Every day I check out the topics going on in the Catholic Answers Forums (CAF). There, I sometimes gravitate toward discussions about abortion. My book, Biotech Swirl, is about experimentation of human life from the embryo through the fetus and even into adult human beings. It is also about how human life can be cheapened when viewed from certain perspectives. In my opinion this is too often from the sterile worldview of scientists. Of course other factors are at play, such as the unwillingness of women to go through with a pregnancy for various reasons. But where do the women get the idea that the fetus is not really human? It can be rationalized in various ways, but these days the culture of science feeds into this idea. It is ironic, because you would think they would recognize the embryo is human. But instead they want to dissect and manipulate the embryo and/or fetus either for other people who are patients (already born paying customers), or for potential parents who want perfect children, as in in-vitro fertilization clinics.
A part of my book explains some things about the biology of our bodies, especially at the cellular level. That may seem out of place, but it is meant to show how amazing are our bodies and that we are indeed wondrously made. Cells are the basic unit of biology, and their detail can show how valuable we are. Everyone needs to be treated as precious, including embryos and fetuses. The question is, how do we get everyone to see this value?
Well, we all have our ways to work for the Lord and there are many good people working right now in Right to Life offices and other forms of the movement. I’ve tried to contribute by writing Biotech Swirl, to blog on the magnificence of our biological makeup, and to make occasional comments on CAF. I don’t know how long my part of the effort is to continue along this vein. It depends on where I discern God is calling me. I try to do my best each day wherever that way leads.
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Maafa21
I just found out about a movie which theorizes that the abortion industry even today is an extension of the eugenics movement. It's called Maafa 21 and you can get to information on the website HERE. The term "eugenics" was coined by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. In the 1860's, he applied Darwin's theory, in which survival of the fittest supposedly brought about all evolution to superior beings, to humans. He believed the Caucasian race was superior to any others. What is more, others started getting on the bandwagon and pushed for population control, warning against feeble-mindedness and inability to rise above poverty. Only intelligent, talented people were to marry each other and produce a better and better race. The movie documents many articles written by famous eugenicists of their day. The creators of the movie ask why the percentage of minorities stay the same. Are people of color being encouraged to keep their numbers down?
The scientists in the past believed the Negroid races were inferior to the white because of evolution. Many believed that the African came from the ape and the white person from the African. And even as recently as 2007, James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, seemed to assume the same, considering remarks he made. He was quoted in The Times of London as suggesting that, overall, people of African descent are not as intelligent as people of European descent and had to apologize, reported by Randerson and Truscott, "DNA pioneer apologizes over race row," The Guardian (Oct. 18, 2007).
The eugenics movement is now being linked to the abortion industry in the United States. The claim the movie Maafa 21 makes is that the mass sterilization that became prevalent in the early 1900's is still at work today, though it might not be "forced" as it was early in the movement. A good article, though, about forced sterilization is at a George Washington University web page. It is by Edwin Black, "The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics," History News Network at GW (Sept 2003).This quote comes from the article link:
The scientists in the past believed the Negroid races were inferior to the white because of evolution. Many believed that the African came from the ape and the white person from the African. And even as recently as 2007, James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, seemed to assume the same, considering remarks he made. He was quoted in The Times of London as suggesting that, overall, people of African descent are not as intelligent as people of European descent and had to apologize, reported by Randerson and Truscott, "DNA pioneer apologizes over race row," The Guardian (Oct. 18, 2007).
The eugenics movement is now being linked to the abortion industry in the United States. The claim the movie Maafa 21 makes is that the mass sterilization that became prevalent in the early 1900's is still at work today, though it might not be "forced" as it was early in the movement. A good article, though, about forced sterilization is at a George Washington University web page. It is by Edwin Black, "The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics," History News Network at GW (Sept 2003).This quote comes from the article link:
Even the United States Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…. Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes' words in their own defense.This article also claims that only after eugenics became well-established in the US did it become part of the Nazi psuedo-scientific justification for genocide. It is interesting that the 2008 movie with Ben Stein, Expelled (YouTube trailer HERE), made the same connection to Darwin's theory, eugenics, and the Nazi's. Expelled exposed the current prejudice in academia against any theories which oppose Darwinian evolution.
I have not seen the entire Maafa 21 movie yet, just the first few sections. I hope to watch the whole thing eventually. And I think we must be careful in blaming abortion on this one factor alone. Statistics show a large proportion of non-white women have abortions, as described on a web page of abort73.com HERE. But there are things going on other than elite eugenicists doing clandestine operations to sterilize women as was the case before. Let us not forget the culture has changed so that sex is a constant temptation for young people who do not then want the ensuing responsibility. Also, sex crimes and even human slavery are increasingly parts of our abortion problem.
