Articles by Andrew Haines
Life, liberty, and free contraceptives?
Aug 4, 2011 / 00:00 amBeginning next year, American women will have access to publicly-funded contraceptives under the Obama healthcare plan — and all without copays.Following last month’s recommendation by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) that contraceptives and sterilization procedures be classed as “preventive services,” the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — headed up by Kathleen Sebelius — concluded that “Not [covering contraceptives] would be like not covering flu shots.” In short, according to Sebelius and the current administration, women have a basic right to affordable healthcare; and access to cheap birth control is part and parcel of that right.In response to the HHS decision, conservative groups have been indignant. In addition to the suspect claim that women have a basic right to affordable birth control (or even affordable healthcare), most unnerving is the very limited conscience protection clause introduced as a feature of the decision. According to Jeanne Monahan, head of the Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity:HHS offered a fig leaf of conscience protection for certain churches that fulfill very specific criteria. However, religious groups that provide social services, engage in missions work to people of different religious faiths, religious health insurance companies, let alone religious health care providers and individuals in such health plans are not protected from any discrimination whatever. The new rule will force many Americans to violate their consciences or refrain from participating in health care insurance, further burdening an already costly system.Moreover, as drugs like Ella and Plan B are included as part of the coverage — drugs that are shown to be abortifacients and not simply “contraceptives” — it’s not just those opposed to contraception that should be worried. Rather, it’s anyone who opposes public funding for abortion — indeed, a much higher number of Americans.Per usual, the most vocal support for the decision comes from groups with a perceptible pro-abortion bent. And the rhetoric is as poisonous as always. Cynthia Pearson of the National Women’s Health Network remarked in favor of the decision:Over a span of generations from grandmothers to granddaughters, we have come from birth control being a hope and a wish — and almost luck — to being recognized as a part of health care that improves women's health.Never mind, of course, that alternatives to artificial birth control have and do exist; and that the rates of method success far surpass that of condoms, the pill, or other physical or hormonal devices.The simple fact remains: although amongst sexually active women the rates of birth control usage are nearly one-to-one, nothing of this situation makes birth control a “right,” or identifies it as something we “ought” to offer as subsidized.Maybe the most alarming feature of the HHS’ move is the elimination of copays from contraceptive access — no doubt an effort to appeal to, and even enforce usage amongst women in economically dire situations. More than simply making contraceptives and sterilization “equally accessible” for such women, the provision highlights them as primary beneficiaries of the plan.Removal of copays on contraceptive “prevention” also, it seems, leaves the door open to a host of unattractive future contingencies. For example, not only will taxpayers be funding handouts of the pill, Plan B and Ella. They’ll also be paying for newer and more advanced methods of birth control (e.g., surgical and highly invasive methods) — methods that cost even more money, and that divert even more national resources away from efforts that are truly necessary.It’s no stretch to say that the elevation of contraceptive (and abortifacient) access to the status of a “basic right” is harmful not only to children in utero, but also to American women, and to our nation as a whole. Responsibility in the realm of sexual health can’t be reduced to shortcut solutions to real problems. No one would argue that widespread and skyrocketing numbers of unintended pregnancies aren’t something that needs to be addressed. But attacking the symptoms rather than the cause is a clear sign of shortsightedness and, quite frankly, impotence on the part of our current administration — Sebelius and President Obama, most especially.To the contrary, what’s required in facing such challenges is a response rooted not in reactionary sentiment, but instead upon a foundation of right reason and prudence. This is especially true as regards the dignity of human sexuality and personhood — both in the case of women as well as their children. But it’s also vital in working to protect the meaning and longevity of the rights we enjoy as Americans.When access to affordable birth control ranks alongside a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, something is askew. And the problems brought along in its wake might well be enough to jeopardize those rights that truly are fundamental and universal.
What ‘civil liberties’ are we defending, anyway?
