Fortnight for Freedom in Baltimore

Majority of People Participate in Mass

I just came back from the Basilica in Baltimore from where the fortnight for freedom kicked-off. It was a packed church, and it seemed like every person participated in the singing and prayers. Not since the Oratory in Pittsburgh during my undergrad days has a mass been so invigorating, even though the air itself was stifling (Archbisop Lori had to have many cups of water handed to him throughout the liturgy).

I wonder if I was on camera since my feet stood on the ground in about the sixth row in front of the Archbishop's chair (literally, the Cathedral). Cardinal O'Brien was looking directly in my direction on the other side of the alter underneath the pulpit. If you saw/see the EWTN broadcast (the camera was pretty much right in front of me), I am the tall guy with the blue shirt with white stripes and glasses.

The procession was long with many priests and deacons from the Archdiocese of Baltimore. My parish pastor was not there, but the pastor from a nearby parish was: St. Agnes.

The only thing that I did not particularly like was all the clapping for everything. There seemed to be to much horizontal pomp and clericalism for such a reverent setting. I love my Archbishop, but he doesn't need to be drowned in misplaced recognition. (Before mass, people gave a standing O for him when he passed by. Really?)

His homily had two aspects that I would like to mention.

Inherent or Inalienable?

First, he said that we have from God (our Creator) an inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is a curious change from inalienable to inherent. First Things had a very interesting take on "Rights You Can't Give Away" that analyzed the meaning of inalienable from a property point of view. Simply put, Austen's Darcy cannot just give his estate away, he has responsibilities to pass it on in the family.

However, is inherent more or less strong than inalienable? Legally, something has an inherent property if all instances of the thing or concept has that property; it simply cannot be called the thing without said property. Logically it's a necessary condition (to have a given property for that thing). So, any human inherently has a right to life, etc.

Perhaps the distinction is that inalienable rights are given by a creator, while inherent rights are defined as an integral part of the thing itself. In theory, couldn't God take away natural rights? However, if rights are inherent, the thing itself possesses rights internally which would make them not that thing if they didn't have it.

God couldn't change a human into a duck if God desired it so (or could it be?). However, God could take away rights since he endowed the rights (sort of like life can be taken or given by God according to His will).

Well, since both seem pretty indisputable (God hasn't changed a person into a duck and He can give and take life as he wills), either do seem to be equally fine. (Please let me know if I went somewhere wrong, it's late.)

Conscience Theme

Over and over he mentioned conscience as a driving principal in society. This is obviously important to a major degree since the Church's conscience is being trampled upon in it's charity toward Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

However, I wish he would have mentioned something either along the lines of developing a thrust towards "a well-formed conscience" or one formed by natural law principals (see Dr. Kings use of St. Aquinas here).

A Pelosi or Biden could easily say that they are following their conscience for pushing the HHS mandate, but a more explicit handling could have been useful.

Overall, the homily was very good, especially when he talked about St. More and Fischer. (He even plainly said that King Henry's Act of Supremacy caused St. More and Fischer to loose their lives for their conscience's sake.)

May God bless Archbishop Lori.

----

Oh yes, BTW, local channel 11 (NBC) was there besides EWTN.

HHS Mandate Demonstration in Ellicott City

I had the privilege to eat lunch with the organizer of the HHS Mandate Demonstration in Ellicott City, Maryland, Peggy Hagen. We were joined by the lead council for a religious liberty defense firm, his two children, and another woman protester.

One thing I realized is that you don't have to be a Princeton professor to set-up a demonstration. The Ellicott City organizer is currently a waitress (this is a good job too BTW).

One day, while writing against the HHS mandate on Facebook, she decided that she should do something besides write about the mandate. So, she organized both the March and June 2012 HHS mandate rallies. She also managed to get leaders from around the local area.

According to her, during the March rally:

The ministers in the first picture [below] are Fr. Terry Sweeney of St. Timothy's Episcopal in Catonsville (speaking) and Rev. Frank Revell of Cokesbury Memorial Methodist in Abingdon, who led us in our opening prayer. Also speaking were Bishop Rozanski from the Baltimore Archdiocese; myself; and Sandra Nettina, a local nurse and pro-life organizer. This is not a Catholic issue; this is not a gender struggle. This is a fight to retain our Constitutional rights, and it belongs to all Americans. Many thanks to all of those who recognized this and came out, in Ellicott City and in 140 other cities across our nation!

   I wonder how this country would be if more people decided to get out of their arm chair and stand up for Truth.

We can't leave it up to the politicians. Change starts with reviving the culture to the Way.

HHS Mandate Highlights Widespread Religious Stance

Last Friday, I went to my local Stop the HHS Mandate rally (more on that in a later post).

Many (if not most) of the people that showed up were Catholic. At least for myself, I think we realize that our Catholicism is not a hobby, but the Way (Acts 19:9) established by Christ Himself to lead the world to heaven hand in hand with Christ and other believers. Others do not see it this way.

Fr. Barron's video below explains well how this is. Below that, Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia (my original hometown Archdiocese) gives his take vis-a-vis President Kennedy in a speech.



***Archbishop Chaput's speech is here***. (It's great!)

I spoke to a neighbor on my block one day about things.

Gerry: So, what legislation have you been following? [His hobby is to follow bills.]
Neighbor: I've been pretty disgusted with National Politics. I've been following state ones [Maryland].
G: Which ones?
N: The dream act. And I'm really glad the same-sex marriage bill passed.
G: Oh. Sorry to hear that. I'm against it. I just took a training at [the local Catholic Church] to have petitions signed to put it to the voters in November.
N: Don't you think religion should stay out of politics?
G: No. Going back through our history, people through churches have gotten much done. Before the revolutionary war, preachers' sermons up and down the country [really colonies] were given that we should separate from England. Martin Luther King, Jr. used religious rhetoric all the time and especially in Churches to get rid of Jim Crow. Did you ever read his Letter from a Birmingham Jail?
N: I see.

I think this view is wide spread, especially in the North East, from my experience. Why is it this way? Perhaps because powerful ignorance buys power?

I wonder.

My Wife Takes on the HHS Mandate

My wife just took on the HHS mandate.

One of her Quaker relatives in PA posted the picture below on Facebook (click it to enlarge), so my wife saw it. The picture and quote of Obama put her over the edge. She usually doesn't comment on things like this, but this time she felt obliged to take the plunge.
 
She wrote the comment below:

First of all the complaint of the Church is not that they are not being able to practice a belief. It is that they are being asked to provide and pay for something, which the Church holds to be a grave evil. They are not refusing to allow their employees the use of birth control they simply do not wish to be made to pay for it. And since when was birth control a basic right? As far as I know one can live with out it. One can even live with out it with out being “punished with a baby”. I would be curious to find out if those supporting this administrations stand would do so if he were attacking another religious denomination other than the Roman Catholic Church? What if people’s right to object to military service was under attack. Many religious leaders across the country not only Catholics recognize this for what it is, a flagrant attack on the religious freedoms of American Citizens. The Church will not yield on this one. And some of the repercussions will be: the closing of parochial schools that provide education to thousands of under privileged children, The closing of hundreds of hospitals and clinics that care for those below the poverty level. Nursing homes like the one I visit every week with my children will be forced to cease their ministry to the elderly poor. And the list goes on. Why? Because those organizations are not considered religious organizations even though those running them do so because that is what their faith calls them to do. They will close rather than be forced to provide something they consider morally atrocious. And they are right to do so. Would we want them to sacrifice their beliefs? It is a tragedy that they are being asked to do so. And when they are forced to close who will fill in to take their place? Who will fill the whole that is left when the Church is no longer allowed to care for the poor? The Obama administration? It will be a sad day indeed. [original emphasis]

This was great! I'm so proud.

