Abortion As a Blessing, Grace, or Gift–A Renewed Conversation about Reproductive Rights?

bsmeter3

The “deep thinkers” at IEET (Institute for Emerging Ethics and Technologies) firmly believe they are the smartest kids in the room, so they spent a lot of time attempting to justify what is (humanly and ethically) totally unjustifiable – abortion. Here’s their latest attempt at taking themselves and their twisted logic way too seriously. – Ed.

Our inability to talk in morally resonant terms about abortion has clouded the broader conversation about mindful childbearing. (There are no “morally resonant” reasons to kill innocent babies in the womb. – Ed.) The cost in recent decades has been devastating. In developing countries millions of real women and children have died because abortion-obsessed American Christians banned family planning conversations as a part of HIV prevention efforts. (This is total “BS”. A flat-out lie! – Ed.) Those lost lives reveal the callous immorality of the anti-choice movement. (Now these guys have unilaterally redefined “callous immorality” as SAVING innocent lives. – Ed.)

Back home, here in the U.S., our inability to claim the moral high ground about abortion has brought us one of the most regressive culture shifts of a generation. (That’s because there is absolutely no moral high ground available when it comes to killing innocent babies. – Ed.) We are, incredibly, faced with “personhood rights” for fertilized eggs, pregnancies that begin legally before we even have sex, politicians with “Rape Tourette’s,” and a stunningly antagonistic debate about contraceptive technologies that could make as many as ninety percent of unintended pregnancies along with consequent suffering and abortions simply obsolete. (I think she is referring to various types of contraceptives that function by killing innocent life, after conception. But you never know! – Ed.)

The voices that are strongest on reproductive rights often falter when it comes to the cultural dialogue. At least part of this absence is because so many of the pro-choice movement’s leaders and funders are secular and civic in their orientation, awkwardly uncomfortable with the moral and spiritual dimension of the conversation, or, for that matter, even with words like moral and spiritual. From language that seems moderately wise–Who decides?–we fall back on “safe, legal and rare” (a questionable effort to please everyone) or even the legal jargon of the “right to privacy.”

abortionpile

A large pile of murdered teeny, weeny babies
numbering – so far – about 55 MILLION!

The other side talks about murdering teeny, weeny babies and then mind-melds images of ultrasounds and Gerber babies with faded photos of late term abortions. (As if none of these accurately reflect the sad reality of abortion, as well as the abortion mentality. – Ed.)  And we come back by talking about privacy?? Is that like the right to commit murder in the privacy of your own home or doctor’s office? (As a matter of fact, it is.  Now they’re catching on! – Ed.) Even apart from the dubious moral equivalence, let’s be real: In the age of Facebook and Twitter, is there a female under twenty-five in who gives a rat’s patooey about privacy, let alone thinks of it as a core value? (The right to privacy was merely the context and the false, fabricated  justification for the court’s ruling on the non-existent right to abortion. – Ed.) 

There’s more – but why bother? These guys are either deliberately, or by nature, almost totally ignorant about the truth of the issues they so poorly attempt to address. Probably because ignorance is their only hope! – Ed.

VP Biden urges churches to support gun control, but totally ignores 300,000+ annual abortion deaths.

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — Vice President Joe Biden has a commandment for pastors, rabbis and nuns: He wants them to tell their flocks that enacting gun control is the moral thing to do.

Read more

Editor’s note: Obama and Biden as great moral leaders of our time. What a (laughable) concept!

How… did the tiniest of minorities — no more than 2% of the population — get in a position to silence the beliefs and punish the practices of hundreds of millions?

In free societies, pornography largely remains an often frowned upon matter of private adult autonomy while the global homosexual movement is increasingly gaining acceptance of its agenda as a civil rights issue demanding public approval. While pornographers like Hugh Hefner in the Playboy Mansion have historically been content with being unhindered by otherwise disapproving individuals in a “live and let live” libertarian legal regime, Ruse writes that modern homosexuals will brook no such agreement to disagree, but rather “want Christians” (and all others) “prostrate before them and before the law.”

Ruse’s article in the end indicates the reason for these differing demands for autonomy and approval. “What we know,” he writes, is this. No matter how many Christians they persecute and prosecute, no matter how much society tolerates or even celebrates their sexual proclivities, no matter how many Gay-Straight Alliances are foisted upon our public schools, none of that will still in them the nagging feeling that what they do in bed is unnatural, and their attraction to their own sex is morally wrong. That nagging voice will never go entirely away.

