Fortunately, Abortion “Rights” are Disappearing

The New York Times recently came out with an editorial that essentially says how all of the recent pro-life laws that have been coming out nationwide is affecting the “right” for a woman to get an abortion (and the editorial obviously sees this as a bad thing). 

There are a few things the editorial brings up that I would like to address, because it is obviously important to the writer that these things are brought up.

The writer shows a graph and describes that the graph shows “five most harmful restrictions” that have been made to abortion so far (I do not consider these things to be as “harmful” to the pro-choice movement as the writer believes, but that is for another debate).  One is “mandatory waiting periods.”  The writer does not go into why this is bad, but I would imagine she believes it is bad because it forces a woman to have to endure a pregnancy for longer than she would otherwise have to.  However, it is quite well known that women who become unexpectedly pregnant go in for an abortion, often coerced by others, with little or no knowledge of what the abortion procedure truly is and what one is truly aborting.  Thus, these waiting periods give the women more of a chance to better understand what they are getting into instead of rushing into something not truly understood.

The second restriction is “demeaning ‘counseling’ sessions lacking a real medical justification.”  I don’t see how discussing the “surgical procedure,” as the pro-choice movement refers to it, is in any way demeaning.  It shows that the woman will be truly getting a well-rounded view of what can be done in relation to her pregnancy.  And in terms of it lacking a medical justification, I don’t see how this is a medical issue.  This is more of a response to a lack of abortion “counselors” not giving a truly well-rounded list of options for women outside of abortion.

The third restriction is “parental consent or notification laws that pose a particular hardship for teenagers from troubled homes, including incest victims.”  The writer essentially says that because some people will experience hardships with it that means that we should not implement the law.  However, there are significantly more people that will be hurt if there are no parental consent or notification laws, such as rape victims.  It also goes without saying that there are ways in which such teenagers from troubled homes and incest victims can be helped even with such laws in place (that’s what social service agencies are there for).  Lastly, the condemnation of such laws only works if the unborn is not truly a human being with the right to life.

The fourth restriction is “needlessly onerous clinic ‘safety’ rules governing such things as the width of hallways and the amount of storage space for janitorial supplies.”  For one, the writer does not address the fact that there are less “onerous” rules proposed, such as emergency doors to be implemented and certain equipment to be provided for in the abortion clinics.  Not only that, but she assumes that these rules are onerous by simply implying that such rules are not needed, but if these clinics provide a “medical procedure” like abortion as often as they do then they should be forced to meet hospital requirements, for they must meet these requirements because they provide medical procedures as well. 

The fifth and final restriction is “prohibitions on abortion coverage in insurance policies.”  She does not suggest what exactly is wrong with it, so there’s nothing for me to say other than that I understand why a pro-choice believer should be afraid of such a restriction.  It would cost agencies like Planned Parenthood quite a number of clients if abortion was not provided within insurance coverage.

The writer goes on to say that the graph does not depict other “bad” aspects of abortion, such as the decrease of abortion providers.  This, of course, is based on perspective.  I consider this to be a marvelous development.

The most disappointing statement made in this article, though, was when the writer said that the most powerful strategy of pro-lifers is “to portray abortion as outside the mainstream and to cast women who have abortions as immoral outliers.”  For one, I do not know any pro-lifers who consider abortion as outside the mainstream.  If anything, many pro-lifers recognize all too well how common abortion is; it is why many are so driven to stop it.  Also, the implication that it is wrong that pro-lifers view women who have abortions as acting immorally assumes that they are not.  But if abortion is the murder of an unborn child then they are acting immorally.  (Of course, it should be said that moral culpability is lessened if the woman is unaware of how immoral her actions truly are)

I wish and pray that the New York Times would recognize how downright wrong abortion truly is.  They truly need to receive that message.

Fr. Frank Pavone

There has been quite a bit of talk about the recent departure of Fr. Frank Pavone from his typical duties within the Priests for Life ministry.  You can go here to see Bishop Zurek’s complete statement regarding his reasoning for calling Fr. Frank Pavone back, and you can go here to read Fr. Pavone’s statement regarding the issue.