Jul 28, 2011 / 00:00 amA few weeks back, I wrote a post describing how “marriage equality” isn’t really about ensuring “equal rights.”Now, a recent piece at CFMPL’s Ethika Politika blog highlights the ambiguous language that surrounds matters of “civil liberties.” And this particularly as it relates to gender-specific dorm situations on college campuses.In his guest post, Chris Wolfe — a Ph.D student in politics at Claremont Graduate University — points out a number of flaws with the position of organizations like the ACLU and others in their attempts to defend near-limitless boundaries for college student living.The recent debate over CUA’s single-sex housing policy is the newest episode in the ACLU’s attack on what they call “gender identity.” The case with CUA (mixed-sex dorms) is actually mild compared to what the ACLU has been pushing for in other colleges across the country: mixed-sex dorm rooms.As bizarre as that sounds, this logical conclusion of their civil liberty argument is being pushed for in many schools, including the undergraduate colleges in Claremont.Wolfe relates some points from a correspondence between him and the student head of the ACLU at Claremont. His main contention against the ACLU position follows:What civil liberties is the ACLU defending exactly? Fair and equal treatment of each woman and man certainly is a civil liberty we should fight for, but that is not what is at stake with gender separate housing. Whenever the word “separate” is used, people assume some kind of unfair discrimination. The word “separate” recalls the famous 1954 desegregation case, Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court rightly overruled the racist “separate but equal doctrine” that prevented blacks from attending local public schools. However, separate dorm rooms for women and men say nothing about either gender’s superiority.“Superiority” is not “difference,” however. And, as Wolfe rightly notes:Differences between citizens are recognized all the time by the government; without them, we could not have a progressive income tax, for example. Recognizing differences is only a violation of civil liberties when citizens are mistreated on the basis of indelible characteristics such as race, as blacks were back in the 1950s. Blacks required the status of a “protected class” to prevent the unfair discrimination of segregation.On the other hand, the same-gender housing situation at CUA — and many other Catholic colleges — doesn’t warrant such a move as to “protect” students from unjust segregation. Wolfe concludes:People who don’t believe in “biological sex or gender identity” can always attend some other private college. For colleges to delve into the minds of its students and protect every imaginable opinion would be impossible and contradictory. That is why the premise of the ACLU’s “civil liberty” argument is absurd.
What the Church ‘really’ says
Jul 21, 2011 / 00:00 amI’m going to go out on a limb here and say something that might not win me many friends: “What the Church says” about many things isn’t clear. That’s right, the Church’s teaching on many topics is unclear.
Snowflake babies: A Catholic response
Jul 14, 2011 / 00:00 amA phenomenon of recent advances in medical science has been the advent of “snowflake babies” — human embryos, created via IVF, and frozen prior to uterine implantation. As the result of a completed, biological act of fertilization, snowflake babies are indeed human beings. And as such, they’re full human persons.
Proud to be an Ohioan
Jul 7, 2011 / 00:00 amNot often does Ohio top the charts when it comes to something to be proud of. I would know. I’m from Ohio. We’ve got the Rust Belt, the Cleveland Browns, and the infamously incendiary Cuyahoga River.
