More on Pro-Life...

The bottom line is this...this is a matter of choice.  One can choose to either support life 100% from conception to natural death or not.  It is a matter of philosophy on who one things deserves to be called a human person.  We all agree that one who is outside the womb is a human person.  However, the debate is ultimately is the one who is inside the womb a human person.  My contention is that it is.  My contention is that because life does begin at conception (it cannot be proven that it does not), that the person in the womb should be afforded the very same rights as any other human person.  That being said, there is no right for anyone, mother, doctor, nurse, father...whomever, to take that life.  To take that life is murder.  For what is the definition of murder?

To kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

Abortion fits that description.  If you have seen the way that an abortion takes place, it is 100% undeniable.  So this becomes the glaring elephant in the room that pro-aborts do not want to discuss.  Why?  Because they cannot, no matter the rhetoric, the data, the empirical proof, determine when life does actually begin.  Again, it is my contention that life begins at conception.

 http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/wdlb/wdlb.html

I can provide site after site.  And the argument isn't a medical one, for medicine is just science.  And science is merely one way of several to prove things.  So, when a proof is offered, it must be offered in total.  Life does begin at conception, not just medically, but also philosophically, theologically and ethically.

That being said, the question becomes the following.  Why should the mother have a right to kill her child in the womb?  Some will argue that it is the woman's body and because the unborn child is dependent upon the mother's body for life, it does not assert control over himself.  That logic is faulty.  There are many times in life wherein a human person is dependent upon the mother for life.  Immediately after childbirth until such time as the child can fend for himself and survive.  That is but the most obvious, but there are others.  Catastrophic injury, infirmity, old age, and the list goes on.

So, as we can see, the abortion issue doesn't really stand up very well, except to say that it is incredibly selfish on the part of the mother to kill the unborn child in her womb.  Why is this done?  In most cases it is done for either economic or emotional reasons.  Either the mother cannot fend for the child or the mother does not feel capable of caring for the child.  Neither of these reasons are valid.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html

With this idea, we see that the mother really isn't making a choice, but she is pressured by society to abort the child due to influences which surround her.  This is a radical shift in thinking regarding children.  Today's world does not look at procreation as a gift or as necessary, but rather as a want or a planned action.  Also, this view espouses that the right of the man is necessarily secondary, in the vast majority of cases.  While it is true that the mother must carry the child to term, it is the responsibility of both parents to raise the child.  If life begins at conception, then this rearing should begin immediately.  The role of the father should be that of support and nurture to the woman and the unborn child through the gestation period.  So, to say that the father has no role or that it is secondary, or even to argue that the impotice should absolutely lie with the woman alone, because it is her body is an absurd one.  Because of the bond that sex has between mammals, on a biological level and the bond that sex has on a couple rationally in humans, there is a very important role to be played by the father from the moment of conception to natural death.

Often times it is argued that because one supports the idea of natural death with regard to the lives of the mother and child that he is not compassionate or that he is at a minimum dispassionate for the mother.  This could not be further from the truth.  In actuality, there should always be an attempt to save the life of both the mother and the child.  However, culpability does play a part in this line of reasoning.  If all has been done to protect the life of the mother and the unborn child and one or both die naturally during the process, then there is nothing more which can be done ethically.  However, if the child is killed to save the mother or vice versa, then there must be a moral and ethical inquiry into why that person was killed.  In short, there is nothing that we can do to prevent death, but there is something that we can do to prevent killing.  This is probably one of the most compassionate views that can be taken.  It is also morally acceptable and it is ethical in its practice.  For what is the oath that a doctor takes?

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not", nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, be respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Abortion does not follow from what a doctor must do.  If one argues that this oath was abandoned in the US in the 1870s, fine, however the principle remains and a shortened version is used today.

I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;
I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity;
The health of my patient will be my first consideration;
I will respect the secrets which are confided in me;
I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
My colleagues will be my brothers and sisters;
I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, gender, politics, socioeconomic standing, or sexual orientation to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;
I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour

Abortion still doesn't follow.

Regarding contraception, the very same principles as above follow, with the addition that to knowingly contracept is ethically unsound.  The main reason being that it closes the sexual action to what it was designed to do.  It attempts, imperfectly to relegate the act of sex to that of a purely pleasurable endeavor.  This was never the intention, biologically, ethically, morally, or intellectually.  There must be a purpose to sex.  That purpose, philosophically is that sex fulfills, for the human person a complimentarity which exists on several levels.  First, it is procreative.  The main reason for sex is to perpetuate the species.  Secondly, it is a matter of fecundity.  It promotes within the female the role of being able to be fruitful.  This is a very important psychological mode for a woman.  Thirdly, it is a matter of fidelity.  It brings a couple together in a way which is wholly and completely giving on oneself to another, while continuing the bond which exists rationally.

When contraception is involved, there is a loss of one or more of these reasons of complimentarity.  Whereas, today's society doesn't necessarily accept these as being absolute, the truth behind them remains.  If the sexual action is to fulfill a purpose, any unnatural action which interrupts that is unjustifiable.

Speaking to responsibility of action leads one to understand that this is not merely an instinctual endeavor.  It is not merely rational either, but it is a compliment of both within the human person.  To corrupt one is to destroy the meaning behind it.  I am not saying that sex shouldn't be pleasurable.  It absolutely should be.  I am not saying that sex must be a negative.  To the contrary, it is a very positive and necessary thing.  However, to flip the script and accuse the proper application of sex as being negative is to misunderstand the very nature of what sex is.