Ultimately, I cannot say how this will play out.  It is, after all, more of an investigation then anything else.  So information will have to be sought out in order for both parties to be satisfied.  However, I feel that many in the pro-life community are misunderstanding the situation entirely.  Thus, there should be some clarification on a number of points:

1. Before anything else, Fr. Frank Pavone is a Catholic Priest in the service of Jesus Christ through the Church.  While this must include being pro-life, it is certainly not limited to it.  His bishop ultimately decides where he can go and what he can do.  All priests are subject to this and such a thing will not change.  Hence, if his bishop requires him to do something, even if it means at least temporarily leaving his position within Priests for Life, then he has a prima facie duty to do it, as all priests do. 
2. Second, regardless of whether or not this ends up being temporary or permanent, this does not change the fact that Fr. Frank Pavone will never leave the pro-life movement.  As a priest within the Catholic Church, he is essentially obligated to support the pro-life position.  This includes saying mass intentions for the unborn, praying for the unborn and those in the pro-life position, and lending his support to pro-life groups within the parish that he is assigned to.
3. Fr. Frank’s priestly duties were not taken away from him as a result of this.  He is still able to do all of his normal priestly functions, such as say mass. 
4. Bishop Zurek did not accuse Fr. Frank of financial mishandling.  Granted, he accused him of not listening to his bishop when he seemingly should have, but Bishop Zurek only addressed the finances of Priests for Life by essentially saying 1) that Fr. Frank did not turn them in to him when the bishop asked him to (which is in line with the bishop’s above accusation) and 2) that many people have been worried about the finances behind Priests for Life and the bishop would like to look into them and feels that he has the right to do so.  He does NOT outright accuse Fr. Frank Pavone or Priests for Life of mismanaged finances.

5.   It is without question that Fr. Frank Pavone has done so much for the pro-life movement.  But this is not the issue at-hand. 

Therefore, let us put our trust in Bishop Zurek, Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life, and the Catholic Church as a whole to approach this situation diligently, truthfully, and respectfully.  An answer will be found, but patience is needed amongst the pro-life community.

Update: You can go to http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/what-bothers-me-the-most-fr-pavone-pens-update-from-amarillo?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LifesitenewscomLatestHeadlines+%28LifeSiteNews.com+Latest+Headlines%29 to read an update that Fr. Pavone gave recently, which just further illustrates my above points while showing how amazingly dedicated he is to the pro-life position.

The Catholic Church is Stupid and Sexist?

The Abortion Gang website made a post recently that essentially accused the Catholic Church of not liking women that “think, read, and vote.”  This caught my eye immediately and I felt compelled to offer a reply. 

When I read the post, however, I was surprised to see just how little it talked about the Catholic Church.  The post is an interview that one pro-choicer has with another who grew up in the Catholic Church and became accepting of the pro-choice view while still trying to be a Catholic.  The interview focused mainly on the interviewee’s experience growing up in the 70s while living her pro-choice lifestyle.  It was only part way through the interview that she brings up her “Catholic” faith, and it is to this section that I will be responding to exclusively.

One of the first things she said was that she recognized the Catholic Church to be a “patriarchal thing,” meaning that the Catholic Church is an institution that suppresses women and makes men to be the better gender.  This, however, is far from the truth in relation to Catholic teaching.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in paragraph 2334: “In creating men ‘male and female,’ God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity.  Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of he personal God.”  And in paragraph 2335: “Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way” (emphasis mine).  This clearly shows that the Catholic Church considers both sexes to be equal in value and worth and, thus, proving wrong the idea that the Church is a “patriarchal thing.”

More in relation to contraception and abortion, however, the interviewee talked about her dismay in the Catholic Church for opposing the use of contraception and birth control “at every turn.”  She then goes on to say, “But I knew from a scientific standpoint that [abortion] wasn’t [murder].  Having that knowledge of how a fetus develops…I knew that at 12 weeks or whatever, that’s not a life.” 

First of all, even though “technology was better” over the course of time, that does not make that technology morally acceptable.  In other words, just because we have the technology to be able to do something now that we could not do in the past does not mean that we are morally right to do it.  That’s called begging the question.

