Three Lessons From A Conversation With A Pro-Choice Feminist

Brought on by my latest post on Ignitum Today, I've been engaging in an enlightening discussion with a pro-choice feminist. I want to share with you some of my observations:

1) Pro-lifers need to do a better job at showing that we are for all life, not just the unborn.

One of the first things that the pro-choice feminist threw at me was the stereotype that "Pro-lifers only care about the unborn." We know that your average pro-life activist working at the grassroots level cares about all children. They donate to or volunteer for crisis pregnancy centers to assist women and children with their practical everyday needs. They start homes for pregnant women, like Joseph's House that is being started soon in my town. 

Yes, for those of us who are religious, our right hand is not supposed to know what our left is doing (Matthew 6:3), but we're only giving fodder to pro-choice attacks. We need to do a better job at showing that we are for all life. We need to put our money where our mouth is.

Source, This site has other cool pics.

Our so-called "pro-life" politicians need to show that they understand that women and children need support (in whatever way they feel comfortable providing that support). Politicians need to realize that being against abortion is not enough to earn the title of being "pro-life."    

2) Conservatives and liberals need to talk to each other instead of demonizing one another. Eventually, she and I both agreed that pro-life and pro-choice people care about the poor and people who are already born. I tried to explain to her one of the main differences I've observed between conservatives and liberals: That conservatives want the social safety net to be local and charity based, while liberals are more comfortable with more government intervention. No one wants to kick the poor out on the streets and no one wants anyone to go hungry.

Liberals and conservatives both need to be willing to talk constructively about their differences. The polarization in our culture needs to stop. We aren't getting anything done and we will ultimately tear ourselves to shreds. Instead of staying in our little corners, we need to talk to each other. 

When we talk to each other, we can work on the the issues we agree on and we can learn from one another. Refusing to talk to one another is simply a sign of being insecure in our own beliefs. It's a sign of anger and hatred. Be a sign of love today: talk to someone who is across the aisle from you.

3) It all boils down to the existential questions of: When does life begin? What is a human? That's where the real argument is. We can go around in circles all day with protest slogans and signs, but in the end, this is the question that matters. When we are debating abortion, we are debating the meaning of being human.

This is a question that everyone, regardless of your opinion on abortion, needs to ask yourself. And keep asking yourself. It's not a question you can answer and then walk away, you need to analyze your answer. Is this really the right answer? Is this universally true? Human lives are at stake both inside and outside the womb. 

Often our answers to what constitutes life inside the womb as implications for those already born as well. For example, let's say you come to the conclusion that life starts when the brain becomes active, what does that mean for our definition of "brain death"?

Science can be used to come to the answer, but science cannot provide the answer. Religion can be used to come to the answer, but religion cannot provide the answer. I think if we could all put down our rhetoric and bickering, we could get somewhere by limiting ourselves to the question at hand: What is a human? 

Source.

Yelling at each other is getting us no where. We are more mature than that. Let's all act like it. 

Hug a conservative/liberal/whatever-you-disagree-with today 

Wrongful Birth, Wrongful Life, Pre-natal Testing and C-Sections

This story explains a lot.

My current homestate, New York, is one of many states which does not protect medical personnel from wrongful birth or wrongful life lawsuits.

A wrongful birth suit is when a family sues a medical professional because their child was born with some kind of illness or disability that if caught before birth would have resulted in an abortion.

A wrongful life suit is when an individual sues a medical professional because they feel they should never have been born.

Borrowed from one of the most awesome blogs on the net. Who borrowed it from somebody called Saturn Stills at Sciencesource.com.

When I got pregnant with James, I was told about all of the pre-natal testing they could do. I refused to do them because a) we have no family history and b) most importantly, the test results would not changed anything, I would never have an abortion.  When I refused, I had to sign a waiver saying that I had been offered these tests, been informed of the pros and cons, and refused. Since I was in my twenties with no family history, the doctors didn't really attempt to persuade me either way. I wonder what will happen next time around since we aren't planning on trying to get pregnant again until I'm at least 30.

One of the biggest c-section myths out there and the one that hacks me off the most.

I also wonder if this mentality has something to do with the c-section rates. There are a number of factors in making c-section rates as high as they are. I know, however, in the case of myself and many other women who have unwanted c-sections, they are pressured into it by doctors. And one of the reasons for the pressure? The doctors are concerned that in the course of regular labor, something will go wrong. They are afraid something will go wrong and they'll be sued.

I addressed this topic specifically with my doctor since I knew it was an issue. I told her that I wouldn't sue her for something that is out of her control. Life and death are a mystery. Childbirth is more of an art than a science. Some things just cannot be predicted and controlled.

I can understanding suing someone when there has been gross negligence, but this "sue-happy" culture makes no sense. Someone doesn't have to pay every time something goes wrong. Pardon my language, but shit happens.

