"Dorene is like most of the girls who come in here. She has a family problem, a social problem, a religious problem and a legal problem - when all she should really have is a medical problem. One simple five-minute procedure and she has the whole world off her back." Those words were spoken in 1970 at an abortion clinic in Santa Monica, California. The words were spoken by Harvey Karman, a psychologist who conducted interviews of patients at the clinic prior to their undergoing an abortion. Karman was talking with a Newsweek reporter who was working on the April 13, 1970 cover story about abortion, a procedure that was still illegal throughout most of the United States at that time.In fact, the Santa Monica clinic in question was operating in open defiance of the law. The man who would perform Dorene's abortion was a 28-year-old graduate of the University of Southern California School of Medicine who had trained in obstetrics and gynecology at Los Angeles's Cedars of Lebanon Hospital. Dr. John S. Gwynne had opened his clinic both to challenge the constitutionality of California's abortion laws, and to provide women with the opportunity to safely terminate an unwanted pregnancy. That option scarcely existed within the continental United States in 1970. Hawaii was decidedly the exception to the rule with it's abortion law permitting the procedure, providing that be performed by a licensed doctor in a hospital, and that the patient be a resident of the state for 90 days. That second part was to keep woman from flocking to Hawaii from the mainland to get an abortion.
Woman continued to seek out abortions, and the kind of treatment that they received depended largely on their respective financial situations. For woman of means, there were safe options available. They could fly overseas and have the procedure done, or they could afford to pay a physician here enough money to secure his services. Even so, there were risks involved, but they were nothing compared to what their less-fortunate sisters encountered. All the stories we hear about the bad old days before Roe v. Wade are absolutely factual. Abortions were largely the province of a mixed bag of providers including midwives, medical students, druggists, and other amateur abortionists. A woman was quite literally taking her life and putting it into the hands of a complete stranger. Things could, and very often did, go horribly wrong.
This article was written over 40 years ago, and obviously the abortion landscape has changed considerably. But, it is still far from a settled issue and that perplexes me. Anyone reading this article in 1970 would come away from it with an overall impression that reform was in the air, and that it was only a matter of time before liberalization of the restrictive laws took place. Whether that would occur on a state-by-state basis, or by a ruling of the Supreme Court was still to be decided, but change was coming. And how could that be anything, but a positive development?
Sadly, it appears that the position of the Catholic Church has come to be widely accepted in many quarters. The 1970 article dealt almost exclusively with the legal and health implications of the debate. Refreshingly absent was all of the overcharged emotionalism that has come to define the issue today. Trying to determine the exact moment that a human soul comes to inhabit a fetus strikes me as a very inexact science, to put it mildly. Rather like trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. In my opinion, the Catholic Church effectively forfeited any moral authority that they once had with their handling of the Pedophile scandal. And, since they have no authority whatsoever when it comes to matters of health, science, and the law, I suggest that they remove themselves from the arena entirely, and work to clean up their own house.
For whom has the Catholic Church “forfeited any moral authority”??? Anybody who believes the Church has forfeited such has, by act, forfeited his standing as a Catholic. For one who is Catholic, the Church cannot forfeit moral authority because the Catholic Church IS moral authority.
ReplyDeleteAs far as those who are nonbelievers, the Church never had moral authority, nor would it wish to impose such.
Has the NYC police department forfeited any legal authority due to its many indiscretions over the years? How about Congress or the courts? Is it only atheists and anarchists who have moral authority?
Why the attack on Catholics? The Catholic Church is far from the only mainline church to oppose abortion, even though the media and the left try mightily to make it so. Almost every established Christian church, orthodox Jews, Muslims, among others recognize abortion for the vicious attack upon innocent human life that is obviously is.
The argument that the pro-life position is a creation of the Catholic Church is simply incorrect. To its credit, it has been a strong defender of life along with others, many of whom would not likely be happy with being described as Roman Catholic.
How do you expect people to react to what they firmly believe to be nothing more than outright murder? Would you expect people to just ignore this?
