Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Part 3

Here I continue my discussion with Shan. His comments in normal text. Mine in italics. I also sent these remarks to Shan via email. Mine have been edited here for spelling, othe than that, they are unchanged from what he recieved.

Is Abortion a neccesary evil? I believe it is.No matter what your personal beliefs on the subjects are,in today's society, there's no arguing sex and violence are a prominent part. With this, comes casual promiscuity, rape, and the like. Unwanted pregnancies happen.

I agree with ypour contention that current societal trends play a prominent part in unwanted pregnancies. This is a reflection of the culture’s denial of the purpose of human sexuality. When one engages in the sex act, one does so in the full realization that the natural purpose of the act is procreation regardless of their intent. While there may be such a thing as an unwanted pregancy, there is no such thing as an accidental pregancy.

If someone with an unwanted pregnancy, with no way to support a child, knows it's physically possible to have an abortion, what's going to stop them?If you make something controversial illegal, you push it underground.

That’s true. I’ll grant you that laws against armed robbery haven’t eliminated armed robbery. Rape still exists in spite of leagl strictures against it. The same goes for a myriad of other crimes. The important thing is that laws against violations of persons or their property make it known that society values persons and property.

Just as the illegal drug trade thrives underground, through inner city and international violence, so can abortion. This may be slightly off topic, but the analogy fits right in line. With drugs, when you take away the legal market, an illegal market pops up. With dirtier, more dangerous supplies, and a more ruthless industry to spread it. The same can be said for abortion, as a necessary evil. If you take abortion out of the hands of trained medical professionals, you put it into the scenarios of coat hangers in back alleys. This may be an extreme scenario, but so is the topic we discussed earlier, abortion leading to eugenics.

I agree that abortions, when rendered illegal, will continue to be performed by criminals. I think the coat hanger bit is a trifle extreme.

If you take the pro-life stance, when picking the "lesser of two evils", wouldn't having abortions where the mother is far more likely to be in safe position, be preferable?

My preference is for a solution whereby the lives of both the mother and the child are respected.

Would you rather both sides, being the mother and the baby, be in a position to be sacrificed?

Not at all. Outlawing abortion will certainly not eliminate abortion, but will reduce the number of abortions performed. I believe that since both mother and child are human, the net savings in lives will be appreciable.

A foreseeable campaign against this would be promoting alternatives. Such as adoption, which is already promoted in the current legal status. Adoption is still a problematic option when the Abortion option is present. Carrying something for 9 months inside of you can be just as jeopardizing to a career, education, (and everything else that goes along with keeping a steady life of your own a float) as having and caring for a birthed child.

Perhaps the time to “choose” I prior to the moment of conception. Maybe, just maybe, deciding to abrogate our responsibility in the name of “freedom” isn’t the issue.

I don't personally believe in abortion being murder, but if a completely viable alternative to abortion was found, I would support it. But until then, abortion will continue to serve, or plague, society as a nessiscary evil, whether it be in the public eye, or in the back streets. Which legal status is more morally acceptable when regarding human life?

Here is where the crux of our disagreement lies, I think. By consenting to this discussion you admit that abortion is an evil, yet you deny it’s murder. You seem to admit, although in a roundabout way, that the fetus is a person, but that it’s right to life is trumped by the right of the mother to “choose”. As an individual I have no right to take the life of a person who thwarts my plans. I have no right to kill a thirty year old who is inconvenient to me, nor a ten year old, nor an infant. Yet at each of these ages, the human is distinctly different from what it is becoming; its chronological age is an artificial construct, a convenience imposed by us. What makes a child a different thing the day before its birth than it is the day after its birth? Certainly, a newborn is not wholly viable. A newborn requires much attention and support to survive. Should we consider legalizing infanticide on this account? Should the convenience of the mother trump the rights of a newborn? At what age do we draw the line? Two days? Two weeks? Two years? How is a child different at one year, 364 days, than at two years? Tell me the point at which rights inhere in the person and make a case for that point rather than any other.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Part 2

Shan's first email has arrived. He sent some biographical information and then got down to his case. Here is his first installment unedited. Mine will follow shortly.