In fact, one thing the narrators of the Maafa 21 movie have not addressed is the apparent lack of responsibility related to unmarried, teenage pregnancy. I’m sure this factor, with its link to poverty, is a concern for many liberals. There is not always a sinister motive for those who approve of abortion, and in fact these persons can sincerely desire the welfare of African-Americans. They want the females to have more freedom to continue education and have a secure job before they have children. They want the children to be in a home with higher income and better chances for them to make it as well. This is why some African-Americans also see abortion as a freedom of choice issue. The narrators do themselves no favors when they mention welfare in a way that seems like an entitlement that African-Americans are owed. That is not likely to win a lot of sympathy in these days of huge national debt.
However, the movie makes some good points. I think many liberals have never even thought of the angle of genocide or been informed of it. As the movie points out, the press avoids this side of the argument against abortion. Not everyone believes a fetus is a full human being, which muddies the issue.
It does not hurt to examine the mindset of those who set up abortion clinics in poor and usually minority-race neighborhoods. Are they really there for the good of the people involved? Do they want to encourage responsibility or do they want to help people run away from it? Can human life be equated with money and the economy?
The creators of the Maafa 21 movie would contend that, just like latter-day eugenicists, those advocating abortion don't want more of the minority around. I understand the desire to see others be responsible with their own lives and those of their children. But though life without responsibility can be very tough, responsibility has no chance at all without life.
The creators of the Maafa 21 movie would contend that, just like latter-day eugenicists, those advocating abortion don't want more of the minority around. I understand the desire to see others be responsible with their own lives and those of their children. But though life without responsibility can be very tough, responsibility has no chance at all without life.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Contraception vs. Abortion
The US bishops are fighting a mandate right now by the government to make them allow for contraceptives in their employee's insurance coverage. That is about preventive health care and I don't want to address that issue here. Plenty of others are--it is all over the news. But I am concerned about the whole attitude of the magisterium about contraception which feeds into this battle.
I'd like to say a little about barrier contraception, which would include the condom, diaphragm and perhaps both together, Natural Family Planning (NFP) type of birth control which is the one and only the Church approves, and abortive type contraceptives.
The NFP is apparently as effective as many other forms of birth control when used correctly. NFP does not use barriers or pills, but counts on female cycles, with daily checks of temperature and other physiology. However, it absolutely requires abstinence at certain times in a woman's monthly cycle, such as perhaps, if a woman is irregular, on one’s honeymoon.
Artificial contraceptives are supposedly the reason for sex outside of marriage. Does it occur to anyone that NFP could be used outside of marriage? It’s like the often heard, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Human beings are the ones that sin, not the birth control method. Yet I truly doubt if NFP is used much outside marriage, even though it would be virtually without cost. That might give us an idea of its convenience.
Studies have come out that say about 98% of Catholic sexually active women use contraceptives other than NFP, reported by Lauren Keiper, "Most Catholic women use birth control banned by church," Reuters, April 13, 2011. At my church and at a class at my college, the people who taught NFP had at least 5 children. They perhaps wanted large families, but I'd rather be taught by a couple who was married 30 years and had zero or one child that they could confirm they planned for. People are busy these days, and perfection, as you need with the NFP method, can be hard to come by.
There are issues for the Church Magisterium to legitimately decide, but in my opinion they could be doing a better role in leadership here. They have allowed that some family planning is OK (hence the NFP). Still, their tone is begrudging, and elsewhere the teachings give the impression of pressure to keep having children whether you can cope with them or not.
If bishops would go back to the drawing board and make more of a distinction between barrier contraceptives and abortive ones, they would show their understanding toward women who find NFP an unwieldy choice. These are the very women who spend hours of their time working for the Church institutions in question, such as hospitals and universities, yet are supposed to also let every sexual encounter be an occasion for another huge responsibility. Perhaps both women and men faithful would more seriously consider the bishop's teachings in the Church's fight against abortion if the authority felt greater sensitivity toward their flocks. Yes, children are wonderful, and many couples deeply want as many as they can naturally have. But some couples have limits, and those limits seem to be remembered one minute and forgotten the next. The women especially are judged when they are different than others. Some women do not feel the call to bear many children and it seems as unfair to pressure them to have them as it would be to pressure those who want children to not have them. I realize there are complications when it comes to unnatural methods of either prevention or inducement of pregnancy and we need to discuss them. But if modern science is used to prevent miscarriage, then I think it is not unreasonable it should be allowed for prevention of pregnancy.