Very strongly related to responsibility is the idea of abstinence.  Wherein one must be responsible in applying the sexual action, one must also realize that there is a time and a place where it is warranted and where it is not.  This is not expressly stipulated for sex, but also for any action.  To abstain from an action is not a negative, but rather in most instances it is neutral or positive.  With regard to sex though, the idea that one must abstain is often considered absurd or unattainable.  Why?  If abstinence is taught properly, it is the most viable way of preventing unwanted pregnancy, teaching proper sexual ethics, and understanding the importance of the bonds of the sexual union.  While there is most certainly a religious undertone regarding abstinence until marriage, that is part of what keeps the sexual action licit.  Marriage is, by it's very nature religious.  It isn't just Christian or Jewish or Islamic or Taoist, but it is religious.  Some view it as more sacrosanct than others, but the constant that remains is that it is a bond by which a man and woman give themselves to another.  This has perpetuated through all of history.  And the action which most properly binds that is sex.  This achieves the twofold end of marriage of which I have been speaking: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.  The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity. Abstinence fits in this because it follows with the principle of chastity.  The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy. "Man's dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end."  (Gaudium et Spes 17)

I do understand that this is not an easy task, but I also understand that it shouldn't be.  Self-mastery is a life long challenge and one which requires intimate growth and understanding.  I also understand that it can happen.  The human person is capable of accomplishing this and to simply assume that he cannot is to sell short the incomparable mind of the human person.  Chastity represents an eminently personal task; it also involves a cultural effort, for there is "an interdependence between personal betterment and the improvement of society."  Chastity presupposes respect for the rights of the person, in particular the right to receive information and an education that respect the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life.  While not all will embrace this ideal, that doesn't mean that one should just give up on promoting it.  If contraception can become the norm over time, why can abstinence not replace that, knowing the odds.

I'll close with this.  The negative connotation doesn't come from the pro-life movement, regardless of what some will say.  The pro-life movement has as it's agenda one thing and one thing only.  To promote life from conception to natural death.  The pro-life movement doesn't see sex as an oppressive endeavor, nor does it seek to limit those who wish to have sex.  To the contrary, the pro-life movement wants to see that sex is perpetuated.  However, the pro-life movement does support proper sexual ethics and the moral application of those ethics, as defined classically through contemporary society.  The perceived demonizing which takes place is that the pro-life movement holds accountable the actions of those who would not normally expect to be held accountable and that causes friction.  Society doesn't like to be told that it's practices need to be changed, especially when those practices lead to economic gain and control of a person's actions.

The pro-abortion movement does not seek the good of the person.  The movement advocates a morally questionable practice to limit births, to trivialize sex and to exact political and economic gain for the sole purpose of population control.  The pro-abortion movement is not looking out for the best interest of the woman, but rather the pro-abortion movement is looking to fund it's programs and it uses women to this end.  It has been said that nobody likes an abortion and that nobody wants to go through an abortion.  This comes from both sides.  If this is the case, then why does one side continue to provide them?

If contraception is not about population control, what is it about?  If contraception is not an outreach of the pro-abortion movement what is it's goal, standing alone?  If the end of sex is to procreate, how does contraception fit into that?  What is ultimately left at the end of the pro-abortion stance are questions.  What is ultimately left at the end of the pro-life stance is an answer.

I'll choose the answer.

Pro-Life Conversation...The Worm Turns...Part II

Continuing the conversation with Darcy from two days ago, it continues to make turns to the surreal...Again, Darcy will be in red.  I will be in black.  There is another entrant, J.c.  He will be in blue.  Read on:

Andy...you're an obviously intelligent person, and rather than harboring any animosity toward you via this debate, I'm actually starting to like you. :) My goal in continuing this thread is, again, not to change your views - it's apparent that you've been too powerfully indoctrinated for me to do that - but simply to point out a few fallacies in your arguments that may make you question them. 


RE: AIDS, overpopulation, and death in childbirth, my actual statement was this: "The harm that the pro-life, anti-contraception movement has wrought on the world through furthering the spread of AIDS, overpopulation, and death of women in childbirth is undeniable." Upon reading this, you then accused me of "blaming the pro-life movement for the spread of AIDS. You are blaming the pro-life movement for overpopulation. And you are blaming the pro-life movement for the death of women in childbirth." Can you distinguish between what I actually said and what you conflated that to mean in your own mind? If you can't, then I really am wasting my time, because I refuse to have someone put words in my mouth that I did not say. I did NOT say that the pro-life movement CAUSED these problems. I did say that it is making them all much worse. 


RE: abstinence. If an organization wants to promote abstinence only education and policy, then that organization MUST prove that it actually WORKS. The article I shared with you cited the evidence proving that, at best, abstinence only programs had very little effect, if any. Can you find any data that proves that such teachings actually do lesson the frequency of sexual encounters on a large scale and over the long term? If you can, I would be happy to review it. If, as the evidence seems to show, they do not lessen the frequency of sexual encounters, then the anti-contraception movement IS causing direct harm by denying condoms to populations affected by AIDS. The CDC, among dozens of other reputable organizations, all cite evidence that correct condom use is highly effective in reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/basic/index.htm#prevention. By denying them this powerful tool simply because of your unsubstantiated rhetoric, you are part of the problem, not the solution. 