‘Marriage' equality: Not about equal rights
Jun 30, 2011 / 00:00 amContrary to popular belief, the debate over “marriage equality” — i.e., admitting that same-sex unions can be tantamount to marital unions — is not about securing equal rights for all. This language, after all, is so often thrown around, in houses of legislature as well as in our own living rooms. But it’s a misnomer; and it’s caused no small amount of confusion.That people have a “right” to marry is, at bottom, a fuzzy notion. It’s fuzzy precisely because the term “right” is fuzzy. To many, rights are those claims we have on things that seem good to us: for example, shelter, food, and liberty — and even on more abstract things like the ability to vote. “I have a right to my opinion,” some say. “I have a right to do and say what makes me happy.”Of course, at some point we’d all agree that rights to personal happiness fall apart. If what makes me happy is killing my neighbor, that’s not protected under my rights; and no one would disagree.What sets apart right-protected actions from non-right-protected actions is often left out of the question. But it’s an important factor in determining where my rights end, and where someone else’s begin.To think this way, we have to introduce a criterion for parsing the idea of “rights.” And that criterion is nothing other than goodness.In the case of my wanting to kill my neighbor, there’s an obvious good that’s impeded in my carrying out the action: i.e., my neighbor loses his life. He’s got a right to that, no doubt. And when I infringe on his ability to secure that right, my action is no longer defensible by the same standard. In short — in a just society — two rights can’t contradict one another. Otherwise, justice is reduced merely to the will and desires of the stronger.At bottom, then, in order to claim a right to some thing or action, that thing or action must be genuinely good, and must not contravene the goodness due to another member, or many other members of society.When it comes to “marriage equality,” arguments from “equal protection under law” don’t hold water precisely because they presume that a right (i.e., to marriage) is being withheld when in fact it is not. Quite simply, there is nothing genuinely good about non-conjugal unions being named “marriages.” Marriage — historically — is a name reserved for a union between a man and a woman; and its character and meaning entails precisely that: the possibility for conjugal union. Calling a same-sex, non-conjugal union “marriage” is equivalent to naming a friendship between two young girls “parenthood.” Some similarities are present, sure — two people in relation to one another. But in each case, a critical, defining aspect is missing.Nor do the rights of heterosexual couples to marry infringe or impede upon the rights of same-sex couples to marry, since the latter is impossible to begin with.No doubt, advocates of same-sex marriage use “equal rights” language because it has a proven track record historically — for instance, in establishing the equality of black Americans with their white counterparts. In this case, a genuine good was being withheld from blacks that they had a claim on — namely, the goodness of enjoying, as human persons, the same treatment, evaluation, and liberties as other persons. “Equal protection under law” applied.But in the case of gay marriage, no goodness is being denied the couples in question. And the actions of outsiders don’t infringe on any pre-possessed right. Same-sex couples simply aspire to an institution — and a type of relationship — that they cannot participate in (with one another). Arguments from “equal protection” are, on these grounds, baseless, since there is simply nothing equal about the romantic relationship between a man and a woman and the romantic relationship between two men or two women.
Scandal: The forgotten sin
Jun 23, 2011 / 00:00 amRecent events having transpired—e.g., Fr. John Corapi’s “bombshell” plan to leave the priesthood, Rep. Anthony Weiner’s Twitter dalliances, etc.—force a discussion of that forgotten sin that seems to lurk forever in the background of our popular culture: scandal.To most of us, scandal ranks somewhere far down the totem pole from murder and fornication, even below cheating, although perhaps a little above scrupulosity. In short, it’s mostly viewed as playing second fiddle to the real culprits—sexual deviancy, abuse of power, and so forth.But what is scandal, really? The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines scandal as an “attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil.” In its essence, so to speak, scandal doesn’t necessarily entail any further species or type of sin. It can be coupled together with another sin (e.g., sexual abuse of a minor by a member of the clergy or someone in political authority); but this isn’t always the case.While it’s easy to spot “scandal” in the headlines of obvious cases—Fr. Corapi, Anthony Weiner, et al.