Why should we reduce the need for abortion?
May 23, 2009 Five Non-Negotiable Issues, Obama Administration
It’s always a fascinating practice to take a look at the public relations job politicians do on the campaign trail. It’s always a challenge in a job where living in the gray might give you a chance on issues that are black and white, if only because it appears that you are both sides. When it comes to abortion it seems that there are two positions:
- Pro-life: mostly or completely against abortion. (I lump in mostly because there are politicians who want to make exceptions for rape/incest, which I believe is wrong, but they are otherwise on target.)
- Those that believe that abortion is a personal choice, but they want to reduce the need for abortion.
This begs the question: if there is nothing wrong with abortion, why would we waste our time and effort to reduce the need for it? Clearly the politician does find something wrong with abortion or they would simply throw the issue out with the trash. Next time you get the opportunity to confront one of these abortion reductionist politicians, ask them why they are even bothering. The answer could be quite interesting.
Tis the season for hopes, dreams, and political statements
Feb 2, 2009 Five Non-Negotiable Issues, Governmental Reach, Obama Administration
I had many discussions with various people leading up to the November elections regarding political duty. As it became clearer that there were only two politicians who could win the Presidency in November, the action from those who identified themselves as anything from Christians to conservatives also had a much clearer mission. (In hindsight I believe it would have taken a major international event or a major revelation about Obama to sway the situation far enough, but even that wouldn’t have done it for another candidate.) It is my firm belief, and my guilt of conscience, that leads me to believe that a person is called to be practical when they enter the voting booth. Very rarely are we presented with a good vs. evil decision in life. It is hardly ever obvious that one option is so right and one is so wrong. Only once in a blue moon, when considering all of the races we get to vote on, do we get to vote with a candidate with a real chance and can really excite me. I was very clear in stating my own voting intentions, and that I wasn’t particularly pleased to cast my vote for Coleman or McCain (though I’m convinced the latter is a great man). Yet, when I went into the voting booth with $5 and a chance to buy the milk my family really needed or a lottery ticket, it was time to be practical and do the best thing I could possibly do at the time.
That brings me to my point: now is the time to buy the lottery ticket. It’s time to take that chance on not having to worry about where the milk money is going to come from in the future. We are about 2.5-3 years away from beginning the whole mess again (if we are lucky). You’ll remember that the current President’s campaign started about a year into his Senate run. That is why it is a good time to pick out your ideal candidate. It is not time to worry about their chances of winning (about this time four years ago it seemed clear that it would be Rudi vs. Hillary) but time to make your political statement. This is a time, far from meal time, when we have all of the freedom in the world to support even the candidates with the most remote chances but the most far-reaching ideologies we can find.
Take the opportunity while you have it, though. As we draw nearer to the chance to unseat a radical pro-abortion, pro-government, pro-tax administration it will be time to start moving in the most responsible of mindsets. It will be nearing that meal time again, when the only prudent choice we have is to choose the best quality milk we can actually buy and put that lottery ticket back on hold.
Who, really, is intolerant?
Jan 30, 2009 Five Non-Negotiable Issues
Quite often political discussions on issues with moral relevance (even if the arguments against them have far reach into areas other than religious belief) are quickly squashed by a comment to the effect of “Catholics are not tolerant of other views.” Even if that were the case, that doesn’t score any points in favor of “choice” in the example of abortion. The idea that Catholics are intolerant (false as it is) is a non sequitur to such a discussion.
Ironically, at the point where a person brings this kind of a statement into the mix on abortion, it is generally the statement-maker who is the intolerant one. An example of this comes with the news today that the Academy of Holy Angels has stripped an award that it had given to a local lawyer who has worked on behalf of the DFL on abortion rights issues. The award placed AHA alum, Paul Thissen, into the “Activities Hall of Fame” which is recognition for people who ”through their citizenship and achievements, have brought honor to themselves, their school and the community.” Clearly if you are tolerant of others’ beliefs you also would extend that right to Catholics who do not hold that there is “honor” in supporting abortion rights.