RE: Margaret Sanger and birth control pills. You quoted her as saying "no one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions." I disagree that it's the answer for all abortions, because birth control can fail. (Before you jump all over this and claim it proves your argument against it, no on ever said birth control was infallible, but statistically it's disproportionately more effective than abstinence only at preventing both unwanted pregnancies and STDs.) But how can you argue against the fact that birth control pills prevent unwanted pregnancies, thus reducing the need for abortion? 


For the sake of argument, let's assume that you're right that Margaret Sanger had questionable ethics regarding eugenics and racism. Do you have ANY proof that birth control today is being used for these purposes? Most of the founding fathers of our country owned slaves. By your reasoning, we should throw out the Constitution simply because of their flaws. One of my husband's favorite opera composers is Richard Wagner, a noted anti-Semite. Does this mean that my husband himself is anti-Semitic? Show me any kind of a link between Margaret Sanger's views and today's use of the birth control pill, proving with evidence and facts that people are using it to reflect that kind of racism. 


In closing, Andy, I am not at all saying you shouldn't encourage people to strongly consider life. I believe there are ways to empower and encourage women so that abortion becomes unnecessary and perhaps even extinct. Wouldn't that be amazing? What's worse, birth control or abortions? Is it really realistic to expect any mammalian species to completely abstain from a biological, heavily hormonally programmed survival instinct, simply because the thought of them having sex is unpalatable to us? And by realistic, has it EVER been proven that that abstinence works? We need to examine the actual, international data of population, mortality, and disease prevention/spread. If you were arguing for women to choose or consider alternatives to birth control, I would have no problem with your position and we could go our merry ways. But when you, as part of the pro-life/anti-contraception movement, work to impede women's access to other options that you might happen to disagree with but that have been shown to be highly effective, then you are, once again, part of the problem.

Darcy,  When you speak of the harm of the two movements, that is blame. When one speaks of blame there must be causality. Otherwise there is nothing to blame. Your logic doesn't follow. I also didn't say that you said that they caused these problems either. What I said was that you are blaming the the two movements. Let's be honest about that.

Regarding AIDS, let me ask you this point blank then, if you think that I am conflating your words. Brass tacks.

What is the undeniable harm that the pro-life, anti-contraception movement has wrought on the world through furthering the spread of AIDS, overpopulation, and death of women in childbirth?

Answer that question without laying blame on the two movements. Just sayin'....

Regarding abstinence, the definition is this: any self-restraint, self-denial, or forbearance. So, let me ask you one question that you must certainly be able to answer....if one denies himself from having sex, what is the percentage that a pregnancy will occur? 0%. There doesn't need to be any scientific study. To not have sex will lead to not having an unwanted pregnancy.

Everything that I've said regarding Margaret Sanger is 100% accurate. The information I have given you is directly attributed to her. It is all verifiable. If you doubt my claims do the research. If you choose not to do the research, well, that is your prerogative, but don't bemoan my statements. I don't need to go on about who she was or what she advocated.

Finally, you ask: Is it really realistic to expect any mammalian species to completely abstain from a biological, heavily hormonally programmed survival instinct, simply because the thought of them having sex is unpalatable to us?

I'll answer. Yes, it is realistic. We are not just any mammalian species. We have the ability to reason and because we have the ability to reason (which no other species, mammalian or not does not have), we must realize that there is more to any given action than just the instinctual. And because of our ability to reason, we have the obligation to be responsible. Also, where did I say anything about completely abstaining from sexual relations? I've been talking about being responsible in the use of it. And I've been talking about the moral aspects of it. But nowhere have I said anything about the complete abstinence of it.

J.c. enters the conversation thusly;


 This debate has become quite bizarre to watch, mostly because of the absolutist positions being asserted by Andy, taking into account now options for gray areas and different realities from your own. For example:


1) Not everyone believes as you that "life begins at conception" or believes it unqualifiedly. You may have a strong feeling on the issue, but that does not give you or others sharing your belief the right to legislate on top of those who disagree with what constitutes human life.


2) The Supreme Court does not legislate. Constitutional Law 101. And using that language is something both parties and many others cling to as a marketing mantra to piss off the other side... and it's meaningless.


3) Some people - some I know - have been perfectly content with their decision to end a pregnancy. Asserting that Abstinence is the only means of pregnancy avoidance is true... but naive and controlling. You may think sex without potential consequence is fine, but others think that sexual conduct is a beauty that makes us uniquely human, and commonly mammal. If you educate people - educate them well - about what sex IS, and it's possible consequences and why they may occur, instead of making sex a boogeyman, or worse, that it's restricted to only your taste of situation, is so controlling I think you may not be able to receive that notion.


4) There are people who are not like you. There are people who think people have souls, people who don't, people who believe the soul comes at birth, people who love their spouses and don't want to lose them to pregnancy, people who want to live through a pregnancy that could kill them and believe they have a RIGHT to live. We are not in any way supposed to feel beholden to your disagreement or those like you. The purpose of a government set up as ours is to have the majority rule while PROTECTING the rights of the minority... even if yours becomes the minority.


5) "Birth Control Pill" or "The Pill" is a colloquialism; Marina, or IUDs or other items are merely trade names and marketing gimmicks. But ALL can serve psychological, and physiological ends, not just your narrow (and I presume indoctorate) translation.


6) I'm not as calm as my friend Darcy at times; and believe it or not, I actually don't like the idea of abortion. But I’m not arrogant enough (sorry to be so harsh) to believe I must therefore tell others how to live, or worse how to die. Which is why I'm against war, guns, and the death penalty; are you against those as well? 