There is NO compromise on this issue if one is of the belief that an unborn child is a human being, regardless of the financial or emotional situation surrounding his or her mother. If one does not believe a fetus is human, there is no purpose having the discussion because the whole procedure becomes nothing more than a wart removal. So there should be nothing emotional about the procedure, yet time and time again, post-abortive women find themselves seeking psychological counseling.
This is NOT an emotional response from those who are pro-life, it is a perfectly sound legal position. If the unborn are human, and many believe they are, it is simply a constitutional matter. All humans certainly have the right not to be destroyed by a vacuum, saline solution, or a surgeon’s knife.
The logic in this article seems to be that if a few Catholic Priests violated the law, the Church has to pay for this crime by simply allowing murder. I do not see that my aiding and abetting a travesty is an appropriate penance for some bad apples in my Church.
While I normally refrain from posing these sorts of questions, I will gladly make an exception in this instance. What if your own child was a victim of one of these "bad apples"? Would you be quite so cavalier in your opinion of them? And would your rock-solid faith in the Catholic Church's moral authority survive such a blow? This is far from a hypothetical question. Without a doubt, thousands of children around the world have been sexually preyed-upon by Catholic Priests. That is not hyperbole; the facts of the abuse scandal are quite well known by this point in time.
ReplyDeleteThe same priests molested children for decades, enabled by a church hierarchy whose overriding priority was to protect it's own. They moved these pedophiles from parish to parish, and paid out millions of dollars in hush money to the families of the abused. Why do you suppose so many parishes and Catholic Schools have been shuttered? Think there might be a connection? I sure do.
Much of this can be directly attributed to the Catholic Churches bizarre insistence on clinging to the requirement that it's priests remain celibate. When you consider that a healthy and active sex life is an essential part of a normal person's makeup, then you begin to understand what went wrong with the Catholic Church. Any institution that demands lifelong celibacy of it's members is going to have a great deal of difficulty attracting normal, well-adjusted candidates. That institution, by necessity, is not going to have the luxury of being particularly discriminating as far as who it accepts into it's ranks.
While I am not a psychologist, I don't think it requires one to guess what sort of man might be attracted to the Catholic Priesthood. As someone once said, "Facts are stubborn things". And the facts overwhelmingly support the conclusion that the Catholic Church is complicit in one of the most outrageous abuses of power in modern times. That the victims were all children makes it particularly despicable and unforgivable.
Whatever personal involvement myself or family may have had with the Catholic Church’s sex scandal has no relevance to the moral authority of the Faith. If I had some personal feeling about that authority due to some violation that a member imposed upon one of my children, I might well have a different opinion, but my, very humble, “opinion” would not change the fact that the Church IS the moral authority.
ReplyDeleteAgain, your liberal mindset does not allow you to separate feelings and emotion from reality. The left is so handicapped by what makes them “feel” good that it cannot think logically.
I also might feel quite different about a defendant’s right to a fair trial, if that defendant had harmed a member of my family, for this reason I would, most likely, not be placed on that particular jury. Feelings and emotions are wonderful for pubescent boys and love-struck women, but have no place in law and philosophical discussion.
This is difficult to explain to a non-Catholic, without the philosophical and theological education that only full emersion in years of Catholic teaching can provide, one will not understand. It is as impossible as defining the color red to a blind man. You can spend hours telling him what it is, but he will not understand. I will; however, attempt to give you a basic understanding that might, at least, point you in the right direction.
The “Church” is not the priests, the buildings, the rosaries, nuns, Vatican, or even the Pope. The Church is the Faith itself; The belief. If all hierarchy were to disappear tomorrow, the Church would stand as true and strong as it is today. Unlike all other faiths, the Catholic Faith claims direct lineage to the creator through his son. Catholics believe the Church was founded by God himself, and therefore, cannot be anything but perfect.
