reality that we are not able to 'redefine' at will. If we walk off a diving board, we will fall, no matter how much we think that the law of gravity does not apply to us. The line of personhood needs to be legally held at the strictest of interpretations because science, biology, on and on, support that the embryo is a new being. The possible gray areas and objections of how to respond to someone who might be in one do not negate the reasoning, and certainly do not lead to the conclusion that abortion should be legal for all cases.
I wonder if the question about the sanctity of life is more a cultural issue than a moral one.
Many Christians say that there are circumstances where taking an innocent life is permissible...say in times of war when taking out a high value target might involve killing a lot of innocent bystanders.
Even many Christians says that capitol punishment is permissible.
Most people say that killing someone in self defense is permissible. While, at the same time, many early Christians put up little resistance when they were persecuted by the early Romans.
Because I am not a religious person I don't put much stock in what the Bible says so the question of abortion, to me, isn't about the sanctity of life.
It's more a question of what is the generally accepted view of abortion in our society.
Everyone seems to have a different opinion when it comes to taking a life in
1. an abortion
2. a war
3. euthanasia
4. capitol punishment
I think it's more an issue of what the current view and common practice is...more than what is moral or immoral.
Thanks , Hamster, again for your comments.
Every 'selected' death in abortion, war, euthanasia, and capitial punishment is a tragedy. Just because cultures do not agree on the sanctity of life does not make the morality of protecting life any less important. Cultures can be right or wrong - morality is above culture and based on natural law - the law that we can understand with reason. The Commandments are revealed, but many are based on the natural law - Do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, honor one's parents (and legitimate authority). Even if culture is perverted to allow these, that does not mean that to kill, steal, lie, or disobey are acceptable.
Wrong is wrong, even if everyone (or a whole Culture) believes it is good, and truth is truth, even if no one believed it. There is objective truth that we can find even without appeal to God, the Bible, or the Church's teaching. While I can talk about the Church's teachings, the issues of life and death are based on natural law. Yes, the term of "sanctity of life" has religious connotations, the duty to protect human life is not based solely on this. It is never permissible to take an innocent life. Even if the person is not innocent, as in the case of an attacker, violent criminal, the intent must always be to protect, and death as the last option.
In the case of capital punishment, the Church does teach it is permissible (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church), but only for the protection of society from the violent criminals. In society, like the US, it is highly unlikely that the incarcerated will be a threat. We have high-security prisons that allow for the protection of society. I am opposed to the death penalty but only in practice. Here in the US and most parts of the world, we have no need of it. In some places in the world, it may be the only means to really protect the innocent. In theory, Capital punishment is allowed, only for the most violent and unrepentant of criminals. In 2007, there were less than 3500 on death row (meaning condemned, but still in appeal or various other stages, not those who will be killed soon), see http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row-inmates-state-and-size-death-row-year. This is less than the conservatively estimates to be 3700 killed in abortion every day, or 1.37 million per year see www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html. We need to work with our leaders to seek an end of capital punishment, but on proportionality alone, the abortion debate takes precedence. Over a million every year are being killed in abortion, and all are innocent beyond doubt.
The Catholic Church has the teaching of Just War, but one of the principles is that innocent life is to be protected. Again, in theory it works better than in practice. Just War means that it is the last option, after all diplomacy has failed. The attacker has to be unjust and a credible threat. The opponent must take all measures to protect innocent lives of civilians, and use only what force is necessary to stop the aggressor. That we dropped two bombs on civilians in Japan in WWII is immoral and unjustifiable. The killing of civilians is wrong, and the so called 'collateral damage' is wrong. But it is legitimate to defend one's self and one's country against an unjust aggressor, or for the protection of the innocent. The killing of one's enemy, if the only means to protection, is legitimate, but never to be chosen in itself. The Church universal is opposed to the war in Iraq because it is wrought with problems, but now that the mess is made, the US is obligated to help stabilize Iraq. Sadly, it has caused the death of about 4500 personnel since March 2003 (almost 6 years), and I cannot find the number of Iraqis killed by either terrorism or by our forces. This, too, is sad, but much less than the almost 8 million who were killed in abortion during the same 6 years.
Euthanasia is always wrong. We are not the masters of life, but stewards (caretakers).
If what every is generally accepted is what ought to inform our notion of right or wrong, we are in trouble indeed. The Holocaust was largely embraced by the German people, though a number of people took strong stands against the Nazis. Some 6 million Jews, 3 million Catholics, and 3 million other 'undesirables' went to there death while many sat by and approved, at least by their silence. Slavery was embraced and defended by a large majority. As some have said, silence always favors the oppressor, never the oppressed.
The line of life must be drawn and held. Who are we to decide who lives and who dies? If the unborn and terminally ill can be killed on demand, then where will it stop? The severely ill? The mentally ill? The ones who disagree? The ones who are not the right ancestry, sex intelligence or aptitude? The ones with poor eyesight? The ones with brown eyes? Just whoever we want?
Yes, I believe all life is sacred and to be protected. If it isn't, than even we will be subject to being seen as dispensable!
Post a Comment