7) Life is precious; but I'm not so awesome I can tell you or anyone else how to define it. But as much as I know I have my opinions, and I think my assertions are relevant, I'm a man. And we have no damn business meddling in a woman's body without her express permission. That includes telling her she must remain pregnant; I may not like the idea of abortion, but as a Man, I view telling here what to do with her body in those conditions tantamount to rape - forcible control of her without her consent. You may equate Sex with a desire/permission/consent to procreate, but sex is not the only kind of rape.



J.c., My position is not absolutist. Not in the slightest. It is logical. Big difference. I would like for you to prove that life does NOT begin at conception. I am asking you to prove the negative, because that is what must be done. I don't have to prove what is, however you do have to prove that which you believe is not. So, while you offer a platitude as to my "absolutist" position, it really isn't. What it is, is a logical and medical position which is, in fact, provable.

I am very well aware that SCOTUS does not legislate, but in this matter they have, de facto. Politicians and lawmakers use the Roe v. Wade decision as a law. It is not. So, while they don't techinically legislate, in this instance...they did. So, if we stop speaking about abortion as "law of the land" and start speaking about it as a mere decision, then we can start talking about SCOTUS not legislating. BTW, if you think that I was imprecise by not making that distinction, you'd be wrong. It is an assumed position on both sides of the argument. One in favor and the other against.

How is being abstinent controlling? IDGI. What I do get is that abstinence is a choice made by one or both of the parties to NOT have sex. This isn't a control mechanism, this is the most effective way NOT to have an unwanted pregancy. It is also incredibly mature and responsible. If there is a control mechanism involved, it is self-control. Not oppression.

At no place have I talked about sex being a "boogeyman." To the contrary, sex is a necessary action to perpetuate the species. But, it is more, because we are rational beings. Sex is also involves fidelity and fecundity. When those aspects are joined with the procreative nature, then sex is properly ordered, philosophically, morally and responsibly to the human person. Any other way is to limit the rational aspect, which is just as important to the human person as the instinctual nature.

I am very well aware that there are people who are not like me. However, that doesn't mean that I can't have a conversation with another person and get them to understand an objective truth. Because they don't or won't understand said truth doesn't mean that I demonize them, but rather it means that I must attempt to continue the conversation until such time as they do understand. At that point they can either accept or not, what the view is that I hold. You seem to think that I'm using some sort of chains to hold a person down. Hardly. What I'm doing is to give him a different view and one that is logically valid and logically sound. It's called right reason. It isn't political, it isn't religious. It simply is the proper way to think objectively in the world.

My indoctorate view of "the pill." That's an interesting way of putting it, but my view of the pill is one which is supported in many medical and philosophical circles. So, while you might think that it is "indoctorate" (which btw, I'm not sure is an actual word; I looked in two dictionaries and online and couldn't find it), there are more than a few who understand that "the pill" is ordered primarily to one thing. Regulating births. And this regulation is not natural, it is drug induced and therefore it is an unnatural means by which one regulates said birth.

Arrogance. Nice, another ad hominem. I'll say it again, this time to you. To start name calling doesn't do anything to support your position. You were doing ok until then, but as you can see, I've not resorted to calling you, Darcy, Andrea, or anyone else names....yet, I'm being treated in a libelous way.

Obviously, I'm a man as well, but last time I checked it takes a man to procreate. Once his seed (I'll keep it clean on facebook) inseminates a woman, he has as much right to what goes on, because it is as much his DNA as it is the womans. It is a grave misconception to say that a man loses that right.

As for the rape analogy that you are trying to pass off, well, that is just absurd. The defintion of rape is: the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. That is what is meant by rape. What you're trying to equate is a use of the word which by definition is considered to be an archaic definition and one which is not used any longer. I consider that, for this discussion to have no weight. Otherwise, my "abolutist" views must also be considered with the same weight.

Pro-Life Conversation...The Worm Turns...

This photo started a conversation on pro-life.  My counterpart Darcy will be in red and I will be in black.

The caption started this.

The caption is:  Very powerful picture and message...This is what we all looked like at 12 weeks in the womb. Legal to kill in all 50 states. Anyone think its not a person? Pass this along. It literally might save a life. 

My counterpart is named Darcy ...she begins with this:

What if it takes the life of the woman carrying it? It's not just one life at stake...It's a hugely complicated issue, made more ridiculously complicated by the many who are simultaneously against reproductive rights AND want to limit women's access to birth control. Hello? The single most effective cure for most non-health-related abortions is preventing the unwanted pregnancies in the first place! I think this is more about controlling women and not wanting them to have sex at all. (Which is hilarious, since Viagra is covered by so many insurance companies - so who are all these men having sex with in the first place?) Sorry, this whole mess has me very emotional.


To which I responded:


 Ok, Darcy, you ask, what about the mother. If the mother dies to save the life of the baby, then she dies a natural death. If the baby goes with her, then the baby dies a natural death. In both of those cases the life was not exterminated due to unnatural means, ie abortion.

There is nothing about controlling women. That is an absurd argument. Actually, the best way for controlling unwanted pregnancy is to not have sex. A novel concept I know, but nevertheless it is what is most responsible. It is also the only way 100% of the time to avoid pregnancy.

We do not have the right to take another life, regardless of the means. This includes abortion. If the child in the womb is a human person, then should it not be afforded the same rights as any other human person?