The Church does not force individuals to become priests (although at one time that may have been true). Young men are asked to discern their calling directly from God, not from the bishops. So it should be recognized about all of us. It is not logical for us to think that even the bishops know each gift for every person in their diocese and how they may best be used.
More than to careers or parenthood, God calls all Christians to be evangelists. Many feel they evangelize by a "regular" job or by guiding their children, but there are other paths. The Church may be concerned about the number of souls being born, but these days, children born to Catholics do not automatically become Christians. They must be directly evangelized, and more and more, re-evangelized. The culture has led many away from faith, and it takes effort on all our parts to work against that tide. Some women may become evangelists in a way other than physical parenthood, and not just in convents. Though God's command to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply, priests and nuns do not feel compelled to do so. There are other considerations, and I believe decisions about reproduction for a married couple are similarly nuanced.
Unfortunately, the contraceptives are often defended by groups that desire abortion also. These persons, both male and female, I believe have similar tunnel vision but in a different direction. The Church has said life begins at conception, and I agree. The profound dignity the Lord gives to life is worthy of our greatest respect. We are in deep trouble not only in our country, but more importantly in our Church. It is vital to be concerned whether contraceptives actually prevent conception or abort a fertilized egg. There are disagreements what the pill does in this regard. With all our modern science, we should be able to find out whether abortion may occur. If any pill causes abortion, it should not be used by Christians. But we must remember we have a pluralistic society and not everyone agrees when life starts. Some Christians do not even think abortion is termination of human life, and so it is important to convince people that life begins at conception, such as they do with ultrasounds on fetuses, rather than denigrate the persons who abort.
I am not talking about a political-type compromise of contraception vs. abortion. However, if this were a political issue it would be obvious that this is the answer: barrier contraception is acceptable, abortion isn’t. But we are talking about getting to what is right, and I think the same answer applies. We use modern science to make medicines such as we use to prevent miscarriage, and the Church has recognized there can be a limit to resources so that family planning is necessary. To deny that barrier contraception is acceptable is to risk, or should I say continue, insensitivity to people's real lives. There may be many root causes for Christian women who either use contraceptives or have abortions. I've certainly seen a broad spectrum of speculation on why it is happening, and we need to communicate with each other within our faith. The Church took way too long to change its attitude over slavery. It took (and is still taking) the leadership way too long to take action against sexual predators, an example reported by Tracy Gordon, "Vatican to host global summit on sexual abuse," Religion News Service, Feb. 3, 2012. And it is taking way too long for the leadership to treat women equally.
The diaphragm is not as convenient as the pill, but perhaps if women demanded better methods of barrier contraceptives, they would come about. Yes, there may be some extramarital sex with contraceptives, but my guess is that most of the large percentages of sexually active Catholic women who use contraceptives are trying to deal with the many demands made upon them and the challenges they want to meet successfully. Modern science has brought about contraceptives as they are now. In my opinion, by saying women can't use them at all and that every sex act must be open to reproduction, the Church tried to mandate behavior in a way that drove many women away from the Church itself rather than help them cope with real life. We must be respectful of all life. The divide between what bishops are saying and millions of Catholic women are doing does not go unnoticed by the general public. That is a detriment to our unity and witness, both of which are critical to evangelization.
I'd like to say a little about barrier contraception, which would include the condom, diaphragm and perhaps both together, Natural Family Planning (NFP) type of birth control which is the one and only the Church approves, and abortive type contraceptives.
The NFP is apparently as effective as many other forms of birth control when used correctly. NFP does not use barriers or pills, but counts on female cycles, with daily checks of temperature and other physiology. However, it absolutely requires abstinence at certain times in a woman's monthly cycle, such as perhaps, if a woman is irregular, on one’s honeymoon.
Artificial contraceptives are supposedly the reason for sex outside of marriage. Does it occur to anyone that NFP could be used outside of marriage? It’s like the often heard, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Human beings are the ones that sin, not the birth control method. Yet I truly doubt if NFP is used much outside marriage, even though it would be virtually without cost. That might give us an idea of its convenience.
Studies have come out that say about 98% of Catholic sexually active women use contraceptives other than NFP, reported by Lauren Keiper, "Most Catholic women use birth control banned by church," Reuters, April 13, 2011. At my church and at a class at my college, the people who taught NFP had at least 5 children. They perhaps wanted large families, but I'd rather be taught by a couple who was married 30 years and had zero or one child that they could confirm they planned for. People are busy these days, and perfection, as you need with the NFP method, can be hard to come by.
