The Star Ledger Interviews Author on Sex-Selective Abortion

In one of the opinion articles of the Star Ledger the Editorial Board shows an interview that they had with Mara Hvistendahl.  She is the author of Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men.  The book has been becoming popular within the United States lately, talking about the severely unbalanced boy-to-girl ratios within countries like India and China.

The Star Ledger Editorial Board asked Hvistendahl multiple questions about the issue and the answers are quite telling.  For one, she herself believes that abortion should be legal and safeguarded.

That being said, she recognizes that abortion in many countries, particularly in India and China, use abortion for sex-selective means.  She blatantly tells the Board that the reason why the sex ratios in those countries are so skewed is because “women go in for ultrasounds and abort if the fetus turns out to be female.”  It is of no surprise that these countries are discriminatory against women, but Hvistendahl goes on to say that gender discrimination alone “doesn’t explain where sex selection crops up—you also have countries where women are discriminated against, but the sex ratio at birth is balanced.” 

Furthermore, the Hvistendahl debunks the myth that infanticide was big in those countries even before abortion was legal.  When asked about this by the Board, she responds, “Infanticide has occurred in China and India at moments in history, but not continuously and NEVER on the scale that sex-selective abortions are happening today” (emphasis mine).  This shows that the legalization of abortion in such countries has, in and of itself, contributed to the large gap in the male-to-female births and not just gender discrimination.

Lastly, she admits that pro choicers are not addressing the issue “because it involves abortion” and that pro lifers are the ones that are creating and passing bills banning sex-selective abortions within various states.

The only thing I would disagree with her on (besides her pro-choice position) is when she says that she thinks that pro-lifers are only passing such laws to establish a “precedent for a fetus being a life.”  For one, she says this as if it is a bad thing, but if abortion is truly the murder of an innocent human being than the act is far more important and dangerous for reasons other than the idea that it is used for sex selection.  Also, there is no reason why it has to be either/or: EITHER be against it because it takes the life of an innocent human being OR because it is used for the wrongful act of sex selection.  The majority of pro-lifers would consider it a both/and situation: abortion is wrong BOTH because it takes the life of an innocent human being AND because it is used for the wrongful act of sex selection.  Obviously the pro-life movement is more focused on the former [because 1) it is the more serious and harmful of the two moral crimes and 2) it has harmed more people than the latter], but that does not change the fact that pro-lifers, in general, care for both the dead innocent child and the fact that the act of abortion is sometimes done because of sex selection. 

Overall, I like this interview.  Hvistendahl broke down many stereotypes behind this issue and showed her disappointment in her fellow pro-choicers for not following her in her disdain for sex-selective abortion.  I just hope and pray that she eventually realizes that any act of abortion, regardless of whether or not it is used for sex selection, takes the life of an innocent human being who is deserving of said life.

There are many things in the article that I did not talk about that are still very interesting, so please read the interview from the link above if you are concerned with/attracted to this issue.

What’s Going on in New Jersey? (6/28/11)

I know I have been asking you quite a bit recently to contact various people within the NJ legislature.  Well guess what?  I’m doing it again.

According to New Jersey Right to Life, Democrats within New Jersey came up with a budget for Fiscal Year 2012.  That, in and of itself, is not the bad part though.  What is upsetting is that the budget that the Democrats propose includes restoring funds to Planned Parenthood ($7.5 million). 

Furthermore, according to the New Jersey Constitution a budget must be picked by Friday, July 1.  Thus, everyone will be voting on it very quickly.

So please contact your State Senator and your state Assemblymen/Assemblywomen and do so quickly.  Also, please contact Governor Chris Christie.  Ask them to not accept this budget.  The taxpayer support of Planned Parenthood needs to be discouraged. 

Also, when you contact Gov. Christie make sure you thank him for his past vetoes in similar situations.  The fact that he has a good track record with this is very reassuring. 

If you feel uncomfortable writing your own e-mail then you may go here and send a pre-written e-mail.

Continuation of ‘What’s Going on in New Jersey?’ (6/23/11)

This will be a continuation of my previous post.  If you have not read that yet then please do so before you read this post.

First let us ask: is bill NJ AR165 correct in its assessment of the Indiana situation?  Is it right to side with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services?

There are a couple of reasons why the answer to both questions is no.  For one, the very idea that the Indiana bill is or is not breaking the law is exactly what Judge Pratt is trying to figure out.  The state of Indiana believes they are not, but the CMMS says they are.  So to make a bill resolution that states that the Indiana bill is breaking the law before it has been decided as to whether or not it truly is breaking the law is, at best, too speedy of a decision.

