Nobody for Chatting?

I just discovered that my only follower, Pro Life Girl, took me off her list to follow my blog. Might it be that I'm on the fence about healthcare?

I'm not for government climbing into and devouring our wallets from the inside out, but government does take our money for everyone's use on roads and for defense.

I'm a Republican for one issue only for the most part (I am also against overspending/borrowing), but I would love to join the Democrats if only the new feminazis would stop pushing baby killing (for all four trimesters).

The thing is, it seems that only people who agree with you 100% follow what you have to say. I think it's important to discuss through or chat about our disagreements. Maybe we'll dispose with some nonsensical heresies theological and otherwise.

(How can one be against abortion and for torture? Does Judie Brown really believe this? What's here definition of torture?)

Obamacare Oxymoron?

Last night during [Pres] Obama's congressional healthcare speech, US Rep. Joe Wilson of SC yelled out that [Pres] Obama lies. He tweeted (according to govtrack.us),

Happy Labor Day! Wonderful parade at Chapin, many people called out to oppose Obamacare which I assured them would be relayed tomorrow to DC. (Sep 7, 2009)

Some would say that this outburst during the speech would end his career, but I think it will galvanize his electorate to vote for him. (Is it a coincidence that he was a staffer for Senator Strom Thurmond of SC?)

Yes, Obama lies out of both sides of his mouth all the time, but what politician doesn't? I'm not excusing [Pres] Obama; he just wants to do a good job in his latest drive-by position (he spends very little time in his jobs; would a HR manager hire him now for a union position if s/he saw his resume?).
---

About Obamacare as an oxymoron, does [Pres] Obama really care about people and/or their intelligence when he lies so much, though. Is he just pandering to the health insurance industry to get them more business on the taxpayers dime, no 3/4+ paycheck? Is he just a moron to think people don't realize that he lies so blatantly? If he told the truth more often and/or care about people's intelligence, would he get more done (am I just naive)?

Just wondering.
---

Despite all the lies from the left and fear mongering from the right, I'm still on the fence if a public option is the way to go. Actually, I think the main problem is tort law: the amount of money from lawsuits is astronomical. Also, the pay for service system is fishy.

Nonetheless, people I know who don't have jobs and are mid-aged or less can't get health insurance. Yes, rationing may well happen under a public option but rationing also happens now. Those without a job or extra money to burn are out of doctor offices and into ER's (what if they might have (early stage?) cancer?).

My stance now is simple. I will stay out of the debate unless abortion is to be mandated, because I don't assume to know all the answers about health care/health insurance.
---

One last question, if Obama thinks that pinpointing the starting point of human life is above his pay grade (he knows as much now about this question as he did before he became (perhaps legitimately) US President), how can he think that figuring out how to (solve forever, supposedly) the healthcare system (and all the other issues) is within his paygrade?

Is This Saying Hard?

Three years ago (as I guest posted at my friend's blog), the same readings were read at mass yesterday. One of them was from Ephesians 5.

Brothers and sisters:
Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.
For the husband is head of his wife
just as Christ is head of the church,
he himself the savior of the body.
As the church is subordinate to Christ,
so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything [see my note below].
Husbands, love your wives,
even as Christ loved the church
and handed himself over for her to sanctify her,
cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
that he might present to himself the church in splendor,
without spot or wrinkle or any such thing,
that she might be holy and without blemish.
So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.
He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no one hates his own flesh
but rather nourishes and cherishes it,
even as Christ does the church,
because we are members of his body.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.
This is a great mystery,
but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.

I asked what people's priests (deacons) said about this reading if anything at all. My priest avoided the reading explicitly.

This year, however, he said some good things about it. The wife being subordinate does not mean doing the laundry, he said, or doing more chores. For the husband, it doesn't mean that we are to be waited on, necessarily, but that we are to also wash the feet of our wives and our neighbor. (These are my priest's ideas.)

I think people now a days would perhaps cringe less at the idea of drinking Jesus' body and blood than at this Ephesians reading. People think that the (RC) Church believes that women are less than men in some way(s). No, we are to "[b]e subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ."

So, what did your priest or deacon say about this reading this year, if anything?

Which Came First? The Chicken or the Egg?

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

The question and answer have many very important implications.

This is a three (3) part video:
I. Introduction and answer
II. Reapplication of the answer
III. Social and political consequences (prolife? OTAAAC?)