Homosexual demands for public approval thus manifest a vain, twisted effort to achieve public moral compensation from society for private behavior that simply cannot be right. Falsehood cannot coexist with freedom, as the latter will expose the former. Thus advocates of a false agenda must suppress freedom with force.

Read more

“It is perfectly clear and evident, Venerable Brothers, that the very notion of a civilization is a fiction of the brain if it rest not on the abiding principles of truth and the unchanging laws of virtue and justice, and if unfeigned love knit not together the wills of men, and gently control the interchange and the character of their mutual service.”

Catholics often hear that we intend to “impose our morality” upon our neighbors, and that this can’t be done in a truly free, that is to say thoroughly secular society.  Set aside the plain fact that all law imposes a moral vision, though it is seldom consistent or adequate, and it is sometimes perverse.

The fact is, morality admits no peculiar possessives.  If a morality is only mine, it isn’t morality but meaningless predilection.  Either a moral law exists, applying to everyone at all times, or it doesn’t.  If it doesn’t, there is no moral reason to prefer civilization to savagery; the latter can be a lot more fun.  But we won’t have that choice anyway, because we will lose civilization itself.  What we now call “civilization” and “culture,” Pope Leo calls “a fiction of the brain,” a vain idea, when the reality is gone.

That loss of morality understood as what we receive, not what we create; not what shackles us, but what sets us free to realize our human potential, implies already the loss of “unfeigned love” which should knit together “the wills of men, and gently control the interchange and the character of their mutual service.”  We must insist upon this connection.  I cannot give amoral love.  But human beings need love; they need the love that brings them deeper into the truth.

More

The divine institution of the natural law

earthcropenh

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

II. THE VISIBLE WORLD

337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day.204 On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation,205permitting us to “recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.”206

338 Nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history are rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun.207

339 Each creature possesses its own particular goodness and perfection. For each one of the works of the “six days” it is said: “And God saw that it was good.” “By the very nature of creation, material being is endowed with its own stability, truth and excellence, its own order and laws.”208 Each of the various creatures, willed in its own being, reflects in its own way a ray of God’s infinite wisdom and goodness. Man must therefore respect the particular goodness of every creature, to avoid any disordered use of things which would be in contempt of the Creator and would bring disastrous consequences for human beings and their environment.

353     God willed the diversity of his creatures and their own particular goodness, their interdependence and their order. He destined all material creatures for the good of the human race. Man, and through him all creation, is destined for the glory of God.

354     Respect for laws inscribed in creation and the relations which derive from the nature of things is a principle of wisdom and a foundation for morality.

V. THE PROLIFERATION OF SIN

1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.

1866 Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great. They are called “capital” because they engender other sins, other vices.138 They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia.

1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel,139 the sin of the Sodomites,140 the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

– by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

– by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

– by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

– by protecting evil-doers.

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a “social sin.”144

Link

Fundamental political moral battleground: Earned success vs learned hopelessness.

“Anyone who reads the words of the Founders,” Mr. Brooks writes, “cannot miss their keen emphasis on the morality of the systems they intended to create. Our ideas about free enterprise and liberty were born from a sense of what is right and what helps us to thrive as people, not from a monomaniacal obsession with what makes us rich.”

Historian Matthew Spalding echoes this theme in his 2009 book, “We Still Hold These Truths”: “As the Founders saw it, the right to property was not simply an economic concept, and was much more than owning a bit of land. It was a first principle of liberty. The essence of liberty is the freedom to develop one’s talents, pursue opportunity, and generally take responsibility for one’s own life and well-being.”

Mr. Brooks calls that “earned success,” and he’s got plenty of social science research that shows people are happier when they have a chance to earn their success. That doesn’t mean equality of outcome, however. Some people are always going to do better than others, and Americans understand and accept that.

Read more

We’re all expected to make prudential judgments about the morality of our actions and those of others.

For if we could not judge the actions of others, that would be tantamount to denying that moral principles can be applied in practice, even though they must be accepted in theory. The final consequence is that morality would be rendered meaningless as a standard to guide human actions. That leads to the most complete subjectivism — a free for all in which everyone does what he fancies.

That also causes people to completely lose their moral sense; and it is perhaps one of the causes of the amorality of our present age.

Since religious people become insecure facing the “judge not” argument of the Gospel, let us examine more closely what it actually means.

Read more

Submitted by AndyP/Doria2