For this post on my blog, I thought I would expand on her logic with my article below. (I submitted the article below to a magazine, but they did not accept it. Where would you have submitted it?)

In Catonsville, Baltimore County, Maryland, where I live, The Little Sisters of the Poor serve the elderly with a level of dignity well above other nursing homes. They have several levels of care in various facility wings within St. Martin’s Home on Maiden Choice Road that meet the needs of the residence.

About every week, my wife and two smallest children go visit their “friends” at St. Martin’s with the hope that they’re “making the residents happy” by the display of their youthful energy. Tragically, the new rule by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) places The Little Sisters in jeopardy of severely reducing their beautiful mission to the poor. The rule mandates that employers directly or indirectly provide contraception and abortion causing drugs to the employees “of all faiths in [their] ministry”.

As the March first statement of the Little Sisters indicates, “Because the Little Sisters of the Poor cannot in conscience directly provide or collaborate in the provision of services that conflict with Church teaching, we find ourselves in the irreconcilable situation of being forced to either stop serving and employing people of all faiths in our ministry – so that we will fall under the narrow exemption – or to stop providing health care coverage to our employees.”

Does the Obama administration through the guidance of Catholic HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius realize that the contraception mandate will cause cost effective religious institutions to function less effectively or shut down? Do they realize that practicing religion is more than going to a place of worship, especially as believed by those in the three Abrahamic religions? A clue to these questions came from a Washington, D.C. political pundit who has close ties to Maryland and the Obama administration.

On February 12, Colby King said on the program “Inside Washington, “Well, I was hospitalized recently at a Catholic hospital. There was no exercise of religion as far as I was concerned [laughter] - at any point. I just got medical care. ... The religion question never came into being. I was treated in that hospital the same way I would be treated in any other hospital.”

Others on the program tried explaining that serving others was an integral part of practicing the Christian religion, but no one laid out the facts from history or the Bible.

Going back to the early Christians in the Roman Empire, when Pagan Romans exposed their newborn children to the elements, Christians would rescue and care for many of them. In the Middle Ages and even today, convents were safe havens for newborns whose mothers could not care for them; they were the origin of the modern “Baby Moses Law”. Jesus Himself taught the Good Samaritan parable that revealed that all people should come to the aid of their neighbor in need.

Most of all, in the twenty-fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, verses thirty-one to forty-six, Jesus reveals that when anyone in the world helps the poor, they minister to Jesus. At the end of time, Jesus will say of those who served the poor themselves, “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.” (vv. 35-36)

When religious institutions act positively toward people who are poor in material and ultimately spiritual ways as revealed in Matthew twenty-five, they are in fact fulfilling their religious obligations through Love within the public square. Even though the care may seem to be the same whether through secular or religious institutions, the above spiritual undergirding of the sponsoring Church, Religious Order, or Ecclesial Community is present. Also, when I personally go to the local juvenile prison facility to help with math classes inside the institution, unless they ask me, they would never know that I come to see them as a Catholic layman in response to a calling by a sister religious from the St. Vincent de Paul Society.

When a non-Catholic hospital nurse or university janitor works in their respective institution, that employee is supporting the mission of the employer to uphold its Gospel mission. The Catholic employer also has Gospel and Church Tradition in mind when it makes the decision to provide health insurance that does not include contraception and abortion inducing drug coverage to their employees. The Gospel, or Culture of Life that the Church preaches does not allow these institutions to directly or indirectly materially cooperate with the Culture of Death by providing those materials.

Of course, there is a debate whether the government may force insurance companies and/or Catholic institutions to provide contraception under the U.S. Constitution. However, the fact of the matter is that religious oases such as The Little Sisters of the Poor would rather reduce their positive contributions to the world which Jesus loves than to cooperate with the evil that the government would force upon them.

SSM / Abortion Contrast

"Obama seems to think that the right to marry (which is conditional) is unconditional, whereas the right to life (which is unconditional) is conditional, as conditioned by the mother’s choice."

This is the best sentence that connects same-sex "marriage" and abortion that I ever read/heard.

(From here: "Praising the play while ignoring the performance: Obama’s misguided support for gay ‘marriage’" Lifesitenews.com)

HHS Mandate Slogans

Here are some HHS slogans by me (HT CMR):

I'll be at the protest in Ellicott City, MD tomorrow.

1. The predictions of Pope Paul VI were not a Fluke!

2. HHS mandate prefigures a China man without a date.

3. HHS mandate is one-child-policy-light.

4. The President swore to defend the USA, not allow China's policies to weaken us.

5. Be fruitful and multiply unnatural rights and kill natural rights.

Three Catholic Priests on the HHS Mandate and Contraception

Three (UPDATE: make that four) Catholic Priests on the HHS Mandate and Contraception in my order of the very best to best:

(1) People of Life (Fr. Jonathan Raia)
Fifth Sunday of Ordinary Time - 2012 (Recorded February 4, 2012)
Original Audio: http://saintwilliams.org/podcast/?p=episode&name=2012-02-05_fjr020512.mp3 (the video below was created from the original mp3 audio file from the link above in its entirety/no modifications)

(2) Religious Liberty Homily


(3) I Have a Say: Father John Hollowell


(UPDATE; added)(4) We Hold These Truths || Spoken Word

Important Komen Confession by Dem. Senators

Did you read the letter from some U.S. Senators (BTW, both of mine are in there from MD, uh again)?

Dear Ambassador Brinker,

We write to express our disappointment with Susan G. Komen for the Cure's decision to cut funding for breast cancer prevention, screening, and education at Planned Parenthood health centers. This troubling decision threatens to reduce access to necessary, life-saving services. We urge Komen to reconsider its decision.

Planned Parenthood is a trusted provider of health care for women and men. More than 90 percent of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are primary and preventative including wellness exams and cancers screenings that save lives. Each year, Planned Parenthood health clinics provide 750,000 breast exams, 770,000 pap tests and nearly 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases. Twenty percent of all women in the U.S. have visited a Planned Parenthood health center.

For the past five years, grants to local affiliates of Planned Parenthood have been an important part of Planned Parenthood's work to protect women from breast cancer. Komen funding for Planned Parenthood has provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and resulted in 6,400 referrals for mammograms. In 2011 alone, grants from Komen provided Planned Parenthood with roughly $650,000 in funding for breast cancer prevention, screening, and education. According to a recent statement by Komen, "In some areas of the U.S., our affiliates have determined a Planned Parenthood clinic to be the best or only local place where women can receive breast health care."

It would be tragic if any woman -let alone thousands of women - lost access to these potentially life-saving screenings because of a politically motivated attack.