References:
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/
(2) http://science.howstuffworks.com/genetic-science/question85.htm
(3) http://people.cs.uu.nl/hansb/religion/chickenegg.html
(4) http://business.fortunecity.com/johns/139/index6.html
(5) http://www.arrogantatheist.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=729&page=1

Same-Sex Marriage and the State Youtube Video only

How Will Same-Sex "Marriage" Hurt Marriage?

How Will Same-Sex "Marriage" Hurt Marriage?

Besides the detriment to religious institutions and those with religious objections to those in same-sex "marriages" (and teaching it as a norm in public schools), what harm to "traditional" or "real" marriages will occur from codifying same-sex "marriage" into law?



Some resources:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/06/259
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/UST_fall2004.pdf
http://www.marriagedebate.com/ssm.php
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/07/what-marriage-is-and-what-it-isnt
(Will be available free in a few months after July 2009!)
http://www.iptv.org/video/browse.cfm/program/20022
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/11/priority-of-strengthening-families.html
http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2009/05/pseudogamy-101.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1908243,00.html
http://positivelywaiting.blogspot.com/2008/05/marriage-from-teens-point-of-view.html

OTAAAC (pro life) Debate Advice

I just (sort-of) finished two debates with people who are PAAAC (pro-choice). One wanted abortion to come to Ireland, one wanted ESCR to stay on-board, respectively below.

Of course, at the end of the day, it only matters if a human is a person from conception onward. Both debaters came to this point, but their responses were puzzling:

I asked, "At the end of the day, I have a question: If personhood is established for a non-viable human that is found to be inside a woman's body, does the woman still have a right to kill the non-viable human in your view?"

She said, "Yes, no one has the right to use anothers body without their permission, fetus or rapist."

The other man (heatmourning33) said (after I believe his personhood definition was destroyed), "I don't have all the answers, your way could be the better way to go, I havent [sic] been convinced."

Do you notice that the question of personhood doesn't really matter in the end to these PAAAC (pro-choice) people?

This leads me to the following advice:

Before starting to debate, ask explicitly the following question:

If personhood is established for a [zygote or equivalent], does the [woman/state/scientist/president/etc.] still have a right to kill the [zygote or equivalent] in your view?

FYI: The US Supreme Court:

If the suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth Amendment].

Abortion is Just War for Obama

Barack Obama has spoken about abortion on various occasions. One of the last times he spoke about abortion specifically was at Notre Dame when he received an honorary doctorate of laws degree. The other two times of note were during his “100 Days Press Conference” and during the campaign after he spoke at Pastor Rick Warren’s Church during a presidential debate with Senator McCain. The relevant parts of Obama’s words are reproduced below.

Interview with Mr. Stephanopoulos on ABC
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcVN8DpwWE0]

...As a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into (Stephanopoulos interrupts: As respect to Augustine) It does. It's a pretty tough question and so all I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions. What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue. That's it's one that families struggle with all the time. And that in wrestling with those issues I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions. I think the better answer, and this was reflected in the Democratic platform, is to figure out how do make sure that young mothers or women who have a pregnancy that's unexpected or difficult have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices including adoption....

100 Days Press Conference
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/obama-100-days-press-conf_n_193283.html]

You know, the -- my view on -- on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.

I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they -- if they suggest -- and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.

The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that -- that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their doctors, with their clergy.

So -- so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.

Obama's Notre Dame speech
[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-barack-obama-notre-dame-speech,0,2951798.story?page=2]

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let's make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

Now, understand -- understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction.

I noticed that in all three monologues above, he said that abortion is a moral, ethical, or spiritual issue. Further, he said that women, mothers, or families must make this choice without government interference.

After some reflection on these common principles, it seemed that Obama was applying just war theory to abortion. Mothers (et al.) take the role of defending entity (defender), while the baby takes the role of the aggressing entity (aggressor). The defender decides, through parallel applications of just war theory to abortion, whether going to war is just or unjust.

In 1991, Francis Kissling, former president of Catholics for Choice, wrote, "If War is Just, So is Abortion." [http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/op-eds/1990s/19910417ifwarisjustsoisabortion.asp] In addition, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, former president of Chicago Theological Seminary, wrote two articles and one speech that picked up on Ms. Kissling’s ideas.

