Of Baptisms and Bigotry



Post-publication update:  I received several notes and spoken words of vigorous agreement on the version of this post that appeared in my local newspaper.  To my joy, a lot of the kudos even came from people who are not Catholic, but who see the sense in the position.  Thank you!  However, in re-reading my writing below, I believe I was woefully unclear about one critical point and I hope I did not accidentally skew anyone's understanding.  When reading this post, please keep in mind, a child is never refused baptism in the Catholic Church due to the sins of the parents, whatever they may be.  (That would be kind of contrary to the point of baptism, wouldn't it!)  Parishes, of course, may have certain requirements for baptizing as well as for other sacraments, a most logical one being that the one receiving baptism, first communion, etc., must be a member of the parish and regular attendee of Mass for a certain amount of time prior.  Among other things, this is an indication that the parishioner truly believes the Catholic faith and also it is preparation for receiving the sacrament.  Not being registered at a parish and not attending Mass are valid reasons for a delay in receiving baptism, matrimony, etc.  The remedy for this is for families to register with a parish and become active in Catholic life.  With this clarification in mind, read on! 


In my local newspaper there is a "Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down" section where people air important compliments or grievances anonymously and succinctly, such as, "Thumbs down to my jerk of a neighbor.  Your shrubs are ugly!  Stop uglifying my street!" or "Thumbs up, snugglepuff!  Good job at the mini-golf tournament last weekend!  Great strategizing on the spinning monkey hole."  There has recently been a spate of Thumbs Down comments regarding a local Catholic church that declined to baptize a baby whose parents are not registered with the parish and do not attend Mass.  The comments have gradually become more anti-Catholic over the weeks.  For example:

“Thumbs up to the parents of the baby who St. Kathryn’s won’t baptize, and therefore, won’t be raised Catholic.  I’m sad that you are going through this mess, but in the long run, do you really want your child raised in the Catholic faith given the issues they have had with pedophiles?  I’m a non-practicing Catholic myself who stopped going to church when I realized how messed up the church really was.  I would have my child baptized by another Christian group instead.”

Thumbs up to not being raised a Catholic!  Stay away from those messed up pedophiles, snugglepuff!  They don't even trim their ugly shrubs!

I submitted a response to the newspaper vitriol as a letter to the editor, which was published here.  I kept the letter brief in order to fit within the publishing parameters.  Below is an expanded version.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some shrubs to tend.

..............

Thumbs Down to Intolerant Comments About the Catholic Church

The repeated anti-Catholic “thumbs down” comments arising because St. Kathryn’s church refused to baptize a child whose parents do not plan to raise him/her in the Catholic faith are misguided and an affront to Catholics and to logic itself.  Does it make any sense for parents to baptize a child in a Catholic church while they do not attend Mass and intend to continue being absent from Mass each weekend?  Catholics are required by their very religion to attend Mass every week and on holy days of obligation.  When we don’t, we are called to recognize our sin, confess, and return.  The parents of the child do not attend Mass and apparently do not intend to do so going forward, otherwise baptism would have been allowed in the future.  The simple remedy for the parents is to start attending Mass –exercising their faith-- if they want their child baptized in the Catholic Church.  It is not for the priest to change the religion to suit them.  Our creed says we believe in “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.”  If you do not believe in the Church’s teachings and do not attempt to follow them, why would you want to have a Catholic baptism?  Is it a good luck charm?  An excuse for having a party?  Something that requires no action on the part of parents, like the event of baby’s first tooth?  “Aw, look, baby is baptized!  Isn’t that precious.”  Catholics believe baptism is a sacrament, a holy and intimate moment between humankind and God.  It’s not simply a photo op for baby in a cute formal outfit.

Railing against St. Kathryn’s for not baptizing a baby whose family essentially intends not to be Catholic is like calling Dunkin Donuts intolerant for refusing to hire someone who intends never to sell donuts.  It’s like calling the police department hateful for firing an officer who refuses to fight crime.  It’s like calling King Arthur narrow-minded for not knighting someone who says he won’t defend Camelot.  There are certain things that Catholics are supposed to DO, just like there are certain things Dunkin Donuts employees or police officers or knights are supposed to DO.  The priest who won’t baptize is not saying God does not love that family; he’s not saying Jesus is not available to them; he’s not saying they are going to Hell!  He’s saying he will not make someone promise to raise a child in a Catholic family when they do not intend to raise the child in a Catholic family.  Attending Mass and being part of a parish family is a very basic and essential part of being a Catholic.  If you ask a priest for a Catholic baptism to enter your child into the Catholic faith and in the same breath tell him you do not intend to try and function as a Catholic, isn’t there a gaping logical contradiction there?  “I want my child to be Catholic but I do not want to be Catholic.”  In that situation a priest, if he is faithful and wise, encourages the parents to return to the Catholic faith before baptism is granted.

Imagine the awkward situation a couple would be faced with if a priest did allow a baptism in this case!  As part of a baptism ceremony the parents and godparents promise out loud in front of witnesses to raise the child in the Catholic faith.  Why would anyone want to lie about that --in a church no less?  If you believe the Catholic religion is wrong (for example about attending Mass), then why do you want to stand in a church holding your innocent baby and proclaiming that it is right, against your own conscience?  If you do not believe the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass –the "source and summit" of the Catholic religion—is important, then why stand up and say you do?  Why set yourself up to dishonor not only the Church but even your own beliefs?  Whatever happened to being true to oneself?  What is the point of forcing yourself to say things you do not believe?  Religion should never be coerced, not by one person to another, not by a government to a people, and not by a phony part of yourself to your true self.  If you believe Catholicism is wrong, abstain from being a Catholic unless or until you come to believe it is right.  Religion does not call for slaves but lovers.  Examine your motives.