And suing the doctor involved in the birth of your child because the child has a disability is sending one message out loud and clear, "This child should not be alive. A handicapped life is not worth living. A disabled life is less valuable than the life of a 'healthy' person."

I can understand that those with special needs children need money to pay for their care, but you don't have to get it at the expense of the innocent doctor. There are many government and charitable organizations to reach out to for help. And if that isn't enough, be an activist for more aid.

Source.

People suing the medical personnel is only making things worse for all of us. It is creating the environment in which few people go into the OB profession because the insurance costs are too high. And people in the profession are scared. And women and children are subjected to unnecessary tests and interventions because the professionals are scared.

Not to mention the message this is sending to world about the value of human life.

Eleven-Year-Old Reopens Abortion Debate in Chile

Right now, a debate rages in Chile.* Abortion is illegal there, but we have learned recently of an 11-year-old girl who is pregnant from years of abuse in the hands of her mother's boyfriend. She wants to keep the child. Pro-choice activists are using her case to fight for abortion rights.

Of course, unless it's in self-defense, I'm not all for killing the "terrorists" either.

So, would the pro-choice people force her to have an abortion? Arguably, she is not old enough to make a choice. She wasn't old enough to have her virginity stolen from her (or to consent). But she has other options. She could give the child up in an open adoption so that she could watch the child grow up without being financially responsible for him or her. It's also possible that a family member could adopt the baby so she could help raise the child without having the main responsibility for him or her. Those are just two of her options.

But the bottom line here is that it's not the child's fault that his or her father committed such a barbarous act. I hope the rapist gets punished to the fullest extent of the law. I hope the girl gets protected from further acts of violence and her mother's stupidity. Her mother is defending the rapist for crying out loud. But the unborn child doesn't deserve the death penalty.

I do not know any of her medical specifics so I know nothing about her physical ability to give birth to the child. I'd have to trust the doctors caring for her. My understanding is that Chile has some of the best maternity care in this hemisphere, unlike the US...

That rant is coming soon.

*For those who want to hear about it from a secular source, here is the CNN article.

Despite Ethics Committee's Recommendations...

I really hate starting a post like this. "Despite ethics committee's recommendations..." Does anyone listen to ethics committees anymore? Ethics should not be left to the politicians.

Source.

Despite Ethics Committee's recommendations, the President of France has reaffirmed that one of his political goals is to bring voluntary euthanasia to his country. He says that this proposal "will complete and improve the (current) law which was already a step in the direction of human dignity."

What is dignified about telling the handicapped that their lives are worthless? About telling those in pain that their lives are worthless?

What about equating value of life with how "wanted" it is? If a parent doesn't "want" a child, it is not a child and can be disposed of. If a sick person does not "want" to live anymore, their lives are disposable and worthless. It is turning life into a commodity to be created and destroyed at the whim of anyone who has the power and the will. 

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

before you were born I dedicated you,

a prophet to the nations I appointed you. -Jeremiah 1:5

Even to your old age I am he,

even when your hair is gray I will carry you;

I have done this, and I will lift you up,

I will carry you to safety. - Isaiah 46:4

Lawn Chair Catechism #2: Catholic Retention Rates

I'm a convert to Catholicism. I was one of 73,405 adult baptisms in 2005. I was raised believing in God, but never going to church. I had some bad experiences with a "Southern Baptist" when I was in middle school. After those experiences, I wanted nothing to do with the Christian God. I've been Buddhist and Wiccan. I converted to Catholicism my freshman year in college directly from Wicca.

I was always deeply interested in religion. I remember meditating in the backyard when I was still in elementary school, trying to become one with everything. I always knew there was a God, I never questioned that. I knew there was a God and He (or She) loved me and cared about me. I would characterize my entire religious journey as looking for that God.

I was initially introduced to the Christian God as a hateful and vengeful God. My maternal grandfather was convinced that anyone who was not a heterosexual, white person who went to his particular church in southwestern MO was going to hell. I sent him a letter when I converted to Catholicism. He's probably still praying for my soul.

When I went to college, I was really alone for the first time in my life. I knew no one. I was three hours away from my family. I had the opportunity to redefine myself. I decided to flirt with Christianity just to prove that what my grandfather did to me no longer had any power over me. I wore a cross just to see how it felt. I read the Bible. I visited several nearby churches.

My Conversion Story

I went to the Catholic Newman Center because I had to do a paper on a religion I had no prior exposure to. I was surrounded by Catholics in my dorm building. All of the new friends I was making were Catholic or ex-Catholic. When I went to my first Mass, I had a pretty intense conversion experience. I felt completely at home there even though I didn't understand what was going on.

