Please enjoy this post while listening to the sweet sounds of Selling Jesus by Skunk Anansie....
tis fitting accompanyment"They want your soul and your money, blood and your bones..."
Yet again we've entered the silly season - and the Global War on Christmas and Common Sense™ has yet again treared it's very ugly head, so I decided to do a bit of opposition research and find out exactly what's on the agenda of Wingnut Christians?
What I found seemed fairly innocuous on the surface - but once you began scratching things started to turn ugly quite quickly.
I spent part of Sunday afternoon listening to KKLA Radio (The Voice of Faith and Reason) in Los Angeles, and a show called "Life on the Line" which discussed the issue of abortion. Mostly what I found though wasn't that they were making any specific arguements against abortion - although they did do some bragging about shutting down a number of abortion clinics - it was mostly about recruitment and organization for their "Army of Life".
The host of this show is someone many of us have grown familiar with, it was Father Frank Pavone.
At first I couldn't place him, the name didn't register with me immediately until I finally recalled Terri Schiavo. Father Frank was the pastor who had sat with Hannity outside Terri's Hospice, where he was joined by Operation Rescue's Randal Terry.
During the show none of this was discussed, certainly not Mr. Terry's connection to the bombings of abortion clinics and the murder of doctors, the programs goal instead was to help foster chapters of like-minded "Pro-Life" Christians across the nation - and they repeatedly pointed to a series of anti-abortion talking points located on their website.
- Father Frank first argues that Abortion is not a Human Right.
For example, who would not acknowledge the right people have to be free of the type of coercion we hear about in the "one-child policy" of China? The freedom to seek to raise a family, with the number of children one desires, within the framework of moral law, is a right that needs to be defended from efforts to coerce one either to have or not to have children.
But there is a big difference between the choice to have a child and the choice to kill a child. Because abortion kills a child who already exists, it is in no way a "right."
One wonders conversly, is there a right to kill a mother? Pro-Life advocates often seem to completely ignore the health issues and dangers which a problem pregnancy can place a mother. There are many conditions where a mother can be harmed by a pregnancy, particular if the pregancy is echtopic (where the fetus has lodged itself in one of felopian tubes, instead of the womb). An abortion in this case may be the only method to save the mother's life.
Pro-Life advocates have also strongly argued against all forms of late-term abortions, even when the fetus can not be saved - (or else we'd be discussing a pre-mature birth) and the health and life of the mother remain at serious risk. How is their position "Pro-Life" at all, since their insistence that the procedure not be performed would leave all parties dead on severaly injured?
The language of the supporters of legal abortion in our country includes many references to "rights." This is true also on an international level. At the present time, moreover, abortion supporters are seeking to declare abortion to be an international right and even a "human right."
What is the purpose of an attempt like that, and how is it being made?
The purpose is to circumvent whatever progress may be made on national levels to maintain or restore legal protection to the pre-born. Many countries still have such protection on some level. But many more are drawn into the fierce battle over whether that should remain the case. Each side, moreover, sees the right they are defending as an absolute.
Hold your horses there. I do not believe that the pro-choice position is so irresponsible as to claim they abortion is an absolute right. Pro-Lifers often make the claim that Pro-Choices want "abortion on demand for any reason and at any time" and that simply isn't supportable.
Pro-Choicers support contraception, which would make an abortion completely unneccesary, especially use of emergency contraception which - much like the Catholic approved "Rhythm Method" - seeks both to avoid fertilization and and to prevent any potentially fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterin wall - yet Pro-Lifers oppose contraception. Odd, no?
No matter what the majority may say to the contrary, we will always maintain that the right to life must be protected. Abortion supporters have also admitted that whatever the majority may say to the contrary, the "right" to abortion must be protected. With a world made ever smaller by modern communication, the battle is more and more about the international right to life.
As it turns out 53% of the public tends to define itself as Pro-Choice (including 69% of Democrats and 57% of Independants) compared to 39% who define themselvse as Pro-Life (which includes 62% of Republicans).
The effort to make abortion an international "right" is being advanced by means of United Nations Conferences, and by a particular combination of phrases and declarations. "Women's rights are human rights" is one of the code phrases now used in such circles.
And the converse would be "Women aren't Human?"
When this is combined with the assertion, "Women have reproductive rights" and the further assertion that "the human rights of women are universal," then despite the truths that can be found in each of these statements, the door is also opened to the conclusion that the right to obtain an abortion is a reproductive right which is universal and, in fact, a human right. A country, then, which protects its unborn children by law, would be seen as offending human rights which should be enforced internationally.