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

Andy...maybe life does begin at conception. But as soon as any life depends on another life for its survival, then the issue of privacy enters the picture. If someone with a rare blood type that I happen to be a good match for desperately needs my blood for survival, that person does not have the right to demand that s/he use my body's resources to in order to survive. Birth control pills are used for many other purposes other than avoiding pregnancy, by the way. So you're saying that as long as the mother dies a "natural death" - that could have been prevented - then it's okay? Are you aware that the medical term abortion simply means "termination of pregnancy", regardless of whether it was ended by medical or natural means?


 Darcy, there is no maybe to it. Life does begin at conception. And there are many times during life where one is dependent upon another for survival. An infant doesn't have the ability to survive on it's own, so you have the right to drop it in a dumpster? I don't think so. An elderly stroke victim can no longer care for himself, therefore he has lost the right to life? I don't think so.



You're comparing apples to oranges when you speak about blood types v. the life of an unborn child. The person in the womb does have the right to life and that right is not incumbent upon the wants of the mother. The obligation of that mother is to care and nurture that child.

What is the main purpose of a birth control pill? I don't hear it being called a period regulator pill. I don't hear it being called a hormone suppressor pill. It is a birth control pill. That is a fallacy and a bad argument to say that there are other uses for the pill. Bottom line, the pill is designed for one thing, the regulation of births in an unnatural way. It is a drug. And it is a drug which is aimed at one thing, population control. That was the end when it was developed, that is the end now.

I am aware that the term abortion means this according to American Heritage dictionary: Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

According to American Heritage Medical Dictionary: The expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it is viable.

So, I'd say it means a little more than just "termination of pregnancy."

Anti-choice...interesting use of words. What are those pro-choice people choosing, exactly? Answer. They are choosing to support the ending of a life by unnatural means. What are those who are "anti-choice," to use your words choosing not to do? They are not supporting the cessation of the ending of life by unnatural means. This isn't a choice issue.

 As for the argument that 77% are men...well let's look at this: In 2011, the last time Gallup did a study on abortion views, an equal percentage of men and women polled said that they believed abortion was “morally wrong”. 51% of both genders agreed on this. Furthermore, 5% more women than men felt that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. Nearly a quarter of all women polled would be in favor of making abortion illegal in all cases.

The 77% statistic is based on the fact that there are more MEN elected to public office than women. This is true for both Democrats and Republicans. If you were going to make a percentage for “leaders” that are pro-abortion, it would be pretty close to the same thing.

If you look at the leaders of the major pro-life organizations, many of them are women. Some examples include women such as Abby Johnson, Live Action’s own Lila Rose, Charmaine Yoest who is President of Americans United for Life, Carol Tobias who is President of National Right to Life, Marjorie Dannenfelser who is President of SBA List, Concerned Women for America, and Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The idea that having a uterus is the only way you can have a valid opinion on abortion ignores the genetic truth that a baby is just as much the father’s as the mother’s. In a world where we expect men to take responsibility for their actions, it makes no sense that a father has no way to protect their children in the womb. If women want to be treated “equal” to men, then they should be required to take responsibility for the children they create – at least for 9 months.

I just don't buy your hype. It doesn't follow.

Andy...I have no delusions about changing your mind about any of this, but I do feel the need to correct you on several points. 

I never said that men aren't allowed to have opinions on women's pregnancies. But that men feel so entitled to LEGISLATE (as political leaders) - or push for legislation (anti-choice leaders) - about something that will never happen to them seems ludicrously unfair. It's like me, a totally privileged white woman, telling a black person what they're supposed to feel about racism. How presumptuous of me to think I could possibly know what it's like to be black. Likewise, these men will never know what it's like to be pregnant. Perhaps this doesn't matter to you, as you seem to have so little compassion for women who find themselves in possession of an unwanted pregnancy, or a pregnancy that threatens their lives. 

It is true that there is a causal relationship between poverty and abortion rate. Census data as well as international empirical evidence shows an undeniable causal relationship between overpopulation and poverty. Currently, minorities comprise a large percentage of the poverty demographic in our country. Making birth control more accessible to poorer communities is not an evil plot to eradicate minorities. That is so patently ridiculous I don't even know what else to say about it. If you think that providing access to birth control is the same as forced sterilization or legislating limits on the number of children you can have, then obviously I am wasting my time pointing these rather obvious facts out to you. 

Yes, the birth control pill is commonly known as such, and it is also known by its more commonly used moniker "the pill". I know *scads* of women, personally, who use the pill for reasons other than birth control. It's an excellent regulator of hormones and is thus used treat PMS, ovarian cancer, estrogen dominance, endometriosis, and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). Perhaps you don't care about these diseases. I hope for your sake no woman you ever care about ever has one of them. 

Andy, I wish you well. I do not wish to continue this debate because, again, I suspect these facts and points of evidence will do little to get past your desire to believe what you believe.

See Darcy, there is where we differ. I do hope to change your mind and it isn't a delsuion. I sincerely hope that you are open enough to see the horrors of the abortion movement in this country and around the world. So, I'll begin there. That is a huge point and I make no bones about it. I don't wish for any human person to be subject to an abortion, mother, father, or child.