I was angry with God for calling me into the Catholic Church. What was a free-spirit like me doing joining the Catholic Church? I went on a walk with one of my ex-Catholic friends. He listed all of the things that was wrong in the Church and all of the issues that he disagreed with. I most remember his arguments about the Church being against abortion and the death penalty. He supported both.

That made me stop in my steps. What do you mean the Catholic Church is against abortion and the death penalty? My whole life, all of my family and friends were either for one or the other or both. I was the only weirdo who was against both! And now I find out that this 2000-year-old organization agreed with me and no one had ever bothered to tell me!!!!

That is what started my conversion. I was in RCIA for about a year and a half because I was a non-Christian convert. I would have been in RCIA longer, but I got close to an old man in the parish and they wanted me to get baptized while he was still alive to see it.

 

Not my baptism because none of my pics exist in digital form

 

I was baptized by full-immersion in an old, converted horse trough at the Catholic Newman Center. It was a lot like the gentleman in the picture above, except mine was by a Catholic priest, of course. I was baptized as part of a Sunday Mass. Third Sunday of Advent to be precise, which that year fell on December 12th, the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Why Do People Leave?

I cannot comment on my parish's retention rate since I have only been here for two years. I can, however, speak to my experience with former Catholics. Many of my friends are no longer active in the Church, although they used to be very active in our Newman Center.

 

While they all left for different reasons, there is one over-arching theme: We all got used to having a close church family in college. Our Newman Center was like our home away from home. Some of us even called the director "Mom." We did everything together. Many of us practically lived at the Center. Several of us even got our mail there.

 

Then we came out into the real world. I am yet to find a parish that is truly a family like our Newman Center was a family. True, we're all busy with our jobs and our biological families, but it would be nice to have a community again.

 

Many of my friends have left the Church because they don't feel at home here anymore. I can understand them completely. Before I was married, I did a lot of parish hopping in hopes of finding a close community again. 

 

Do you have any ideas about how to build community? I think that building a community would go a long ways toward getting our 20 and 30-somethings back. 

 

 



To read more reflections on Chapter One, head to Catholicmom.com. We're reading Forming Intentional Disciples by Sherry Weddell. It's a good book and it's never too late to join us!

Pro-Life Feminist's Response to Gosnell Verdict

“Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty and will get what he deserves. Now, let's make sure these women are vindicated by delivering what all women deserve: access to the full range of health services including safe, high-quality and legal abortion care.” -Ilyse G. Hogue, president, NARAL Pro-Choice America

Full statement from Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, on the conviction of Kermit Gosnell:

“Justice was served to Kermit Gosnell today and he will pay the price for the atrocities he committed. We hope that the lessons of the trial do not fade with the verdict. Anti-choice politicians, and their unrelenting efforts to deny women access to safe and legal abortion care, will only drive more women to back-alley butchers like Kermit Gosnell.

“From the lack of funding available for low-income women to access abortion services, to the sharp decline of reputable providers in Pennsylvania, to the gross negligence of authorities to enforce the law after complaints were filed against Gosnell, each aspect of this case must be a teachable moment for lawmakers: until we reject the politicization of women's medical care and leave these decisions where they belong — between a woman and her family and her doctor — women will never be safe. The horrifying story of Kermit Gosnell is a peek into the world before Roe v. Wade made legal a woman's right to make her own choices.

“NARAL Pro-Choice America's annual Who Decides? publication has given Pennsylvania an ‘F’ grade precisely because it has passed medically unnecessary laws that restrict access to safe and legal abortion care. It is my sincere hope that the women in Gosnell's clinic did not suffer in vain and that Pennsylvania, and every state, will step up and join us in making the protection of women’s ability to get, safe, high quality, and legal abortion care a top priority.” - Taken from NARAL website

Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty in 237 of the charges brought against him, including 3 counts of first degree murder in the deaths of three newborns and involuntary manslaughter in the case of a woman killed by an overdose of anesthesia. Worse case scenario, he's facing the death penalty. Best case scenario, three life-time sentences. He is in his seventies so, either way, he will not be seeing the light of day ever again.

NARAL is taking the opportunity to decry the fact that these impoverished women could not have access to safe, legal abortion. Pro-lifers are hoping that this ruling marks a change in prevailing attitudes about abortion. I would like to take the opportunity to decry another set of circumstances.

The poverty rate in Philadelphia is 25.1. It has the highest rate of deep poverty of all of the top 10 most populous cities in the US. Women are more likely to live in poverty than men. The poverty rate for families with children is over 30 percent. That means one in three families with children in Philadelphia are impoverished. Half of all families led by women are in poverty. Very many women in Philadelphia live at, or below, or profoundly below the poverty line.

Abortion isn't going to help these women out of poverty. More educational opportunities, more jobs, more financial help will get these women out of poverty. Abortion is just fixing the immediate "problem" without really ending the cycle of poverty. These women don't need to end their pregnancies, they need a roof over their head and food to eat.