—it’s perhaps the unnoticed instances that prove more dangerous. If not by virtue of their gravity, then at the very least because of their frequency and popular excusability. It’s the every-day scandal that is, in many respects, the greatest threat to the work of the Church and the edification of Christian moral standards. And, unfortunately, it’s many of us who are to blame for these most egregious errors.A few examples might be helpful—I’ll name some that I’ve come across personally over the last couple of years.Here’s a popular scenario for most Catholics: we’re invited to a wedding, but we’re fully aware that the bride- and groom-to-be have been cohabitating (i.e., living together) for some time now. The wedding will be a Catholic one, and the expectation—per Church norms—is that the couple has completed the pre-nuptial course with a priest or deacon, wherein cohabitation is expressly rejected as a viable option. And so on and so forth.The facts are simple: we’re not committing any sin by wishing the couple well, or by feeling relieved that their unfortunate “shacking up” will be put to an end by the ratification of the sacrament. That’s a (generally) healthy sentiment. But just how far can we go in endorsing the marriage? What does our presence at the altar say to them—and to our friends and neighbors who are privy to what’s happening—about the sanctity of marriage? What if our own persona entails defending the Church and her teachings publicly (e.g., as a theology teacher or catechist, etc.)? In short, although we might not be “cooperating with evil” by attending the wedding, are we acting in a way that “leads another to do evil”?I won’t supply the answers; just something to think about.Another more popular case might be our discussions at the water cooler. (I don’t work in an office; but I watch The Office, and I assume that’s a pretty fair portrayal of reality. Right?) Here, there’s a double-edged sword in the mix: on the one hand, there’s the possibility of becoming apathetic—separating out “professional” and “pious” duties, allowing ne’er the twain to meet. And on the other hand, there’s the temptation to forsake one’s religious convictions when times are tough, or when situations become impassable. Neither is recommended; and either could potentially be an occasion of scandal for our coworkers. (E.g., “This guy mentions going to Sunday Mass, but didn’t raise an eyebrow when I told him my girlfriend is on the pill. I thought Catholics didn’t like that? It must not be that serious, after all…”)Of course, this isn’t at all about becoming scrupulous. We don’t need to hunt down every occasion of scandal from morning to night. And not every time we act cowardly or imperfectly are we committing an action that “leads another to do evil.”Rather, my point is only that scandal abounds—and that it’s not limited to the “bombshell” cases of pedophile priests of philandering public servants. We’re all quite often to blame; and we ought to do our best to confront and deal with scandalous behavior whenever possible.The counterpart to scandal (as a sin) is, of course, virtue. That is to say, the best remedy for scandal—which is most usually the fruit of cowardice and laziness—is the virtue of fortitude. In either example above, fortitude is a key—either to acknowledging, discerning, and defending resolutely the teachings of the faith at work, or to witnessing heroically to the sanctity of the sacraments in inappropriate situations. (I should add: where scandal is concerned, there’s usually no “right” or “wrong” answer. Rather, combating scandal requires much reflection, good judgment, and most importantly some sort of preemptive action.)While Christians shouldn’t be perpetually afraid of slipping into scandal at any turn, they should—by virtue of baptism—take seriously the charge to renounce it, and to do whatever it takes to eliminate the possibility of scandalous action in daily life.Just think: if the seeds of the Gospel planted by hard work and ardent evangelization were all allowed to take root and flourish rather than be pecked up by birds of the air, or be trodden over by careless passers-by, how much more noticeable would the message of the Gospel be in our so-often laissez faire moral culture?
The Economics of Family Planning
Jun 9, 2011 / 00:00 amI just read a really interesting book: Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think. In it, economist Bryan Caplan argues that tacking an extra kid onto your current family size is almost always a good thing—and he does it all with numbers.
In the world, not of it: Facebook & Catholic Evangelism
Jun 2, 2011 / 00:00 amI spend too much time on Facebook. I’m working to fix that. Recently, I’ve gotten a little help from an unexpected place.
What’s in a gender?