You assumed as much by saying what you said about men though. Your stats were intentionally misleading. You can go on and on about legislating this and legislating that, but the last time I checked, it was SCOTUS which legislated abortion in 1973. And the last time I checked it was an all male bench. So, let's not play the legislation game. It is a house of cards and it is an appeal to authority which just doesn't work. Also, to use your analogy, a psychatrist can never REALLY help a crazy person, becuase the psychatrist isn't crazy nor has he been crazy himself. Poppycock. Notice that the only one in this conversation who is making distinctions of sex is you? I am speaking of the human person and I am being inclusive of all persons, while a man can never have the sensory feeling of being pregnant, he can certainly empathize with the woman who is going through the pregnancy. 

And btw, how dare you assume I have no compassion. I have more compassion that you can possibly EVER know. To make a blanket statement like that is just plain rude. I have spent a good number of years as a sidewalk counselor and have worked with many women and men who have been faced with abortion. One of my very good friends has had an abortion, something she regrets daily. And another friend, who is an MD, rescued a baby girl who was discarded during an abortion and she is now a happy and healthy 16 year old. So, let's not put on any airs....you have no right to assume my level of compassion or lack thereof. I have spent the better part of 20 years in front of Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills speaking, praying and talking with those who would or did not have abortions. The ad hominem attack lessens your argument. You were doing better (albeit only slightly) before you started attacking my person.

Making birth control available to minorities is EXACTLY an evil plot to eradicate minorities. I'd have you read Margaret Sanger. You'll be shocked at what the founder of Planned Parenthood has to say. Not only was she a racist and a supporter of the KKK, but also Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded. In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating. Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals. So, please don't think me a fool. I know exactly what the purpose of birth control is about. I also know that while Planned Parenthood claims to distance themselves from some of Sanger's views, they still view her as a viable source for "reproductive health." Not a good place to be and not a good mark on the part of birth control advocates. Not to mention the very name...birth control. By default, if one controls births, then he is controlling the population. The facts aren't quite as obvious as they seem on your end now are they and they are a little skewed...plus, you haven't really given me any "facts" yet...just your opinion. Just sayin'...

As a matter of fact Darcy, more than a few of the women I am close to have had to deal with these issues. My sister included. The interesting thing...most of them (not all, because not everyone will buy into what I'm sharing with you) found a way to deal with those issues, including ovarian cancer WITHOUT resorting to birth control pills. Again, to assume that I don't care or that I don't have compassion severely weakens your position and simply paints you as someone who must tear me down as a person, rather than discussing the topic. I have as much care and compassion as the most liberal person you know.

Finally Darcy, if you don't wish to continue this discussion, fine. I have worked my way through this issue many times. I am open to discussing it as many times as necessary to show the fallacy which exists within it. Am I convinced that you're right? No. Can you convince me to abandon the need to support unborn, innocent babies like the one in the photos above? I doubt it. But if you think that I do this to spite women or to oppress them, well...you're not only wrong, but you're missing the point.

I am always available. I will always make time to discuss this issue with anyone who wants to have it. Good day!

As another bit of support for my position on birth control being a way to eradicate minorities, Sanger said: We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. (Letter to Clarence Gamble, 1939). 

That is exactly the reason for birth control. Sanger's view on this goes on in her book, Family Limitation (catchy, no?): no one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions.

Yes, there is something truly depraved about the abortion movement. And it isn't men who oppose it.

 Wow, Andy. The harm that the pro-life, anti-contraception movement has wrought on the world through furthering the spread of AIDS, overpopulation, and death of women in childbirth is undeniable. Research data proves that "abstinence only" programs do not work. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html)

I questioned your compassion because in a former comment, you alluded that it would be preferable that the woman die naturally rather than have an abortion to save her life. This, at least by my definition, is not compassionate. 

Clearly, Andy, you and I are at an impasse, and while I am amused that you thought you were going to change my mind with your highly questionable propaganda and pro-life hype, I do appreciate your taking the time to illustrate to me just how far we need to come as a country with regard to women's reproductive choice and health. Thank you, and have a good night. Respond if you like, but I am done.

 Sources on Third World Countries and contraception and abortion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12281360

Darcy, Let me make sure that I am not misunderstanding you. You are blaming the pro-life movement for the spread of AIDS. You are blaming the pro-life movement for overpopulation. And you are blaming the pro-life movement for the death of women in childbirth. Ok. Where to start. Every single one of those claims is unprovable and unfounded. 

1. The spread of AIDS is due to one thing, sexual promiscuity. Had abstinence played any part in that and there would be a much less rampant spread of AIDS. A secondary point is that it was spread by bad blood transfusions, had those who were positive been honest with the doctors and disclosed their conditions, then perhaps that too would have been less, but it wasn't the pro-life movement which furthered this.

2. Overpopulation. According to whom? Who's standard are we applying this by. Russia's? The USA's? China's? Who exactly is the standard and who's society is the basis for this? Again, regardless of your answer, the pro-life movement cannot be blamed for this. There is a concept called continence which promotes responsibility within marriage with regard to the sexual action. There does come a time when the sexual action is neither necessary nor is it warranted. Love can develop from simply the erotic into agape. Or a love of the other which goes beyond simply the physical. The physical is important, please don't misunderstand, but it is not the end all be all of a relationship.

3. Death of women in childbirth. Really? Women have been dying in childbirth forever. This isn't a matter of pro-lifers causing anything.

Those arguments hold no water. They are absurd and they are specious, at best.

Because I support natural death rather than killing or murder, I am somehow uncompassionate? C'mon...please be intellectually honest about this. That argument is not only a stretch it is completely out of the realm of decency. Honestly.