                As for the thumbs commentator throwing around demeaning statements like people should not want to be Catholic “given the issues [the Church] had with pedophiles,” I’m sure you can see how that could be insulting to any faithful Catholic.  We have every bit as much disgust for pedophilia as non-Catholics do.  Pedophilia is not a teaching of our religion and never has been, just as flying planes into buildings is not a teaching of Islam.  In fact, from its inception the Catholic Church’s official teachings have been against not only the abomination of pedophilia but also any other sexual wrongs.  Sin is part of every man.  Mankind exists inside and outside the Church, so if you think you are going to escape the horror of sin, sexual or otherwise, simply by leaving organized religion, well, I’m sure you’ve already had your rude awakening.

                To the same commentator, who calls himself a "non-practicing Catholic":  what does that mean?  I eat meat every day.  Does that make me a non-practicing vegetarian?  My parents signed me up for ballet when I was in 2^nd grade and I stopped going after one season –does that make me a non-practicing ballerina?  Is someone wielding a machine gun simply a non-practicing pacifist?  Is someone who votes Republican all the time a non-practicing Democrat?  Putting the word “non-practicing” before a label basically negates it, unless you mean you think it is wrong not to practice and you hope to be able to do so in the future.  As the law of non-contradiction tells us, you cannot both believe and not believe at the same time.  Perhaps what most people mean by the nonsensical term “non-practicing Catholic” is “I was baptized Catholic but no longer consider myself part of the Catholic Church,” which is certainly a choice one can make, but please call it what it is.  If you are agnostic, say you are agnostic.  If you are a non-Catholic Christian, say it.  If you are not sure where you stand on Catholicism or on religion in general, say that.  Why cling to the Catholic name, albeit “non-practicing”, if you do not intend to be part of the Catholic Church and hold few if any of its beliefs?  You can be a Catholic who’s having a quarrel with a teaching of the Church; it’s natural and healthy to wrestle with and search deeply for truth.  But you can’t be a Catholic, “non-practicing” or otherwise, while at the same time hating the Church, being repulsed by it, or considering it optional.

Catholics practice their faith just as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and other religious bodies practice theirs.  All Catholics fall short of perfectly practicing their faith.  We are sometimes uncharitable, gossips, lazy, adulterers, liars, abusers, greedy, or alcoholics just as any other humans might be.  But being Catholic requires us to recognize our weaknesses and make an honest effort to turn away from them many times throughout life in a process of continual conversion, from parishioners all the way on up to the Pope.  The sacraments are there for us when we see our weaknesses and desire to overcome them.  When we do not see our weaknesses and need a nudge back in the direction of our faith we should all be so lucky as to have a loving priest like the one at St. Kathryn’s reminding us of the way.  Five years ago when I came back to the Church after an absence of over a decade and was unable to receive the sacraments due to an immoral condition in my life it hurt, but the pain drove me to right that wrong and I am joyful for it now and able to participate fully at Mass.  Love is not just kindness.  Sometimes it is tough.  Sometimes it hurts.  Sometimes it bleeds to death on a cross before it saves.

I do hope the family involved comes back to their beautiful Catholic faith, but if they choose not to I hope they still find “the way, the truth and the life.”  Out of love He’s given us the Church to help and guide us, knowing how broken and in need of support and community and his body we are.  But He is out there for anyone who truly seeks, whatever church they attend or don’t attend, baptism or no baptism, religion or no religion, hard road or harder road, whether they know his actual name in life on earth or not.

Charlene Maniotis

Obligatory Hunger Games Post

Disclaimer - I have not read the Hunger Games; I only know the very basics of the plot.  Unless you are living in a mine, you know the gist of the story as well:  kids forced to kill kids in a game or sport run by the government.  The child participants are chosen by lottery.  The citizens of the country in the book are generally entertained by all this, almost American Idol style.

I recently quoted blogger Joy Miladin on my Facebook page:

“The Hunger Games is not an alarming prospect of what our nation could become; it is a piercing reflection of the current state of our society.”

Some people “liked” my status, even though a few of them would not agree with all of my reasons for seeing the parallel between the HG world and our own.  Regardless of why anyone sees truth in Miladin’s statement, I think all of us who “like” the quote agree acknowledging we are the same people as those in the Hunger Games is important.  We are not so much more educated and evolved than the people who make up the society in that story, and the country we inhabit is not a gaping chasm away from the one they inhabit.  In fact, currently, the two worlds are juxtaposed one on top of the other.  Someday in the future, near or far, if the light switch is flicked and we ARE literally killing each other in government-sponsored games for sport it will be obvious that was the case.

