Wednesday, January 14, 2009

For Those of You Who May Yet Need To Be Convinced of the Urgency of Action in Defense of Life:

Dawn Eden has this story about an abortionist who assisted a welfare mother in looking over her finances to find a way to cover the $350 price tag of the abortion the mother was seeking for her 17 year-old, mentally disabled daughter.

As far as I can tell, there is no record of any effort being made to ascertain whether a crime had been commited against the pregnant girl's person.

I found the story at Mark Shea's place.

6 comments:

Katherine said...

We continue to seek ways to work constructively with the new Administration and Congress and others of good will...

Contrary to some very harsh voices in the conservative blogosphere, there is a direct affirmation that the President Elect is a man of good will.

Our nation now faces economic challenges with potentially tragic human consequences and serious moral dimensions.

The first issue raised is the economy, as it has been the first issue for the President Elect. Recently, some have said that Catholics voted on the economy with a tone of they voted on parochial issues. The Cardinal reminds us that the economy is a moral issue and that economic injustice in our society is a real social evil, not something of the past. He claims a role for the Church and a role for government in economic issues.

The Catholic Bishops of the United States have worked for decades to assure health care for all, insisting that access to decent health care is a basic human right and a requirement of human dignity.

Next, the Cardinal turns to universal health care. The Church has been a proponent of this longer than any political party or social organization. The Cardinal is not afraid to call health care a RIGHT, contrary to those opposed to the concept of economic and positive rights.

This too is a priority the new administration has made clear it intends to move quickly on. The Democratic Congress has already acted on the Catholic endorsed SCHIP legislation for children's health care.

On international affairs, we will work with our leaders to seek a responsible transition in an Iraq free of religious persecution.

The bishops know very well what a disaster the previous administration's policies have been in Iraq, particularly for the Iraqi Catholic community. 'Nuff said.

Truly comprehensive immigration reform will include a path to earned citizenship

Obama is with you on this. The bishops' need to deliver their own flocks.

We stand firm in our support for marriage which is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman and must remain such in law

A non sequitur since in none of the 50 states is marriage as described. The bishops' have something valuable to say here, but have fumbled badly.

Opposed to abortion as the direct killing of innocent human life, we will encourage one and all to seek common ground that will reduce the number of abortions in morally sound ways that affirm the dignity of pregnant women and their unborn children.

The bishops have significant differences with the new Administration on the criminal status of abortion. No one expects them to retreat from their position of conscience.

Obama has long stood for initiatives to reduce abortions. This presents a tremendous opportunity. Sadly, it seems it is the bishops who have been slow moving on taking Obama up on his offer. I would have moved on November 5 rather than January 13. From what I understand the USCCB has done little prepretory work on this, assigned no staff person to coordinate this, not asked for any meetings with the Transition and just generally not picked up the ball.

Clearly there has been a productive alliance between the pro-life movement and secular conservatives to make abortion illegal. That alliance is challenged when the pro-life movement looks to government financed social programs to save unborn lives. But effective pro-life initiatives should not be abandoned because of the objection of secular conservatives.

Lazy Disciple said...

Dear Katherine,

Your treatment raises some very good points, especially regarding the the marriage issue. I do not think they fumbled badly, though, and I do not think it was a complete non sequitur.

Marriage law in most states is in pitiable condition. Marriage is a basically considered in law to be a voluntary association of two people with attendant (mostly fiscal) privileges and burdens, mostly lasting until the associates decide to end their association.

Given the state of marriage law in most states, it is admittedly difficult to understand why persons of the same sex ought to be barred from the institution.

The President-elect has said he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. So, he should let the states work these things out, as they have been doing, or, this is the beginning of a push for DOMA. I sincerely hope it is the former, and not the latter.

When the press for DOMA began, I thought it had a place in the public debate, as a show of strength and commitment to traditional marriage. I also thought, and continue to think, that a federal constitutional amendment is not the right response to the idiotic decision of one state constitutional panel.

That said, I am in favor of the creation of covenant marriage laws, which, in the arc of a generation, would effectively replace existing marriage law. Tis is not a perfect solution, nor is it the only part of necessary marriage reform, most of which must be pre- and extra-legal. I don't see a better way around it.

More later...

L.D.

Lazy Disciple said...

My last comment in reply to your response was not a model of clarity. Right now I am at the office, and pressed for time. I'll try to give some structure to my thoughts as soon as I can.

L.D.

Katherine said...

It certainly was in the top 10% of what I read on the internet.

Sorry you gave to work weekends.

Lazy Disciple said...

No one ought to complain about having work these days.

Katherine said...

True. We are in tough times.