Second of all, concerning her statement on science, science does not say whether or not abortion is “murder.”  Science shows that abortion brings about the death of a whole living human being, but whether or not such an action is murder or not is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.  Her statement that her knowledge of how a fetus develops led her to believe that at 12 weeks the fetus is not a life only implies that she believes personhood is established due to some acquired trait.  No acquired trait is acceptable, however, in establishing personhood, as the SLED argument shows. 

Also, as a side-note, you can go here to see some pictures of fetuses at various stages in development.  You’d be surprised how much a 12 week-old fetus looks like an infant.  It’s a shame that she thinks the science says anything other than that abortion does bring about the death of a living whole human organism.  Science today shows just that.  Whether or not that killing is wrong is a matter of philosophy.  The fact that she confuses the two is something that troubles me, for it seems to show her confusion in the area of abortion as a whole.

The interviewee then goes on to say that she does not love the church so much because “the male hierarchy of the church would do everything in their power to keep people in a box and ignorant.”  She then goes on to give a biblical argument for abortion: “I mean, in terms of the Church’s position on when life begins the Bible says that Adam wasn’t viable until God breathed life into him.  So you have to breathe to be a life, that’s what I believe.”

First, the fact that the Bible statement comes right after her statement about the male hierarchy seems to suggest that the male hierarchy is aware that the Bible says this but does not tell other about this view because it is seemingly destructive to the pro-life position.  She offers no evidence for this and is bordering lunacy.  Isn’t it at least possible to the interviewee’s mind that the reason why the Catholic Church doesn’t address that particular verse about God breathing life into Adam in relation to the abortion discussion is because the Catholic Church does not believe that the verse suggests what the interviewee says it suggests? 

And, indeed, it is the above suggestion that is, in fact, the case.  Yes, God did blow into Adam’s nostrils “the breath of life,” but it is to rip the passage out of context to suggest that this was a literal breathing that was done.  Breath is constantly used in a symbolic way.  For instance, in John 20: 22 Jesus breathed on his disciples and told them to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It’s amazing that people could see this passage as anything but symbolic.  The majority of the first couple chapters of Genesis is symbolic; to be sure, the symbolic language is in connection with physical events, but it is false to suggest from this that the symbolism should be taken literally.  Virtually all Jewish and Christian theologians understand that “breath” in this passage is symbolically saying that God created Adam and made him a living being, not that He made him a living being by giving him the ability to physically breathe.  Any other possible rendering of this passage is due to nothing short of horrible biblical exegesis.

The most sad part of the post, however, was when she said, “For me, at the end of the day, I think the biggest enemy of the Catholic church is a woman that thinks, reads and votes.  So they do what they can to prevent that.”

It’s difficult for me to even give such a statement the dignity of a response (but I’ll try my best).  For one, the fact that there are plenty of women within the Catholic Church who can and do think, read and vote and, yet, defend the Church’s teaching on abortion shows that at least not all such women oppose the Catholic Church’s teachings and, thus, end up being threats to the Church.  The interviewee also offers no evidence that the Catholic Church tries to stop women from being able to think, read, and vote.  Nothing produced by the Catholic Church at all, but especially within the past few decades, shows that She does not want the women to be able to think, read, and vote.  They only end up encouraging it, actually (as implied by the above CCC statements that men and women are equal).  If anything, she seems to suggest that the Church does this simply by opposing abortion.  Of course this is only the case if her arguments for abortion hold up, which, I believe I have shown above, to not be the case.

It’s a shame, but this interviewee is but one of a large portion of people, including Catholics, who feel that the Catholic Church is wrong in its position on abortion.  It’s a shame that they cannot see the truth behind the Church’s position.  And it’s a shame that so many Catholics who oppose the Church’s teaching on abortion think that they can still be considered Catholic.

Mental Health and Abortion ARE Related

There’s plenty of studies that show that the above statement is true, but just to bury the issue ahead, Dr. Priscilla K. Coleman produced a study showing that a hefty 10% of those who suffer from mental health issues after getting an abortion suffer from them precisely due to the abortion itself.  That’s a large percentage, and it was a rather large pool of people that she used to find this conclusion: over 800,000. 

Hopefully this puts this whole issue to rest.