I am sad that you think that this was a joke or something of amusement. I can assure you that it is not. I can back up any claim I have made with fact. I can provide you with proof after proof after proof. My motive is clear and my motive is honest. It is also utterly simple. To protect the life of the innocent human person in the womb, while promoting the dignity of the parents. I can assure you there is no propaganda, it is clear fact and sustainable truth, which does not compromise the life of the innocent human person.

Regarding your WaPo article, it is specious and logically unsound because in one sentence it states: This study isn't rigorous enough to show whether or not [abstinence-only] education works.

Then turns around and says: Abstinence-only was an experiment and it failed.

There is no basis for that AND the final quote is unsourced...absolutely unsound. The premise doesn't follow to the conclusion.

With regard to the second article, it is nonsensical. It makes no sense and it has very little to do with this conversation. If you can expound upon the second article, I would be all ears...

Andrea Hines Cutlip, I have no problem with you leaving this up. Actually, it is my hope that you do. It is important to understand that everything I've said is quantifiable and everything I've said is supportable as fact.

Ordinariate Mass Time in Des Moines, Iowa

I had a conversation last night with Father Seraiah of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter.  The new Anglican Use priest, in case you weren't aware of his name.

He is going to start having a regular Anglican Use Mass on Sunday mornings at St. Anthony's at 10:00am, in the crypt (basement) for now.  If there is enough support, he will petition Bishop Pates for a more stable place, but for the time being, this is where he will start.

Father Seraiah would like to invite any and all to assist at this Mass.  This does fulfill your Sunday obligation, it is 100% fully and completely Catholic.  It is a different "rite," so there will be differences from both the Novus Ordo and the TLM, but like assisting at a Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy, it is fully compliant with Holy Mother Church.  Please feel free to come and support the Ordinariate as much as possible and as often as you wish.

Also, I do believe that Father Seraiah will be available to visit after Mass and talk about the Ordinariate.

On a personal note, I've been doing a lot of studying over the last several months, with regard to the Ordinariate.  From what I've gathered and from the impressions that I have received, not only in conversations with Fr. Seraiah, but also in some contacts that I've made, this is a VERY traditional mindset.  The mindset dates clear back to the Anglican separation from Rome, without the "royal heresy" influence.  What am I getting at?  Well, the mindset is almost a medieval Catholic mindset unencumbered by Modernism.  So, parts feel very ancient, but at the same time, parts feel very in tune with what traditional minded Catholics are looking for in their search for orthodoxy.

This concept is very fresh.  This concept is very old at the same time.  While the Mass is in English, it is not modern.  It is an Elizabethan English which is very high.  And the liturgy itself, has the potential of being very high as well.  It will just take some time to establish that.  So, there must be a little patience as this takes off.  The theology is 100% Catholic.  The dogmas and doctrines of the Church are held from a traditional point of view.  Much of the "ambiguity" which came after Vatican Council II is not present, because they have not been influenced by the theology which emerged after Vatican Council II.  I will let Fr. Seraiah expound upon that more though, but those are the impressions that I received.

In short, I see this new venture of the Church having a slightly different feel.  By that I don't mean a feel that isn't Catholic, but rather one which has a slightly different philosophy.  And that, friends, is ok.  What do I mean?  Think of it this way...the Church from the time of Trent has really taken on a Thomistic philosophy (St. Thomas Aquinas).  It embraced the scholastic methods and mentality of philosophy.  And the theology of the Church followed.  That is the way of things.  With the mindset of the Ordinariate, it follows a much more Augustinian philosophy (St. Augustine of Hippo).  And the theology has followed that.  Is either view wrong?  No, as long as both are in communion with the Holy See.  Are both valid?  Yes, as long as both are in communion with the Holy See.  Are both licit?  Yes, as long as they are in communion with the Holy See.

As I said, this is a new venture.  This is something that will not be for everyone, but if I might be so bold...I think that this is something that everyone should try.  Just as I think that everyone should try any of the other Uniate Churches (Sui Juris, if I must be politically correct) when they get a chance.  Catholicism, by definition and by tradition, is universal.  The Church should cater to all men, while holding on to the truths of dogma and doctrine, theologically.  But the disciplines can certainly be diverse.

Please think about assisting in the coming weeks.  Or even assisting this weekend.  As I said, it is at St. Anthony's this Sunday at 10am, in the crypt (basement).  It has to start someplace.  And it has to start with someone.  I think enough of each one of you that I am inviting you on behalf of Fr. Seraiah to come assist at his Mass and experience a new form of worship within Holy Mother Church.

The Passing of Deacon David Wadle

Death hits hard.  It hits hardest when the life is taken needlessly.  People die in accidents, people die from disease.  People die.  That much we can be certain.  Sometimes we forget to see that death isn't the end, but rather that death is merely the next step in our journey to salvation.

There isn't much that can be said in the way of condolence immediately following the passing of someone.  what can be said is that he loved his family.  He loved his friends.  He loved his Church.  He loved his Church so much that he sought ordination into the permanent diaconate.  He was a good servant.  He did his job.  He fulfilled two vocations.  First to Pat.  Second to his Church.

I always quote Wisdom 3:1-9 when someone passes away.