So from here you can see the push to circumvent international law, and international human rights as being anti-Life, or rather anti-pre-Life. Hence we see the strong right-wing support for anti-Internationalist such as former recess UN Ambassdor John Bolton.
To Pavone, American Law is higher than International Law - and oh-by-the-by God's Law is higher still.
The Human Rights angle is an attempt to oversimplify this argument, the truth is that the problem here is one of comparitive rights -- if both Mother and Child have a right to live, and most would agree that the do, the question truly is whose rights are dominant?
Pro-Lifers are failing to address that question, because it undermines so much of their point, thus you can see their attempt here to undermine the very existence of Women's Rights and Mother's Rights. To them Women have to rights over controlling their own reproductive processes and abilities other than that of being a benign vessel, mere chattle to serve the devine purpose of procreation.
They fear choice, because choice means freedom as well as responsibiity.
- Secondly: Abortion is None of Your Business (But apparently it is God's Business)
Most people admit that abortion is wrong; surveys show, in fact, that half of all Americans are willing to call it "murder." (See, for example, the January 1998 New York Times/CBS News Poll).
Yet a disturbing number of these same people will not do anything to stop it. They say, "I believe abortion is wrong, but I do not want to impose my morality on others." In other words, it's wrong, but it's a private wrong. If I think it's wrong, I won't do it. If someone else does it, that's none of my business.
Call me a nitpicker - but 1998 was almost a decade ago. What do people think now?
Here's a Web poll from About.com asks: If abortion really is murder, should there be exceptions for the life and health of the mother?
No, the exceptions are hypocritical. No mother would kill her child to save herself.
(93) 26%
Yes for the life of the mother, no for her health.
(28) 7%
Yes for the health of the mother, no for her life.
(3) 0%
Yes for both the life and health of the mother.
(118) 33%
I don't know.
(8) 2%
I don't care.
(104) 29%
In this case - the "Yes, even if abortion is Murder, there should be legal exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother" - Wins.
Here's another web poll (again not scientific) that currently shows that 43% consider Abortion a Choice, while 38% consider it Murder, while 18% say it's "Not That Simple".
Opinions vary, but I would tend to opt for Door Number #3 myself.
Back to Father Frank.
This attitude has been expressed in a bumper sticker that says, "Against Abortion? Don't have one!" and in the assertion that the opposing sides in this controversy should simply "Agree to disagree."
Yet we simply don't look at most moral problems this way. We do not hear people say, "I would never abuse my child, but if the other person wants to do so, that’s her choice." Nor do they say, "I would never commit a violent crime, but if someone else chooses to do so, that's none of my business."
Thusly, one womans reproductive choices become an issue for the community and society to address - because you see - it's child abuse. Or rather Pre-Child Abuse.
The fact is that some choices have victims, and when somebody’s choice destroys somebody else’s life, that’s everybody's business. It is, after all, the business of love to intervene to save our brothers and sisters in need.
Call me a cynic, but listening to a Catholic Priest prattle on about how people should intervene to prevent harm to "our brothers and sisters" when the Catholic Church refused to do exactly that when their own Priests were abusing our "our brothers and sisters" -- ok, mostly brothers - leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But maybe, that's just me. Certainly the sentiment is laudable, at least in theory.
People need to know that abortion is their business. They need to de-isolate the issue. People understand that we have to intervene to help the poor, the AIDS victim, the drug addict, the victim of crime and war. Even if we do not know their names, or have never seen the faces of these victims, we know it is our business to help them. There is no reason to isolate abortion in a category of its own, where all the rules of human decency suddenly change. Who is the child scheduled to be aborted today? That child is your sister, your brother.
Again more unintended irony/comedy. A post on a site entirely dedicated to the issue of abortion which is in support of a radio show entirely dedicated to the issue of abortion is claiming that "There is no reason to isolate abortion in a category of it's own".
That's a good one. Henny Youngman needs material like this.
The truly funny part is that he's correct, Abortion shoudln't be isolated and divorced from other life issues such as War and -gasp - Healthcare. How can you argue that everyone has a right to live, but they don't have a right to have access to the tools, facilities and personel who can save their lives?
- Thirdly : Abortion is Child Abuse.
The first thing that has to be noted when examining the relationship between abortion and child abuse is that abortion is child abuse.
So things have relationships with themselves now? Is that like Auto-erotica?
Dismembering a born child would certainly be considered among the worst possible forms of abuse. Medical textbooks and court testimonies use the very same word, "dismemberment," to describe what is done to an unborn child by abortion. How, then, is this not child abuse?