Hello Joe. So sorry for the late replies, life's been hectic.

As for introductory info, My name's Shan Cerrone, I live in Northern Virginia, planning to attend BU for photography. And things that might be relevant to this discussion, I was raised in the United Methodist church and was rather active until about 15 when my life's direction started to change. And, (with no disrespect to your beliefs intended) began to take a strong interest in philosophy, and started seeing the flaws of religion, and parted ways. Today I'm a rather optimistic Nihilist, if there is such a thing.

Civilities agreed,Onward!

Is Abortion a neccesary evil? I believe it is.

No matter what your personal beliefs on the subjects are,in today's society, there's no arguing sex and violence are a prominent part. With this, comes casual promiscuity, rape, and the like. Unwanted pregnancies happen. If someone with an unwanted pregnancy, with no way to support a child, knows it's physically possible to have an abortion, what's going to stop them?If you make something controversial illegal, you push it underground.

Just as the illegal drug trade thrives underground, through inner city and international violence, so can abortion. This may be slightly off topic, but the analogy fits right in line. With drugs, when you take away the legal market, an illegal market pops up. With dirtier, more dangerous supplies, and a more ruthless industry to spread it. The same can be said for abortion, as a necessary evil.

If you take abortion out of the hands of trained medical professionals, you put it into the scenarios of coat hangers in back alleys. This may be an extreme scenario, but so is the topic we discussed earlier, abortion leading to eugenics.

If you take the pro-life stance, when picking the "lesser of two evils", wouldn't having abortions where the mother is far more likely to be in safe position, be preferable?Would you rather both sides, being the mother and the baby, be in a position to be sacrificed?

A foreseeable campaign against this would be promoting alternatives. Such as adoption, which is already promoted in the current legal status. Adoption is still a problematic option when the Abortion option is present. Carrying something for 9 months inside of you can be just as jeopardizing to a career, education, (and everything else that goes along with keeping a steady life of your own a float) as having and caring for a birthed child.

I don't personally believe in abortion being murder, but if a completely viable alternative to abortion was found, I would support it. But until then, abortion will continue to serve, or plague, society as a nessiscary evil, whether it be in the public eye, or in the back streets. Which legal status is more morally acceptable when regarding human life?

Best, -Shan C.

Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Part 1

I was recently involved in a discussion of FaceBook with a young man who contends that abortion is a necessary evil. I, of course, don't believe this to be the case. The gentleman in question, Shan Cerrone, has graciously consented to engage in an email discussion of this issue, and has further consented to allow me to publish our exchange on Top Meadow.

The topic of our exchange will be "Is Abortion a Necessary Evil?". We have agreed to an exchange of three emails, limited to 1000 words. Each response should be answered within 48 hours. The comments option will be disabled until after the exchange is finished. I have asked Shan to furnish any biographical or pertinent information he would like to make known here.

Stay tuned for more information.

As always, until next time, all the best. Joe

The Tangled Web

On Sunday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a self-described Catholic, touted the virtues of birth control as a means of reducing the liability for states and municipalites, since, if there are fewer persons born there will be fewer persons requiring government services. The contraception funding was included as part of the conimic stimulus package being considered by Congress. This actually makes sense for fans of eugenics. If we provide family planning service gratis to low income citizens, they will breed fewer low income children, children who will require silly things like education and health care. That's brilliant! Hooray for the eimination of the unfit. Margaret Sanger would be so proud. You can see the interview here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFU_jE9WasM .

Late Monday, President Obama leapt to the aid of the economic stimulus package encouraging Congressional Democrats to delete the family planning funding. What's that about? The most ardent anti-life President ever elected is ditching a program that that further undermines the idea of individual responsibility! A couple of possibilities exists:

1. Nancy Pelosi really is that radical and believes every word she said. The President holds her point of view as well, but realizes that the Democratic Party leadership's Freudian slip is showing, and in an attempt to pull the skirts back down over the slip, he spoke out.

2. Nancy Pelosi really is that radical and believes every word she said. The President holds her point of view as well. he two get on the phone and cook up a plot whereby the President can appear to be the voice of reason and moderation on a hot button issue like eugenics.