We earnestly hope that you will put women's health before partisan politics and reconsider this decision for the sake of the women who depend on both your organizations for access to the health care they need.

Signed:
Sens. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., Patty Murray, D-Was., Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Robert Menendez, D-N.J., Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., Mark Begich, D-Alaska, Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., Jon Tester, D-Mont., Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Max Baucus, D-Mont., Ben Cardin, D-Md., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Al Franken, D-Minn, John Kerry, D-Mass., Claire McCaskill,D-MO., Debbie Stabenow, D-MI., Chris Coons, D-DE., and Jeff Bingaman D-NM.
(Underlining by me)

Two big things the letter admits/shows:

1. They only refer for mammograms.
2. The letter was signed by Democrats only (ie, partisan politicing) and independent clone (from VT, no explanation needed).

The whole thing comes down to what the founder of Komen, CEO Nancy Brinker said:

Our issue is grant excellence. [Planned Parenthood clinics] do pass-through grants with their screening grants: they send people to other facilities. We want to do more direct service grants.

Planned Parenthood (Democrat) trolls, stay off the back of Komen.

Response to Atheist

I just had to repeat this comment that I posted here. It is the Holy Spirit.
--------------

"God has just done too good of a job of hiding for me to have any belief in him."

God came out to play when Jesus was incarnate. After He left to the Father, the Spirit was given to the Church that He established. Want evidence? Just look at the blog you're on now. God's evidence is the presence of the Mystical Body of Christ (the Church) bringing you the Good News and a Doctor for what ails you and the world. It's a place for sinners to receive absolution for their sins.

God bless you Anonymous.

Gerry

Open Letter to Susan G. Komen for the Cure

I sent the following letter to Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Feel free to copy and/or modify the text to send to Komen (education programs and activities).
--------------

Hello,

Thank you for no longer funding Planned Parenthood. They do not conduct mammograms, only manual exams. They provide oral contraceptives and abortions which increase rates of breast cancer. They operate against the beliefs of donors and breast cancer survivors and sufferers. They should remain unfunded indefinitely.

Sincerely,
[Gerry]

Open Letter to "Catholics for Equality"

Hello Catholics for Equality,

On your own FAQ page (http://www.catholicsforequality.org/page/frequently-asked-questions), it reports,

“Our message speaks of accepting yourself, your beliefs and values, your questions, and all you may be struggling with at this moment; accepting and loving your child as a gift of God; and accepting the full truth of God's revelation about the dignity of the human person and the meaning of human sexuality. Within the Catholic moral vision there is no contradiction among these levels of acceptance, for truth and love are not opposed. They are inseparably joined and rooted in one person, Jesus Christ, who reveals God to be ultimate truth and saving love.”

This is what Catholics for Equality believes and fights for.

This statement is a contradiction from the entire reference, "Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers" (http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/homosexuality/always-our-children.cfm). It goes on to say, "You can help a homosexual person in two general ways. First, encourage him or her to cooperate with God's grace to live a chaste life. Second, concentrate on the person, not on the homosexual orientation itself." And, "To live and love chastely is to understand that 'only within marriage does sexual intercourse fully symbolize the Creator's dual design, as an act of covenant love, with the potential of co-creating new human life' (United States Catholic Conference, Human Sexuality: A Catholic Perspective for Education and Lifelong Learning, 1991, p. 55). This is a fundamental teaching of our Church about sexuality, rooted in the biblical account of man and woman created in the image of God and made for union with one another (Gn 2–3)."

In light of the Pastoral Message that you cite yourself, your organization should change in its fight to support real marriage that is only between a man and a woman. Otherwise, please remove "Catholic" from your name.

May God bless you with His Truth,
[Gerry]
Baltimore, MD

Intergenerational Intimacy Abomination

At LSN, I commented the following in response to the article, "Meet the academics who are trying to redefine pedophilia as ‘intergenerational intimacy’".

This man/boy abomination ('intergenerational intimacy') is specifically condemned in 1 Corr. 6:9. The original Greek there in 1 Corr. is specific to this pagan Roman practice. There's no way that the self-identified homosexuals can get around this condemnation like they try to with same-sex "marriage".

During the homosexual Bible study that was sponsored by the Rainbow Alliance at my public university (view my reflection of the study here), we discussed the Bible verses in 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10.

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

These specific verses (and others; Romans 1 et al.) were used to say that same-sex "marriage" was not condemned by St. Paul. Despite the fact that the point about "marriage" may be true, sexual relations between men and boys are still condemned here.

I wonder if some Christian denominations (ecclesial communities) will have a vote to determine if "Intergenerational Intimacy" is allowed or should be celebrated, because you know, voting determines morality.

This activity may be in the next Gay Pride parade near you. May God have mercy on us all.

Videos for My Liberal In-laws

If only my Quaker in-laws would watch these videos:

"Hope [and] Change Liberals Protest Obama, So Why Aren't They Called Racists Like the Tea Party?"
(Uh-oh, an Af. Am. tea party member. BTW, I'm not a tea partyer, but I have their tendencies.)

"Afterburner: The Truth Is Out There"

"Andrew Klavan: The Facts of Life for Liberals" (Where does money come from?)

Contraception Stifles Grace

In my view, the video below (from the Vortex with Michael Voris) shows the importance of the Catholic Church's teaching for chaste marital relations without contraception. Contraception stifles grace since it doesn't allow for the married couple to participate in God's Will of creation in their vocation. Stifling God's Will potentially, if not necessarily stifles His Grace.

I thought that marriage showed how Christ's love for His Church was present, but the oneness between Christ and His Church was really preeminent to marital love. In other words, if there was no fall, there would be a perfect oneness between Christ and His Church; it's just that the fall caused humanity to have to be re-grafted onto Christ through baptism, or through the remission of sin/reconciliation with God.

WARNING: the subject below may be too graphic for sensitive readers.

Finally, I thought of a few analogies that went with the use of contraption vis-a-vis receiving Holy Eucharist (stay tuned for a question for you):
(1) Condoms: putting a barrier around Holy Eucharist
(2) The Pill: taking a drug that put up a chemical barrier on the absorbing wall of stomach/intestines/esophagus so that Holy Eucharist could not become one with the Communicant
(3) Diaphragm: Putting a hollow balloon in one's mouth

What analogy do you think works for homosexual relations? Please comment below.

Mr. Cain Wrong

Re: Herman Cain: Communities have right to ban mosques

Yes, Mr. Cain is wrong. I really hate to say that since I really like/d him as a presidential candidate.

His reason is that, "Let's go back to the fundamental issue that the people are basically saying that they are objecting to. They are objecting to the fact that Islam is both religion and (a) set of laws, Shariah law. That's the difference between any one of our other traditional religions where it's just about religious purposes."

There are two problems with his statement. First, building a functioning Mosque does not mean that the Muslims of the mosque are pushing Shariah law (they may be more liberal in Qur'an interpretation). Second, there is nothing Constitutionally wrong with any one person or mosque pushing Shariah law, as long as it does not conflict with the laws of the jurisdiction.

If the Shariah law that was being officially pushed by the mosque was illegal (say spousal abuse/murder of some kind/rape), than the mosque would have to shut down and/or be fined.

Lastly, any one person or organization may talk about changing laws, including mosques, while still abiding by current laws.