One person did respond incredulously to Miladin’s quote in my Facebook status, though.  What in the world did I mean by posting that statement?  I am sure there were also others on FB who shared the incredulity but did not comment, so the following is my answer to anyone who is interested.  It turned out to be a little too long for a Facebook comment, so here I am blogging about the Hunger Games instead of what I had planned (fish tanks of all things):

Whenever I read a fictional work about a dystopian future, I always ponder how this happens.  How do these societies get there.  More importantly, how have things like these happened in reality, in our world’s history?  How dystopian was rich and educated Rome before it fell?  Ask the babies they would throw off cliffs for being the wrong sex or too disabled or too inconvenient.  Ask the gladiators who were killed surrounded by cheering crowds.  Wasn’t Nazi Germany –not even a mere 80 years ago-- a dystopia if ever there was one?  Could many Germans a few decades before the ovens and gas chambers have possibly imagined themselves and their country taking part in something so monstrous as the extermination of millions of innocent people?  The type of dystopia depicted in the Hunger Games would not be so horrifying if it were not possible, if it did not in fact happen over and over again in reality.  It’s horrifying because it rings true.

It seems to me in most if not all cases these historical dystopias do not simply appear like a thief in the night; they are gradually ushered in –welcomed, even—by almost everyone without us truly being aware of the consequences of starting our society along a certain path.  The process speeds up rapidly at some point and becomes obvious, but only after much has been willingly given up by a complacent citizenry:  acknowledgement of various natural, unchangeable human rights; belief in universal truths; empathy; personal responsibility, etc.  The relinquishment of these things happens over time either out of a decadent and misguided desire for yet more license (i.e. false freedom) or out of the desperation that can be generated by hard economic times which can spur people to give up rights and power to a central government in hopes of being saved.  Often, I think, it’s a combination of those reasons, not just one or the other.  Those on the top want to do whatever feels right to them at any time (please note:  “on the top” in America is just about everybody –certainly all of us reading a blog!-- considering even those at America’s poverty level have far more material wealth than those at poverty level in any other country); meanwhile, those on the bottom of the financial rungs want simply to give whoever is in power more power in hopes that powerful people will rid them of their financial nightmares so their struggles can end.  (Note, too:  struggling never ends.)  Whichever reason for society’s steps in that direction, they all lead to the same destination.  And, here we are.

I recently read an article by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal that sheds yet more light on where we are as a nation in our dystopia.  It takes many small, willing steps over time on the part of a society to get to a place where it is acceptable to a segment of the citizenry to watch a person get beaten, stripped and robbed as we stand around laughing and recording it rather than helping, as in this article.  Yet, that is a fairly regular type of occurrence and a more common attitude now.  Scenarios like the ones mentioned in the article are not simply more and more reported these days; they are more frequent.  Our pop culture revels in it, in fact, all the way down to something as “benign” as reality TV.  We even enjoy doling out ridicule at the stars of those shows; it’s what we do.  It’s “harmless.”  Does anyone really think Snooki is cool?  No, everyone is simply laughing at her.  And she is laughing at us, too, all the way to the bank, all the while living the new American dream of unlimited license.  A 19-year-old shoots and kills nine people (including himself) at the Westroads Mall while people are Christmas shopping.  Instead of a mournful song about it, we get a peppy little ditty called "Pumped Up Kicks" that some middle school kids can’t get enough of at their school functions where they pornfully dance as chaperones look the other way.  The responsibilities we give up, the heart we give up, are a void passed down to the next generation and the next.  The members of those generations are left with empty space where virtue and love should have been, Lewis's "men without chests."

You may say to yourself, “Well, in Hunger Games, the government is forcing the kids to take part in this carnage.  At least we are not at that point.”  To which I would say:  isn’t that just about the scariest prospect?  You have kids shooting other kids in school of their own volition.  Isn’t that worse than being forced into it?  “Well, at least the government hasn’t made a game show where people laugh at and mock those who are being beaten and robbed.”  No, we’re choosing to do that all on our own on YouTube!  “Well, at least the government isn’t sanctioning looting of American businesses.”  No, we’re choosing to flash mob all on our own!  “Well, at least the government isn’t drugging us to make us docile.”  No, we’re choosing to do that all on our own with one of the most popular college majors being Getting As Close As Possible to Alcohol Poisoning Each Week Without Quite Dying.  “Well, at least this isn’t like China, where women are forced to abort their babies because of the one child rule.”  No, we’re choosing to abort them all on our own!  We, the people!

Simultaneously with individual and societal declines and shallowings, there is of course a slow and seemingly inexorable march towards a totalitarian state, like the world of the Hunger Games.  As we continue to march, we will simply be passing more and more of the “burden” of some of these choices to central government officials.  But to me that’s far less of a big deal than the fact that we’re making those choices at all in the first place, calling evil actions tolerable or even good.  In large part, we get the government we ask for; an actual totalitarian government forcing its choices on us would not be a newsflash.  This is:

The Hunger Games are here and now.  And we’re too proud and sophisticated to care.

Terri Shiavo and the Unborn: Medical Care Denied

Denial of Truly Basic Healthcare
(note: not birth control, but actual healthcare)
Today is the International Day of Prayer and Remembrance for Terri Schindler Shiavo and All the Vulnerable. It marks the anniversary of the day she succumbed to death not through being allowed to pass away at the natural end of her life but by being actively starved and dehydrated to death in a “healthcare” facility with the permission of our courts. Hopefully her story and others like it will fan the flames of love and protective instinct in all of us for the most vulnerable in our midst: the disabled, those in the womb, the enslaved and trafficked.