I think this point is often missed on both sides of the coin. Catholics, ever punished with such accusations of intolerance, are increasingly sensitive and looking for ways to prove otherwise. At varying rates they are giving up the views they once held in the name of tolerance. On the other side of the coin, they are unable to look in the mirror and realize that tolerance is a two-way street. If someone should be allowed to have the view that abortion should be legal in this country there is no need to worry, they do have that right — even when the law is one way we are allowed to believe the opposite should be true — but so, too, do Catholics have the right to disagree with that view and keep their highest honors for people who uphold their own standards. It has never been a secret that the Church is pro-life. The only fault AHA might have in this was not coming to this conclusion before causing the commotion it did. (Then again, this might be good for a point. God works in mysterious ways.)
Update: The Trog also weighs in. He has a more personal connection to all of it.
Tags: Abortion, Academy of Holy Angels, Five Non-Negotiable Issues, Intolerance, The Trog, Thissen
Bork: Religious Freedom in Jeopardy
Jan 27, 2009 Five Non-Negotiable Issues
Former Supreme Court nominee, Robert Bork says that religious freedom in the United States is in danger. He cites the example of doctors who are unwilling to perform abortions and may soon be forced to. This represents an inability to exercise religion freely.
Judge Bork said he also thought that America is “now going down a path towards kind of a happy-go-lucky nihilism.”
“A lot of people are nihilists,” he continued. “They don’t think about religion. They don’t think about ultimate questions. They go along. They worry about consumer goods, comfort, and so forth.
“As a matter of fact, the abortion question is largely a question about convenience. If you look at the polls about why people have abortions, 90 percent of it has nothing to do with medical conditions. It’s convenience. And that’s I think an example of the secularization of an issue that ought to have a religious dimension.”
It’s the natural progression from the war against Christmas trees in the workplace several years ago (and there was probably something smaller before that). It is time for a major Christian rally of sorts. Time for us to end our silence while we are being asked to give, give, give without any concession from the other side. We are at a point now (if we weren’t there already) where giving further ground endangers souls. Christians who are forced into performing abortions will have to leave the medical profession. Christian hospitals will have to close (it will not be sufficient to merely sell off to a group of people who will perform them). We need to start pushing back in this war against religion; the war against Christianity.
Tags: Abortion, Bork, doctors, freedom of religion, nurses, religion
The 5 Non-Negotiable Political Issues
Jan 26, 2009 Five Non-Negotiable Issues, Obama Administration
In order to give readers a good basis for where I am coming from politically, I think I should point out what I am referring to when I refer to (and I will often) the five non-negotiable political issues for Christian Voters. These are outline in greater detail in the Catholic Voters Guide, but the fact is that any Christian who votes for a candidate who supports any of these five sins against human dignity is in material cooperation for evil and is thus committing a mortal sin (one that places your eternal soul in danger).
The issues:
- Abortion
- Euthanasia
- Embryonic Stem Cell Research
- Human Cloning
- Homosexual Marriage
All five of these things are intrinsically evil; that is, they are evil in every case without exception. As is stated in the Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion General Principles document, Pope Benedict (then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) addresses the difference in the weight of political issues:
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
This is a crucial distinction, as the argument usually follows a “how can you support the war” or “how can you support capital punishment” alongside championing the unborn child line, and clearly they are on an uneven field and not set up for good comparison. (As it happens, I am against the death penalty in this country as I find it entirely unnecessary, but the fact is that someone can disagree with me and we can both be in communion with the Church.)
I hope you will find this initial post helpful in understanding where I am coming from. This entire site will not be about abortion in politics, but I will refer often to the five non-negotiable issues and especially in a time with a President as against these five principles as any we have ever seen in our nation’s history.
Tags: Abortion, Cloning, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Euthanasia, Five Non-Negotiable Issues, Homosexual Marriage, Pope Benedict, Ratzinger, Voting
