Last night, I posted the above video on my Facebook wall about Planned Parenthood, showing that these are the types our current administration supports and champions.
One of my friends from high school was moved to comment. Since I spent so much time on the response, I thought I'd kill two birds with one post. Any chance to educate is worth taking. Here's what my Facebook friend had to say, followed by my reply:
This is cringe-worthy, to be sure. I just truly feel sorry for these people that think this is appropriate. Abortion shouldn't be consumed like tic-tacs.
HOWEVER - The First Lady merely said this: "And he believes that women are more than capable of making our own choices about our bodies and our health care. That's what my husband stands for." And while these people are unfortunately grouped in with that, I would pretty much bet my bottom dollar that her comments are in direct response to the ridiculous comments that Todd Aiken made a few weeks ago that are still on the lips of everyone talking politics. She did not specifically mention that she condones abortions but rather a woman's right to decide for themselves.
Now, Fr. Michael - you and I have NEVER discussed politics. In fact, I've restrained myself from being offended by your cover photo's message in realizing that you and I are just never going to agree. Agreeing to disagree, so to speak.
But what I should say: I am a registered Democrat. So is my soon-to-be-husband. And we're both pro-life. Why? He's adopted. And he was adopted by the most tremendously loving, caring family one could ask for. That's truly an amazing example of what not aborting a child can do. But that doesn't give us the right to tell women how they conceive a child is legitimate or not, or dictate the circumstances life has dealt them with financially, mentally or otherwise. We can only pray that they find the right decision within them.
The point the First Lady is making is actually quite a conservative one: less government. Government should not have the right to interfere with a woman's reproductive organs. I actually find it quite hypocritical that this issue is even on the Republican platform when they are all about less government in the lives of individuals. We can hope, pray or whatever we want for any of the people affected by circumstances - and while this video truly shows the disgusting sides of it, there are two sides to EVERY story and unfortunately, it's not an organization's job - religious or otherwise - to dictate how someone acts. We must remember that not everyone subscribes to our same beliefs, and to think otherwise, really, goes against what "religious freedom," to reference your previous post, is all about.
And here is my reply (name changed to FRIEND to protect his identity):
FRIEND, thank you for your comment. While I imagine you're right in that we won't agree on things political, I hope we can come to agreement on certain things that are, in fact, true.
You're right to claim that a woman should have the freedom to do with her body as she see's fit. Any person should have that freedom. There is, though, a problem with your logic: you pre-suppose that the baby has no rights of its own. Doesn't the new person in the womb have the freedom to have their body cared for? If, in fact, the creature in the womb is a human person, it is already worthy of its dignity, its life, its protection.
I'm glad to hear that you and Graham are pro-life. As you state, his very existence is due to the fact that someone recognized the dignity that was his *simply because he was already there*. What the whole pro-life argument is about is simply this: that a unique, irreplaceable, completely individual human person exists at conception, and, as a human person, like you and me, has a right to life, a right to live. It's not as if a fetus magically becomes a baby at birth or even at viability. It doesn't "become" a human person when it starts to look like one. It simply IS a human person from the first moment of his or her existence. Because fetuses are persons, laws should protect them and, more importantly, people should love them, simply because they are there. The dignity of the person demands that we respond in love. The same is true of the poor. The same is true of the immigrant. The same is true of absolutely every single human person on the face of the planet.
Now, as for your thoughts on government involvement in women's healthcare, I have two points:
1) I would be thrilled to find a way to explain the Affordable Care Act as anything but a massive intrusion of the government into *everyone's* healthcare. Yes, it is a crime that so many people in a first-world country like the USA are without healthcare. But it seems better to me, particularly in my role as a priest, to build up the sense in people that they are their brother's keeper and that they have a Christ-given mandate to honor the dignity of their fellow-man and to do what they can to alleviate the sufferings of those around them. If people really and truly cared for one another, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.
2) There are some issues that simply trump other ones. Government should be concerned with pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. If life falls by the wayside, nothing else is guaranteed. We should have great distrust of any politician (no matter how just he/she is to the poor, no matter how great a speech-giver, no matter anything else) if he or she is knowingly willing to allow innocent human persons to suffer the loss of their intrinsic dignity.