In her memory, here is a link to an excellent lecture on at least 10 reasons why persecuting these vulnerable groups is immoral, illogical, and at minimum lacking in compassion, empathy and inclusiveness. The first part of the talk masterfully juxtaposes the Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decisions to illustrate the faulty reasoning of slavery, abortion, genocide, and other forms of oppression. The rest goes over in detail several universal principles that are violated by abortion and related acts and why those of us who have been proponents or participants in any of those acts must open our hearts and minds to allow in truth. The talk is 1 hour and 20 minutes long, but I recommend starting at 12:17 of the recording because that is when the lecture begins. (Up to that point it is simply introductions to the audio, to the presenter, to the presenter’s book, method, etc.) http://instituteofcatholicculture.org/media/10_Universal_Principles_Fr_Robert_Spitzer.mp3

For those who have experienced oppression of the vulnerable, whether as victim, spectator or participant, my heart goes out to you. I have been in all of those positions as well. All I can offer is: be hopeful. Truth burns as it heals.

Viva la Verdad

Heartbreak is the eye of your heart snapping open after long disuse.

Someone commented on Facebook about my last blog post and said an argument, no matter how rational or logical, will not on its own alter anyone’s belief found in experience (“nor perhaps should it”).  While I do not believe this discredits the importance of reason and its capacity for helping us find truth or bring it more clearly into focus, I do agree with the statement.  It takes an openness of heart, requiring a near complete break for the particularly obstinate, before any truths can penetrate the defenses one has been using previously to block them.  This was and is certainly the case for me.  A heartbreak embraced can lead to a more accurate perspective and understanding of the lessons to be found in one’s experiences, past and future.  Once the most abused eye is open --often the heart’s, so willing to be misled in search of peace-- it can begin to see the reflections shining in the other two, the lenses of the mind and body.

Even in that scenario, it is almost dizzying to think how, with three eyes wide open --heart/faith, mind/reason, body/physical senses-- we are still incapable of knowing the full truth and wholly holding it with our human faculties.  It is both frustratingly overwhelming and oddly comforting how little I know and how little I will know over my lifetime.  In addition to poor choices I make, my ignorance is also made manifest to me even by something as simple and concrete as how many books there are to read and the impossibility of reading and contemplating them all in one lifetime, or how many questions I would like to ask people I admire and will never have the chance.  It is also obvious in how inadequately I may have understood a universal truth yesterday --like for example that compassion is better for us than its opposite, or that money does not buy happiness, or that we should “love our neighbors as ourselves”-- compared to after having an epiphany building upon it today.  And, that must demonstrate how rudimentarily I may understand a truth still, further epiphanies being possible if the past is any indication, and how much more there is to learn about it.  We are most definitely limited in our search for knowledge.  However, a person honestly trying to see is more joyful than one who is willfully blind: to that I can attest.

Over the years I have reflected on Viva La Vida by Coldplay whenever it is on the radio, harkening back to the devastation of my own false kingdom, years in the building upon carefully selected half-truths, the ruins of which I suddenly found my maimed self and family crawling over on a summer’s night in 2006.  Despite the French-revolutionesque beliefs expressed by the songwriters in interviews, what resonates in the lyrics for me is not that there is no authority but that man is not it; it is a turning away not simply from authoritarianism but also away from its mirror mistake, permissiveness.  For me the song unveils the decay that takes place when man –whether he be a literal king, a pope, a clerk or a housekeeper-- sets himself up as the ruler of his own pestilent, petty, dark inner kingdom, one inevitably centralized on deceit of self and others.  This in order to collect whatever baubles he sees as treasure, ever rusting and needing to be renewed in mockery of his satisfaction; we all have our preferred poisons, each seeming to we, the seductees, like a chalice of exotic wine untasted by lesser men.  I never want to rule such a world again.  I am not the Ruler.  Instead, I can only strive to be a good steward.  That is what my heart destruction left me with, the reality of this bare truth told to me over my lifetime in great novels, in the words of wise ancestors, and by my elders, this truth which until the wall of my heart gave way I had thought did not apply to me.  Man is not fit to rule himself and to be his own judge and jury.  He is not fit to warp and direct even his own conscience but rather to allow it to be set straight and true by God alone, and to follow it.

Centering one’s life on one’s own inner "culture of death" is not just an oxymoronic phrase but a plain-moronic philosophy when it comes down to it.  Love –infinite fulfillment-- is about living outside oneself for others: being a steward, not a tyrant.  Many moments of many days I lean towards tyrant; but I know now in my happiest moments I am in my proper role of steward.  When I give to others sacrifices of time and talent rather than horde them for my own gain until they rot; when I give and receive with a grateful heart, rather than selfishly take what I think I want; when I thank rather than self-congratulate; when I put myself last; these, paradoxically, are the times I feel most fulfilled and natural, like a bird taking to the sky.  And, that's the truth.

Down with the culture of death!  Viva la vida!

Viva La Vida
Songwriters: Guy Rupert Berryman; Jonathan Mark Buckland; Will Champion; Christopher A J Martin

I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sleep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own

I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy's eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing
"Now the old king is dead!  Long live the king!"


One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand

I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field

For some reason I can't explain
Once, you know, there was never
Never an honest word
And that was when I ruled the world

It was the wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People couldn't believe what I'd become

Revolutionaries wait
For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh who would ever want to be king?

