YOU ALWAYS SAY MORE THAN YOU INTEND TO REVEAL

There is a saying that goes, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”  When a person is not careful about their speech they can end up revealing much more than they intend.  It is part of the “why” behind the Gospel injunction to always be truthful and speak that which is Good, True and Beautiful.

Take today’s Gospel for example.  Jesus drives out a mute demon and his detractors say, “It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons.”  In their carelessness in denouncing Jesus, they inadvertently bring Him some credence.  Notice that they didn’t say, “Nothing happened.”  Clearly something happened and they needed a way to discount it and so ascribed the miraculous thing they witnessed as being evil.

So first they inadvertently give great testimony to something that they themselves witnessed.  Then they reveal something about themselves in turn.  Jesus explains the weak logic of their argument and then says, “Those who are not with me are against me.”  Who is He?  God.  If one are not with God, with whom else can one be?  There is a lot of things being revealed here though an attempted deception.

Something similar happened in the local newspaper recently.  In a letter to the editor this week entitled, “Stop the Hatred,” the author rallied against what she saw as growing division in the United States.  She wrote, “If you are an anti-Semite, racist or whatever else, bigotry is an equal opportunity killer.”  What is interesting here is that she takes a group of people (who by and large are clearly in the wrong from a Christian point of view) and separates them from the rest of the “good people” (My words, not hers) and then sort of sets up this “we good people” pointing that the “bad people” and berating them.  “What these bigots don’t realize . . .”  (To whom is she speaking?  People who who are not bigots?  Wouldn’t they already know this?)  While I agree with her premise that if we allow hatred of any group, we may, one day, find ourselves on the wrong end of the stick, her method for getting there is not to engage those whom she may desire to convert to a more loving stance, but to put them in a group and denounce them and inadvertently becomes, at least somewhat, what she hates.

In another interesting article in the Beacon Journal this past Saturday entitled, “Planned Parenthood funding cut.”  The subtitle was, “Federal Appeals Court upholds laws ending flow of state dollars to abortion providers.”  The title and much of the writing is an enormous reversal of language normally used in the public media.  There was no mention of “abortion foes” (as opposed “Pro-Life Advocates” that those who promote life would prefer to be called) or the masking of abortion by the writer as “women’s health care” and in describing an abortion procedure the baby is referred to as a fetus not a mass of cells.   

Is this, too, starting to reveal a change in popular culture?  Only time will tell.  It was only one article.  But it was published and makes one wonder what truths it may be revealing.

WRITE THE RIGHT STUFF

It is going to become more challenging to be Catholic I believe.  BUT I also think it is going to be a lot more fun - at least as long as you keep in mind that the Holy Spirit will do what needs to be done as long as we cooperate and don't think we will do it with our own clever selves.

There have been a couple of things lately.  One was the Gillette commercial and another was an article in the Akron Beacon Journal recently concerning the "Problem with Christian Schools" that on first blush seem to make some modicum of sense but something leaves the viewer/reader unsettled. If you feel that way, don't shake it off - delve into it.  Really find out what is nagging at the back of your mind.  Most often it is a subtle but vital bit of ill-logic.  It may not pop out at you at first.  But a bit of digging and prayer will help make it pop.  

Once that makes its presence known to you - write down as if trying to assist someone else to understand.  Then be prepared to use it (with friends over coffee, on your blog, in a letter to an editor . . . )

The article in the ABJ, for example, sighted what the Associated Press writer described as intolerance, Christian schools teaching things that are not tolerant of other people's ideas.  A person who began a hashtag movement thinks that because of this, Christians schools might need to be censored in some way (my words, not his.)  The oddity of this is that he wants to be intolerant of people he deems intolerant (not to mention he singles out Christian schools as the problem, not schools of other faiths - Jewish, Muslim & so forth, not private schools, not home schools, etc. . .) which gives the appearance that there is more going on here than just a discussion about tolerance.