As a Catholic who tries to abide with Jesus' Laws and Canon Law through His Church, I think abortion and contraception should be illegal, and I talk and write about it. However, I don't force anyone to stop committing/using the acts/products or turn anyone in/report them to authorities because they are currently legal to commit/use.

I hope Mr. Cain recants on his statements regarding this issue.

Pro-life Link Party

Here's a great pro-life link party at a great pro-life podcast site:
http://prolifepodcast.net/2011/06/link-party-8-your-favorite-postpodcast-from-june/

Remembering Blessed Teresa

At the (U.S.) National Prayer Breakfast in 1994, Blessed (Mother) Theresa spoke to those in power.

God has blessed his creation with her.

Bl. Teresa, pray for us.

"The Life Zone" response from Justice for All

I sent the following email regarding the new "horror" movie "The Life Zone".
---

Hello,

Do you have anything to do with [the new] "Justice for All Media"'s new "Horror" Movie, "The Life Zone"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn_Iq9D_Clg&feature=player_embedded You might want to make a press release about this.

Thanks,

Gerry

http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/

---

The response was the following.
---

Negative, we are not the "Justice For All" that created the movie or the trailer. Our approach (see our website at http://jfaweb.org) is quite a bit different than what appears to be the message in the trailer. What's your view of the trailer/movie?

David Lee

Executive Director, Justice For All

"Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who does nothing because he can only do a little." -- Edmund Burke

---

I think the movie's premise is a flawed view of the pro-life side. We are not about kidnapping women with child against their will (like the kidnapped person in the famous violinist scenario by J. J. Thomson). I'm all about getting all (legal and non-legal) baby killers out of business and informing women that abortion is a natural crime against them and their preborn boy or girl.

If there were no abortionists, this movie/trailer would not make any sense. If abortion was illegal, the abortionist, to whom the depicted pregnant mothers went, would be in jail or in custody. Kidnapping random pregnant women is also wrong.
---

What do you think?

Obama Made in USA

So, Obama was "Made in USA". The new t-shirt says so (it must be true).

I would rather change it to "Created in USA". Would that change his mind on abortion, ESCR, the Declaration of Independence, etc?

Maybe Obama thinks it should read, "Born in USA"?

Hmmmm....

Review of Defending Life by F. J. Beckwith

Someone liked my review below at Goodreads, so I thought I would share on my blog.
---------

Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice by Francis J. Beckwith

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This book summarizes all the most and best arguments against abortion choice. It can be a good book to bring to an abortion/ESCR/cloning debate since the section headings are a good guide. Although, the headings could have been outlined in the table of contents for quick reference.


This book does outline the non-religious grounds against abortion choice, but I still feel that the argument ultimately depends on the axiom that all humans (where a human if and only if a person) have inherent worth. This axiom is mostly found in faith traditions. If one does not have a faith tradition or other reason to uphold the axiom, the reasoning behind this book (and really all arguments for any protection for anyone) falls apart.

View all my reviews

Antidote to the Best Pro-Abortion Choice Argument

There is, by far, a best pro-abortion choice argument out there: while acknowledging the personhood of the preborn human, a pregnant mother still has the right to kill/unhook her preborn child. Many know this argument from the famous violinist scenario by Judith Jarvis Thomson; many introduction to ethics courses use her argument for abortion debates in class (mine did).

Well, the video series below from Life Report answers the argument to an extremely high degree. (I have an article I'm working on that goes beyond the ideas in this video, but I'll disclose that later.)

Please take the time to listen to the videos in their entirety.

Prolifers Across the Parking Lot from Carhart

(Dr) Leroy Carhart, the infamous late term abortionist now has his serial murdering business in Maryland (perhaps the most liberal state in the US). MD Coalition for Life is moving in across the parking lot from Carhart tomorrow at 2:30.

May God help us and convert Carhart's heart to see his victims as precious images of God. It can take only one Big Fish to start many more on the conversion path away from abortion killing.

Prolife Coexist Bumper Sticker MD Coexist I Stickervoice.com

I like this sticker that was at the MD March for Life last week. It's about time there was a coexist bumper sticker that has a pregnant woman with a preborn child (yes that's redundant).

They're at Stickervoice.com






 (click on the images below for larger versions)

UPDATE 7/29/2011:
I have a Pro-life Coexist T-shirt. I'll have to take a picture of it soon. Below is a picture from the website:
(Click here for a PDF of the Pro-life Coexist T-shirt.)

Archbishop Dolan on 60 Minutes

I watched the (Roman Catholic) Archbishop of N.Y. Dolan on 60 Minutes last night. Of course, a great deal of the interview was about the sex abuse scandals. Another focus in the interview was about the image that the Church was a stern, old fashioned relic of the puritan past. It's all about world views as AB Dolan said:

I'm in one world. You're in the other. I'm glad you're visitin'.

This last focus reminded me of an interview of AB Dolan on wordonfire2 on Youtube.

He said in 1:41 to the end above, "The Catholic Church is all about one big ringing yes! It's an affirmation of all that is beautiful and noble and uplifting and exiting and liberating in the human drama."

This is opposed to the "double no" that he talks about later in the video above. When the world puts forth a no to the dignity of the human person, the Church says no, which tries to ultimately make the world better.

May God bless AB Dolan and my AB O'Brien. Two Irish AB's leading the Church at a tumultuous time in the US.

Orthodoxy Review

Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


The argumentation in many sections of this book seems to come out of right field (yes, that's right), but it oh so nicely lands on target on his point.

The references to Quakerism (The Inner Light) and Buddhism were very apropos as well as his pity of the moderns. To him, pre-modern civilization is justifiably seen as the reincarnation of pre-"Christendom" (he doesn't use "pre-modern", only "modern").

His treatise on original sin is more expounded upon than in his St. Francis of Assisi that digs out and deepens my understanding of the doctrine.

He really does lay down the case that Christian orthodoxy is more liberating than the modern notion of freedom.

As I have said before with Chesterton's St. Francis of Assisi, Chesterton is supposedly hard to read, but I found that this is not the case with this book either. It's too bad that people don't read Chesterton as much as CS Lewis (as I have seen) since Chesterton really hits his points with real panache.



View all my reviews

Maryland SB 119 Reflection I

I thought it prudent that my reflections of MD SB 119, "Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act" should be broken up so that each post was short and focused on one or a few connected points. These reflections are points that came and still come to mind as I listened to and reflect(ed) on most of the oral testimony for and against the bill.

To start it off, it was interesting how the different religious people gave their points for or against the bill. The Unitarian gave valentines to the Committee Senators. The Black Protestant Ministers for and against sounded like Dr. King in how they started low and calm while ending up loud and energetic, while the Catholic Religious and Ordained were calm and collected.

The one thing that really bothered me was when a Catholic Sister in habit came up and defended the bill. The Religious read a statement from a Priest that couldn't make it. After looking around the internet, I wonder if it was Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND of New Ways Ministries (based in Mount Rainier, Maryland) of which I spoke before. She said that there was "debate" within the Catholic Lay Community about what to do regarding bills like this one.