More importantly, however, is that even if the bill does break the law, it is possible that it is the federal law itself that must change; in other words, if the bill does break the law it may be correct in doing so because the law itself may be morally wrong. 

The bill implicitly responds to this by giving a reason as to why it is not morally wrong to fund Planned Parenthood: because “more than 90% of Planned Parenthood’s services constitute preventative and primary care.” 

There is debate as to whether or not that 90% statistic is correct.  But, for the sake of the argument, let’s assume that such a statistic is correct.  Does that statistic, though, reveal that we should not de-fund Planned Parenthood? 

It does not seem so because it commits the fallacy of begging the question, assuming the pro-choice position to be correct even though, whether they think so or not, that is what they need to prove to be true in order to be correct on this issue.  This is shown by giving the following analogy:

Suppose, hypothetically, that there was an organization just like Planned Parenthood (let’s call it Planned Parenthood 2), where 90% of there services are geared towards preventative and primary care.  They even may do a lot of other good as well, such as STI testing and cancer screenings.  However, they also allow women to bring in children that they do not want (say, children up to four years old) so that this Planned Parenthood 2 can kill those children so that they will no longer be a burden to the mothers.  Such an act would be an obvious case of murder. 

We can see here how the argument that Planned Parenthood should get taxpayer funding because they do a lot of good does not work because no organization that murders innocent human beings should get taxpayer funding.  Now pro-choicers may say in response that I am begging the question by assuming that the children being killed in PP2 are equivalent to the unborn children in PP being killed.  Admittedly that would be the case…if I was trying to prove the pro-life position to be correct, but I wasn’t.  I was simply using the analogy to show that those who argue that the PP should get taxpayer money because they do a lot of good things beg the question.  Thus, the only way to justify giving taxpayer money to PP is by showing that the pro-life position is wrong and that the pro-choice position is correct.  And since the embryo/fetus has its own human DNA structure, is a ‘person’ from the moment of conception due to any other definition of personhood being too arbitrary, and is obligated by the mother, for various reasons, to care for the child until birth, it seems apparent that the unborn child is an innocent human person with the right to life; this makes abortion the act of murder and, thus, reveals that taxpayer money should not go to such an organization.

Bill NJ S2899 essentially makes the same arguments and fallacies that bill NJ AR165 does: just because PP does a lot of good for women does not mean that they should get taxpayer funding because it does not show that abortion is morally acceptable. 

So please contact your Assemblymen/Assemblywomen about these two bills, especially NJ S2899 since that actually works to give money towards PP.  If you do not know who your assemblymen/assemblywomen are or how to contact them then follow these steps:

1. Click on this link
2. Scroll down and look through the  different districts until you find the county you live in
3. Look through the towns that are in that district and verify that the town you live in is there (this is important because there are a couple of districts that overlap in counties; this means that some districts are in charge of different towns in the same county)
4. Once you find the district that has your county AND town click on the district
5. You should be taken to a list of your senator and assemblymen/assemblywomen with their contact information.  You may click on their names to view their profile and the bills they sponsored if you desire

What’s Going on in New Jersey? (6/22/11)

On June 13, bill NJ S2899 was received into the Assembly.  When it will be voted on is still unclear. 

This is the same bill that I wrote about in a previous post before it was passed in the Senate.  The bill will give roughly $7.5 million to “family planning services,” also known as Planned Parenthood, if signed into law.  It passed in the Senate by a vote of 26-13 on May 23.  The bill is sponsored by Senator Weinberg, who was unable to convince Governor Christie to sign a similar bill that was made last year into law.

Also, on June 20 the Assembly received bill NJ AR165.  The bill, in its synopsis, states, “Supports the decision of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to enforce Medicaid law and to preserve access to preventive and reproductive care for women.”  The bill explains more what this means in its statement, where it describes the recent actions of the state of Indiana de-funding Planned Parenthood.

If this is the first time you have heard of Indiana’s actions then I will explain it briefly.  Indiana’s governor Mitch Daniels recently signed into law a bill that strips taxpayer funding from Planned Parenthood.  The Obama Administration as well as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services spoke out against the decision, saying it is against federal law to do so.  The state of Indiana disagrees though.  Also, Planned Parenthood challenged the constitutionality of the law.  Judge Pratt will give a ruling on it by July 1.  However, the Obama administration threatens to cut off all Medicaid funds to Indiana should the state decide to keep the law.

