Wednesday, March 7, 2012
The War on Women
While the radical feminists and pro-aborts like to attempt to argue that I, as a male, have no right to any opinion about abortion, I would submit that women might be interested in how abortion is being used throughout the world. Abortion is being used to destroy women, and while this is certainly "off-message", it might behoove those of the "pro-choice" persuasion just how cultures are exercising that choice, and how the philosophical assumptions that prop up abortion impact our thinking about infants as well.
The first point to make is this article by Msgr. Charles Pope and his analysis of Nicholas Eberstadt's article about The War on Baby Girls. Both are worth reading. But here is the summary. Globally, abortion is being used as a means of selecting the sex of a child, and the preference chosen around the world is exceeding tilted toward male children. Thus there is now an artificial imbalance between men and women in terms of numbers. In China this is particularly problematic, as forecasts have predicted that a very large number of men will not have the opportunity to marry.
Lest we think this is isolated to those "weird" Asian cultures this issue has reared its head in Britain of all places. While I don't know if the population shift is that bad, the practice itself is quite prominent. Fr. Longenecker with the notable commentary on this. This issue is hardly a local one, nor does it seem to be an anomaly for those who choose abortion. Even in countries where this sex selection abortions are banned it seems to happen anyway, and the law itself ignored.
At first I thought that this just illustrates the "hypocrisy" of the "pro-woman" feminist movement in the modern age. That abortion is the only sacrament and nothing can interfere with the reception of that sacrament, be it age, stage of pregnancy, or in this case, the sex of the "fetus."
But reflecting further I see why the silence is necessary from the pro-abortion position. To admit to the lopsided nature of the exercise of "choice" would surrender two major planks of the pro-abortion position.
The first is that if the "choicer" would admit that they are uncomfortable with this would raise a really uncomfortable question. Why is this disturbing? Why is the exercise of the "choice" under this circumstance "wrong" but the others "right?" If we suddenly admit that this might limit how and when "choice" can be exercised, then we have admitted that such a choice can be limited. And if so we would then need to think how and more importantly why such choice should be limited.
The second issue is that to admit that this is an issue is to admit that it is "human" girls being killed. Since the "fetus" is only a "potential" human, the couple who decided to exercise the "choice" of eliminating the "potential" human is not discriminating against women per se. They are only choosing which potential humans to bring to fruition. Thus from the perspective of the pro-choicer, this isn't really discrimination against women. Yet women are disappearing from the human race.
Finally lest we think that will only be an issue relating to abortion, let us finally see how the boundaries of when a "person" is not a "person." Out from Australia is a recent medical ethics journal about the morality of killing newborns. As abortion becomes the norm, the boundary of what constitutes an abortion will only expand. Thus it is likely that the killing of newborn girls (something that already takes place in China) will expand even further.
Far from freeing women, the abortion mindset allows for the killing of women in numbers not scene in history. The women of tomorrow will have to "choose" between the right of "choice" or their self-inflicted regulation to minority status.
But then again. I'm a male. So I don't need to be listened to. Right?
The first point to make is this article by Msgr. Charles Pope and his analysis of Nicholas Eberstadt's article about The War on Baby Girls. Both are worth reading. But here is the summary. Globally, abortion is being used as a means of selecting the sex of a child, and the preference chosen around the world is exceeding tilted toward male children. Thus there is now an artificial imbalance between men and women in terms of numbers. In China this is particularly problematic, as forecasts have predicted that a very large number of men will not have the opportunity to marry.
Lest we think this is isolated to those "weird" Asian cultures this issue has reared its head in Britain of all places. While I don't know if the population shift is that bad, the practice itself is quite prominent. Fr. Longenecker with the notable commentary on this. This issue is hardly a local one, nor does it seem to be an anomaly for those who choose abortion. Even in countries where this sex selection abortions are banned it seems to happen anyway, and the law itself ignored.
At first I thought that this just illustrates the "hypocrisy" of the "pro-woman" feminist movement in the modern age. That abortion is the only sacrament and nothing can interfere with the reception of that sacrament, be it age, stage of pregnancy, or in this case, the sex of the "fetus."
But reflecting further I see why the silence is necessary from the pro-abortion position. To admit to the lopsided nature of the exercise of "choice" would surrender two major planks of the pro-abortion position.
The first is that if the "choicer" would admit that they are uncomfortable with this would raise a really uncomfortable question. Why is this disturbing? Why is the exercise of the "choice" under this circumstance "wrong" but the others "right?" If we suddenly admit that this might limit how and when "choice" can be exercised, then we have admitted that such a choice can be limited. And if so we would then need to think how and more importantly why such choice should be limited.