I understand that there can be debate within the Catholic Community. It has been said that young people "'believe that doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, Mary as the mother of God, Christ's real presence in the Eucharist and the need to be concerned about the poor are more important than teachings such as the need to limit the priesthood to men, the need for priestly celibacy, the church's opposition to artificial birth control and its opposition to the death penalty.'" However, instead of it being either/or, why can't it be both/and (please, please have a listen here; a good doctor reveals both good and bad). Catholicism is a big YES! about freedom unless it is to say "no" to "another 'no' that negates the dignity of the human person" (see after 1:53 here).

Further, I know that we moderns hate more than anything else the concept of authority, including many if not the majority of Catholics (unfortunately). However, Catholic Tradition, Scripture, and Vatican II assert that the Catholic Faithful are to be in unity with the local Bishop. In Maryland, as far as I understand it, the Archbishop of Baltimore is for upholding the real meaning of marriage in law. However, groups like New Ways Ministries have confused the faithful and divided us away from our Shepherd Archbishop.

Those in power know groups like New Ways Ministries can scatter the Catholic Flock, the Body of Christ. If they can get the Catholic Church to be divided, they can get what they want (Sor*os, Gat*es, Roc*kefeller, For*d, etc.); they pour in money to "Catholic" organizations (and politicians/political parties).

For those in power, the only morals are those that make it possible to get what they want (read Saul Alinsky). However, I believe that the Catholic Church reveals the truth that is given by the Holy Spirit. The Bishop should unite all the faithful together for all that is right. The wolves come to destroy that unity.

May we pray, worship, and publicly act as Jesus has called us to do through the one True Gospel. Amen.

My Maryland Senate Bill 119 (SB 119) Testimony

Yesterday, I was planning to give oral testimony against MD SB 119, but I didn't get to speak. There was a finite amount of time allotted for testimony, and there were too many that wanted to testify to fit the time (it would've gone well into the night after starting at 1P). Thank goodness I submitted my oral arguments in writing.

The written oral arguments that I submitted are below (except for my real name and other info removed). Note that the quotes below are linked to the source at the first (few) word(s) of the quote.

I'll be writing about some points that stood out for me tonight and tomorrow that hopefully will be published tomorrow here at WZE.

---

Testimony of [Gerry] for

SB 116, “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act”

Hello, I am [Gerry], a husband and father of three children who lives in [a], County, District [#]. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about why I think this Senate Bill should be voted down.

First, before I talk about the bill, let me very briefly talk about marriage. One way to contrast the original and proposed definitions of marriage is to think about the differences between two types of jewelry, (1) a friendship chain with one heart attached that is divided in half and (2) a charm bracelet with two or more charms. The former illustrates that marriage has to do with the complementary of the sexes (“two become one”), while the latter is an arrangement of two or more people. The former has a definite physical orientation while the latter can describes any loving relationship of two or more people (brother/sister, aunt/nephew, sister/sister (convent of sisters?), three or more of varying sexes).

“Non-marital friendships are characterized by a union of hearts and minds; but marriage, being a comprehensive union of persons, extends this unity to the bodily dimension. For our bodies are integral aspects of us as persons, not merely our extrinsic instruments. And in coitus, a man and woman’s bodies unite much as a heart and lungs unite within an individual—by coordinating together toward a single biological good (here, reproduction) of the whole (here, the whole couple).”

The original definition does not depend on the fertility of the couple. “[Just] as a person’s stomach action retains its orientation to nourishment even when nourishment doesn’t occur (e.g., because of intestinal problems), so a man and woman’s [consummation] is still coordination oriented to the single biological good of reproduction even when reproduction doesn’t occur (e.g., because of ovarian problems)." Plus, the state shouldn’t go around asking people if they are fertile.

Now, I turn to the bill. In the California Supreme Court case that dealt with Prop. 8, it was concluded that procreation was not a rational basis for barring same sex couples from marriage. Theodore Olson, who argued for the same sex couples said, “’It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence to be dispensed by the state. The right to marry, to choose to marry, has never been tied to procreation.’”

First of all, the right to marry has been tied to procreation. “[The] 2,300-year-old philosophical tradition, originating independently of such policy considerations (and of Judaeo-Christian influence), that similarly distinguished the uniquely comprehensive unions consummated by coitus [and tied to procreation] from all others. Indeed, the three great philosophers of antiquity—Socrates, Plato and Aristotle— [and others] defended this view amid highly homoerotic cultures.”

Secondly, the US constitutional freedom of association currently allows same sex couples to say that they are married. I know same sex couples who say that they are married and have not been arrested. The debate about this bill should not be about whether same sex couples can marry. It’s about state sanctification of and civil benefits for their relationship, while still excluding others.

At the end of the day, I believe that if the definition of marriage is legally rewritten in view of the US Constitutional Equal Protection Clause (as currently interpreted by SCOTUS) to simply include all freely associated relationships beyond this bill’s prohibitions, all associations will want the same sanctioned privileges. Marriage will become meaningless and could be dropped from state protection to make way for a sort of overall welfare state unless there is a clear limit to what marriage includes (while also reforming divorce laws).

Third, as one from [a] County, people know that children who are raised by their married natural parents have the best chance of making it in whatever positive ways they can, more reach adulthood, are most often the best citizens, more often stay out of poverty, and have fewer children out-of-wedlock than do children of other family arrangements. The State should protect these consummated marriages that have or may result in the creation of children.

(“[Gay marriage will] encourage marital instability and broken homes, and children growing up in these situations are more likely to exhibit a variety of antisocial behaviors.

“Children growing up in traditional homes, on the other hand, have these problems to a significantly diminished degree. They have better emotional health, engage in fewer risky behaviors, are less likely to engage in premarital sex, and do better educationally and economically. Finally, a recent Utah study found that divorce costs the federal, state, and local governments $33 billion per year. For all these reasons, the state has a vested interest in promoting stable traditional marriages.” From The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage).

I have two quick comments. First, it is true that there are same sex partners who adopt or artificially create children for themselves. However, these matters should be handled by adoption and surrogate laws but not marriage statues.

Lastly, even though a religious exception is included to protect “an official of a religious institution or body authorized to solemnize marriages”, who does that exactly include? Also, can a bed and breakfast (often someone’s private residence) or similar business be protected from lawsuits? How about protecting employees who don’t want to condone same sex marriages on the job?

Thank you.

Bibliography of sources

Beyond Gay Marriage

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp?pg=1

The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/feb/040223a.html

Unitarians for Polyamory

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/01/19/unitarians-for-polyamory/

Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage; http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324

The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2004/feb/040223a

Incest and the Degradation of Our Vocabulary

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2316

Same-Sex Marriage and Formal Discrimination

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/06/1396

Does Marriage, or Anything, Have Essential Properties?

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2350

New Jersey Senate Kills Gay “Marriage” Bill

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/jan/10010711

---

The following were quotes that didn't make it to the testimony due to time constraints.

(1) Prior to the vote [in the NJ Senate of S1967, the "Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act"], Regina Griggs, director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), criticized the comparison of homosexuality to racial issues.

"Contrary to Bond's statement equating skin color with homosexual behavior, major scientific studies and mental health associations have stated homosexuality is not innate," said Griggs in a statement.  "No replicated scientific study has found a gay gene, gay DNA, or gay center of the brain. 

"Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration.  Many African-Americans have come out of homosexuality, proving sexual orientation can change, but skin color does not."  

(2) Accordingly, in 1999 they created an organization, Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA), with the avowed goal of making Unitarianism the first denomination to endorse polyamory.

(3) The overwhelming consensus among scholars is that the reason for these [discriminatory interracial] laws was to enforce racial purity [of progeny from interracial marriage], an idea that begins its cultural ascendancy with the commencement of race-based slavery of Africans in early 17^th-century America and eventually receives the imprimatur of “science” when the eugenics movement comes of age in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries.⁶ In Loving, for example, the statue overturned, SB 219, The Racial Integrity Act of 1924, was the product of the eugenics movement.

(4) Spouses and same-sex "partners" are not taxed when one dies and the sisters have attempted to have the new laws interpreted to allow them to enjoy similar exemptions.

“Ask Them What They Mean By ‘Choice’” Blog Day

Choice always requires an object since there are always two things to choose between. In any case, what do humans for choice "mean when they say 'choice'"?


Just one thing to add for those who think men have no room in the abortion debate: countless males are aborted too. Men certainly have a say in the choice to kill or support preborn males.

(This post was updated 21 January 2011 at 4:58 pm EST.)

Interesting New Conservative Action Committee in Maryland

Since craigslist has supposedly changed its ways and is now off (one of) my boycott list(s), I went looking for and found one of those fire emergency ladders for my kids.

When I went to pick it up at the seller's house, I saw a Murphy sticker (for MD governor) on their front door. After paying for the ladder, I said, "Sorry about Murphy; I voted for him too."

Then they said something like, "Did you hear about the new conservative group that's forming to elect conservative, not just Republican candidates?"

"What, you mean not like Ehrlich?", I said.

Well, they gave me a flyer for registration for a MDCAN conference that's coming up.

From the flyer:

"Frustrated with last November’s election results in Maryland?"
"Weary of one-party rule that threatens our livelihoods?"
"Ready to re-build electoral politics from the grassroots up?"
"Then turn your frustration into ACTION, and join fellow conservatives in Annapolis to chart a new course for Maryland!"

Definition of "conservative" from their website (and here):

"We are assuming that conservatives come in all stripes (and from all political parties) and are not just fiscal conservatives, but support the US Constitution including especially the second and tenth amendments, respect the sanctity of life and support traditional marriage, respect the law on the question of immigration, wish to reform our education system, and are ready and willing to defend our great Nation against any and all threats to our national security." (emphasis added)

I hope this action committee works some good news!

Fr. Barron Spot On with St. Thomas More and the CofE

Below is Fr. Barron on "St. Thomas More and the Bishop of Rome". This is a follow-up post to a previous post of mine here.

With all due respect, I wonder if the Queen Mother of the Britons wishes she could convert to Catholicism (from the "Church of England" -- CofE). Does she recognize the post-Christian direction of the ecclesial community she oversees?

Well, here is Fr.

Porn Still Rapes the Mind

Charlie Sheen Rampage Tied to Smut Addiction Says Expert
White Ribbon against Pornography Awareness Week - October 31 to November 7
Porn - The Most Dangerous Threat in the Culture War, Says LifeSite Editor
(All articles from Lifesitenews.com)

As long as porn and contraception are widely available and/or legal, women and children will be worse off since men will have the opportunity to view them more and more as objects and products of conception (born and preborn) to divorce and discard (I have seen this in my experience).

May God have mercy on us all.

Atheists Respectable or Not

Are Atheists respectable or not?

I commented this (see below) on a First Things On the Square article with no response (on many sites, I am just ignored: no one will be ignored on this blog).

(1) From the On the Square article the day before this article was posted ("Cogito and Christ" by Mr. Carter)
"Over the past few decades, many Christians—particularly those intrigued by postmodernism—have rightly questioned Descartes’ reversal. They have attempted to dethrone the idol of reason by pointing out the limits of rationality and questioning the human ability to achieve epistemic certainty, particularly about matters of theology. Unfortunately, in trimming away the underbrush they have failed to cut away the root of Descartes error: the faith in doubt.

"Among these Christians, as well as among secular intellectuals, doubt about metaphysical truths—such as the existence and creative actions of God—has become viewed as a form of intellectual humility. Once considered evidence of a poor intellect, agnosticism and atheism are now treated as evidence of intellectual virtue.

"Nothing could be further from the truth. This reliance on doubt requires that the doubter be the supreme judge of what can or cannot be known. Rejecting a dogmatic certitude about what is known in favor of a questioning attitude of whether something can be known with certainty merely shifts the idol of reason to a new location and gives it a more palatable, humble-sounding name. The doubters accept the limits of the human mind, embrace pluralism, and do not impose any one idea of truth upon others.

"However when we put our trust solely in our own reason we either become dogmatic or skeptical, and even dogmatic in our skepticism. But when we set aside our self-idolatry and seek true epistemic humility we can discover that the only reliable foundation for reason is found in special revelation."

(2) From this article:
"There are two answers to the question: 'Why does anything exist rather than nothing at all?' The atheist answers, 'There is no explanation.' The theist replies, God. An intelligent case can be made for either answer. But to say that the laws of physics alone answer it is the purest nonsense—as Hawking himself once realized."

I find the two passages above conflicting.

I talked to an in-law who claims to be an Atheist. I basically said that one of us has to be right (there is God or not), but that I respected my in-law's belief. My in-law has reasons, and I have my own.

From the first passage, it seems that the in-law's reasons contra-God's existence are directed to "self-idolatry", and from the second passage, the reasons derive an "intelligent case".

Which one is it? Can it be both at the same time like it is in so many philosophical/religious topics?

So what is it?

All One Needs to Know About Politics

All one needs to know about politics can be thought to come from A Man for All Seasons (it's one of my favorite movies; I don't do favorites lightly). St. Thomas More, the patron of statesmen, knew that no one was above the law. He also knew that law was imperfect since it was written by men, especially if the law was disregarded or interpreted away.

If a law seems to be or is in fact wrong, it must be changed, not trampled underfoot alone or in the company of other laws.


The precedence of previous laws must be obliged. However, natural law must be upheld as its underpinning.


Finally, the oath that public officials take are not merely words but binding tethers to the path of an official's destination for the benefit of society and its tradition.


Officials cannot function on the will-to-power but must be grounded in the path toward the common good: otherwise moral, political, and ethical chaos ensues.

For the U.S., "And for the support of this Declaration [of Independence of the USA], with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Craigslist Boycott

This news came not as a shocker but as a dark night of my American soul. One day I could browse dozens of hits for stuff I needed and the next I could only find ones that required shipping and handling. Woe is me.

I mean, I just bought all my work-at-home furniture and some more storage items for under $200. The night was not long enough to get all the things I bought. I'm sure glad I had my third child whose car seat wouldn't fit the other two car seats in a car so I could get a van to seat them all: I could get bigger stuff on craigslist Baltimore.

My dream is nevermore. I now have a computer which will never (?) search for a computer mouse nor a desk.

Darn principles (at least I have ones that stick).

LGBT Equality Nonstarter

On Assumption Sunday, there was a visiting priest from Boston who said mass since the pastor was away. In his homily he mentioned that the Assumption was about how we come to God in our bodies, male or female, black or white, ..., gay or straight.