I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field

For some reason I can't explain
I know Saint Peter won't call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world

I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field

For some reason I can't explain
I know Saint Peter won't call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world

Caution: Obscene Scientific Ignorance on Display in Georgia Democrats’ Protest Bill

First, a quick question to set the mood for this post.

I’ve aired my grievances about the lack of logic and cohesive thought of pro-choice arguments previously, but I just cannot leave the subject alone when I see a stunt like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/georgia-vasectomy-ban_n_1293369.html

The gist of the story is:  HB 954 in the Georgia House moves to ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy because we now know growing humans can feel pain at least by this gestational age.  In a sort of protest to this bill, Georgia House Democrats have proposed legislation –obviously, tongue in cheek-- that would seek to ban vasectomies.  Yasmin Neal proposed the farcical bill and states, “It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women's ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States."

This would be brilliant politics if only the decision to have a vasectomy were somehow analogous to the decision to have an abortion.  But the analogy collapses when one gives it more than a nanosecond of consideration and leaves aside self-congratulatory smugness over aligning an unwilling universe to one's pet progressive ideology.  Vasectomies are meant to prevent pregnancies; abortions are meant to end already existing pregnancies.  A vasectomy is done to a consenting adult’s body (a potential father); an abortion is done inside a consenting adult’s body (the actual mother) to the body of a separate member of the species homo sapiens who is given no say in the matter (the embryonic or fetal human).  Therefore, the rough equivalent to a male’s vasectomy is not, for a woman, abortion, but rather tubal ligation.  Male sterilization vs. female sterilization, apples to apples.

There is an extreme minority fringe on the outskirts of any political movement, and the pro-life movement would be no exception.  Is it possible that some pro-lifer out there in the world would propose or vote for legislation to ban voluntary sterilization?  Hey, anything is possible.  But, that is so far off the map of mainstream pro-life issues you need NASA to find it for you.  Many people consider me a pro-life nut, particularly because I go so "fanatically" far as to use natural family planning to space children, rather than use artificial birth control.  However, even a nut like me would not be for banning voluntary sterilization.  I would not sterilize myself; I would not recommend it for anyone; but, it is your body, your choice.  I think smoking is bad for one’s health, too, but I do not think it should be illegal.  I might give you some unsolicited advice against smoking, but I would not push for a law to take your choice away.  However, when you start making a “choice” to disintegrate, decapitate, dismember or otherwise kill and treat as garbage a completely innocent human being it should be obvious you are no longer saying, “My body my choice,” but rather, “My body over your dead body.”

Abortion involves two bodies, not one.  At conception, a member of our species suddenly exists who did not exist mere seconds before:  his or her genetic code is not the mother's own; only half of it came from her; the DNA is complete and utterly unique.  Two haploid cells (each containing half of a human DNA strand), a sperm and an egg, met and formed a diploid cell (complete human DNA).  The organism is quite clearly and obviously NOT THE MOTHER.  Just as you and I once were, the organism is in the zygotic stage.  Is this zygote alive?  Yes.  It has metabolism, maintains homeostasis, grows, responds to stimuli –say it along with your high school biology teacher:  “If you mark this 'not alive' on your exam tomorrow I will place a big, red X on your answer because it will be WRONG.”  Now, what kind of zygote is it exactly?  A whale zygote?  Dolphin?  Cat?  No, that is genetically impossible.  If you are human, your offspring is human.  It is a human zygote; it is a member of the species homo sapiens just like the rest of us.  If you do not believe me, seriously, try this:  leave the zygote alone for a few weeks.  It will sprout arms and legs and a brain and heart and everything!  Whoa.  Pretty recognizable as a human, even to those without much knowledge of biology, embryology, genetics or the classification of life.

An embryo is, like you and I, a developing human being.  You and I will not stop developing in this life until we are dead.  Do we value people more based on what level of development they have achieved?  If someone kills a 3 year old is it less wrong than if they kill a 16 year old?  If a 20 year old is mentally disabled and will never get beyond a third grade reading level is running over that person less horrible than running over a 20 year old who has full reasoning capacity?  Does the size of an embryo make it somehow less human?  If so, then it logically follows that it is less wrong to murder a person with dwarfism than a person with gigantism.  Pro-choice philosophy sure is arbitrary.

Abortion simply does not make moral, scientific, legal, or intuitive sense.  Banning abortion is a reasonable position.  But, the bill in Georgia does not even go that far.  It merely asks that we not abort humans after 20 weeks’ gestation because we know they can feel pain at least by this age.  The fetus does not feel pain when his mother stubs her toe but does feel pain when being torn apart with a vacuum during abortion.  If that is not conclusive evidence that a 20 week old fetus is NOT his or her mother’s body I do not know what is.  So, I am baffled by pro-choice opposition to the bill.  They say abortion is "a woman's body, a woman's choice.”  But, at least by 20 weeks –and, if we are being honest, at the moment of conception-- the entity in a woman’s womb is demonstrably NOT HER.  And, to boot, the entity may actually be a female!  Do women only have rights once they exit the womb?  For the 500,000 or so females we have killed in America through abortion this past year, we have answered a resounding yes.  And the 500,000 or so males we have killed by abortion last year?  Yeah, no rights for them, either.