This is not to say that some who claim to represent the faith do not do it incorrectly. Often incorrectly through innocent misguidance, sometimes with evil intent, sometimes, I assume with both. But these individuals do not damage the faith, in fact, it is specifically their lack of faith that ills them.
You also make the claim that “the victims were all children” which demonstrates that far too much of your information is originating at either The Huffington Post or MSNBC. This is simply not true. Most of these cases do not involve children. I am aware that the headline containing a pedophile priest is more exciting and possibly titillating to those in the media; however, this has not really been the case. A pedophile is attracted to children or those who appear child-like. The situation with the rogue priests, more often involved young men and women, usually consenting. Homosexuality is the problem, not pedophilia. I have no problem with the removal and expulsion of those with such a compulsion, neither does the Pope.
I am not sure that changing the celibacy requirement would cure homosexuality, not to mention, that in many churches, such behavior is rewarded with promotion: see Eugene Robinson. In congress such behavior receives standing ovations from the left.
ReplyDeleteEven the most liberal statistics demonstrate that it has been a very small percentage of Catholic priests involved with such activity. Ours is a very large organization, and to demand this never happens is necessary, to expect perfect results is ridiculous.
But again, your logic defies common sense. Because the Church had some priests who violated the rules of their Faith, and because the hierarchy of the Church mishandled the situation, the Church should violate more rules of the Faith, mishandle another situation and start supporting abortion. Should the officials in the Church also accept theft and adultery? If they allowed all of the left’s favorite activities, would the atheists and liberals then have more respect for the Church? If Catholicism just abolished all rules, I guess everyone could be Catholic.
Catholics have no choice but to oppose abortion, it is not our decision; we believe it is God’s. All the opinions of the Barney Franks and Nancy Pelosis and Barrack Obamas in the world do not trump the big guy, it is just that simple.
We cannot prove that a fetus has a soul, and you cannot prove it does not Whether or not a soul ever enters a human body cannot be proven, this is why we use terms that anger the left like “faith.” The existence of a soul is not the question; the question is whether or not the unborn is human. If he or she is, all protections of the United States Constitution must be afforded that individual. The baby cannot be destroyed without due process of law.
Now I place the burden on the abortionists: Prove that the little being, with a beating heart, hands and toes, sucking his or her thumb, smiling and crying, in his or her mother’s womb is NOT human. We can see it is alive, we know it is not a dog or cat, so what is it? If those who would kill such a thing for nothing more than convenience can PROVE, beyond reasonable doubt, that a fetus is simply a tumor, Catholic or not, I will be the first one to stand up to the government and demand it stay out of the life of a pregnant woman.
I will patiently await the proof, but I fear it will be a very long wait.
-Around 81 percent of these victims were male.
ReplyDelete-22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years
-A substantial number (almost 2000) of very young children were victimized by priests during this time period.
I pulled the above statistics from the findings of the below report:
The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, commonly known as the John Jay Report, is a 2004 report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States.
The victims of abuse were overwhelmingly children. Any claim to the contrary is an outright lie.
I quote you "That the victims were all children makes it particularly despicable and unforgivable."
ReplyDeleteEven your own numbers which differ from the sources I have discount your statement.
A lie or a mistake does not matter as "facts are stubborn things"
And...
ReplyDeleteI still cannot understand why you would think the Catholic Church, no matter how flawed you feel the leadership is, should keep quiet with regard to what it believes is the murder of an innocent human life.
I am not getting your logic. If one is completely, unforgivingly guilty of one crime, the solution is to be an accessory to another????
I apologize for breaking up my posts like this, unfortunately I am still at work so that I can pay higher taxes and spread my wealth around to those "working families" now at home.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that an abortion is an act that is an act in which absolutely ALL the victims are children does not phase you. If the left is so concerned about the health and welfare of our youth, perhaps it should stop fighting so hard to kill millions of them without regard.
Margret Sanger and Adlph Hitler would be proud.