There are issues for the Church Magisterium to legitimately decide, but in my opinion they could be doing a better role in leadership here. They have allowed that some family planning is OK (hence the NFP). Still, their tone is begrudging, and elsewhere the teachings give the impression of pressure to keep having children whether you can cope with them or not.
If bishops would go back to the drawing board and make more of a distinction between barrier contraceptives and abortive ones, they would show their understanding toward women who find NFP an unwieldy choice. These are the very women who spend hours of their time working for the Church institutions in question, such as hospitals and universities, yet are supposed to also let every sexual encounter be an occasion for another huge responsibility. Perhaps both women and men faithful would more seriously consider the bishop's teachings in the Church's fight against abortion if the authority felt greater sensitivity toward their flocks. Yes, children are wonderful, and many couples deeply want as many as they can naturally have. But some couples have limits, and those limits seem to be remembered one minute and forgotten the next. The women especially are judged when they are different than others. Some women do not feel the call to bear many children and it seems as unfair to pressure them to have them as it would be to pressure those who want children to not have them. I realize there are complications when it comes to unnatural methods of either prevention or inducement of pregnancy and we need to discuss them. But if modern science is used to prevent miscarriage, then I think it is not unreasonable it should be allowed for prevention of pregnancy.
The Church does not force individuals to become priests (although at one time that may have been true). Young men are asked to discern their calling directly from God, not from the bishops. So it should be recognized about all of us. It is not logical for us to think that even the bishops know each gift for every person in their diocese and how they may best be used.
More than to careers or parenthood, God calls all Christians to be evangelists. Many feel they evangelize by a "regular" job or by guiding their children, but there are other paths. The Church may be concerned about the number of souls being born, but these days, children born to Catholics do not automatically become Christians. They must be directly evangelized, and more and more, re-evangelized. The culture has led many away from faith, and it takes effort on all our parts to work against that tide. Some women may become evangelists in a way other than physical parenthood, and not just in convents. Though God's command to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply, priests and nuns do not feel compelled to do so. There are other considerations, and I believe decisions about reproduction for a married couple are similarly nuanced.
Unfortunately, the contraceptives are often defended by groups that desire abortion also. These persons, both male and female, I believe have similar tunnel vision but in a different direction. The Church has said life begins at conception, and I agree. The profound dignity the Lord gives to life is worthy of our greatest respect. We are in deep trouble not only in our country, but more importantly in our Church. It is vital to be concerned whether contraceptives actually prevent conception or abort a fertilized egg. There are disagreements what the pill does in this regard. With all our modern science, we should be able to find out whether abortion may occur. If any pill causes abortion, it should not be used by Christians. But we must remember we have a pluralistic society and not everyone agrees when life starts. Some Christians do not even think abortion is termination of human life, and so it is important to convince people that life begins at conception, such as they do with ultrasounds on fetuses, rather than denigrate the persons who abort.
I am not talking about a political-type compromise of contraception vs. abortion. However, if this were a political issue it would be obvious that this is the answer: barrier contraception is acceptable, abortion isn’t. But we are talking about getting to what is right, and I think the same answer applies. We use modern science to make medicines such as we use to prevent miscarriage, and the Church has recognized there can be a limit to resources so that family planning is necessary. To deny that barrier contraception is acceptable is to risk, or should I say continue, insensitivity to people's real lives. There may be many root causes for Christian women who either use contraceptives or have abortions. I've certainly seen a broad spectrum of speculation on why it is happening, and we need to communicate with each other within our faith. The Church took way too long to change its attitude over slavery. It took (and is still taking) the leadership way too long to take action against sexual predators, an example reported by Tracy Gordon, "Vatican to host global summit on sexual abuse," Religion News Service, Feb. 3, 2012. And it is taking way too long for the leadership to treat women equally.
The diaphragm is not as convenient as the pill, but perhaps if women demanded better methods of barrier contraceptives, they would come about. Yes, there may be some extramarital sex with contraceptives, but my guess is that most of the large percentages of sexually active Catholic women who use contraceptives are trying to deal with the many demands made upon them and the challenges they want to meet successfully. Modern science has brought about contraceptives as they are now. In my opinion, by saying women can't use them at all and that every sex act must be open to reproduction, the Church tried to mandate behavior in a way that drove many women away from the Church itself rather than help them cope with real life. We must be respectful of all life. The divide between what bishops are saying and millions of Catholic women are doing does not go unnoticed by the general public. That is a detriment to our unity and witness, both of which are critical to evangelization.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
A Terrible Time
I've been brooding over the Penn State mess, since for one thing I am reminded of it whenever I turn on the TV for news. It's Wednesday evening, and Joe Paterno says he will resign at the end of the season. Much will happen in the next few days, and more heads will probably roll.