May 26, 2011 / 00:00 amI’m frankly surprised this has garnered so much attention. But it has, and it probably should.Very recently, a Toronto, Ontario couple—Kathy Witterick and David Stocker—made local news by refusing to disclose publicly the gender of their 4-month-old child, Storm. What’s the reason for the cover-up? “We've decided not to share Storm’s sex for now,” said the parents, “a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...).”Contrary to popular belief (and common sense), there’s nothing ambiguous about Storm’s genitalia. Apparently, the child’s two brothers, Jazz and Kio, know the sex of their sibling. So do a few others. Kathy and David simply want to leave the options open for their youngest to do as s/he likes.As one article remarks, “Witterick and Stocker believe they are giving their children the freedom to choose who they want to be, unconstrained by social norms about males and females.” That is, after all, their more comprehensive parenting philosophy. “Jazz and Kio have picked out their own clothes in the boys and girls sections of stores since they were 18 months old. Just this week, Jazz unearthed a pink dress at Value Village, which he loves because it ‘really poofs out at the bottom. It feels so nice.’”What’s really surprising about all this is that criticism of Witterick and Stocker’s decision is being registered across the board. It’s not surprising that social conservatives would disagree with gender-neutrality. But social liberals, and even those who support theories of social evolution, have lambasted the stunt as a “bizarre lab experiment” that flies in the face of natural history. Rather than critiquing the damage done to a child by withholding gender identity, social evolutionists believe that critical models, or scripts, will suffer if such a situation becomes widespread.Either way, the isolated case of an overly-zealous Canadian couple gives good cause to reflect on the bigger question: what’s in a gender?From the very fact that it’s such a touchy topic, we immediately realize that “gender issues” are serious matters. For liberals (or “progressives,” as Storm’s parents opt to say), “gender” is inherently linked to the fundamental human capacity for choice. Sex organs aren’t enough to determine what “sort” of person we’ll grow up to be. Sex organs are just that—sex organs. They’re not indicative of anything deeper. They simply serve a practical purpose.For conservatives, on the other hand, “gender” is the product of sexual classification. Being masculine or feminine is linked directly to having a certain set of sexual organs. The organs have a utilitarian function; but they also signal the essential make-up of an individual.When faced with the possibility of completely stifling any public recognition of sex organs, though, only the most “progressive” among us can stand strong. To most, it’s utterly unthinkable: to raise a child whom you never affirm as being either male or female, masculine or feminine? Even most who despise the “archaic” gender roles of yesteryear see the value in identifying people as “men” and “women.” (Whether or not those terms hold much water in the long run is another story.) There’s something very practical about preserving the traditional distinctions: assigning bathrooms stands out as a clear example.At bottom, what Witterick and Stocker are aiming to do is not simply to advocate “choice” and “progress,” but instead to deny the very fact that being human entails having a body. Transsexuals acknowledge that to be a certain gender, reassignment surgery and hormone introductions are required. For baby Storm, the case is even more severe: s/he can choose to be any gender, and biology has nothing to do with it.Moreover, since human beings are free in their choosing—i.e., not simply binary selectors—the logical conclusion is that there must be more than two genders to pick from—presumably innumerable genders, as many as there are people to possess them.Ultimately, it’s not hard to see why baby Storm has caused such an uproar. From both sides of the (ever-widening) aisle of social theory, justifiable criticisms have been leveled that help to pinpoint precisely what’s at stake when gender identity is relegated to one’s power to choose. Not only is the dignity of the child put at risk—a dignity that is closely associated with his or her gender—but also the very fundamental truth that human beings are bodily beings, and that the two realities aren’t separable.Across the board, disregard for the value and meaning of human life is becoming more and more linked to a disregard for the human body. We see it in abortion, where full human organisms are killed with no concern for the person they bespeak. We see it in IVF, where the biological coming-to-be of new life is separated entirely from the personal self-gift of spouses. And now we recognize it in the case of an unfortunate toddler, whose delusional parents have chosen to play politics rather than to prioritize the health and well-being of their child.When push comes to shove, no one should be willing to sacrifice the value of human life—and the privilege of choice—to sensationalized ideologies. Surely, both social conservatives and social liberals, alike, can appreciate that.Maybe, then, the story of baby Storm—in a strange twist of fate—does have the potential to make real social progress a little more accessible, after all.
Morality for the rest of us
May 19, 2011 / 00:00 amI recently had a discussion with a friend on a rather divisive moral topic. In the end, our opinions seemed to meet. But as part of her particular concern, she raised a worry that applies pretty generally across the board—and it’s something that deserves mention, here.