I never heard any ordained priest say anything like that where I could see them in person. It just shocked me.

I reflected a little about what he said. I wonder, should he have said, "adulterous and non-adulterous", "liar or non-liar", etc? Just because we have an inclination to sin, does it mean that we have to identify with a particular, potential sin?

Some people think that the LGBT label is their identity. Some people think that their profession is their identity. For some, the color of their skin links them to others.

How is an inclination of sinfulness regarded as identity? Those of the current LGBT subculture think they are discriminated against: they think they're hated. Should equality be not linked to sin (inclination and/or acts) but to dignity as human persons in our bodies?

Some more thought is needed. Just thinking as I write. (Be nice now if you comment.)

(Good read: Obedience vs. Conscience)

US Sen Mikulski (D-MD) is All About More Government

I got this in my email from the Baltimore County Connector:

US Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) said (picture from here with Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith),

"We need small businesses so they can keep creating jobs and keep powering our economy. But small businesses can't do it on their own. They need a government on their side. They need government bringing down health care costs, supporting innovation, and preparing the workforce for the jobs of the future. They also need a level playing field in government contracting. I want them to know I'm on their side."

How about this:
We need government to get off the back of small businesses. They're already burdened enough by the tax code, paying taxes, and spending 7/8 of their company time trying to figure out government regulations or spending more time and money on a legal adviser. So much for the little guy: the big guy has more resources to figure out big government's mess.

Direct Killing Always Wrong

Here's part of a dialog that took place over Youtube messaging behind the scenes. (It's from the video at the end of this post.)

If accepting the message on the video below is what it means to "trust black women", what do you think? I say, "Trust them to do what, kill the right preborn boy or girl?"

----------
[From other person, not me:]
@otaaac3 "always wrong" going to extreme is "always" a mistake. are you pro-surrendering to invaders so as not to kill them?
would you shout "dont shoot back at the planes" which bombed pearl harbor so they do not "kill" the pilot??
luckily law makers are not extreme and take into account bodily injury of the mother.
if you limit yourself to healthy births say so. but agree if mother will be injured by the birth to remove the fetus in small peices to save mom.

-----------
[From me:]
I said direct killing was always wrong.
"An abortion would be ***indirect*** if it were used neither as an end nor as a means. If a pregnant woman has a cancerous womb that must be removed, removing it would produce an indirect abortion. The child would die after the womb is removed, but the child's death would neither be an end nor a means." -_This Rock_ (emphasis added) http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/double%20effect

Shooting a plane is indirect killing of the pilot. Killing a shooter is indirect killing since the intent is to stop the gun.

-----
[From other person:]
'Shooting a plane is indirect killing of the pilot. Killing a shooter is indirect killing since the intent is to stop the gun.'
what about shooting 'the pilot' is that always wrong? you would answer indirect by 'intent' then abortion is always indirect since the intent is for the family finance

-----
[From me:]
"what about shooting 'the pilot' is that always wrong?"

The pilot himself outside of the plane is innocent until s/he tries to kill someone directly. If they are, say, eating a sandwich in the mess hall, no one has a right to kill them since they are just eating lunch.

A preborn boy or girl inside of his or her mother is doing nothing except eating lunch in his or her mess hall (the mother's womb). No one has a right to kill them for what they might do (potential finance burden). A preborn boy or girl has the same moral worth as you or me.

How much family finance has to be in jeopardy for his or her mother to kill them? $1? $50? $100? $1000? Over how many years? What about adopting to the plethora of people who are waiting to adopt to very little, if no cost to the pregnant mother?

How about born babies? Does the mother have a right to kill them? for how much?

These questions have a very bad logical conclusion.

-----

CA Prop 8 Struck Down

So, the homosexual judge struck down the anti-homosexual "marriage" proposition 8 of CA. Clearly, this judgment was made on factual grounds (finding of fact) as shown in Ace of Spades (I just got a link to it from CMR) so it's harder to strike down on appeal (As I wrote before, I just hope they get the history right).

However, on page 133, there is a vestige of finding of law based on Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pa v Casey (505 US 833, 850, (1992)) and Lawrence (539 US at 582) (I believe Lawrence was the case about consensual gay sex).

California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to “mandate [its] own moral code.” Id (citing Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v Casey, 505 US 833, 850, (1992)). “[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,” has never been a rational basis for legislation. Lawrence, 539 US at 582 (O'Connor, J, concurring). Tradition alone cannot support legislation. See Williams, 399 US at 239; Romer, 517 US at 635; Lawrence, 539 US at 579. (emphasis added)

I could have predicted that this supposedly current reading of the U.S. Constitution, seemingly now the law of the land, would creep into this and all other "culture war" court cases, i.e., there are no morals except the judicial interpretation of the living document that is the U.S. Constitution. (BTW, this legal positivism comes with Kagan too.)

This comes from Casey. It's worth a full read.

Men and women of good conscience can disagree, and we suppose some always shall disagree, about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage. Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. [From the current case] The underlying constitutional issue is whether the State can resolve these philosophic questions in such a definitive way that a woman lacks all choice in the matter, except perhaps in those rare circumstances in which the pregnancy is itself a danger to her own life or health, or is the result of rape or incest.

It is conventional constitutional doctrine that where reasonable people disagree the government can adopt one position or the other. That theorem, however, assumes a state of affairs in which the choice does not intrude upon a protected liberty. Thus, while some people might disagree about whether or not the flag should be saluted, or disagree about the proposition that it may not be defiled, we have ruled that a State may not compel or enforce one view or the other.

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Our cases recognize "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. (emphasis added)

This is what lead to legal assisted suicide in Oregon and to the continuation of abortion on demand. Until this interpretation of what's left of the U.S. Constitution is struck down utterly and without equivocation, there will be no stopping that which people are capable of imagining.

Really, how can the court know what the people in the voting booth were thinking when they voted? Who cares if people who brought Prop. 8 to the voting booth had a reason or not to do so: they only have one (1) vote a piece. The people of CA had their reasons to vote for it that only they know.

"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

The court has forgot. Sorry, dear Abe, may God have mercy on us.

(BTW, see Fr. Barron on the Casey decision near the end of the video below.)

Legal Positivism and the Source of Rights

Lifesitenews.com conducted an interview with Christopher Ferrara, president and chief counsel of the American Catholic Lawyers’ Association.

I liked what he had to say. It was quite controversial. He actually said that monarchy was the best form of government. I never heard someone say that before even though I also think it.

What this post is really about are ideas about legal positivism.

Chrisopher Ferrara: We’re operating under the shadow of Roe v. Wade. But R v W is only one of the many emanations of the doctrine known as legal positivism. What is legal positivism? It is simply the doctrine that the law is what is posited. Put forth. So let it be written, so let it be done. It doesn’t matter whether there’s a natural law standard underlying a legal enactment, a utilitarian standard or any standard at all.

I then read this opinion article from Yahoo!News, "Elena Kagan: Could she defend the Constitution's purpose?"