Since you are invoking Margaret Sanger, I assume you are also opposed to contraceptive methods? Sanger's mother a devout Catholic went through 18 pregnancies (with 11 live births) before dying of Tuberculosis and cervical cancer. The good old days, right? Woman should suffer and die to satisfy the edicts of some old men in Rome?
ReplyDeleteMargaret Sanger has been selectively targeted by the Right because of her interest in, and advocacy of, social intervention as a means of controlling the population. She saw first hand the misery and suffering of slum families and actively worked to find remedies. Unfortunately, her attempts to introduce safe and effective means of birth control led to her being repeatedly arrested and prosecuted.
I find it ironic that you loudly demand that every fetus conceived be brought to term, but then scream about the unfairness of having to pay taxes in order to provide for all of these unwanted children. I would assume that you are vehemently opposed to any programs such as head-start that might give them a decent chance at a productive life, but are fully in favor of building more prisons to house them. I will now go out on a limb and guess that you are a supporter of capital punishment. Am I right? Insist that they be born so that you can kill them 20 or 30 years later.
I eagerly await your reply...
Your wait is over.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not I wish to pay for lazy people who choose not to support themselves and families and believe it is better to give them an incentive to work as opposed to giving them further incentive to loaf is not relevant.
I have never suggested taking those who do not support themselves and issuing to them a death sentence. It seems you and your friends on the left do suggest just that.
Like Margaret Sanger, the left believes that if one is conceived by wealthy, white parents they are more equal than less fortunate fetuses.
The right does not care about Sanger’s opinion of contraception; it is her racist views and desire for widespread practice of eugenics that makes her a favorite and easy target of the right. Not that such thing would offend those on the left, the following quotes fall in line quite well with the left’s defense of abortion.
Sanger said, among lots of other crazy things the following:
"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."
"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
"Give dysgenic groups [people with 'bad genes'] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization."
I also do not accept your belief in predestination. One who is conceived under unfortunate circumstances is not cursed to a life of crime and poverty, although, even if this absurdity was true, I would still not murder them, I assume the left would and does as this is your favorite defense of the indefensible.
Capital Punishment is the punishment for the worst law breakers, it is reserved for those who commit terrible crimes, after giving the criminal the benefit of due process. Abortion is the murderous attack on a completely innocent child, without even a hint of due process.
Again, your logic is odd. If I believe in punishing criminals, after demanding they are given all the rights of the accused under the law, giving them free legal counsel, and the right to an appeal, I must now agree to murdering little children so that women can be a little more comfortable?????
If I support Head Start, will you feel better about my opposition to abortion???
It is all about money and convenience to the left, right and wrong do not exist because the left has, long ago, lost any moral compass it might have had.
What I find odd is your cavalier dismissal of the implications of being a young, single mother. You frame a woman's decision to abort an unwanted pregnancy using terms like "comfort" and "convenience". Based on your political and social philosophy, my assumption would be that your concern for life ceases once that life enters the world. It would appear you believe that a childhood lived under the meanest of circumstances serves as a character-building experience. The fact that some lucky individuals emerge intact from a deprived environment does little to support your argument.
ReplyDeleteOur jails and streets are filled with the casualties of a society that would rather spend money on prisons then social programs. You rage about the paltry sums that are spent on things that actually help your fellow human beings, but doubtlessly applaud the trillions wasted on endless wars in far-away places. I hear not a peep from you about your precious tax dollars being used to destroy, and then rebuild, Iraq and Afghanistan.
I will now suggest something that will probably make your head explode. There should be a guaranteed national income for all Americans, set high enough to provide them with a decent existence. Health care should be free and available to all. And yes, this will all be funded by levying taxes against corporations and the wealthiest individuals.
Now, that is what socialism would look like and the last time I checked, Obama isn't proposing anything remotely resembling what I am proposing. What a shame. At least then he would be doing something to actually justify all of the silly charges you guys are leveling against him.
Once again I will try to make this clear: I have no problem helping those in need. Giving to those who find themselves in dire circumstances is well ingrained in Christian philosophy. As a Catholic, it is not just suggested that I assist the poor, it is demanded.