Final thought:  Current law in Georgia prohibits abortion after 24 weeks.  This little guy was born prematurely at 23 weeks’ gestation in Britain last year, survived, and went home with his parents when it was safe to do so:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8660450/Premature-baby-survives-after-doctors-advised-abortion.html  I guess according to Georgia pro-choice activists his parents had the right to kill him just before his mother went into labor if they had wanted to, and it would not have been any worse than a man choosing to have his testicles clipped to prevent sperm cells from exiting his penis.  A sperm cell and a premature human baby may as well be the same thing.  Move along, pro-lifers, nothing to see here.  Do not trust science or logic.  Trust Planned Parenthood.

I Agree with Barack Obama's Statement on Debating Abortion. Does He?

 
In light of the recent Susan G. Komen for the Cure debacle, i.e. their defunding and then re-funding of Planned Parenthood, this old journal entry came to mind.  May you, too, discover you agree with the below words of Barack Obama --even if he doesn't!

The other day I was pointed to a good quote posted on Moveon.org.  I find it remarkable not for its old, unoriginal and true content, but because Barack Obama said it.  You would think he is a constitutionalist (note: not necessarily or usually the same thing as a constitutional lawyer).  It is posted under the unbiased title “Barack Obama’s Level-Headed Response to Pro-Life Radicals”:

http://front.moveon.org/obamas-level-headed-response-to-pro-life-radicals/

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values...  It requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason.  Now, I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will.  I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." --Barack Obama

One nitpick:  I am not sure why he assumes pro-life “radicals” are only religiously motivated.  I bet Atheists for Life, Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, Libertarians for Life, Physicians for Life, and the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians among others would all be surprised to learn they are primarily religiously motivated groups.  But, putting aside that faulty assumption I am in complete agreement with Obama’s quote itself.

Taking Obama’s advice, here is a brilliant example of dispassionate reasoning blowing the pro-choice option out of the water without one single mention of God or religion.  This audio is 25 minutes of pro-life argument in beautifully clear, concise and simple language by philosopher Peter Kreeft, who, like myself and the Obama of the Moveon.org quote, would not tend to use religious/ideological appeals when trying to persuade the people of the United States on the matter of abortion.  Kreeft may use theological appeals for an audience at a religious institution, but, since they are unnecessary for understanding the injustice of abortion, he does not typically use them for a general audience.

It was reasoning like Kreeft's that made me confront the willful ignorance and close-mindedness of my pro-choice position 6 years ago.  Once I stopped sloganeering –the grownup equivalent of sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and yelling LA LA LA— and instead listening as well as doing actual research rather than seeking opinions to validate my own position, I could not deny I was wrong.  I, therefore, became radically pro-life.  It’s important to note that my becoming an abortion abolitionist was as far from “religiously motivated” as anything can get.  Yes, I am Catholic now, but at the time –and for a few years afterwards-- I was a staunch humanist and agnostic as was seemingly everyone around me.  I could not construct a sentence about the Catholic church that did not also contain one or several of the following words:  blind faith, pedophiles, narrow-minded, patriarchy, hate-mongering, archaic, hypocrites, etc.  My feelings regarding organized religion were actually something that held me back from becoming pro-life.  Luckily, truth does not depend upon feelings.

After listening again to Kreeft’s argument now and thinking back on Obama’s statements and actions on abortion over the years, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that Kreeft and most other abortion abolitionists agree more with Obama’s Moveon.org statement than Barack Obama himself does.  For one thing, the church in which the President was baptized and which he subsequently attended for the longest period of time was vocally pro-choice, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and every political action he takes on abortion is pro-choice with no persuasive appeal to reason but instead a kind of blind faith in an Ideal of so-called “freedom of choice.”  How are we to know he is not simply “evoking God’s will” with his political actions?  As some will point out, though, he no longer attends this or any church regularly, so that example of deviating from his own quote may be moot.  But what cannot be shaken as easily is the President’s commitment to the dogma/ideology of secularism, a stance specifically in reaction to religion.  If he is thus religiously motivated, then where is his dispassionate reasoning from the secular pulpit proving abortion is morally sound and should be legal?  Where is his logic showing me that keeping abortion legal is “amenable to reason”?

I am left simply waiting for him to take the advice of his own Moveon.org quote.  Over these past four years I have only heard dodges and fragmented emotional appeals from him, not sound reasoning.  As for dodges, at a minimum Obama’s “above my pay grade” remark (http://youtu.be/O3F7ZkoIeNM) is exactly that, and at maximum it is an insult to everyone involved in the abortion debate, both pro-choice and pro-life, since the issue of when a person acquires human rights and/or When Life Begins is of paramount importance there.  Apparently, anyone reading this is arrogant to think the discussion is within their “pay grade.”  Or, was he simply acknowledging HE himself does not bestow rights on a human being or tell a being when to come into life?  (How humble.  I’m sure many of us had confused him with the reason for the existence of life and for our very rights.  Glad he cleared that one up if that’s the case.)

Then there are his emotional appeals where he talks about the very real turmoil and struggle many women go through when considering abortion.  He adds things like, “I don’t think they make [the choice of abortion] lightly. I don’t think they make it callously” (NY Times, 10/06/07).  I don’t think they do, either.  I’m very sympathetic to a pregnant woman’s struggles.  I feel horrible seeing women agonize over this “choice” before, during, and after the abortion happens.  But I’m also sympathetic to a person who goes against his own conscience and pride to steal a loaf of bread because his family has little food.  Does it make stealing right?  Of course not.  The consequences are bad for both thief and victim.  But, one feels deeply for the person who steals under circumstances like that.  Abortion and stealing are not right, but one can understand how a good person would be brought to it.  The agony of abortion moves me to want to help pregnant women and prevent it from happening any more.