So I wrote a terrible letter to the editor of the ABJ, let it sit for a while, went back and wrote a better one and sent it in and they were kind enough to print it.  Thank you ABJ.  Here is the letter:

Dear Editor,

Sunday’s article, “Hashtag stirs debate over Christian schools” brought up a very important point.  The author is concerned about those who would, “breed intolerance toward people with a different outlook.”  Oddly enough the solution seems to be to do away with those who have a different point of view than he.  There also seems to be a particular bias against Christian schools as there was no mention of other faith based schools or even the difficulties occurring in our public schools.  Does this not go against the very tolerance the author desires?

Perhaps it is that there are certain aspects of non-governmental schools over which he would like ever more government control.  This is a fine thing as long as you have a benevolent, efficient and intelligent government that happens to agree with you.  But what about when that ruling body turns against you and what you believe?  Then where do you turn?

Thank goodness we have a variety of educational institutions in these United States from public schools, to private schools, religious schools, to home schooling.  They keep us diverse and allow us to tackle problems creatively from multiple paradigms.  Though there are troubles with each of these ways of learning from time to time, doing away with one or the other of them or forcing them to bend to the will of a government is not the answer in a free nation.   We should celebrate tolerance and diversity.  We do not accept lack of choice for our political candidates, in our news sources or for a brand of aspirin.  We should not accept it in our educational choices either.

The Rev. John A. Valencheck

pastor

St. Sebastian Parish, Akron

HAVING FUN WITH HERESY

I received an interesting letter from a man named Ron Sutter yesterday.  He is a former Catholic that is afraid that all Catholics are going to hell and he wrote to me hoping that I will have a change of heart and start leading Catholics according to his way of seeing the Gospel and Jesus’ mission.  It is a form a letter so I wonder how many of you may have received it.

I rarely have a problem with anybody who accurately presents Catholic teaching and then respectfully disagrees.  I will still think them incorrect, but I can respect that.  But when someone misrepresents the Church and then violently rips the false teaching apart in a slight of hand to prove how wicked (or in this case extremely cruel) the Church is, then I get my liturgical underwear in a bunch.  

The letter is three pages long and I have only a short time to write today.  But if you receive such a letter, it might be a good exercise to read it and then get the catechism out see if you can discern the flaws in the reasoning, find the straw men, and weigh the theology.  

In this letter, he states that he grew up Catholic but that he did hear the Gospel until age 19.  It was the first time that he heard that Jesus was the way to heaven.  I have a difficult time believing that he went to PSR, was baptized, received Communion, and was confirmed, went to Mass every weekend, and did not hear that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

Another major theme in the letter is that Catholics believe that they earn their way into heaven.  “Ask any Catholic,” he asserts, “and they will tell you they are going to get into heaven because they do good works.”  We know, however, that we not only cannot, but we have no need to earn heaven.  If we could earn heaven, one of us would have pulled it off before 2,000 years ago and we wouldn’t have needed Jesus.  Jimmy Akins puts it succinctly: “To come to God and be saved, you need to repent, have faith, and be baptized. If you commit mortal sin, you need to repent, have faith, and go to confession.”  In all of this it is Jesus Who will save you.  Read more of his article HERE.

Here are two more sentences and then I will call it quits.  1) “The Catholic Church is clearly false because you preach another Gospel.  God is Holy.  He cannot tolerate even one sin and demands moral perfection: something we don’t have to offer.” 

Here is straw man case,  Does the Church teach that you must be morally perfect in this life in order to get into heaven?  Let us take the case of St. John Paul II.  When he was canonized there was a flurry of activity online and in the news about how he was not perfect.  (If he were perfect, he would’t have needed Jesus.)  We don’t claim that he was perfect, just a great model of true Christianity, and example of Christian living in our day and age.  No-one who knows and understands the teachings of the Church (which are the teachings of Christ) thinks for a moment that the saints had reached moral perfection in this life.  In fact, that is heresy.  “Anyone who says he is without sin calls God a liar.” 1 John 1 :8

Finally, “He justifies, he sanctifies, and He glorifies.  In the end, God gets one hundred percent of the glory for our salvation.  No one in Heaven is boasting in themselves about being there because everyone there knows i was all Him.”  

Well . . . yes.

But this is a clever ploy to make it sound as though this is something that the Church does not teach.  We actually agree but it is an attempt to make the Church look bad.  It is a clever but dishonest, underhanded letter with a fraudulent presentation of Catholic teaching.

And a fun way to build you knowledge of your own faith.

RANT - COUNTER RANT: INCOHERENCY IS NO DETERENT

From the case file of "Why We Need to Teach Our Children Logic" comes this letter from Nancy Dollard in the Akron Beacon Journal.  It combines banning guns and abortion rights.  Put aside, for a moment, whether you thing guns should be legal or not and just take in the letter.

"I was horrified," she writes," to see a mass shooting at Planned Parenthood, a wonderful organization that helps women and men and is progressive about abortion rights."

Unless one is already opposed to abortions, this sentence seems logical.  Good people are shot by bad people.  However, if you see abortion as the taking of an innocent life, then this is a story of people taking the lives of people who take lives.  Only one of them profits by it though.

"Women have the right to have an abortion at any stage and to be free from gun violence."

This is true in our country.  Women have a right to take the life of the human being in their womb but they are themselves protected from any violence.

"Unfortunately, mass shootings are too common now because of the radical-right, National Rifle Association gun mentality which won't give up any rights."

So, you want someone to freely give up their rights, rights being something two sentences ago you held so dear, because somebody tangentially associated with them (albeit in a violent, and by the way, illegal way) wants someone else to give up their rights.  

"I'm sick of guns and mass shootings, and it's time to tell the NRA and hunting groups that we need every gun and round of ammunition in a registered federal database so we can prevent the next mass shooting."

I might use the same argument against abortion.  I am sick of so many human beings being slaughtered in their mother's womb.  I am tired of hearing that human body parts are being sold by Planned Parenthood for profit.  It horrifies me that humans are now being found dumped in local trash yards, not only morally disgusting but illegal.  It sickens me that men can treat women like objects because there is no longer a consequence to their actions.

(I'm skipping a little here) ". . . and get a required yearly mental health exam for anyone who works with a gun or owns multiple guns and rounds."

The writer wants everyone who works with a gun to undergo yearly mental health exams.  I wonder if she would be equally open to women being fully informed about her abortion before it takes place along with a similar waiting period before the abortion as there is with the purchase of a gun?

"It is time to put the safety of normal people first."  That is, people who take human lives but not the many people who own guns and do not.  " They (normal people) abhor guns and gun violence."

Yes, they do.  They certainly do.

RANT - COUNTER RANT : WHEN WE NO LONGER FEEL

This is probably one of the more disturbing things I've read recently on abortion.  It was printed in "First Things" and is a recounting of Solveig Gold's class trip to Sparta, Greece and specifically to the Apothetai, the cliff over which Spartans would toss their unwanted newborns to their death:

The students laughed and posed for photos.  Less than a week later, Gold saw the Center for Medical Progress's videos of Planned Parenthood executives talking about organ harvesting from aborted children.  It put that visit to that ancient site into perspective. or, more accurately, that ancient site put our society into perspective.

"I shouldn't have laughed at the Spartan's barbarism that day at the Apothetai.  We may have hospitals and obstetricians, but we have not advanced from the cliff or the well; of anything, we have taken a step backwards by becoming so desensitized that we do to even realize or acknowledge that what we do is wrong.  Barbarism isn't throwing unwanted babies of cliffs.  Barbarism is throwing unwanted babies off metaphorical cliffs, and then laughing about it over lunch and a glass of red wine.  This is blasphemy.  This is madness.  But it is not Sparta - this is 21st century America."

A letter to the editor in the Akron Beacon Journal last week spoke about how denying people the "right" to an abortion was tantamount to trampling on their religious beliefs.  Siting a number of mainstream Protestant Churches he showed how they believed that abortion was perfectly Okay and said that since we cannot determine when a soul enters the body, our faith should be able to determine when it is too late to have an abortion and to do otherwise is interfering with matters of faith.

Sooooo . . . Now we understand why we NEED to start teaching our youth how to think logically.

But I don't have time or space to go into that.  Still . . . 

Are we really concerned about ensoulment - which, by the way, if you DO NOT know when it takes place, one should err on the side of caution which would mean no abortions. 

But what we are concerned about is being advanced and civil human beings.  This is something people of faith and atheists should agree.  When conception takes place, everything there is present for a complete, unique, human individual.  The question is not whether I believe the person has a soul (though I do) but whether it is a human being and are we Spartans that throw our unwanted human beings away.

You might make the argument that they are dependent, they don't look like humans yet, that conception was not intended, that they are too small, or that just plain nobody will know the difference, but thoughts like this have a sneaky way of making out of the womb into how we treat other human beings in general and that is a dangerous road to follow.

If you think this is an exaggeration, re-read the beginning of this post.  If you make the connection, you've got.  If you don't make the connection, you've proven the point.

"PERSON"AL

I wrote a letter to the editor recently and it hasn't appeared so I thought I would share it with you.

 

 

Dear Editor,

 

In her letter, Maria Miranda (Resist Campaign to Restrict Abortion) states that “the decision to terminate a pregnancy is intensely personal and private. . .”  Unfortunately she does not tell us why this is so.  This statement is the same that has been used throughout history to shut down interference and conversation concerning the way husbands have treated their wives, how parents disciplined their children, and how persons have treated their slaves.  The only way Maria’s statement could make sense at all is if the being within the mother’s womb, that has all of the chromosomes and DNA of a unique human individual, is not a person at all.  That such a large percentage of citizens of the United States do recognize the humanity of the person within her womb makes the argument that this is a private matter as untenable in this case as it had at one time in those others mentioned above.

 

To quote Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a pioneer of the American Women’s Rights Movement, on her views on abortion, “When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."

 

Rev. John A. Valencheck

UPDATE:  I spoke about this letter in my homily this past weekend at it started some interesting philosophical debates after Mass.  One of the most interesting was a distinction between a personal and private belief and that of action.  Our government has always been involved when actions start effecting other people, but personally held beliefs and thoughts of the individual we hold sacrosanct.  So that a person believes that abortion is a good that should be available to anyone at anytime is a right in our nation, but what we focus on is when that belief is put into action (and in this case, an unique human person's rights are destroyed.)  To have it any other way would have our nation act as thought police.  Nice distinction. 

RANT - COUNTER RANT: DON'T MESS WITH MY LITTLE SISTERS

Today I was poised (poised I tell you) to write a scathing article about reporters and editorialists who never took (or have completely forgotten or ignore) a theology class, a philosophy class, or an ethics class that dealt with the Catholic faith (which is a significant part of the population – more than half of all Christians are Catholic after all so this is no small matter) and then imagine they can think over an issue in the shower and come up with a sensible solution with which the Catholic Church, if it were in its right mind, should agree.  The problem being is that their level of competence is rarely up to the task.  This is not to say that they may not be extremely knowledgeable people in other fields, but sometimes I despair that it is obvious that a reporter has failed to even ask what an orthodox, faithful, and knowledgeable Catholic might have to say on a topic.

 

But then, Kevin O’Brien wrote an editorial in today’s Plain Dealer, E3 (January 8, 2014) concerning the health care mandate and the Little Sisters of the Poor entitled “Even the Little Sisters of the Poor are subject to Big Brother’s bullying.”  (On a side note, I am not sure why capitalization for titles is no longer in use in newspapers, but perhaps the rules have changed.)  I will grant that the article is a tinsy wincy bit acidic, but of course I like it because I agree with him.  But he nailed the issues that so many other news sources have not grasped, cared about, or have ignored for other motivations.  Read the article here.

 

It’s sad to see how much money the government is wasting defending desire to provide every man, woman, and child with contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilizations.  It is interesting to note that many of these very things have been offered for free from clinics for decades and others at very minimal cost.  Considering the vast amount of extremely expensive exemptions that have already been granted (government, you don’t have to participate – unions, you don’t have to participate) why is there such an effort to have the Catholic Church submit to this comparatively inexpensive item?  We are not opting out like the government itself is doing or unions, we just want this one exception.  (Not that I am recommending it, but it would be interesting to see how many decades the government could have supplied these services for free through clinics with the money they would have saved by just granting the exemption instead of having these expensive court battles that seem will continue well into the future.)

 

Of course, maybe it isn’t really about contraception or (an already very un-) level playing field.  Could it be that Catholics are not as worthy citizens as those who work for unions or in the government?  Is there another agenda at work here?  (Okay, maybe I am becoming jaded.)  But this seemingly little crack in religious freedom could be a hole in the damn.  Unless the Little Sisters stick their thumb in the hole, what will happen when another issue comes up effecting another matter or another faith and we look at precedent and decide, “Well, it was constitutional, for government interests, to force the Catholic Church to act against its core beliefs, therefore we may turn on you next.”

 

In this light, this is no small matter.

RANT - COUNTER RANT: WHAT'S IT REALLY ALL ABOUT MR. & MRS. JOHN Q. SMITH FROM ANYTOWN USA?

I can’t tell you how relieved I am.

 

Last week in the Letters to the Editor of the Akron Beacon Journal, Mr. Thomas Fann, while pointing out that many people feel that certain provisions of HHS mandate impedes their freedom of religion, he assures us, “It does not.”

 

I was worried.  I am so glad he cleared that up for me.

 

Of course, he goes on to say that there really are limits to freedom of religion so even if it does really impinge on your faith: too bad.

 

Back to feeling bad again.

 

“We are all free to believe what we want, conduct our lives according to our beliefs and worship as we please.”

 

Okay, I’m with you again.

 

“However, our religious freedom does not give us the right to force others to change their behavior to fit our beliefs.” 

 

Of course it does.  Mr. Fann demostrates this himself.  His system of beliefs says that it may force another individual to violate his belief system by making him become directly culpable in what amounts to an intrinsic evil to him.  You can’t have it both ways.  Either we can force others people to behave according to a belief system or you can’t. 

 

“Attempting to prevent or impede what many employees feel are valid (and legal) health-care choices is not a religious freedom protected by the Constitution.”

 

Here again Mr. Fann plays the game of denouncing a behavior for those he’s against, and then shows how perfectly logical it is for him to do it.  None of the people against the HHS mandate are forcing anybody to do anything.  Nobody is protesting that such items should be taken out of the store; nobody is protesting clinics because they are handing out free birth control, but Mr. Fann places the desire of one person to have birth control paid for by a person who finds it morally repugnant over and above the religious freedom of the provider.  One can still have the freedom to act according to his conscience (and have it paid for), the other may not.

 

And “legal” does not mean moral.

 

And since when is it not protected by the Constitution?  Of course it is.  On what planet is protection of religious liberty not a part of the Constitution?  It is a handy argument to make up with absolutely no citations or references.  “It just isn’t” is not an argument.

 

“Employers are free to reject contraception for themselves, but religious freedom does not give them the right to make that decision for their employees.”

 

First, I am thankful that Mr. Fann has given me permission to reject contraception.  But I have not read a single article anywhere of an employee of any company has been fired because they used contraception even though his employer finds it to be morally abhorrent.  Or maybe there has been a rash of front page articles that I missed. 

 

The only person making demands on anybody’s behavior (and tapping their resources) is Mr. Fann and backers of this portion of the HHS mandate.  (This reminds me of 2 Maccabees chapter 7).

 

“Where are the employees going to get the money?  From their paychecks, from the same employer who refuses to pay for contraception coverage on the grounds of ‘religious freedom.’ I don’t see the difference.”

 

And that is the problem.  You don't see the problem.  First of all, I highly recommend that you do not take a job writing an etiquette column.  If I give you a gift, it is yours.  I no longer have control over it.  If I give you twenty dollars and you use it on cigarettes, there is really not much I can do about it.  A paycheck is the same thing.  Once I give you the money it is yours.  What you do with it is your business.

 

Secondly, I recommend that you do not take a job writing an ethics column.  There is a huge difference between indirect and direct culpability.  It is one thing for me to give twenty dollars to a teenager who then goes out and buys smokes, it is another thing to make available smokes for the teenager “because he is going to smoke anyway.”

 

There is one thing Mr. Fann and I do agree upon.  It is this sentence: “This issue really isn’t about religious freedom; it is about control.”

I couldn't have said it better.

RANT - COUNTER RANT: SOME REFRESHING ARGUMENTS

I must say that I started off enjoying Mark Ira Kaufman’s letter to the editor in 11 September’s edition of the Akron Beacon Journal supporting abortion rights.  Not that I agree with him, but that he supplied some different things about which to think – until he fell into the pothole of mudslinging at the end.  But if you don’t mind, let us take a look at what he said.

 

Concerning whether a pregnant woman is one person or two, he makes the arguments that it is completely subjective and up to the woman.  Those who see things otherwise “cannot distinguish between an acorn and an oak tree.”  Using his same metaphor I would argue that the actually is referring to himself.  The root of the word semen means “seed.”  There is the seed, not after it has been sown.

 

Referring to another letter he writes, “the writer and her ilk insist that one is a person from conception.  Do they calculate their ages from conception of from birth?”  This is a clever argument though he is debating a convention, nothing scientific or theological.  That is why they are called “birth”days and not “having become a person” days.  Can you imagine trying to calculate when a person was conceived (especially in ages before modern science?)  With some couples it might be easy, with others – it could have been any number of times.  Celebrating birthdays is a convention, not a theological declaration.

 

“Do they demand citizenship for the conceived?”  Yes.  Well, at least protection from the government that is charged for the protection of all in their care.  But once again, it is highly impractical.  If one travels out of the country much, how does one prove where one is conceived?  It is far easier to prove where one is born.  This again is a convention, not a statement on personhood.

 

“How about habeas corpus for unlawful incarcerated “citizen” inside a pregnant prison inmate?”  Interesting but silly.  This one made me smile.  Of course the natural place for a baby is in the womb.  That is where the baby experiences health and the baby’s most ideal freedom.  That is true almost wherever the mother is.  The baby is not also incarcerated, he is where he is supposed to be.

 

“Can a pregnant woman take a tax deduction the moment the test strip turns blue?”  No she can’t.  But this argument supposes that the state has the power to make morals.  It does not have that power unless there is no God.  If there is no God, then those with power make the morals.  If there is a God, persons have dignity no matter what the state says since it is their inalienable right given to them by their Creator and not by any human person or action. 

 

So can a woman be the only person who can decide if she is two persons or one?  No.  Either a person is a person or they are not.  If the issue is in doubt, we must err toward the possibility that we are dealing with a human person.  If we are willing to take the risk that we are killing off thousands of our own human beings, then I throw Mr. Kaufman’s line back at him with slight modifications: 

 

Any nation allowing its mothers to kill the babies in their wombs surrenders the privilege of self-identifying as civilized. 

 

The rest of his letter is unsubstantiated statements and little mudslinging and not worthy of comment.

RANT - COUNTER RANT: WHY WE STILL NEED TO THINK

It is time to return to the ancient craft of thinking.  We have handed over so much of our thinking to remembering devices and calculating devices, and instead of freeing up our brains for more lofty endeavors, have mindlessly given over that time to other devices that whittle away life for us while we put thinking on hold aside from wondering who might get kicked off of the island next.

 

As a counter to this a book was recently suggested to me: Peter Kreeft’s, “Socratic Logic; A Logic Text Using Socratic Method, Platonic Questions, and Aristotelian Principles.”

 

There’s a winning title.

 

And I will admit, as admirably as Mr. Kreeft tries to make it a fun exercise, it is a lot of work learning how to think.  But the pay offs are magnificent.  Like learning another language, if you can put up with the long fuse, the boom at the end is well worth it.

 

I would love have a course like this taught in our parish school and even open it up to the rest of the parish.  (We shall see.)  This is for two reasons: first, it would prevent people from embarrassing themselves writing mindless drivel as Mr. Richard Kunkel did in his letter to the editor in the Akron Beacon Journal on Wednesday, August 14^th concerning abortion, and second, it would help students to see mindless drivel when it appears before them.

 

There is so much to write about in this letter I doubt I can do it in one post but here are some high – er – lowlights.  After stating that a recent letter to the editor really made him think, he wrote, “Suppose Honda had a bad model, and it was recalled.  Should we make a law forcing Honda to close?  Or how about a law that would close every automaker in the state?”  Is this a fair comparison?

 

To begin with, Honda does not design anything that is intended to kill anybody.  Their products are supposed to be convenient and safe.  Therefore, if something goes wrong, we make them fix their product and make them safe once again.  Abortion is not designed to keep a person safe but to kill them.  If we don’t want people killed, then yes, we do shut them down.

 

Further, the product that Honda makes does not affect the morality of a nation, the family structure, religious freedom, or health care.  It is a false example.  A better one would be independent brain surgery clinics (if such a thing existed.)  If they were in violation should we keep letting them perform brain surgeries and work with them in eventually coming around to being a safer clinic?  No.  I would say stop all surgeries now.

 

Mr. Kunkel also states that the only problem here is that one group doesn’t want abortion so therefore it should be legal.  Really?  There are (essentially) three groups out there: those who want abortion, those who don’t, and those somewhere in between.  In a democracy such as ours that is always the case and we vote to see what we should do.  For example, there are a great number of people out there who enjoy smoking.  There are those who think it should not be done in public, and the somewhere in between group.  I could use his same argument to say that only one group wants there to be no smoking in our country – therefore the rest of us should be able to smoke next to him at his favorite restaurant.  Bet he doesn’t buy it.  (All of a sudden his call for tolerance disappears.)

 

Ah!  See?  I’m already going too long.  But I can’t stop.  “If you don’t want abortion, don’t have one,” is another tired and silly diatribe.  He likens it to, “If you don’t like alcohol, don’t drink,” as if it were an equal case.  How about this better one: If you don’t like racial prejudice, don’t use racial slurs, but don’t trample on the rights of those who want to use them or burn crosses on public property as long as they have a permit.  But that hardly solves the problem.  (And really, there is only one group that wants us to get rid of racial inequality – right???)

And he calls this a “war on women.”  Switching the conversation to women’s health and rights is a clever way of covering over what is at the center of this debate: another innocent human being.  It is a war on humanity and the rights of the weakest and least politically connected among us.  And as we become a nation that takes the throwing away of human life more and more easily, we become less human, appreciate all human life less, and take another step backward in the advancement of human dignity, worth, and love.

 

Last point and then I will try to stop.  Mr. Kunkel states that we should be able to do whatever is legal and not be unfettered “by my or anyone else’s dislike.”  The tyranny of tolerance.  Of course what I want to do may be in direct contradiction to what you want to do.  Who gets to win?  My Aunt had a neighbor who put in a chimney that met code but only caused smoke to be trapped between the houses and forcing smoke into her house, leaving an odor and making a mess.  Yet it was legal.  Was the neighbor therefore morally in the right because the city said they had their hands tied because he was up to code? 

 

And once again (I know, I said I would stop) we forget the idea that there is a human person in the womb.  He was a human person at conception, as he develops he is a human person, and he will only ever be a human person as he develops.  He struggles for life and will be born and grow if we let him.  I would say these are signs of what this human person wants.  But we silence him so that he does not have a say and we can do away with him without giving him any real consideration.  It is legal after all and therefore must be morally right and good for us as a nation.  Right?