ReplyDeleteI want to help the poor, and have actually hired people to achieve this. I will hire more if my tax burden is reduced to the point that I have the capital to do so. Are you completely against people working for a living?
The flaw in your argument is that you believe that government programs are the best avenue to solve poverty. The same government that has failed at virtually every enterprise it has attempted. The government school system and post office should be enough for even the left to see this glaring error.
Give a man a fish………..
Your version of a utopian society has been attempted, many times, and you cannot point to even a single situation where it has succeeded. To guarantee an income is to guarantee an individual will do only what he must to continue receiving it. Who will start new small businesses? Who will take investment risks? Who will pay the tremendous tax burden to support this class of modified welfare recipients?
What is a “decent existence”? Should everyone get enough to purchase a car? Which car? BMWs are really nice and I would drive nothing less. Is it necessary for a “decent existence”? The term seems a bit subjective to me.
The left should stop preaching the virtue of envy to the masses and perhaps preach hard work and creativity, then we might end the cycle of poverty with which the left has cursed generations of Americans.
If you remove the reward for starting and running a business, you remove any reason for doing so. Those that decide to take the risk and work seemingly endless hours deserve what they can earn, the profit does not belong to politicians to dole out for the purchase of votes.
The Obama model comes as close to the society you desire as possible, anything closer and his approval numbers would be even worse than they now are. He could not persuade Congress to support such things, he could not even get healthcare passed without buying off several politicans, and they have paid a heavy price for their political prostitution.
If he could do what you desire, he would. Luckily he will not even be able to implement anything he passed because funding will not be provided by our new congress.
Again you make a financial argument to justify abortion. A human’s life does not change in value according to his parent’s finances, feelings, youth or ability. If a fetus is human, any other argument is moot. It must have constitutional protection. If it is not, then the decision should be left up to the mother.
Present some proof that the unborn are just growths or simply “medical problems” and I will support the legal right to destroy it.
Redistribution of wealth just might be the only means left to spare us from a total economic and social collapse. If steps aren't take to remedy the obscene disparity between the rich and everyone else, Sharon Angle will get her "second amendment remedies" in spades. Are you in agreement with the premise that our economy is fueled by consumer consumption? Well, where does the consumption come from when everyone in this country is busted?
ReplyDeleteFor decades now our government has aided and abetted a policy that has systematically dismantled our industrial infrastructure and shipped it all overseas. Corporate dislike of labor unions, and all of those infuriating demands of theirs, played no small role in that. So, we have no jobs for the working classes, unless you consider collecting shopping carts in a Walmart parking lot an adequate replacement for working in a steel mill or auto plant.
Presumably, the solution of the right is to next ship the worker overseas where they can be put to productive use killing the natives. Somehow I doubt that will be a long-term solution to what ails us. Not to mention the fact that you are familiarizing many thousands of people with firearms. People that will one day be coming home to a hollowed-out economy and infrastructure. Think they are going to be placated by Grover Norquist and the Chicago School of Economics?
Glenn Beck and his ilk are already whipping angry people up to the point of rage. At the moment, that rage is being directed at Obama and the Democrats. Watch how quickly it will be redirected once the Republicans fail to deliver on any of the promises they have made.
Who cares if the division between wealthy and poor grows, as long as it offers a level of improvement for all, or at least does not worsen the financial situation of any group? As long as the growth is Pareto Optimal, then it is simply envy on the part of the have-nots. Can’t the left just be happy for those who have great success stories and stop the envious attempt at taking all that success offers?
ReplyDeleteDoes the left think that offering free abortions will somehow reduce the income of the wealthy in this country, and therefore create a more “fair” society? Would the left also support the killing of anybody up to two years of age, if it would assist in the economic improvement of the child’s mother? How about four years of age? How about the costly elderly? Can we do away with those as well? Do not forget those pesky chronically ill and mentally retarded citizens, they can be expensive and terrible inconvenient at time.