I do pray for any victims of aggression that may be suffering at this time. I don't know what is true as far as the allegations, but I can pray to God to help and heal anyone who needs it.
I graduated from Penn State, and also from University of Pennsylvania. Today I happened on a speech given by Archbishop Charles Chaput, "Being Human in an Age of Unbelief," Public Discourse (Nov. 8, 2011). Chaput is outspoken about the right to life and was just moved to Philadelphia, which has had its own problems with sex scandal in Church schools.
If you don't want to read the whole thing, these quotes are worth your while:
We all are faced with difficult decisions. We must ask ourselves what is most important. I am often upset by the way women are treated in the Church, and I wish the Bishops would find in their hearts to value us more. But it is not all about women, it is about all of us. It is not all about life on Earth, it's also about life in Heaven.
It's a double whammy to be associated with Penn State and the Catholic Church if there is any guilt by association. But that's the thing--we are all guilty of sin. Some seems more disgusting because it attacks children on an obscene level. But if life starts at conception, what about abortion? What about the pill if it kills an otherwise healthy embryo? What about in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and genetic screening for imperfections in which embryos are discarded? Though it is not wrong to be scandalized by the sins of others, we must also pray our eyes be opened to our own.
Mississippi just voted against person-hood starting at conception. This is the first time I've been informed that life is based on votes. I've heard some were concerned about repercussions associated with medicine and IVF. If an embryo is life, there should be no question about side issues. They should revolve around the embryo's person-hood.
This is a terrible time for many. But we do have a Leader who was perfect on Earth and is able to guide us through the murky darkness. We must keep our eyes on Him, keep praying, keep hoping. It is the only way to get clean and clear. He is the only way to the Light.
I do pray for any victims of aggression that may be suffering at this time. I don't know what is true as far as the allegations, but I can pray to God to help and heal anyone who needs it.
I graduated from Penn State, and also from University of Pennsylvania. Today I happened on a speech given by Archbishop Charles Chaput, "Being Human in an Age of Unbelief," Public Discourse (Nov. 8, 2011). Chaput is outspoken about the right to life and was just moved to Philadelphia, which has had its own problems with sex scandal in Church schools.
If you don't want to read the whole thing, these quotes are worth your while:
The University of Pennsylvania’s motto is Leges sine moribus vanae. It means “Laws without morals are useless.” All law has moral content. It’s an expression of what we “ought” to do. Therefore law teaches as well as regulates. Law always involves the imposition of somebody’s judgments about morality on everyone else. That’s the nature of law. But I think the meaning of Penn’s motto goes deeper than just trying to translate beliefs into legislation. Good laws can help make a nation more human; more just; more noble. But ultimately even good laws are useless if they govern a people who, by their choices, make themselves venal and callous, foolish and self-absorbed.And:
The deepest kind of revolution never comes from violence. Even politics, important as it is, is a poor tool for changing human hearts. Nations change when people change. And people change through the witness of other people—people like each of you reading this. You make the future. You build it stone by stone with the choices you make. So choose life. Defend its dignity and witness its meaning and hope to others. And if you do, you’ll discover in your own life what it means to be fully human.
We all are faced with difficult decisions. We must ask ourselves what is most important. I am often upset by the way women are treated in the Church, and I wish the Bishops would find in their hearts to value us more. But it is not all about women, it is about all of us. It is not all about life on Earth, it's also about life in Heaven.
It's a double whammy to be associated with Penn State and the Catholic Church if there is any guilt by association. But that's the thing--we are all guilty of sin. Some seems more disgusting because it attacks children on an obscene level. But if life starts at conception, what about abortion? What about the pill if it kills an otherwise healthy embryo? What about in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and genetic screening for imperfections in which embryos are discarded? Though it is not wrong to be scandalized by the sins of others, we must also pray our eyes be opened to our own.
Mississippi just voted against person-hood starting at conception. This is the first time I've been informed that life is based on votes. I've heard some were concerned about repercussions associated with medicine and IVF. If an embryo is life, there should be no question about side issues. They should revolve around the embryo's person-hood.
This is a terrible time for many. But we do have a Leader who was perfect on Earth and is able to guide us through the murky darkness. We must keep our eyes on Him, keep praying, keep hoping. It is the only way to get clean and clear. He is the only way to the Light.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