I do not mean to imply emotional appeals do not have their place.  Some emotional appeals –such as when we reflect on the real, deep distress some women face in coming to grips with a completely unplanned pregnancy-- have their merits.  But, they are dangerous when separated from the harmony of the holistic view and used as bludgeons to silence –not conclude—a critical argument that makes or breaks a society.  Using the trauma of unprepared, unexpectedly pregnant women to hush discourse on the matter of the rightness or wrongness of abortion is not reason but a sort of tyranny, an abuse of power.  Even when an emotional appeal does see the forest for the trees and is therefore effective at guiding us towards a truth, such as when photographs of severely beaten slaves were circulated to wake people up to the injustice of slavery (like today's aborted fetus pictures), I wouldn’t advocate basing laws or political positions solely on them.  That not only goes against Obama’s quote, but far more importantly our very foundation as a country.  Our laws are supposed to be based on morality and reason, not just feelings; otherwise, whoever has the gavel can whack out our freedoms at whim.

President Obama’s emotional appeals do beg the question of him:  Mr. President, why do you think abortion is such a difficult choice and one not to be made “lightly” or “callously”?  Because it is wrong?  He does say he has arrived at the conclusion that “there is a moral implication to these [abortion] issues” (NY Times, 10/06/07).  Is there a moral implication similar to, say, cheating on a test?  Or is it more severe?  It’s an important distinction.  Is he saying, “Lying to your mother about who broke the cookie jar is wrong, but that is your choice to make,” or is he saying, “Murder/slavery/rape/molestation/cannibalism is wrong, but that is your choice to make”?  How weighty IS the moral implication here?  Does he know?  And if he’s not sure, then why does he consistently fight for unrestricted abortion?  Sometimes he does start reasoning; he just doesn’t follow it through.

Then there is the occasional nugget from him of just plain nonsense on abortion.  In his book, Audacity of Hope, he states:

“The willingness of even the most ardent pro-choice advocates to accept some restrictions on late-term abortions marks a recognition that a fetus is more than a body part and that society has some interest in its development.”

That statement may be true; however, he himself has never accepted a restriction on late-term abortion, so that renders these words coming from his pen confused at best!  In fact, he went so far as to be the only senator to repeatedly speak out against bills requiring medical treatment for infants accidentally born alive during an abortion (starting with Illinois Senate Bill 1095, February 2001).  Doesn’t that mean he does not recognize the fetus is more than a body part?  If so, why did he use the term “recognition” in his book instead of “belief”?  All I can surmise is that he is trying to say despite his voting record he, too, recognizes the fetus is more than a body part.  That is a frightening proposition, considering he does not treat it like more than that.  And, he never answers the implicit, deeper questions generated by his book:  If a fetus is more than a body part, what is it?  Why does society have some interest in its development?  More curiously, why does he think it’s “more than a body part” and “society has some interest in its development,” yet always legislatively act against any restriction on abortion whatsoever? 

Instead of a logical argument from Obama on abortion we get emotion, political ideology, conclusions without proofs, yet at the same time all legislative measures possible to ensure abortion is unfettered.  Now, even my anti-abortion family’s tax money is paying for abortions here and abroad.  I have not been given one good reason why by the President.

The Obama from the Moveon.org quote is right.  Theocracy/dictatorship is certainly not where I want to be.  True freedom resides with a republic, such as the idea of America.  (Paradoxically, it does not reside in anarchy, as true freedom comes with responsibility, the rules that set us free.  We all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but my right to my pursuit of happiness ends where it meets with murdering innocent YOU and taking YOUR life because I’d be happy with your wallet!)  So, while I am proud of anyone who stands up for those in the womb, I admit I am always a little troubled when the “because God said so” line of thinking is the ONLY one used by a pro-lifer in a political setting; it does happen sometimes.  I would not want that to be the reason abortion laws are changed, forced legislation by some potential future majority of would-be theocrats in congress.  Instead, ideally, I would want the law to be changed because a majority of people are convinced abortion is wrong and they no longer desire its legality.  While various religions are correct in believing abortion is immoral, and while it is also a right and desirable thing to state religious beliefs in the public square, it is still important to know and defend WHY abortion is wrong beyond “God saying so.”  Please do not take this as me belittling faith.  I just believe reason is as important, and I do not believe the two contradict each other in truth.

I try to follow Obama’s Moveon.org statement because I believe it is important and how our republic works; it is one check against theocracy, dictatorship and a tyranny of majority.  I rarely employ a religious appeal when arguing against abortion in general.  I might at some time on this blog if I am delving into Catholic teaching on it.  But when arguing with someone about it in general I do not, firstly because we all have different religious views, but, secondly, because there is absolutely zero need.  There is a tsunami of evidence and arguments from science, reason, morality, and legal thought (though, oddly, not the LAW itself!), all on the pro-life side.  I don’t thump on a Bible when it comes to abortion and can’t remember the last time I used anything but non-religious syllogisms and logical analogies in refuting pro-choice rhetoric person-to-person.  On the rare occasions when I have used religious arguments against abortion it is for one of these reasons:  A) the pro-choice person brings up religion, which oddly they do sometimes even though I am not talking about it; or B) I am arguing with a pro-choice person who is open about their religion being an important part of their life, so they are interested in a religious perspective; or C) I am among family.  Other than that, I and many other pro-lifers I know tend to focus on reason and science.