With regard to the second amendment, it is lucky for all that those of us on the right have respect for it. Unlike the left, we have retained our guns, so if all else fails; we can and will refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and protect our property and families from those whipping up anger on the left by spreading a message of envy and greed.
As your arguments unfold, I begin to see a pattern emerge. instead of engaging me on fundamental issues of economic justice, you start defending the sanctity of life again. And why not? It's a cost-free way of asserting your moral superiority. By "cost-free" I mean exactly that. Presumably, you believe that the free market and charities will are all that is needed to cope with all of the complexities associated with a modern society. Who needs health insurance anyway? Just bring the doctor a chicken like granny used to do. That was suggested in complete seriousness by one of your tea party candidates.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that so many believe that government doesn't "work" is directly attributable to attitudes such as the ones you hold so dearly. If you all hate government so much, well then stay the hell out of it and leave matters to the experts. Government worked just fine when it's ranks were staffed with dedicated professionals who cared about their work. And, FYI, every time that I have either mailed a letter or expected one to be delivered to me, I have always been satisfied. The last time I went to DMV to renew my drivers license, the place was a model of efficiency. I was in and out in under 15 minutes. You really need to update your material about how lousy the government is.
When you go into the hospital for an operation, are you sustained by faith alone? Or, do you prefer that the surgeon about to cut into you be one of those pointy-headed "elitists" who dared to attend college and medical school. Would you let your family board an airplane that was designed, built and flown by amateurs? I could go on all day in this vein, but expect that you get my point.
All of this nonsense about small government and constitutional limits is nothing, but an excuse for maintaining the present status quo. The fact that the status quo benefits only a very small percentage of the population is precisely the point.
Oh, now I get it. If one does not work for the government, one is an amateur.
ReplyDeleteI would gladly stay out of government, if that government would stay out of my life. Unfortunately, there are envious people who advocate the government taking my property and giving it to those who have not earned it, and they lobby their lilly-livered representatives to pass legislation gain access to my property.
Because I must defend my property and family against the, ever-encroaching, government I must stay involved. Otherwise the unproductive hoards will destroy everything the producers in society have built.
Government does not work because it is loaded with left-leaning professional politicians and bureaucrats, people who produce little or nothing and operate far outside the laws and situation with which the rest of us navigate every day. I want a professional doctor, but anyone who uses the VA will tell you, I do not want a government doctor. I want a professional airline pilot too, but I do not want professional politicians. We had those once, and fought a revolution to eradicate royalty from our shores.
And your defense of government is the smooth operation of the DMV and Post Office???? This is laughable! You defend the DMV with an anecdotal visit that happened to have gone well? The inefficiency of both is so well-known that it is cliché. I know a guy whose parachute did not open and he survived, but he would not recommend skydiving witout an operable parachute.
Have you checked the on-time success of the delivery of the US postal Service versus private shipping? Have you happened to check the balance sheet of the US Postal Service lately? Only the government could monopolize and industry and still lose billions. Now there is a “model of efficiency.”
You blame modern conservatives for voters losing faith in government? Believe me, I wish we could claim credit for such an accomplishment; however, I think your real enemies have names like Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin. They were spouting anti-big government talk long before Glenn Beck came on the scene, even before Rush Limbaugh.
Now if you are looking to blame someone for the sheer volume of the protest, you must be more introspective: Your pro-redistribution leaders in congress and the White House passed laws that voters did not want, used filthy back-room deals to accomplish this and had the unmitigated gall to snicker at the electorate as they used our tax dollars to pay off their cohorts for votes. And they have paid dearly. Nancy will lose her gavel very soon and Obama has few friends left in Washington.
I returned to the abortion issue because that is where this thread began, and only became an economic discussion when you decided that unless those on the right are willing to pay for every child born into unfortunate circumstances, the left must be given the power to mercilessly kill those children before they start costing too much. Which is a hard position to not see as morally inferior.