Bill NJ AR165 states its agreement with the Obama Administration as well as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, saying that Indiana’s actions are wrong because a) it is against federal law to de-fund Planned Parenthood in that way and b) Planned Parenthood provides a lot of primary and preventative health care that women need.  Thus, the bill’s essential point is to support the decision of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in its rejection of the new Indiana law. 

I will discuss my stance on these bills in my next post.

Fathers Are Not All That Important Anymore

I find it ironic that I am writing this on Father’s Day, but I could not help myself when I read a certain editorial in the New York Times today. 

The article discusses a Supreme Court ruling in court case Flores-Villar v. the United States.  Within the case, it was deemed constitutional to deny Ruben Flores-Villar citizenship on the grounds that his Mexican-immigrated father, because of his age, could not pass on citizenship to Flores-Villar when he was born.  This comes about as a result of current law stating different requirements for immigrated mothers and fathers to pass on citizenship to their born children.  The writer portrays an obvious disdain for the ruling, calling it “discriminatory” and “outmoded” because he/she thinks that such a ruling is based around the belief that fathers are “less committed parents.”

 You can read the rest of the article from the link above if you desire to know more about the case.

 I do not know enough about Flores-Villar v. the United States to comment on whether or not the ruling is truly discriminatory or not.  However, assuming that it actually is discriminatory based on a false assumption that fathers are less committed parents, I cannot really say that I am surprised by such a belief.  After all, the legalization of abortion has contributed greatly to this problem.

By making abortion the sole choice of the mother and putting all of the weight of the decision on her, it essentially creates the mind-set that the father does not have that much responsibility.  After all, if a pregnant woman has the sole responsibility of “choosing” whether or not to have an abortion then it is understandable for people to think that she bears sole responsibility for raising the child should she decide to keep him/her since she would not have to take care of the child if she had simply decided to have the abortion. 

Someone could say in response, however, that the above argument does not necessarily show that the pro-choice position is wrong; it, at best, shows that both men and women should have a say in abortion.  I would respond with disagreement.  After all, the whole reason why people wanted abortion to be legal was because they wanted to "equalize" men and women by making an abortion a woman's choice and a woman's choice alone.  Thus, by making it both the mother's and the father's choice one is, on feminist grounds, making women more "unequal" to men again.  This shows that even on these grounds alone abortion would still be wrong regardless of whether it is only the mother or the mother and the father who choose abortion because in both circumstances abortion only gives more power to men. 

If only the mother can choose than fathers lose responsibility.  And if both the mother and the father can choose than one is essentially saying that the mother alone does not have the right to choose, causing the entire pro-choice cause and, thus, the legalization of abortion to lose legitimacy.

It should also be noted that the view that women bore sole responsibility for the child's upbringing did not seem to exist before Roe v. Wade, at least not in most areas of the country.  Where abortion was illegal it was understood that, if a couple had sex and the woman became unexpectedly pregnant, both parents had to bare responsibility because both parents contributed to the act that resulted in the child in the first place.  Now that abortion is a legal choice for all women to make, however, the father ends up not being able to participate in a decision that determines whether or not the child should be “kept.”  Such a situation, then, only contributes to the stereotype that fathers are less committed parents by pushing responsibility for “keeping” the child onto the mother alone and not on both the mother and the father as a result of the sexual act that they both act upon.

Now I am not saying that such discrimination is correct; it is obvious that fathers have just as much responsibility for raising their children as mothers.  Nor am I saying that this is the main reason why abortion is wrong.  Lastly, I am not saying that this is the only factor that contributes to such discrimination; there may be other aspects of society that convince others to view fathers as less committed parents.  I simply argue that the legalization of abortion has a) promoted the idea that fathers are not as committed to parenting as mothers are and has b) actually encouraged fathers to adopt such a view for themselves whenever the woman they had sex with decides to keep a child that he did not want to have.  (If you would like to read more on this, please read Richard Stith’s article “Her Choice, Her Problem: How Abortion Empowers Men”)

I pray that all fathers have a very blessed and very happy Father’s Day.  And for those who are fathers of biological children please remember that you are not a father from the moment your child is born; you are a father from the moment your child is conceived in the womb.

Pro-Life License Plates

This is an interesting phenomenon going on in other states and is currently in the works within New Jersey. 