Technically, no argument. And what kind of abuse is allowing a mother to die from an echtopic pregnancy because there are no qualified clinics or doctors available to deal with reproductive health issues and preform a neccesary D&C procedure to protect that woman's future ability to have children? (A procedure my own wife received after both an echtopic pregnancy and a miscarriage a decade ago.)
Oh, wait that's right - Women aren't human - and stuff.
Follow me now as we take a trip into the Crusian elements of Father Frank's argument.
Allowing the abuse of an unborn child, then, creates an atmosphere in which -- more quietly and secretly -- we justify the abuse of born children. The child becomes the scapegoat for our unresolved conflicts. As the Israelites in the Old Testament placed their sins upon the goat, who was then led out into the desert, we allow the child, particularly when still in the womb, to suffer for our sins.
The two forms of child abuse -- on the unborn (abortion) and on the born -- reinforce each other by a mutual causality. Abortion results in more post-partum depression, which inhibits bonding with subsequent children. Conversely, the wounds of abuse are echoed in the essentially self-destructive act of abortion later in life.
Vicious Cycle that - abuse, abort, abuse, abort - is this like a bad romance novel or what? He goes on about the Child Abuse angle for a while, both here and here. But I think we already have the gist. Abortion is bad. Mm 'kay?
- Lastly, Father Frank has a bit to say about Stem Cell Research.
This is not a debate about whether or not we should do research to assist the perennial fight against disease. The Church does not oppose research. But the task of research, the efforts to cure disease, and the ability to manipulate nature has certain moral parameters. Consider some history.
The prosecution in the World War II War Crimes Trials pointed to a key source of the deterioration of ethics which resulted in the Nazi killing program. That book was "The Release of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value," by Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche. Hoche was a doctor of medicine. He writes,
"A child was sick with a rare and scientifically interesting brain disease and was almost certain to die within 24 hours. If that child would die in the hospital, I would have the opportunity by autopsy to find out the reason for the sickness...It would have been easy to give the child an injection of morphine to hurry his death by a few hours. I did not because my personal desire for scientific research was not an important enough good to overcome the obligation of medical ethics. It would have been a different question, however, if to decide as mentioned in the present case would have resulted in the saving of many lives. The question would have had to be answered yes because of the higher good."
Ok, so first off - he's using Nazi doctors to make his point. Always a wise choice to tug the
Second off, he didn't need to play the Nazi-card because his arguement is pretty much Star Trekian.
- "The Needs of the Many, Outweight the needs of the Few - or the One!"
The main problem with this argument is that the blastocysts which would be used for this experimentation - are going to be disgarded anyway.
In his scenario, the child is going to die within 24 hours anyway -- so why exactly does he need to "Hurry his death" in order to perform the autopsy, did the kid have a hot date in 12 hours?. I don't mean to be crass, but what was the rush? It seems it would be perfectly ethical to let him die naturally, and request permission from (him if possible and) his parents for a autopsy to help others.
Most of the thousands upon thousands of fertilzed embryos which are currently being held in storage as a result of invitro fertilization will eventually - die. They can not be kept viable forever. Now, I think most of us all three sides (our side, their side and the truth) of this argument support the idea of having these embryos adopted and implanted into willing surrogate mothers - and I find it quite interesting that Father Pavone never even attempts to find recruits for such adoptions in his entire argument, although as I mentioned above he's doing plenty of recruiting - that option simply isn't possible for the vast majority of them.
Wouldn't it be insteresting if just half the people who Father Pavone would have standing out in front of Abortion Clinics were instead - out adopting unwanted children?
Why is it the Pro-Life crowds seems to stop caring about the young once they're no longer Pre-Children. Why don't they care about pre-natal healthcare? Why did their Lord and savior George W. Bush sign the Texas Futile Care Law which allowed a Hospital to decide to shutoff life-support to a 6-month old baby against the wishes of her mother, simply because of her inability to pay for the care?
Why doesn't the "Culture of Life" spend any of their energy - on the Living?
The truth is that their goal here isn't to protect and defend the innocent - it's to grow their own ranks, it's to increase their own power in influence in the nation and the world. It was clear from listening to that station the Christianity is Big F-ing Bu$iness..
They're Selling Jesus to the masses like Big Macs and Quarter-Pounders.
The most chilling section of Pavone's radio show was the end - whereas we all know that Jesus never addressed the subject of abortion - Pavone claims that he did address this when he said during the last supper to "Remember him".
Pavone deconstructed this statement to - "Re-member" - meaning to keep and bring the members of his church together and to avoid letting them be "Dis-Membered" as they would be in - wait for it - an abortion!
Oh, the humanity.
Vyan
No comments:
Post a Comment