The Holmes model: sneering at natural rights[sic]Instead, they follow the path marked out by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who sat on the Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932. “All my life I have sneered at the natural rights of man,” Holmes wrote, reflecting his view that the individual rights venerated by the Founders have no objective validity and therefore no role in discerning the Constitution’s meaning. ...
In a written follow-up, Kagan named Holmes as the last century’s most influential Supreme Court justice, stating: “His opinions ... set forth the basic rationale for judicial deference to legislative policy decisions.” Having discarded the Constitution’s actual purpose as irrelevant to judging, Kagan is left with Holmes’s concept of the Constitution as a mechanism for implementing unlimited majority rule. ...
Nor would she fail to find authority for the government to bully banks into joining bailout schemes, launch massive “stimulus” spending of taxpayer money, and cap carbon emissions. If it’s commerce, the majority can control it. During her testimony, Kagan even lectured Sen. Coburn on the majority’s constitutional right to (hypothetically) require that each individual eat three vegetables a day – allowing herself only an inconsequential personal opinion that such a dictatorial law would be “dumb.”

This got me to thinking about the scary lecture by Bill Schulz of Amnesty International and Unitarian Universalist Association, "What Torture's Taught Me", "...[W]e are left with public opinion as the basis for determining rights." (p. 14)

If we leave rights up to people, what basis will they use to determine the scope? Without direction to the telos of the person (God), we are only on the road to the real tyranny of the democratic majority and the oligarchy of SCOTUS.

This is one of the reasons why I think the abortion debate is so important. It boils down governance to the questions of 'what is man?’ and ‘what is man for?' as Christopher Ferrara said in his interview.

Revised Beckwith-McDonagh Abortion Argument

I was thinking further about my argument in the previous post (reproduced immediately below):

(I) The ordinary means of survival are food, water, and shelter.
(II) It is the duty of society to provide ordinary means of survival to its members.
(III) The only person that can provide the ordinary means of survival to a preborn girl or boy is a pregnant woman.
(IV) It is the duty of a pregnant woman to provide ordinary means of survival to a preborn girl or boy.

Do duties have less argumentative power than rights? I think so. Well, I thought of the following revised argument of the above.

(I) The ordinary means of survival are food, water, and shelter.
(II) It is the right of each individual of society to safeguard his/her ordinary means of survival. Said safeguarding must be carried out by said individual, third party (A), or the state.
(III) Abortion by the mother or third party (B) is the forceful taking of ordinary means of survival from a preborn girl or boy.
(IV) Since the preborn girl or boy is not actually able to safeguard himself/herself from the imposition of abortion by the mother or third party (B), the state or third party (A) must safeguard the ordinary means of survival of said preborn girl or boy by stopping the abortion.

Let's reconsider the previous scenarios (they are changed below from the previous post):

Consider scenario A'.

There is country C that is ruled by monarch M. In country C, monarch M naturally controls all the ordinary means of production MP for country C. There are subject(s) S of country C that are under the natural care and jurisdiction of monarch M.

The only way that subject(s) S is/are able to survive is through monarch M providing the ordinary fruits F of the ordinary means of production MP for country C. Therefore, it would be a violation of the rights of subject(s) S if monarch M did not provide said ordinary fruits F. Fruits F include shelter, food, and water which are all ordinary means of survival.


Consider scenario B'.

In a spacecraft S that is solely under the jurisdiction of captain C, there is a reversibly-comatose homeless woman HW that was picked up off the street. She is sent up a futuristic elevator E from Earth that goes to spacecraft S. Through a feeding tube that goes up elevator E, homeless woman HW is fed and hydrated. Air is circulated up from Earth through elevator E.

The only way that homeless woman HW can survive is if she is fed, hydrated, and provided with air through elevator E that is solely under the jurisdiction of captain C. Therefore, it would be a violation of the rights of homeless woman HW if captain C did not provide homeless woman HW shelter (air), food, and water which are all ordinary means of survival.
-------------

BTW, since Dr. McDonagh thinks it the right of pregnant women to have money from the government (you and me) to pay for abortions through her right to consent idea (and here), my right to ordinary means of survival is even more basic than hers (right to tax payers money for abortion).

The result is a pro-consent constitutional argument for extending abortion rights to include public funding, at least for women who cannot otherwise afford it, that is to be distinguished from both the common pro-life and pro-choice perspectives.

Beckwith-McDonagh Right to Consent and Abortion

I've been doing some research regarding the view that non-consented pregnancy is essentially equivalent with rape insofar as both are seen as violations of a woman's bodily integrity (et al). It seems to me that something was missing from the debate.

Dr. McDonagh of N. Western has the latest up in the debate: she views abortion not as a right to choose but a right to consent (1). I was unsurprised that she directly attacked the portion of Dr. Beckwith's book Defending Life in this regard.

Dr. Beckwith again brought up his conclusion that pregnancy is a prima facie good and argued back against Dr. McDonagh to that end.

In another article (2), "Consent, Sex and the Prenatal Rapist", he brought up that the telos (ends or purpose) of reproductive organs are reproduction (p. 11). I'm surprised he did not explicitly bring up this point again in the first linked article (1).

However, I propose that pregnancy is to maintained for the survival of the preborn boy or girl despite the fact that the mother does not consent to (a) the presence of said preborn and (b) the continuation of the pregnancy for another reason.

(1) Pregnancy is the natural and ordinary means (opposed to extraordinary means; a search is here of ordinary/extraordinary means) of survival for the preborn person (assume with Dr. McDonagh that a preborn human is a person). The above fact is independent of how the preborn person becomes present within the woman's body.

(2) In agreement with Dr. McDonagh, a woman is sovereign ruler of her body.

Consider scenario A.

There is country C that is ruled by monarch M. In country C, monarch M naturally controls all the means of production MP for country C. There are subject(s) S of country C that are under the natural care and jurisdiction of monarch M.

The only way that subject(s) S is/are able to survive is through monarch M providing the fruits F of the means of production MP for country C. Therefore, it is the duty of monarch M to provide said fruits F. Fruits F include shelter, food, and water which are all ordinary means of survival.


Consider scenario B.

In a spacecraft S that is solely under the jurisdiction of captain C, there is a reversibly-comatose homeless woman HW that was picked up off the street. She is sent up a futuristic elevator E from Earth that goes to spacecraft S. Through a feeding tube that goes up elevator E, homeless woman HW is fed and hydrated. Air is circulated up from Earth through elevator E.

The only way that homeless woman HW can survive is if she is fed, hydrated, and provided with air through elevator E that is solely under the jurisdiction of captain C. Therefore, it is the duty of captain C to provide shelter, food, and water which are all ordinary means of survival.

Basically the argument is this:
(I) The ordinary means of survival are food, water, and shelter.
(II) It is the duty of society to provide ordinary means of survival to its members.
(III) The only person that can provide the ordinary means of survival to a preborn girl or boy is a pregnant woman.
(IV) It is the duty of a pregnant woman to provide ordinary means of survival to a preborn girl or boy.

As a side note, the arguments of Dr. Jarvis, Boonin, et al. largely rest on the need to provide extraordinary means which are not central to the issue of pregnancy (ordinary means) at hand.

Please let me know what you think of the scenarios and argument. Thanks.
----------------

UPDATE (23 June 2010):
I have an update to the above argument here. I think it's a stronger argument.