New Jersey Bill A1386, which is held up in the Assembly and has remained so since January of 2010,[1] would require the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission to allow people to get a “Choose Life” license plate if they desire.[2]  The license plate would have the words on it as well as an emblem that would be designed by the commission.[3]  It would cost $50 to get the specialized license plate and an annual renewal fee of $10 in addition to whatever other charges the commission requires and the additional fees, after deducting costs from actually making the plates, would go to various agencies, of the commissioner’s choosing, that provide pregnant women with services that act as alternatives to abortion.[4]  Furthermore, the commissioner cannot choose agencies that provide abortions.[5]

This is a very simple and effective way for pro-lifers to broadcast their pro-life views while financially contributing to agencies that truly help women with their pregnancies. 

I cannot see what kind of trouble people could have with this bill; even pro-choice legislators should not have much of a problem with this since it does not force people to use the license plate.

You can read more about the bill here.  Voting sessions do not seem to be scheduled for this bill yet, but I encourage you to contact your assemblymen/assemblywomen anyway to let them know how important you feel this bill is.

Update: Choose Life license plates has been allowed by the Motor Vehicle Commission as of December of last year. 

---

[1] Americans United for Life.  NJ A 1386.  http://www.aul.org/legislative-tracking-abortion

[2] NJ A 1386.  http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/A1500/1386_I1.HTM

[3] NJ A 1386.  http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/A1500/1386_I1.HTM

[4] NJ A 1386.  http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/A1500/1386_I1.HTM

[5] NJ A 1386.  http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/A1500/1386_I1.HTM

It's the Same Thing

I came across this interesting pro-life video.  Check it out.  It really drives the pro-life message home.
WARNING: Graphic images within video.

Remember the REAL Reason that we Oppose Planned Parenthood

This post is made specifically for a link party that Life Report is hosting.

 Live Action has gotten a lot of news coverage in the past six months for their undercover work in Planned Parenthood.  They have revealed that Planned Parenthood has done much to keep secret from police various sex-trafficking situations (click here and here to see some examples).  In the past, they have also gone undercover and revealed that Planned Parenthood does not always comply with laws concerning minors having sex with older adults (click here for an example of that as well).  These videos show that Planned Parenthood skirts the law often and do not always have the interests of the women at heart.  Such things are important to talk about and are necessary in seeing some of the evil behind such an organization.

That being said, I feel that I must offer a quick reminder.  We have to remember that we, pro-lifers, are against Planned Parenthood primarily because they murder innocent human beings who have the right to life.  It is good that we point out how they break the law by not saying anything to law enforcement about sex trafficking and so on, but IF they were to clean up their act on such matters, would it really change our position that they should not get federal funding, for instance? 

 It shouldn’t.

Of course, this is not to say that Live Action does not realize this.  I have heard Lila Rose speak before and she is well aware that the fact that they do abortions is the primary reason as to why we must oppose them.  I simply state this reminder to make sure everyone else remembers this.  It is very easy to get caught up in all the other reasons as to why we should oppose Planned Parenthood while forgetting the very fact that they murder so many innocent unborn children every year. 

 So never forget about those who cannot speak for themselves; show care and love for the women who are being hurt and exploited by Planned Parenthood, but show that same care and love for the unborn.

Catholic Church Teaching on Abortion Inconsistent?

It was found out yesterday that Vice President Joe Biden secretly met with Pope Benedict XVI.[1]  We are unable to know what was discussed because the meeting was kept private from the community.[2]

It is, however, interesting to point out that, while he is Catholic, VP Joe Biden is pro-choice.[3]  He says that he is very attached to his Catholic beliefs, but he also feels that abortion is something that has been argued about in the Church before concerning its morality.[4]  This is similar to what congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, who is also Catholic and pro-choice, has said in the past: that Church teaching on abortion has changed over the years.[5]

 For one thing, such arguments are unsound, at least in one particular way.  It is true that abortion was not always considered murder.  However, it is also true that abortion was, nonetheless, always considered wrong.  What VP Joe Biden and congresswoman Nancy Pelosi are confusing is the Church’s understanding of how abortion is wrong.  It is true that there were some theologians who said that an embryo did not have a soul until later on through the pregnancy, thus showing that abortion was not always considered to be murder.[6]  Of course, we know now that an embryo has a soul from the moment of conception because it is a new individual human being from the moment of conception, making the view mentioned beforehand to be based on the lack of scientific understanding.[7]  However, this does not change the fact that abortion was always considered wrong, even if it was not always considered to be murder at certain times.[8]  All early Catholic Church theologians thought that abortion, from the moment of conception, was a grave moral sin, even if they did not think that it was murder (this is shown, for example, within the writings of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas).[9]  This shows that Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are wrong in their understanding of Church teaching on abortion.