Bin Laden’s death was justified
May 12, 2011 / 00:00 amThe big question lately in some circles has been: Was the death of Osama bin Laden — in the way that it happened — justified?
When IVF becomes the ‘moral approach’
Apr 21, 2011 / 00:00 amI had never heard of Treacher Collins syndrome until the other day, when I read this article on the BBC. As a new parent, I was pretty shaken by the grim reality it presents.
‘Balance’ in budgets and banter
Apr 14, 2011 / 00:00 amBetween national debt and social issues, “balance” is the buzzword. In debates ranging from fiscal responsibility to gay rights and anything in between, today’s American dialogue is invariably tempered by this familiar call to action: “We need to be balanced. Not political. Not extreme. But balanced.”
Dismantling contraception
Apr 7, 2011 / 00:00 amCatholics are unique for a number of reasons, not least of which is that we hold to a strange (read: counter-cultural) view of “purpose” in sex. A while back, I took a look at this phenomenon from the perspective of same-sex marriage. And now, I’d like to offer a few thoughts on its relevance for contraception.To be sure, one way of dealing with this question would be to perform a philosophical analysis of the meaning, scope, and aim of human sexual contact. But equally valuable, I think, is to take a look at the role contraception plays in contemporary society, and at some of the puzzling scenarios it provokes.A few points to frame the discussion. First, let’s not be concerned with whether or not contraceptive practices are wrong—clearly the Church teaches that they violate the dignity of spousal union, and that they are in no manner acceptable. And, as a matter of doctrine, this isn’t a matter of invasion of privacy but of absolute truth.Second, let’s note that the word “contraception” is oftentimes used equivocally, both in reference to a thing—i.e., condoms, the pill, IUDs, etc.—and to a type of action—e.g., to “practice contraception.”One thing we can be sure of: contraception (in whatever form) is just as much a mentality as it is a phenomenon. In other words, contraceptive acts and products exist not in mere isolation, but rather in a broader context. As Aristotle says, there’s no science of particulars. But we have endeavored upon quite the science of contraception. For one thing, as Scott Lloyd points out, we’ve encountered the staggering fact that “among the users of contraceptives, the margin of error is enough to create nearly the entire demand for abortion in this country every year.” And these numbers are supported by the research of the Guttmacher Institute.Then there’s the undeniable fact that couples practicing Natural Family Planning experience dramatically lower rates of divorce.Of course, neither of these implicates a causal connection (e.g., that contraception is responsible for more abortions or divorces). But scientifically speaking, the preponderance of the evidence seems to point in that direction. At the very least, there’s an unmistakable link between contraception and other destructive practices, and this is a clear sign of some shared, underlying worldview.Because of its ubiquity, the significance of “contraception” is gravely misunderstood. Because of efforts to stop the spread of diseases like HIV, condoms were originally identified with “safe” or “protected” sex. But the meaning of the term “safe” has been dragged through the mud of sexual liberation, and is now used to refer not only to disease-free, but also to sterile intercourse. (The same idea has even been applied to abortion as a “safer” resolution to pregnancy.) Although this double ‘benefit’ is condom-specific, the nomenclature has stuck for all forms of birth control—just skim Planned Parenthood’s “Health Info” page for examples.This general confusion has been particularly damaging in certain Catholic circles, where legitimate theological debates on the possibility of condom use for stopping HIV transmission are mired by comments like, “Finally, the Church sees that condoms—and contraception—might be a good thing.” Perhaps no where was this more visible than in the media flurry surrounding Pope Benedict’s recent comments on condom use by sex workers. Ultimately, the connection between contraception and safety is hard-wired into our brains; and there’s no easy way to dissolve it.All of this goes to show, I think, that contraception is more than a throw-away dilemma. Those interested in upholding the dignity of the human person—and human life—cannot focus simply on what’s most obvious. We need to inform ourselves with the (observable, scientific) facts, and use our judgment to recognize that something even more insidious is afoot—and all the more dangerous because of its covert character.Many of us are unafraid to confront abuse of human life in the public square, and rightfully so. We believe abortion and embryonic stem cell destructive research are wrong because they’re categorically evil. But we’re much less willing to confront such personal evils as contraceptive use and, in a more general way, the contraceptive mentality.Indeed, this is the next frontier in defending human dignity. And it’s one we ought to realize is encroaching upon us more and more each day.
ICSI: A new challenge to human life
Mar 31, 2011 / 00:00 amAs reproductive technology advances even farther into uncharted waters, questions regarding “beginning-of-life ethics” grow more complicated. In particular, with new methods of in vitro fertilization (IVF) on the rise, pro-lifers are now being forced to grapple with previously unthinkable moral problems: e.g., what do we do with “discarded embryos”; and is frozen embryo (a.k.a. “snowflake”) adoption morally okay?
Double standards & the American identity
Mar 24, 2011 / 00:00 amIn a recent article for Ethika Politika, Catherine Palmer asks whether double standards on fetal value are deforming America. In support, she notes a series of paradoxes about our language on pre- and post-born human life, and draws the conclusion that ambivalence concerning life is tantamount to consent in ending it.In the end, Palmer offers the words of Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994:America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships.Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity . . . I have no new teaching for America. I seek only to recall you to that faithfulness you once taught the world.Palmer’s look at the effects of double standards – and ultimately the atrocity of legalized abortion – prompts a few questions. Most importantly, we might ask: is the defense of unborn life something we as a nation should take seriously for reasons other than ethical ones?I don’t want to be misunderstood: abortion is wrong because it’s the intentional termination of innocent human life, an act that is never morally justifiable. But it deserves to be asked whether some current proponents of abortion might also find reason to reject it on the grounds of preserving a national identity and integrity.It’s no mystery that pro-choice rhetoric is grounded firmly in a language of “rights” – a woman’s right to choose, rights to healthcare coverage, etc. But given Palmer’s paradoxes (e.g., things like charging drug-addict mothers with felonies while condoning open-access to cheap abortions) the very meaning of the word, “rights,” is totally obscured. In one case, an unborn fetus is the victim of a serious crime; and in another, she’s the unfortunate object of a lethal yet permissible procedure.At bottom, ambiguity on the legal status of the unborn fetus is a dilemma that transcends morality. Rather, it’s something that threatens to undermine the integrity of personal identity across the board, be it in judicial, economic, or policy settings. If we can’t agree on just what a person is – i.e., on who is a bearer of rights and precisely why that’s the case – then arguing in favor of such rights (e.g., to life, to trade, to healthcare, to self-defense, etc.) is a vacuous measure.Part of the strength of the American identity, as Mother Theresa rightly pointed out, has been our willingness and eagerness to teach the rest of the world the meaning of human dignity, hard work, and liberty – as she calls it, “faithfulness.” But as she points out, permitting discord at the “heart of the most intimate human relationships” has not only compromised our ability to do so, but has even “deformed [our] great nation” from within.Mother Theresa provides answers to the questions I’ve posed here: personal rights are not privileges conferred by governments, but are grounded in the fact of humanity. They are, as Mother Theresa and pro-choicers would each agree, “entitlements.” But what they are – the meaning of such “rights” – is a product of the significance of human life itself. Authentic rights cannot contradict the goodness of life, nor the goodness or integrity of an enduring national identity.To be American is, at bottom, to defend the inseparability of human life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness. And permitting paradoxes to injure one’s understanding of any of these basic rights is, ultimately, to contradict the very thing that makes our nation great.