The second issue is that to admit that this is an issue is to admit that it is "human" girls being killed. Since the "fetus" is only a "potential" human, the couple who decided to exercise the "choice" of eliminating the "potential" human is not discriminating against women per se. They are only choosing which potential humans to bring to fruition. Thus from the perspective of the pro-choicer, this isn't really discrimination against women. Yet women are disappearing from the human race.
Finally lest we think that will only be an issue relating to abortion, let us finally see how the boundaries of when a "person" is not a "person." Out from Australia is a recent medical ethics journal about the morality of killing newborns. As abortion becomes the norm, the boundary of what constitutes an abortion will only expand. Thus it is likely that the killing of newborn girls (something that already takes place in China) will expand even further.
Far from freeing women, the abortion mindset allows for the killing of women in numbers not scene in history. The women of tomorrow will have to "choose" between the right of "choice" or their self-inflicted regulation to minority status.
But then again. I'm a male. So I don't need to be listened to. Right?
Monday, March 5, 2012
Truth in Charity
Charity in truth. Truth in charity. Oftentimes we sacrifice one for the other. If we shy away from the truth, we do not have Charity. If we do not speak the truth with Charity, we do the Truth a disservice.
In the fight for religious freedom against the HHS mandate and beyond. we must always strive for both. As Catholics we have the responsibility to speak up for the truth. This is not so much for the sake of Truth. Truth ultimately will stand on its own. But for us to ignore our duty to the Truth is to coarsen our own conscience.
Obama is a tyrant. I do not use these words lightly. By attempting to coerce the Church to participate in evil he is usurping an authority that does not belong to him. This is tyranny at the very core of its definition.
This does not mean that he does not have legitimate authority. He is the President of the United States. And while as Americans we hold to the electoral process we as Catholics know that all authority is ultimately derived from God. Obama has legitimate authority. And because of this we as Catholics are obliged to obey him with regard to his legitimate authority.
The HHS mandate oversteps that authority by proclaiming that we must participate in grave evil. Obama is attempting to use his legitimate authority to usurp an authority that does not belong to him. As such it pertains to this, not only are we free to not obey but we MUST resist. To not do so is to lie to ourselves and the world.
Charity demands we speak the truth. If we do not speak the truth then we do not love. We love our country. It is our home. It is where our families live. It has since its inception the heart of liberty and freedom enshrined in the document of the Constitution. It is not perfect by any means. And as a country we have at times failed to live up to our ideals.
It is ultimately out of charity that we MUST speak out. It is precisely that we love our home that we speak truth to power. It is because of love that we have an obligation to the Truth. Our country, like ourselves, cannot live on lies.
The Church will survive the persecution of the Obama administration. She has outlived and taken down previous and more powerful empires. She has done this with the most powerful of weapons. Prayer and the witness of her saints. As Catholics we are surrounded by the witness of the martyrs.
But America will not. American cannot afford to be on the side of evil. She is but a human institution, and with human ideals. But those ideals, as great as they are, do not by definition guarantee continuity into the future. We must bear witness to the truth if there is any chance to save her.
And never lose hope. It is never too late.
In the fight for religious freedom against the HHS mandate and beyond. we must always strive for both. As Catholics we have the responsibility to speak up for the truth. This is not so much for the sake of Truth. Truth ultimately will stand on its own. But for us to ignore our duty to the Truth is to coarsen our own conscience.
Obama is a tyrant. I do not use these words lightly. By attempting to coerce the Church to participate in evil he is usurping an authority that does not belong to him. This is tyranny at the very core of its definition.
This does not mean that he does not have legitimate authority. He is the President of the United States. And while as Americans we hold to the electoral process we as Catholics know that all authority is ultimately derived from God. Obama has legitimate authority. And because of this we as Catholics are obliged to obey him with regard to his legitimate authority.
The HHS mandate oversteps that authority by proclaiming that we must participate in grave evil. Obama is attempting to use his legitimate authority to usurp an authority that does not belong to him. As such it pertains to this, not only are we free to not obey but we MUST resist. To not do so is to lie to ourselves and the world.
Charity demands we speak the truth. If we do not speak the truth then we do not love. We love our country. It is our home. It is where our families live. It has since its inception the heart of liberty and freedom enshrined in the document of the Constitution. It is not perfect by any means. And as a country we have at times failed to live up to our ideals.
It is ultimately out of charity that we MUST speak out. It is precisely that we love our home that we speak truth to power. It is because of love that we have an obligation to the Truth. Our country, like ourselves, cannot live on lies.
The Church will survive the persecution of the Obama administration. She has outlived and taken down previous and more powerful empires. She has done this with the most powerful of weapons. Prayer and the witness of her saints. As Catholics we are surrounded by the witness of the martyrs.