[1] But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and the torment of death shall not touch them. [2] In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure was taken for misery: [3] And their going away from us, for utter destruction: but they are in peace. [4] And though in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality. [5] Afflicted in few things, in many they shall be well rewarded: because God hath tried them, and found them worthy of himself.
[6] As gold in the furnace he hath proved them, and as a victim of a holocaust he hath received them, and in time there shall be respect had to them. [7] The just shall shine, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds.[8] They shall judge nations, and rule over people, and their Lord shall reign for ever. [9] They that trust in him, shall understand the truth: and they that are faithful in love shall rest in him: for grace and peace is to his elect.

We must keep in mind that this is not the end.  We know that they are in peace.  Their hope is our hope.  Immortality.  It is my prayer that God found David worthy of Himself.

This was the attitude of David:

Don't grieve for me, for now I'm free!I follow the plan God laid for me.I saw His face, I heard His call,I took His hand and left it all...I could not stay another day,To love, to laugh, to work or play;Tasks left undone must stay that way.And if my parting has left a void,Then fill it with remembered joy.A friendship shared, a laugh, a kiss...Ah yes, these things I, too, shall miss.My life's been full, I've savoured much:Good times, good friends, a loved-one's touch.Perhaps my time seemed all too brief—Don't shorten yours with undue grief.Be not burdened with tears of sorrow,Enjoy the sunshine of the morrow.

Pray for the repose of his soul.  Thank you.

Deacon David Wadle

These are two letters that I recently wrote to a friend of mine and his wife.  Please pray for Deacon David Wadle.  He is in the end stages of cancer and his time may be short.  Please read on....

Dear Dave,

I want to take a minute to thank you.  I want to thank you for a couple of things, first...you showed me a new side of Catholicism.  You showed me that love can be tempered with justice and that is a wonderful gift.  Second, you challenged me and helped me to grow, not only as a person, but also as a Catholic.  That is important.  You did your job as a deacon.  You did your job as a Catholic.  Thank you for that.  Third, you showed me that courage doesn't always have to be roaring like a lion.  I saw in you the courage to face each day and to do that with great humility.  Thank you for that.

The last thing I want to say to you is keep fighting!  Fight with all that you have.  Fight with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole mind.  Fight with your whole body.  I know that you are, but I think that it is important to hear this as well.

You are a good man, Dave.  You've been an example of charity, humility, honor, and love (agape).  Please know that as you continue your journey, this won't be forgotten.  I am proud and honored to call you my friend.

St. Ignatius of Antioch said, "It is better for me to die in behalf of Jesus Christ, than to reign over all of the earth."

Dave, thank you.  Thank you for being my friend.  Thank you for being a mentor and thank you for being a good and faithful servant of the Lord.  Go rest, David, you've earned it...then wake up and FIGHT!

----

Dear Pat,

You are a champ.  You have stood in the face of adversity and you have borne it with a grace that was noticed by me.  Your courage rivals that of Dave and I want you to know that.  You are doing what is best.  You are there with him when he needs you most and that is so very important.  I wish that I were there to visit you and Dave.  I wish a great many things, but know that my prayers for Dave's recovery and that God's will be done are fervent.

My rosary is offered for David daily until there is resolution.  May God keep you both close.

The Amice

From my esteemed friend over at WDTPRS, Fr. Zuhlsdorf has the following to say about the amice:

Quaeritur: If a priest approaches the sanctuary in the nude in preparation for Holy Mass, need he put on an amice? Since there would be no “ordinary clothing” to be covered, it 

would seem that he need not do so. Am I wrong? Inquiring minds want to know.

Hmmm… this is a serious question!

Let’s get some bare facts.

An amice, from Latin amictus, “a garment put on over other clothing”, in turn from the verb amicio “to throw round, to wrap about, to cloth”, is a rectangular linen cloth which has strings at two corners on one long side.  It is placed, first on the head, and then over the shoulders and around the neck.  The strings are then crossed over the chest, passed around the back and around to the front where they are tied, so as to keep the amice in place.

The naked truth is that an amice, by etymological definition, is something you put on over other clothing. If the priest has no other clothing, you don’t put it on, right?  C’mon!  Think it through!

If that weren’t enough in itself, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal says, in part,

336. “… Before the alb is put on, should this not completely cover the ordinary clothing at the neck, an amice should be used.”

If I am reading this correctly, Father is not be obliged to put on the amice before putting on any alb… in this scenario.

By the way, GIRM 336 goes on to say “…the alb may not be exchanged for a surplice…”, which is a very good thing … in this scenario.

On a related issue, however, when you see a priest’s “Roman” collar sticking up out of his vestments, that is a liturgical abuse.  His collar must be covered because his collar is “street clothes” as opposed to sacred vestments.

It can happen that the alb or amice will slip away to reveal his street clothes.  That is not an abuse.  That is an accident.  What is an abuse is purposely vesting in such a way that the collar is revealed.

I wonder… when priests do this are they trying to distinguish themselves from all the laypeople in the sanctuary to whom they have abdicated their own priestly role?  Hmmm…  But I digress.

In the older, venerable, traditional form of Holy Mass, in the Extraordinary Form, the amice is always used, regardless of the shape of the alb.  The priest first washes his hands, saying a particular prayer, and when the priest puts on the amice, he lets it rest on the top of his head briefly and he says the prayer:

Impóne, Dómine, cápiti meo gáleam salútis, ad expugnándos diabólicos incúrsus … Upon my head, O Lord, place the helmet of salvation, so that I may defeat the assaults of the devil. (cf Isaiah 59:17; Ephesians 6:17, 6:11)

I think seminarians and priests should memorize and use the vesting prayers, as of old, even before Mass in the Ordinary Form.