Planned Parenthood, Starbucks & no apologies
Mar 17, 2011 / 00:00 amA recent video is causing some waves on YouTube – one that offers a vivid glimpse into the mindset of today’s pro-choice America. [Warning: because of some censored language and strong opinions, the video is not suitable for children. However the content is not morally objectionable.]In light of recent debate over whether or not defunding Planned Parenthood is a good idea (economically, politically, and otherwise), both pro-life and pro-abortion factions have become increasingly vocal about the meaning of women’s healthcare and the role of the state in footing the bill.From all this, at least one thing has become clear: being pro-choice is not about protecting a woman’s right to choose; rather, it’s about promoting access to abortion with the intent to exploit.If you haven’t watched the video yet, I suggest that you do. You’ll see what I mean.Two things struck me most about the outspokenness of young people defending Planned Parenthood: a desire not only to keep abortion legal, but to make it popular; and a willingness to offer personal testimony of its therapeutic effects. This short video captures each of these sentiments with shocking clarity.“I’m so glad to be a future doctor,” says one Walk for Choice marcher. “And I will perform abortions and I’ll be proud of it.”“There is no shame in abortion,” another young woman assures a large crowd. “I am planning on being an abortion provider. I had an abortion a few weeks ago – my insurance actually covered it!”This much is certain: these aren’t the words of people who have the well-being of women in mind. Rather, they’re an evangelium of death – testimony promoting a disdain for unborn human life in favor of a selfish pursuit of personal power. “Abortion on demand and without apology!” another marcher exclaims. It’s a clarion cry for those plunged headlong into the murderous cycle of abortion rights, sexual liberation, and government-sponsored infanticide. As a result, Planned Parenthood rallies look more and more like fascist demonstrations, and their underlying message has become almost indistinguishable.Perhaps the most elucidating point of the clip comes during a short interview with a young man who claims: “I want Planned Parenthood to be like Starbucks. I want a Planned Parenthood on every corner.”If it was mistakable before, it’s not any longer. The idea is simply this: to make abortion services not only “safe,” affordable, and abundant, but even fresh, trendy, and popular. Given its business model, Starbucks has revolutionized American society in just a few short decades. And by the same model, Planned Parenthood can and will destroy it.This radical mindset of the pro-choice left poses a new problem for anti-abortionists. In sum, we’ve put a lot of resources into a ground game based on the defense of a fetus as real human life. But that’s not what’s being denied. Rather, as Mattias Caro notes, the question is “when and why are the best conditions to bring that fetus into the world.” What’s being rejected is no longer the medical fact that a zygote is a full human organism. Instead, it’s the moral principle that ending innocent human life is an evil. (“They wanna’ talk about morality? Look at what we represent right now: Abortion on demand and without apology!”)While it’s relatively difficult (although not impossible) to sabotage the value of scientific certainty, undermining the stability of morals is much easier. We who are pro-life ought to reconsider our strategies for combating such an inimical foe. Testifying to the fact of human life isn’t enough; we must attest to its dignity. And we need to arm ourselves with the information, insight, and arguments that will stand up to the abortion empire in court, on campuses, and in the workplace.Defending human life is intuitive. But combating a prideful initiative to debase moral norms is another story, entirely.
Thomas Aquinas: Reasons for God
Mar 10, 2011 / 00:00 amThe most favored of all Latin Church thinkers is undoubtedly Saint Thomas Aquinas. (Saint Augustine probably comes in at a close second.) From the Summa Theologiae to Tantum Ergo, Aquinas is arguably one of the most prolific writers of all time. But apart from the sheer volumne of his work, what is it that sets the Angelic Doctor so far above the rest of the field and ensures him a spot as an icon of Catholic intellectualism some seven centuries after his death?
Playing the language game (on abortion)
Mar 3, 2011 / 00:00 amRecently, I had a discussion with a friend of mine about the differences between modern and not-modern thought. The popular reaction in many orthodox Catholic circles seems to be 1) that there are one or two big features that set these periods apart; and 2) that these words actually define “periods” in the first place.