3. The President disagrees with Ms Pelosi and is horrified that she could even have said such a thing out loud.

There is no possibility that Ms Pelosi is not a eugenicist. There is little possibility that the President is not either. Call me a cynic, but I'm going with option #2. It's "good cop, bad cop" on a grand scale. Nancy Pelosi is not a stupid woman, she wouldn't put such views on display without good purpose. Watch for more of this type of political theater from the jesters of the art of governance.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

"A More Excellent Way"

If there is anything about which the bulk of humanity can agree, it is the proposition that there is something intrinsically wrong with the nature of man. A survey of ancient literature shows a trend among the ancients to place the blame on the caprice and folly of the gods. They wanted to shift the responsibility onto beings who operated beyond their ken, into a realm beyond their control.

Likewise the moderns, that is the secularists, atheists and relativists, want to shift blame for our broken nature into an equally inaccessible and irreparable material realm. They wish to blame it on "the selfish gene" to borrow a phrase from the great materialist cheerleader Richard Dawkins. They contend that man's basic flaws are contained in the genetic code which drives the organism to act solely out of a desire to preserve its genes in the pool of the species. Although most of those of the materialist mindset deny the existence of our free will, there are some who adhere to this "selfish gene" idea, Dawkins included, who contend that we, as a species, have outgrown the need to follow this basic genetic drive, contending in the process that we should "be good for goodness sake". The methodology by which we are to attain this goodness is left undefined.

There is, however, a middle road. It is, in the words of St Paul, "a more excellent way". It is the way of Christianity. Like all roads to recovery, this route requires that we place the blame squarely where it belongs, not on the capriciousness of inaccessible and petty deities, not on the equally mystical and inaccessible gene, but squarely on the shoulders of man himself.

Further, this middle road proposes a solution to our tendency towards sin, our concupiscence. It is not a one shot solution, it is an ongoing solution, a continuous process, a way of life. As our brokenness came through the will of man, so does our salvation, the realization of what we were intended to be flow from the willing assent of man to conform to the will of our Creator who defined our original nature. Christianity holds us to a higher standard, we are held accountable to a higher authority, our God. We are told that after acknowledging that the fault for our broken nature is our own, we must confess our transgressions, we must make amends to those we have harmed, we must live in the service of that higher authority and our fellow men.

Why is this God necessary? This is the great question the secular humanist asks. Humans do not conform to rules without some method of enforcement and punishment. Just as secular laws require provisions for enforcement and retribution against transgressors, so must the natural law hold these threats.

As Chesterton once observed "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried." Man alone cannot reform himself. The reform of man can only come through the realization that the rift between him and his Maker has been healed, and that by adhering to the will of that Creator we will be able to "put away those childish things" and grow into the beings we are meant to be.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Is There a Catholic in the Closet?

Did President Obama really say:

"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

Let's hold him to his word. If these principles apply to our relations with other nations, then we must adhere to them on the domestic front as well. It is high time we "put away childish things" and accept respomsibility for our actions. Let's hope that the speechwriter who borrowed this language from the pro-life movement has the President's ear.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

God Bless the President of the United States

I'm watching live coverage of the inauguration as I write. Say what you want about the what the next four years portend for our nation, the spectacle is truly amazing. For the forty fourth time in our history, a peaceful transition of power is occurring. The reins of government of the most prosperous and most powerful government is being transferred constitutionally, not by assassination, or at the point of a bayonet. It a spectacle which demands and deserves all the pageantry and pomp we can muster.

I can disagree with the new President, but I must celebrate the event of his Inauguration. So long as the peaceful transition of power occurs in the nation there is hope. Not the hope of political jingoism, but true hope of the spirit. Not the vague promise of change, but the very real promise of conversion.

Let's not mourn or bemoan the installation of the man as president, but rather let's celebrate the event which marks the continuity of our government. Celebrate the day. Celebrate our freedom. Celebrate our nation. We can fight tomorrow.

God bless the President of the United States. God bless the United States of America.

Til next time, all the best. Joe