My point in posting the video was, admittedly, to "rally the troops". Mrs. Obama gave a fantastic speech, and it was clear how sincere she is about her love for her husband and his work. But while her words were smooth as oil, her words were naked swords.
The problem is that, underlying her message is this torrent of what I can see is at best woeful ignorance or at worst, straight up deceptive evil. This administration has uncompromisingly united itself to Planned Parenthood, touting as women's rights the killing of untold millions, yes millions of human persons. Check out PPhood's website someday (particularly what they show/tell in the kid's section) and tell me if they are presenting a healthy approach to understanding human dignity. You won't find it. What you will find are instructions on how to masturbate, how to have intercourse, how to avoid telling your family you made a mistake. They get kids hooked on sex then tell them "Oh, your casual approach to your sexuality got you in a crisis pregnancy? We can take care of that for you. They are a business, plain and simple. Abortion is their cash cow.
How many people agree that abortion is wrong, but still want it as an option for cases of rape and incest? Almost the whole country. Even Planned Parenthood itself has argued that it wishes to reduce the number performed, but wants them in such emergency cases. Then why, I ask you, do we not have laws yet limiting abortion only to cases of rape and incest? Because that doesn't produce enough income for Planned Parenthood.
The only reason they get involved in politics is to ensure that they have a steady cash flow coming in. Obama needs PPhood for the "women's rights" vote. PPhood needs Obama to stay alive and to continue building palaces off the monies raised by killing babies.
FRIEND, you're a smart man. I enjoyed our friendship in HS and college, and am chagrined that our friendship fell away. I do not intend to offend by placing things like my banner or this video on facebook, but rather to show my facebook friends that it's "right and just" to allow our faith to influence our politics. In fact, it must. If it doesn't, do we really believe it at all?
Fr. Michael….
ReplyDeleteYes, there is no possible arguing whatsoever… from any Catholic perspective…. that there can be anything but the utmost concern for the protection and “being-ness” of the precious and vulnerable unborn, who is, as you say a “ human person, it is already worthy of its dignity, its life, its protection.
But what you are so willing ignore in what has become a very partisan, ugly, and hateful dismissal of the Affordable Care Act, is the same sort of concern for the “already born”, human beings who are also, “ worthy of …dignity, ….life, ….protection, ” just as you write of the unborn. Do you not care about the little ones already here who die because insurance won’t cover their cancer treatments, or the elderly who among us can’t get health care because they have “pre-existing conditions.” Does it not bother you that thousands and thousands of Americans die each year in this, among the richest countries in the world, because they don’t have access to health care? Isn’t the Catholic church “Catholic…Universal…” as in all-encompassing? So wouldn’t the love of God extend to all?
Fr., do you have health care coverage? Does everyone you know have health care coverage? Know anyone who doesn’t? How about some of those at your church and school? Do you know about them? Do you care? If you’ve got a better idea than what the President came up with, (and to be fair, what Mitt Romney came up with FIRST) why don’t you go try to find a way to make sure all those right under your nose have access to health coverage. Or even so many of those your own age who will now get to see a doctor for the first time as young adults because of what the President worked for. If you could cite your own expertise in this matter, there’d be a little more weight to your odd statement: “ If people really and truly cared for one another, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.”
Ya think?
A little more hands-on experience on your part might make it a little more possible to accept your saying “ I would be thrilled to find a way to explain the Affordable Care Act as anything but a massive intrusion of the government into *everyone's* healthcare. “ as something other than audacious mimicry of what’s becoming a very partisan hack-line.
Finally, for a fellow who so often advocates “civil discourse” from the pulpit, your proclivity for name-calling is beneath you….now dismissing the First Lady’s brilliant and heart-wrought speech “ as little more than “smooth as oil, and “naked swords” . Demeaning, Fr. Michael. And all thhe anti-Obama talk has, perhaps inadvertently, fed a lot of racism within your own community.
A proper response to your position could go on and on as you are open to serious challenge on virtually every point, You appear to have not yet had the life or faith experience to tackle so much of what you’re trying to take on in your terribly one-sided defense of a party whose ONLY “social issue” concern is the one you too seem to find the only one worthy of concern. So, here’s praying for you Fr. Michael. You have many, many gifts. You have been blessed in many ways. Being a partisan political hack is probably not going to be among them. Instead, may you find your heart anew open to the true promptings of the Holy Spirit. You are in the prayers of so many.