 However, Biden and Pelosi's argument is not only unsound, but also invalid.  For they imply that because Church teaching has changed that that means those teachings that have changed can be abandoned by an individual if they so choose to.  However, even IF it is true that Catholic Church teaching on whether or not abortion is moral has changed (although, as shown above, it hasn’t) that does not lead to their implied conclusion that they do not have to follow the Church’s teaching on abortion today.  The Church clearly states that Catholics must respect and uphold all of the teachings of the Church, whether they are dogmatic or disciplinary.  For example, how much a Catholic was required to fast during the Season of Lent has changed over time, but that does not mean that Catholics should be able to choose whether or not to observe the fasting rules for Lent today.  Thus, even if teaching has changed, it does not make one’s following the previous teaching to be wrong because they were acting based on what they knew at the time. 

 Also, the argument does not prove the pro-life position to be incorrect.  Even if, hypothetically, the Church taught at one point that abortion was morally acceptable it does not mean that they were right.  The Church, through scientific enlightenment, could have come to the right view of abortion equating to murder.  After all, many Church leaders use to believe in a geocentric universe, but through a better understanding we have since changed that view.  (Of course, this is not to say that all views can be changed.  Anything declared a Dogma or that has been part of Church teaching for the past two thousand years will not be changed).

 So, as you can see, The Catholic Church has always taught that abortion is a grave moral sin and that even if, for the sake of the argument, we were to say that She did used to teach that abortion was right, that does not change the fact that Catholics must hold to Her teachings of abortion today.  This shows that the argument that Pelosi and Biden give are both invalid and unsound.  I encourage both to understand and adhere to the Church’s constant teaching of the wrongness of abortion and I pray that Pope Benedict XVI urged Biden in their private meeting to do the same. 

---

[1] Associated Press.  “US VP Joe Biden meets with pope.”  The Boston Herald.  http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20110603us_vp_joe_biden_meets_with_pope/index.html, 6/3/11.

[2] [2] Associated Press.  “US VP Joe Biden meets with pope.”  The Boston Herald.  http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20110603us_vp_joe_biden_meets_with_pope/index.html, 6/3/11.

[3] Ertelt, Steven.  “Pro-Abortion “Catholic” Vice President Joe Biden Meets with Pope.”  http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/03/pro-abortion-catholic-vice-president-joe-biden-meets-with-pope/, 6/3/11.

[4] Ertelt, Steven.  “Pro-Abortion “Catholic” Vice President Joe Biden Meets with Pope.”  http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/03/pro-abortion-catholic-vice-president-joe-biden-meets-with-pope/, 6/3/11.

[5] Duin, Julia.  “Take that, Nancy Pelosi: Catholic history on abortion.”  The Washington Times.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/belief-blog/2008/Sep/02/take-nancy-pelosi-catholic-history-abortion/, 9/2/2008.

[6] Demarco, Donald.  “The Roman Catholic Church and Abortion: An Historical Perspective.”  http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3361

[7] Demarco, Donald.  “The Roman Catholic Church and Abortion: An Historical Perspective.”  http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3361

[8] Demarco, Donald.  “The Roman Catholic Church and Abortion: An Historical Perspective.”  http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3361

[9] Demarco, Donald.  “The Roman Catholic Church and Abortion: An Historical Perspective.”  http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3361

Don't like abortion, don't have one!

The above statement is stated quite often by pro-choicers: "If you do not like abortion then don't have one yourself. Don't force me, though, to adhere to your likes and dislikes."

The problem with this argument is that it usually assumes one of two things: it either assumes that abortion is not murder or it assumes moral relativism.

In terms of the first assumption, most people would agree that murder is wrong and that people should stop someone else from murdering another if they can. Thus, their argument, when taken to their logical conclusion, would actually end up permitting people from murdering others. "If you don't like murder then don't murder others. Don't force me to adhere to your likes and dislikes." But of course, whether or not we should murder is not based on whether or not we prefer it, for regardless of whether or not we do, murder is objectively wrong. Hence, their argument only assumes that abortion is not murder.

But if they assume that murder is only wrong for some, but that it is right for others then they assume something that is fallacious and/or unsound: moral relativism, which I critiqued in another post I made. 

So whenever someone says that statement to you, ask them if it is wrong for them to oppose those who seek to murder others.  If they adhere to the former assumption then it will be easy to point out their mistake.  And if they adhere to the latter assumption then point out to them how there are objective moral values.