Despite this, I have yet to be met with likewise from the pro-choice side.  I am given only slogans, groupthink and emotions/feelings, the likes of which I used to cling to myself:

“Freedom to choose must be protected.”

"Protect women's freedom."

“Women’s bodies, women’s choices.”  Etc. etc.

These are valid statements.  I agree with them.  However, when applied to abortion, no logical conclusion follows from these value statements or the many others popular in pro-choice circles.  Freedom to choose must be protected, yes.  But, there are certain things I hope we agree upon that one should not legally be able to choose:  the “freedom” to take property from others (stealing), the “freedom” to shoot innocent people (murder), the “freedom” to set a live kitten on fire.  And, saying simply “protect women's freedom” assumes abortion is not merely an act of LICENSE but of FREEDOM and must therefore be legally available in any free society.  The slogan does not prove abortion is freedom.  It merely assumes that.  I and a version of President Obama --the one mouthing the statement on Moveon.org-- would need to see the proofs leading to “abortion = freedom” –proofs containing sound reasoning and “universal values”-- before codifying the equation in law.

Yet, without solid argument or moral basis our law does, indeed, treat abortion as a form of freedom, and Obama is always complicit in keeping that status quo in place.  But, acting as if something is right just “because the courts say so” is also not enough.  In the supreme court’s Dred Scott case of 1857, a unanimous decision, it was ruled African Americans are not persons but the property of their owners.  Sound familiar?  Laws and rulings can be just or unjust.  “Because the government says so” or “because the courts say so” is about as sound reasoning as “because the Bible says so.”  It’s also as dogmatic.  The government, court, or Bible may be right.  But if you can’t explain why, don’t push your dogma on us.

Another one:  “Women’s bodies, women’s choices.”  Yes, of course humans should generally make their own choices about what is going to happen to their own bodies.  Rape is wrong.  Beating an innocent person is wrong.  Slavery is wrong.  The victims did not choose those things. But, when applied to abortion the reasoning falls apart:   “Women should be allowed to make their own choices about their own bodies.  There is only one body involved in abortion:  the woman’s.  Therefore women should be allowed to decide whether or not to have an abortion.”  Huh?  If a woman is aborting herself, why is she still here after the surgery?  Since when is an embryo the mother’s body?  Are we really going to ignore basic biology in favor of ideology?  Not to mention, in the VAST majority of cases (excluding rape), the woman has already made the choice about her body:  to have sex with an intact reproductive system with or without birth control when she was not ready to have a child.  There’s freedom of choice at work.  I’m pro-choice in that regard.  It’s not up to me when you have sex.  I have an opinion on it, but it’s not my choice to make.

I’d like to end with an open invitation:  Please convince me abortion is not wrong and should continue to be legal up to birth as it is today according to federal law.  It would give me one less thing to be overwhelmingly concerned about.  To convince me abortion is not a holocaust and horrifically wrong you will need to refute Kreeft’s argument.  Here it is again:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/19_prolife-philosophy/peter-kreeft_prolife-philosophy_.mp3

Boiling it down to a syllogism it is basically:  “The deliberate killing of an innocent person is wrong.  Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent person.  Therefore, abortion is wrong.”  As a pro-choicer, it seems easy enough to refute on the surface, doesn’t it?  I remember it did for me.  (“We don’t know the fetus is a person, tada!”)  But, then I did something revolutionary:  listened.  To REASON, to science, and, yes, even to intuition.  The 25 minute audio file lays out the reasoning and some of the science, so please listen beforehand if you plan to argue against it to persuade me.  Also, he adds a legal corollary at the end illustrating why abortion is not only wrong but should also be illegal.  I am supremely interested in a refutation of this as well.  I would love to no longer be stigmatized by friends and family for being against abortion!  And, honestly, all this concern for those working in the abortion industry and for women, men, and babies who are affected by abortion takes up quite a bit of energy.  I could use a breather.

Please relieve me.

“[Democracy] requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason.”  Amen to that!  Let your reasoning commence, Mr. President.

…

If you are experiencing emotional, mental and/or psychological trauma from a past abortion in the family –whether you are the mother, father, or another family member—you are not alone.  Some places to turn for help and healing include Carenet Pregnancy Center of Nashua and Manchester (http://carenetnh.org/) if you are in New Hampshire, or for those anywhere in the world:  the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, or Rachel’s Vineyard.

Disclaimer:  One of my biases is that I believe people are pro-choice generally out of good intentions.  Not good reasons, mind you, but definitely good intentions.  It seems to me they want what is best for women and society.  They want to help women.  Some even feel abortion itself can be merciful.  I can’t think of any pro-choicers I am personally acquainted with who have evil ends in mind or want to do harm.  They do not tend to believe abortion is murder; if they did they would be pro-life.  I believe this in large part because many of my family and friends are pro-choice, but also in no small part because I was once myself pro-choice and it certainly was not out of malicious intent.  So, if you're looking for blanket demonization of people who are pro-choice you will not find it here, just FYI.