In essence, Ms. Kissling said that women, who were once not considered moral agents, are in reality the primary moral agent to decide if pregnancy termination is necessary. Ms. Thistlethwaite agrees, writing, “Obama Acknowledges Women as Moral Agents.”

In comparing the need for war and abortion, Ms. Kissling writes, “Both constructs would recognize that the taking of life in war and in abortion (though not equivalent acts) are never in themselves moral goods. But these values are not absolute. They can be overridden in serious circumstances and after reflection on the moral guidelines established by the church.” These circumstances, according to her, include self-defense and “[the protection of] a nation's integrity”, or “a woman's physical and emotional health”.

Ms. Thistlethwaite goes further in saying that it is not possible to know if a preborn person has a soul in her speech (to Planned Parenthood), “How Is It With Your Soul?” Ms. Kissling mentions this conundrum briefly, but does not expand the thought. It would seem, for the moment, that the preborn human is a person in the same way that an enemy soldier is a person. The topic of personhood of the perborn human is beyond the scope of this essay.

If it were accepted that abortion could be analyzed with just war theory, the four-prong test of just war theory must be applied. In order to pass the test of a just war or abortion, all four prongs must be true at the same time. The test includes the following (http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp).

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor [preborn person] on the nation or community of nations [pregnant woman] must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it [the pregnancy] must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success [in terminating pregnancy];
4. the use of arms [abortion] must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated [death of mother or “a woman's physical and emotional health”]. The power of modern means of destruction [chemical and surgical abortion] weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Right away, prongs two and three are almost guaranteed. Only a few preborn persons have survived abortion. The real questions are one and four.

How is damage inflicted by the preborn person on the pregnant woman lasting, grave, and certain? For one, the clear and present danger of the woman (immanent death) would suffice. Since pregnancy lasts nine months and not the lifetime of the woman (assuming adoption used), pregnancy itself would not be lasting. Since miscarriage is very probable, pregnancy is not certain.

Does abortion produce evils and disorders graver than the death of the mother or “a woman's physical and emotional health”? Assuming that the preborn human is a person, killing the preborn human and letting a mother die are equivalent evils. Killing the preborn human produces a greater evil than a detriment to a woman's physical and emotional health.

It seems that the only reason an abortion can be just is for the life of the mother if death from the baby's presence is a clear and present danger. However, just as in the application of war, the objective of defense is not to kill people, it is to stop the means of destruction. In order to stop bombings, bomber planes may be shot down; it just happens that there are people flying them. The "enemy" person must be protected as humanely as possible. In abortion, the preborn person must be protected whenever possible. If the fallopian tube or uterus is removed, or drugs must be administered to protect a clear and present danger to a mother, the secondary effect of killing the preborn person is not unjust.

The caveat is that a woman cannot choose abortion if the framework of just war theory is applied. Since the only just war against the preborn person is for the clear and present danger of a mother’s life, only a doctor (or team of doctors) can justly "wage war" on the preborn person. Only a doctor can determine the gravity of a life-threatening situation.

In conclusion, if Barack Obama is using the ideas of Ms. Kissling in terms of applying just war theory to abortion, he is incorrect in his evaluation. No woman or family can justly determine if a preborn person should die for his or her desires (inconvenience, pride, need for adoption, &c), only an objective doctor can conclude that a pregnant mother is in clear and present danger due to the mere internal presence of the preborn person. If the just war theory is applied to abortion, the moral, ethical, and spiritual decision must conclude that abortion is not the just action to take. Government must make sure that unjust wars against preborn people are not undertaken at the whim of any other person’s will.

Despite the fact that the preborn person in the mother’s body may present clear and present danger to the life of the mother, how can the preborn be considered aggressors? Ms. Kissling addresses this in one sentence in "If War is Just, So is Abortion.” “As we have seen, even in high-tech modern warfare, innocents will be killed.” Does this make sense? If abortion is the equivalent to just war, who is the person that is threatening the mother’s life? Is the preborn person “innocent” according to Ms. Kissling? The preborn person is not an innocent bystander; she is an innocent participant in an intrinsically evil act.

If Barack Obama does not think that preborn humans are people (until the soul enters at some undetermined time by him), why does he call abortion a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue? If he thinks that preborn humans are not people, abortion should not be an issue at all to him; if it is so, he should be honest and say so now.

But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion?
-Mother Theresa