Bookmark and Share
My Photo

FROM the EDITORS:

  • IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

NEW & UPCOMING, available from IGNATIUS PRESS







































































« And now, a brief musical interlude... | Main | Catholic = Pro-Life »

Friday, August 29, 2008

Comments

Little Gidding

"we, as mere men and women, have the ability to impart supernatural meaning unto a child. If you're not wanted, you are merely a clump of tissue and cells to be discarded. If you're wanted, you become, by our divine initiative, sacred beings who must be protected at all costs, must not be left behind, must be treasured as our nation and world's future, and so forth."

This may be nonsensical, but it's standard rhetoric from the Left, and has been ever since it was broached in the late 1850s by such people as Freethinker and ex-Congregationalist minister Henry C. Wright in his books "The Unwanted Child" and "The Empire of the Mother"--except that in Wright's thinking, it was ultimately the mother that did the "wanting" and therefore the investing of human nature into the child in the womb. The father's place in it all was only that of an endangerment to the mother: his attitude and actions toward her might cause her to feel loathing or anxiety, as the result of which she would, by a process of interior inscription, cause the child in the womb to be actually marked, biologically, and therefore, already be made unfit, justifying an abortion. (It's all the man's fault!) This, of course, is why, today, it's only women--that is, the mothers--whose "choice" matters. When genetics finally came to be understood at the end of the 19th century and it was clearly understood that the genes, inherited at conception, from both the mother and the father, were what fixed the form of the growing child (rather than the volatile thoughts and feelings of the pregnant woman), the pro-eugenics crowd abated their arguments justifying abortion on the grounds that a mother's "unwanting" of a child actually made it literally defective, but, perhaps surprisingly, they did not abandon these arguments. They only made the damage to the child metaphorical, talking instead about the need to "save" an "unwanted" child from being brought into a corrupt or uncaring world. This is exactly how Margaret Sanger used to phrase it. The rhetoric was essentially unchanged, even though advances in understanding reproduction had completely undercut the argument for "compassionate" abortion.

Dan

Senator Boxer, do you think we should have a choice, a right, to wield barbaric lethal violence within the family? If not, how then can you justify the "choice" of abortion?

Ed Peters

If we remember, in these dark days, that abortion is built on the foulest of Lies, then we will be better able to understand that the Democrats, among a few others, are eventually going to hang themselves on abortion, and that in future decades, people will look back (from exactly what, I don't know, but they will look back) and wonder how so many people could have made the preservation of unborn baby killing the most important point of their political work.

Stohn

Well, Senator Boxer is right about one thing: that is "what Democracy means" - it's the tyranny of liberalism and individualism - and that's why she is a supporter of it.

joanne

""It was the right to control our reproductive systems that made it possible for almost all of us to achieve our own dreams which our parents had paid for."

There's a disconnect there. Parents. Paid for. The parents self-sacrifice is "honored" by their children's selfishness?

Jackson

Very Screwtapian! Such is the dictatorship of relativism.

Matthew

Thank you Senator Boxer you've given me another reason to become a Monarchist!! :^)

Dan Deeny

Thank you for this information on the abortion business, Sen. Boxer, Mrs. Obama, and Rep. Slaughter. Let's pray that the bishops can help the Catholics make their way through this fog. It will take the patience of the doctor in Camus' book The Plague and the stubborn determination of Blessed Cardinal von Galen.

Kirk

"A woman who deliberately destroys a fetus is answerable for murder. And any fine distinction between its being completely formed or unformed is not admissible among us."

"Those who give potions for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers, as are those who take potions which kill the child. "

-Saint Basil the Great (A.D. 329-379)

Matt

It appears to me (a Canadian) that your presidential election can be boiled down to two positions: those who are in favour of life and those who are opposed to life. Anyone who is in favour of God (who is the author of life) is going to be pro-life. Anyone opposed to God, whether explicitly stated or not, is going to be opposed to life on some level.

Ultimately, when someone supports something that involves the destruction of innocent human life (such as abortion), that individual is saying no to God. I think that you can extend this argument to any issue for that matter, whether it's "same-sex marriage", cloning,...etc. Is it a coincidence that the same individuals and movements who fanatically support abortion are also opposed to even mentioning the word "God"?

How can any Christian (especially a Catholic) even consider voting for a politician who supports something as heinous as abortion?

I commend Archbishop Chaput for speaking out against Speaker Pelosi. That being said, I think stronger words are required. Correcting someone who is in error is an act of charity (afterall, they may be acting or speaking out of ignorance). However, when a Catholic politician continues (i.e. obstinately) to support something like abortion, she cannot claim ignorance. Her position is not only erroneous, it is also heretical. The Catholic leadership (i.e. the bishops) need to label her a heretic.

You are fortunate in the States to have at least some media (i.e. smart like a) who will at least give pro-life politicians the opportunity to present their position without being ridiculed.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight

Twitter


Ignatius Press


Catholic World Report


WORTHY OF ATTENTION:




















Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad