Abortion Myth #6

Myth: “If abortion becomes illegal, tens of thousands of women in the U.S. will die again from back-alley and coat hanger abortions.”

 Truth:

-Women never died “by the thousands” in the United States: this figure was fabricated by pro-abortionists (see Abortion Myth #1).  The highest verified figure is 388 maternal deaths in 1948, before antibiotics became available.

New, improved post-Roe abortionist Kermit Gosnell

-For decades prior to legalization, 90% of abortions were performed by doctors in their offices, about the same number as today. 

- Women still die from legal abortions in the United States [here, here].

- The same pro-abortion activists who warn about coat hangers and the back alley fight strenuously against any regulation of abortion clinics, even minimal health regulations, that they believe might discourage abortions (see Davis, Wendy).

-Because pro-abortion activists oppose regulation of abortion facilities, and the politicians who rely on their financial support look the other way, brutal and deadly abortionists like Kermit Gosnell are able to flourish.

-Every year more than half a million unborn women die in legal abortions in the United States.

-Poland went from 148,200 abortions in 1975 to only 253 in 1998, and maternal deaths decreased by 30%, and miscarriages decreased by 25!

Much of the information above comes from Randy Alcorn’s Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments.

DON’T BUY THE LIE!

Essential Pro-Life Resources:

Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (link)  

The Elliot Institute (link)  

National Right To Life Committee (link)  

Care-Net (link)

The Nurturing Network (link)


To See The Entire Abortion Myths Series Click HERE 

Abortion Myth #2

MYTH: "Abortion is safer than childbirth."

TRUTH:

- A government funded study in Finland in 1997 found that women were four times more likely to die in theyear following an abortion than in the year following childbirth.  More recent studies in Canada and California reached similar conclusions.

- Since the 1950’s dozens of studies around the world have shown a significantly greater risk of breast cancer for women who have had abortions.

- Women who have had abortions are also at greater risk of cervical, ovarian, and liver cancer.

-Women who have had abortions are at higher risk of complications in subsequent pregnancies, including: complications of labor, placenta previa, ectopic pregnancy and handicapped newborns.

-10% of women undergoing elective abortion will suffer immediate complications, of which approximately one fifth (2%) are considered life threatening.

-Women still die every year from legal abortions (see Gosnell, Kermit [link]).

(figures courtesy of the Elliot Institute, www.afterabortion.org)

DON’T BUY THE LIE!

Essential Pro-Life Resources:

Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (link)  

The Elliot Institute (link)  

National Right To Life Committee (link)  

Care-Net (link)

The Nurturing Network (link)

To See The Entire Abortion Myths Series Click HERE 

Attende, Domine, et Miserere

Pope Benedict XVI blessing ashes on Ash Wednesday, February 17th, 2010, and the simple but lovely chant Attende Domini.  I have always admired how well the music fits the meaning in this hymn.  It is also a good way to start the penitential season that begins next week: "Heed me Lord, and have mercy, for we have sinned against you."


Attende Domine, et miserere, quia peccavimus tibi.

Miserere mei, Have Mercy on Me - Psalm 51

Detail from Michelangelo's Last Judgment

Psalm 51 (Miserere mei) is the great penitiential psalm attributed to King David, and is closely associated with the Season of Lent, which begins next week.  I particularly like this video because it combines images from Michelangelo's amazing frescoes in the Sistine Chapel (for which Allegri's music was specifically composed) with the text of the Psalm, in both Latin and English.  This is a great way to begin preparing the heart to encounter the Pascal Mystery over the next course of the Liturgical Year.

Miserere mei Deus secundum misericordiam tuam iuxta
multitudinem miserationem tuarum dele iniquitates meas.

Sunday Snippets - A Catholic Carnival (8 Feb 2015)

Happy Sunday, Day of Our Lord's Resurrection!  And welcome to Sunday Snippets, A Catholic Carnival, in which a merry band of blogsters and blogstresses of the papist persuasion gather to swap their weekly posts.  The center of this blog-a-rama is here, at This That and the Other Thing, home of chief blogstress RAnn. 

     I'll get to my own posts in a moment, but first I'd like to wrap up some of the past week's business, with a little help from the Liturgy of the Hours. Saturday's Non-Scriptural Reading from the Office of Readings was from Gaudium et Spes, the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World from the Second Vatican Council. This line caught my attention: "Man's worth is greater because of what he is than because of what he has." I mention this in the context of my ongoing discussion ("Hey folks, let's dialogue!") with atheists, which also informs several of the posts linked below. This reading makes a fitting conclusion to some of the ideas I explore in those posts.

     The quote from Gaudium et Spes zeroes in on something that stands out in my conversations with atheists, the fact that their worldview doesn't permit them to discuss what we are: their materialist philosophy only admits the importance of what we have. We have bodies, for instance, which have needs, and so on, but all we are is matter, no different, in essence, than the matter that makes up a dog, a rock, or anything else. In the materialist world view, "human worth" is a mere sentiment (if such a thing can be said to exist), nothing more.

     In the Catholic Christian world view, on the other hand, humanity is something special, both because we are made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27), but also because Christ sanctified humanity through the incarnation. As St. John Paul the Great said in his 1995 address to the United Nations:

As a Christian, my hope and trust are centered on Jesus Christ . . .Jesus Christ is for us God made man, and made part of the history of humanity. Precisely for this reason, Christian hope for the world and its future extends to every human person. Because of the radiant humanity of Christ, nothing genuinely human fails to touch the hearts of Christians.

     That is why the future of humanity belongs, not to the champions of "matter", but to Christ and His Church.

And now, here are the past week's posts from Principium et Finis:

Monday – “The Presentation of Our Lord, Atheism, and the Problem of Suffering”  Just as I was gathering my thoughts for my Feast of the Presentation post, I ran across a story about an angry atheist blaming God for all the trouble in the world.  The rest, as they say, was history. 

Tuesday – “Domenico Scarlatti  - Te Deum” We heard from the father last week, now the son.  They really don’t make music like this anymore, at least not this side of Heaven. 

Wednesday – “Abortion Myth # 18” A crazed abortion enthusiast picked up last week’s “Abortion Myth” on twitter, and his, ahem, “brilliant” rejoinder gave me the idea for Myth #18.  Thanks, Dude! 

Thursday – “Mortar Gunnery, Molly Pitcher, and Altar Serving” Is everyone tired of arguing about altar girls yet?  This throwback from last May is one of those mix and match things, but it really does all fit together (and allows me to prove that I did, at one time, have hair). 

Friday – “What Would Darwin Do?” Another look at our unbelieving friends, this one pondering the curious fact that, if Darwinian evolution is right, atheists are slotted for extinction.  Be careful what you wish for . . . 

What Would Darwin Do?

I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live. (Deuteronomy 30:19)

     Over the past few years, as I was engaging in my ongoing dialogue with young students who are enamored of proselytizing atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris (whom I refer to as “Cacangelists”, that is, messengers of bad news, an appropriately ugly word) I was struck with a sudden insight: in Darwinian terms, atheism is a negative  trait.  In strictly materialist terms, based on the evidence, if we all became atheists, humanity would soon cease to exist (I’ll get to that evidence in a moment).  As I soon discovered, I’m not at all the first person to come to this conclusion: the Scilogs site has a report [here] on the work of German researcher Michael Blume, who says that

It is a great irony but evolution appears to discriminate against atheists and favor those with religious beliefs . . . Most societies or communities that have espoused atheistic beliefs have not survived more than a century.

Blume’s research shows that not just atheist societies, but unbelieving individuals consistently undermine their own posterity:  

Blume took data from 82 countries measuring frequency of worship against the number of children.  He found that those who worship more than once a week average 2.5 children [2.1 children per woman is the “replacement rate”, the minimum necessary to maintain a population at its current level] while those who never worship only 1.7 – again below replacement rate.  There was also considerable variation in religious groups . . . Those without a religion, however, consistently averaged less than two per woman below the replacement , whereas those with the strongest and most fundamental religious beliefs had the most children.

What would Charles Darwin say?  It would appear that Evolution is an angry god indeed, as it has clearly selected its most ardent adherents for extinction.

     The curious hostility of the process of evolution to the materialist worldview casts a bright light on the contradiction that lies at the heart of the project of atheist proselytization: even if you believe it, why would you want to convince other people? The Dawkinses of the world will reply, as the Blume post says, “that religions are like viruses of the mind which infect people and impose great costs in terms of money, time and health risks.”  This, it seems to me, actually defies reason:   as I ask my unbelieving students, is it logical to conclude that a world populated by those who think we are nothing but matter created by meaningless, random natural forces will be a better, kinder place than a world that is the home of people who believe we have been created intentionally by a loving God, and commanded by Him to love one another?  It just doesn’t make sense.

    And not surprisingly, the empirical data suggests just that.  In addition to the demographic data above, anyone who has studied the history of Rome, before and after the Christianization of the Empire, can attest to the humanizing effect of Christianity, and it was that same Christian Church that civilized the barbarians who eventually overwhelmed the Roman state.  Modern day sociological evidence shows the same thing: religious believers (especially Christians) report higher levels of personal happiness (see here, for instance), and as in the demographic data above, the more devout the believer, the stronger the effect.  Also, as Arthur C. Brooks copiously documents in his book Who Really Cares, believing Christians are much more involved in building up their societies, and are much more willing to spare their wealth and their time to help others.  I submit that the reasonable view is the one that fits the evidence, not the one that contradicts both the empirical data and common sense.

     A final point involves getting beyond narrow materialist ideas of what constitutes reason and taking a more expansive (and more traditional) view.  Is The Truth about humanity more likely to be something that diminishes humanity, that tears down our societies, makes our lives meaner, and maybe even leads to our annihilation?  Or does it lift us up, does it promote flourishing societies and happy productive people?  Jesus Christ says “I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life” (John 14:6): doesn’t the evidence bear him out?

Mortar Gunnery, Molly Pitcher, & Altar Serving

The Church has said that girls may be altar servers: the question of whether they should is open for discussion, and there has been a lot of it (see, for instance, this recent post from Fr. Z's blog). Today's throwback is one of my posts from May of last year, which looks at one aspect of this somewhat involved controversy . . . along with some other stuff.

Your author (hands on table), plotting mortar fire: Ft. Dix, New Jersey, 1990

Hang Fire     

A long time ago I was a mortarman in the United States Army Reserve, and later in the National Guard.  Everyone in the mortar section had his own role: the gunner, assistant gunner, ammo bearer, etc. I was a Fire Direction Center Computer: I didn’t actually have a computer, at least not until shortly before my discharge in 1991; I was the computer, using a plotting table, pins, pencil, and paper to generate the data that enabled the gun crews to hit their unseen target.  In order to fulfill the mission, everyone needed to know his own job and do it without hesitation when the time came.  This willingness to do what each man must, rather than what he might want to do, was particularly important in the case of the unexpected, such as in the case of a “hang fire”.

     A hang fire is a very dangerous situation in which a live round does not fire, presumably because it has become stuck in the cannon (the “tube”) before striking the firing pin at the bottom.  This happened to one of the 4.2 inch mortars in my New York Army National Guard unit during a live fire exercise in Ft. Dix, New Jersey in the spring of 1990.  We carefully followed the parts assigned to us by Army regulations: everyone moved back a safe distance for a minute or so in case the charge was just slow to go off; next the gunner went back and kicked the tube (yes, this was the proper procedure) to try to knock the round loose; after that, the assistant gunner lifted the back end of the tube while the gunner cupped his hands over its mouth to catch the live round should it slide forward; after all those measures failed, we called the base demolition team who blew the cannon to bits with plastic explosives (for years afterwards I kept a jagged, twisted piece of the steel cannon as a keepsake).  Everyone did his own job, and nobody got hurt.

Molly Get Your Gun

     I mention this, oddly enough, in the context of the discussion of female altar servers that has been occurring not only on this blog, but around the Catholic blogosphere in recent days. The connection has to do with with a different gun crew, in a different part of New Jersey, in a different century; and this was not a training exercise, but the Battle of Monmouth, in 1778. It was an extremely hot day in June, and Molly Pitcher was bringing water to her husband and and his companions as they manned a cannon during the battle.  When her husband fell, Molly took his place, swabbing and loading the cannon for the remainder of the battle.  Molly is quite appropriately celebrated for her bravery and patriotism.  She also showed that a woman could work quite capably as part of an artillery crew.  But she remains an exception: the United States Army did not, and does not to this day allow women to serve in combat specialties (although, regrettably, that policy is slated to change by January 1st, 2016 - a discussion for another day).  It is not simply a question of whether a women could do it, but also whether, given all other considerations, they should.

Molly Pitcher

     My post a week ago [here] about female altar servers generated a lot of commentary, as one would expect from an issue that has so many emotional connections for people (as of this morning there were two gentlemen who were still going at it in the comboxes).  Several readers mentioned what a wonderful experience serving Mass was for their daughters. I believe them.  I don't want to devalue anyone's service to the Church: your daughters have earned our thanks for their contributions (which are, may I say again, explicitly allowed). My argument, however, was that given our overall mission there are good prudential reasons to limit service at the altar to boys (and that was before news of a survey showing that 82% of new priests previously served as altar boys, here).  Let's return to my NYNG mortar platoon for a moment: I'm sure the gunner was quite as capable of lifting up the back end of the gun, and the assistant gunner equally capable of catching the live round sliding back out; if he had done so everyone would have been grateful (particularly the gunner, who would have been spared the risky task), and he would have had good reason to feel proud of himself.  But the mission was better served by assigning one task to the gunner, a different task to the assistant.

A Good Soldier Doesn't Abandon His (or Her) Post

     Now, I know that the Church is not the Army, although there have been plenty of people over the centuries, like St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, who have seen fit to use military imagery to describe certain aspects of the Christian mission (and of course there have been actual military orders, such as the Knights Templar).  In any case, I'm looking at a more basic principle, and one that applies to much more than this relatively narrow issue: the need to subordinate our own desires, however understandable and even justified, to the greater good, and to accept the role we have been given.  The refusal to do so is at the root of so much that is wrong with our culture, but it is seen most starkly in the refusal to accept the fundamental reality of the sex with which we were created (do I need to mention the "58 genders", here, yet again?).  By keeping a clear and bright distinction between the distinct but complementary roles of male and female, we fulfill our Christian duty to be a Sign of Contradiction (as per Luke 2:34); the more we blur that distinction, the more we resemble the Wisdom of This World (1 Corinthians 3:19).
 

Abortion Myth #18

Pregnancy is not slavery

MYTH: "Nobody has a right to use someone else’s body without their consent; therefore a woman should not be forced to be pregnant against her will."

TRUTH: This is wrong on a number of different levels.

First, this attempt to equate an unborn baby with an attacker or trespasser is a false analogy because:

1)      Unborn babies are fundamentally unlike a trespasser or rapist: they are exactly where nature designed them to be, in their mothers’ wombs.  Criminal assailants are criminals precisely because they are where they are not supposed to be. 

2)      The unborn child in her womb has been created through the natural functioning of the mother’s own body, and has received half of her genetic material directly from the mother.  An unwelcome assailant is completely separate, and has no intrinsic connection to the woman’s body.

3)      Unborn humans are incapable of asking “consent”: it is absurd to hold them to a standard that applies to adults only. Even if there is a violation, we are executing an innocent party.

4)      Do we permit killing 2 year-olds, or 10 year-olds, for instance, for “using someone else’s body without their consent”?  Children continue to “use” their parents’ bodies for years after birth, depending upon them for shelter, food, education, and a host of other things. A woman who kills a newborn baby, or a 2 year-old, or a 10 year old will still be held liable, regardless of whether or not she “consented” to have them.  Parents’ obligation to protect and nurture their children is based on their biological relationship, not the parents’ attitude.

Randy Alcorn, in Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments also makes the following points in response to similar arguments:

1)      The vast majority of pregnancies result from consensual sexual intercourse, and pregnancy is the natural consequence (in fact, the biological purpose) of the sexual act.  Also, there is no contraceptive method that is 100% effective.  Over 90% of pregnancies are the result of a free choice on the part of the mother.

2)      Pregnancy is a temporary condition , and since “the great majority of abortions take place from seven weeks to six months of development, the actual difference between the woman who aborts her child and the woman who doesn’t is not nine months  but three to seven months.” Is a few months inconvenience too much to ask in return for the life of an innocent child?

3)      “Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.”

4)      “The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising” his or her rights.

DON’T BUY THE LIE!

Essential Pro-Life Resources:

Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (link)  

The Elliot Institute (link)  

National Right To Life Committee (link)  

Care-Net (link)

The Nurturing Network (link)


To See The Entire Abortion Myths Series Click HERE 

Domenico Scarlatti - Te Deum

Domenico Scarlatti

     In the teaching world we have a saying: "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree".  In other words,  when we meet the parents, we often understand why our students are the way they are (my lovely bride often quotes this back to me when one of our children does something particularly egregious - I'm not quite sure what she's getting at). 
     Today I mean it in a good way: last week we heard Alessandro Scarlatti's magnificent Exsultante Deo, today an equally inspiring Te Deum from his son, Domenico Scarlatti.  This apple didn't far fall at all.

The Presentation of Our Lord, Atheism, and The Problem of Suffering

 And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him; and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed." (Luke 2:33-35)

Girolamo Romanino: The Presentation of Jesus at the Temple

     The Feast of the Presentation of the Lord presents us with a paradox, or maybe a series of paradoxes, which can lead us deeper into the mystery of Christ.  On the one hand, it is our last look back at the recently concluded Christmas Season, and we experience some of the joy and wonder of that season, particularly in the prophetic utterances of Simeon. Simeon proclaims him “a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to thy people Israel” (Luke 2:32). His final words, however, foretelling that Christ will be “a sign that is spoken against” and warning the Blessed Mother that “a sword will pierce through your own soul also” redirect us toward the quickly approaching Season of Lent and beyond to the sorrow and suffering of the Triduum.  The last thing we see in Luke’s account of the Presentation is the prophetess Anna, who pulls together the apparent contraries in Simeon’s prophecy: she “spoke of him to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38).  In the end, the glory of Christmas and the sword of Good Friday come together on Easter Sunday: redemption only comes from the light shining through the darkness of suffering, and we catch a glimpse of the entire story in the Feast of Presentation.

     Given the above, I found it interesting that this story [here] appeared just this morning: Englishman Stephen Fry, an “outspoken atheist”, was asked what he would say if he found himself, contrary to his expectation, face to face with his Creator in the afterlife:

 “I’d say, ‘Bone cancer in children? What’s that about?’” he began.

“’How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault,” Fry continued. “It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?’ That’s what I would say.”

"Outspoken Atheist" Stephen Fry

In other words, the old Problem of Suffering, which I spend a lot of time discussing with my adolescent religion students.  For us Christians this problem is resolved in the Mystery of the Cross, as we saw above: it’s a paradox that leads us to a higher understanding.  For the unbeliever, however, it is a contradiction which, if followed to its logical conclusion, leads to annihilation.  The atheist believes that all reality is reducible to matter, and that this present world is all there is.  Suffering, therefore, is the worst thing that can possibly happen:

Fry went on to question why the God of the universe would allow pain and suffering and argued that doing away with belief in God makes life “simpler, purer, cleaner, more wroth [sic] living, in my opinion.”

Doing away with belief in God, however, really only makes Fry’s problem worse: instead of leading to redemption, suffering is now random and pointless.  Not only that, but it is something that everyone experiences, it’s inescapable.  The only way to eliminate suffering is to eliminate not God, but humanity.  Fry’s fellow atheist, the philosopher David Benatar [here] proposes just this solution is his book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence. 

    Small wonder that The Presentation is included in the Joyful Mysteries of the Rosary, despite Simeon’s ominous (and alarming, no doubt, to Mary and Joseph) utterance.  We are reminded that, through his Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection, Christ has sanctified suffering, that it is no longer a random, meaningless evil, but a path to Heaven.  That is, indeed, Good News.