But America will not. American cannot afford to be on the side of evil. She is but a human institution, and with human ideals. But those ideals, as great as they are, do not by definition guarantee continuity into the future. We must bear witness to the truth if there is any chance to save her.
And never lose hope. It is never too late.
Friday, March 2, 2012
John Allen Jr.
who writes for the (sigh) National Catholic Reporter (c'mon John, just jump off the sinking ship!) has a fantastic article about three myths that you can do without. Shake off that mental rust.
H/T New Advent
H/T New Advent
What is persecution?
A few responses to my post about picking the Church over the world have shown that there is some confusion over what it is that the Church is claiming regarding the HHS mandate. Three errors seem to be at the forefront. One is that the Church is not undergoing "real" persecution because compared to other countries, the HHS mandate is a minor issue. Two is that it isn't really persecution because the Church, blessed by God, has the ability to fight back on some fronts. The third is that the Church is claiming the status of a victim. We will deal with all three.
The notion that the abuse must reach a certain level before the object of abuse can claim persecution is on the face of it absurd. If someone were to insult me or worse, assault me for my faith, this is persecution plain and simple. I am being subject to evil for the sake of my faith, and someone is inflicting evil on me for the sake of my faith.
Now of course the insults for the sake of my faith are relatively minor compared to my brothers in the Faith who suffer in places like China and in Islamic countries. It should be obvious to anyone that there is a level of persecution depending on the circumstances.
At the same time though this does not make the evil of persecution "not evil" or "ignorable" simply because other Christians have it worse. Evil is evil. And evil only begets more evil. When we do evil or allow evil we allow it to corrupt everything else it touches. And when we ignore it it will only grow, and we will have to make more excuses in order to continue ignoring it.
To say that it isn't "real" persecution simply because it is minor is a bit like the abusive husband saying to his wife, "Hey, at least you aren't married to Joe. He wails on his wife. I just slap you around a bit."
To the second that since the Church can fight back it is not persecution is just as absurd. That the abused wife can punch the abusive husband does not mean that the husband is not abusive. Abusiveness does not become less evil simply because the object has power. Again, evil is evil.
Third, there seems to be this notion that since the Catholic Church is stating rightly that this HHS mandate is persecution that we are claiming the status of victim. We are not. We are not powerless. For the Church to claim such would be to deny the power of God, through Whom all authority derives.
But likewise this does not mean that the state does not persecute us. The fact we can fight back means that we are being fought. And like all tyrants the Obama administration is attempting to usurp authority that does not belong to him. Ultimately he and those who follow him will fail. That doesn't mean that he won't try. And that his attempt to do so is evil.
No the Church is not a victim. Nor are we claiming such. We will prevail. We will succeed. The question is how much will we have to sacrifice. God willing, the lawsuits currently filed will prevail and overturn this evil and unconstitutional mandate. I'm not convinced the country will survive the persecution of the Church.
The notion that the abuse must reach a certain level before the object of abuse can claim persecution is on the face of it absurd. If someone were to insult me or worse, assault me for my faith, this is persecution plain and simple. I am being subject to evil for the sake of my faith, and someone is inflicting evil on me for the sake of my faith.
Now of course the insults for the sake of my faith are relatively minor compared to my brothers in the Faith who suffer in places like China and in Islamic countries. It should be obvious to anyone that there is a level of persecution depending on the circumstances.
At the same time though this does not make the evil of persecution "not evil" or "ignorable" simply because other Christians have it worse. Evil is evil. And evil only begets more evil. When we do evil or allow evil we allow it to corrupt everything else it touches. And when we ignore it it will only grow, and we will have to make more excuses in order to continue ignoring it.
To say that it isn't "real" persecution simply because it is minor is a bit like the abusive husband saying to his wife, "Hey, at least you aren't married to Joe. He wails on his wife. I just slap you around a bit."
To the second that since the Church can fight back it is not persecution is just as absurd. That the abused wife can punch the abusive husband does not mean that the husband is not abusive. Abusiveness does not become less evil simply because the object has power. Again, evil is evil.
Third, there seems to be this notion that since the Catholic Church is stating rightly that this HHS mandate is persecution that we are claiming the status of victim. We are not. We are not powerless. For the Church to claim such would be to deny the power of God, through Whom all authority derives.
But likewise this does not mean that the state does not persecute us. The fact we can fight back means that we are being fought. And like all tyrants the Obama administration is attempting to usurp authority that does not belong to him. Ultimately he and those who follow him will fail. That doesn't mean that he won't try. And that his attempt to do so is evil.
No the Church is not a victim. Nor are we claiming such. We will prevail. We will succeed. The question is how much will we have to sacrifice. God willing, the lawsuits currently filed will prevail and overturn this evil and unconstitutional mandate. I'm not convinced the country will survive the persecution of the Church.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)