My question is who sets the priorities, Jesus or humans?
Sorry, but that strikes me as a loaded rhetorical question with no substance. Obviously Jesus sets the priorities, and the question is how to discern what Jesus wants.
I do not think abortion is Ok. But I think it is hypocritical to obsess about potential human beings while thousands of the already born die for lack of healthcare, suffer for lack of other necessities of a decent life.
But again, you are assuming that the unborn are merely “potential” human beings.
In 2005, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 1.21 million abortions were performed in the U.S. alone. One out of ten of these were performed after twelve weeks. About 1% were after 20 weeks. That’s over a million human organisms with unique genetic codes. Over 100,000 beings (whatever you want to call them) who can suck their thumbs and whose heartbeats can be heard. A mere 10,000 or so entities who can hear sounds, whose movements can be felt, who can recognize their mothers’ voices.
If I were playing the comparison game, I’d find it hard to point to any other domestic evil that matches this slaughter in scale. But I don’t think we need to play that game. I think it’s a vicious and deadly game that deprives all who play it of dignity and honor. We should defend *all *life, born or unborn, foreign or domestic.
I do not believe that theories can be divorced from consequencies. It happens to be a fact of our political life that the most ardent opposition to abortion comes from the politicians least likely to support measures to help “the least of these His children”.
The unborn aren’t the “least of His children”? Hard to get any “less” than that, it seems to me.
Again, you are using loaded language that belies your alleged opposition to abortion. You could have said “other” measures.
You are acquiescing in a horrific situation whereby partisan politics has presented us with a preset menu of options. Defend the unborn and let innocent people be executed, despoild the environment, engage in “preventive” warfare, etc. Oppose these hideous evils and allow the legal massacre of children in the womb.
We must say no to the arithmetic of hell. We don’t have to pick one set of moral causes and remain callous to the others. We can find candidates whose positions are consistently moral, or at least who are strong on some issues and at least moderate on others, and support them. We can be clear that any candidate who is not *consistently *prolife (in other words, who does not defend human life and dignity, and nonhuman life as well, and resist the rhetoric of death, greed, and utilitarianism wherever it presents itself) is at most the lesser of two evils.
The only Christian church that is coming anywhere close to doing this is the one with which you are so dissatisfied.
Just listen to the current health care debate.
I think it’s simplistic to assume that anyone who doesn’t support a particular kind of health care plan doesn’t care for the “least of these.” There are legitimate disagreements about what kinds of policies will in fact benefit the poor and needy.
To ignore realities on the ground leads to the kind of callousness that led a Brazillian archbishop to excommunicate an eight year old victim of rape a few months ago, because her mother arranged an abortion for her . When her doctor testified that she would almost certainly have died in childbirth, the archbishop said she should have had a caesarean. He was surprised at the national outrage which was so serious he was forced to rescind.
That was indeed a horrific situation and clearly excommunication was the wrong way to respond to the tragic plight of *both *the children involved. But a refusal to recognize that two children *were *involved is also deeply misguided.
When decisions are remote from human emotion and consequences, but based soley on a priori reasoning and knowledge, the ultimate result is often horrndous cruelty. That is why in almost every case where fundamentalist clerics are able to exert political power, terrible suffering has been the result - from the genocide of the Cathars, to the Inquisition, to the Salem witch hunt, to the Magdalen girls in Ireland, to the Taliban, the result has been the same.
Actually, I think that human emotion was very much involved in most of the atrocities you mention.
I’m sorry, but I believe that reason is vitally important in moral questions, *especially *when they are emotionally loaded. I do not think that our sympathy with the plight of unborn mothers should lead us to define their children out of humanity.
That is why rather than ban abortion, I support any plan that would make it easier for needy women to decide to bring a deformed or unwanted pregnancy to term, (adoption, healthcare, child care, schooling, even ban the adoption of foreigners).
I agree with this, but it’s not an either/or.
We can be rightous about abortion because banning it costs us nothing.
Who are “we”? And frankly, the morality of a position is not based on how much it costs. Not banning or restricting abortion costs the unborn everything. Doesn’t that matter to you?
Others will pay the price.
Yes, and that’s true if we take a “pro-choice” position out of compassion for those who will pay the price of our taking a “prolife” position. So we should set this to one side and look at the real question: when does human life begin? Do we have any reason to put it as late as birth? I can’t see that we do. Do we have good reason to put it as early as conception? Quite possibly we do. Any policy on abortion that is not grounded on a thoughtful, morally and philosophically responsible view of when life begins is a hideous piece of immorality and deserves no respect. A politician who claims that this vital question is “above his pay grade” forfeits much respect. A politician who claims that his beliefs on the matter are politically irrelevant forfeits *all *respect.
We live in a selfish society, where the thought of giving up anything, so others may live leads to massive protests.
I don’t think it’s fair to characterize those who object to proposed health care reforms in this manner across the board.
Where is the voice of the Hierarchy in this. Still obsessing about abortion and power!
In other words, you condemn the hierarchy for not endorsing a specific policy proposal on a matter clearly subject to prudential judgment, and instead offering clear teaching on a basic issue of moral principle. That’s where your pragmatism gets you. I’m sorry, but I’m not impressed.
Furthermore, I thought the bishops *had *come out in favor of universal health care.
Edwin