I hope that the Gosnell case can teach us that. Forget better access to abortion. That's just a Band-Aid on the gaping wound of deep poverty. These women should never have to chose between a job and a child, between an education and a child, between feeding herself and keeping a roof over her own head and a child.

 

7 Quick Takes Friday (#6)

--- 1 ---

Today I'm officially graduating with my Master's in Pastoral Studies! Yay! Now, if I could only find work...

--- 2 ---

Of course, I didn't go into the degree for the dough. I went because first I thought I wanted to be a DRE. Then, I thought I had a calling to be a hospital chaplain. Now, faced with a pile of student loan bills, like many of my fellow grads, I'd just be happy to get a job that is in my field.

Source

--- 3 ---

So, what am I passionate about? While my academic and personal experience backgrounds are primarily in end-of-life issues, I've had a lot of beginning-of-life issues fall on my plate lately. These include but are not limited to: helping women with unplanned or crisis pregnancies, helping women with painful birth experiences, and reclaiming women's bodies from the abortion and birth control industries. A lot of this stems from the birth of my son. He was unplanned and his birth was traumatic. It makes me very, very sympathetic to women who are not as lucky as I was and those with much scarier stories than I do.

--- 4 ---

Now, the funny thing about life issues is that they are all interrelated. When the use of contraceptives goes up, so does the abortion rate (I know the citation there is biased, just bear with me). When we start killing severely handicapped babies to "spare them pain", we are pressuring adults with disabilities to die as well. On the other side of that coin, I find it remarkably inconsistent for those who are "pro-life" to be war-mongers and pro-death penalty as well. For faithful Catholics, election day should be torture, because we cannot with a clear conscience vote either Republican or Democrat. It's as simple as that.

 

--- 5 ---

It's all about the consistent life ethic:

If one contends, as we do, that the right of every fetus to be born should be protected by civil law and supported by civil consensus, then our moral, political and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth. Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.

Such a quality of life posture translates into specific political and economic positions on tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy, nutrition and feeding programs, and health care.

—Cardinal Joseph Bernardin
in Consistent Ethic of Life (Sheed & Ward) 

--- 6 ---

On a lighter note, another video my confirmation kids shared with me:

--- 7 ---

 

So, a chapter of my life is over. I don't have to learn anymore, do I?

 



 

Nope, once a theology student, always a theology student. Especially if said theology student is wanting to become a Lay Dominican.

 



For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

Kermit Gosnell: Why Aren't Both Sides Angry?

Yesterday, we heard the closing arguments of the Kermit Gosnell trial. If you've never heard of him, you're not alone as the mainstream media hasn't talked about it very much in a long time. I will not go into the absolutely disgusting details, plenty of other pro-lifers have done that. It suffices to say he is charged with several counts of infanticide for killing children born alive after botched abortions and one count of gross negligence leading to the death of a woman who went to him for a late-term abortion. He is facing a civil suit for second case of deadly negligence. His facilities were completely unsanitary. He had a clean waiting room for the rich white women who went to him and a dirty one for the poor women with darker skin.

Now, I know exactly why my side of the debate is angry with this man. Not only is he an abortionist, but he killed babies born alive. It is the other side that puzzles me. Except for some solitary voices, I'm not hearing much from them. There are several reasons why they should be just as angry as the pro-lifers:

1. He gives them all a bad name.  Most people want abortion to be safe, legal and rare. These abortions were not legal and they certainly were not safe. He needs to go to jail.
2. He hurt the very women he claimed to help. He is facing criminal charges for tearing a woman up inside which lead to her death. The civil suit is about a woman who was victim to an overdose because he regularly had unqualified people handling the anesthesia and the pain meds.
3. He wasn't killing "fetuses," he was killing babies.
4. He did all of this to earn a buck off impoverished women. See below:

Yes, this case exposes the complexity of the abortion issue. As a pro-choice blogger noted, "It is vastly important that most of his patients were poor people of color, that they were already in impoverished circumstances and that an unintended pregnancy, for many of them, meant losing their job, their housing, their social safety net." As I have said before, a woman should never have to choose between a child and a job, an education or anything else. I do not believe that the answer is killing more unborn children. The answer is protecting and supporting pregnant women and single moms.

Response to "Outlawing Abortion Won't Help Children With Down Syndrome"

There are never simple answers to complex problems.

Source

About a month ago, North Dakota became the first state to outlaw abortion due to genetic abnormalities including Down Syndrome. Of course, this has been widely praised by pro-lifers and widely condemned by pro-choicers. On April 1st, an opinion article about it appeared in the New York Times. Written by a pro-choice mother of a child with DS, she expresses deep sympathy for the women who abort their children to spare them a life in a world which is "difficult...for people with disabilities."

I can sympathize with these women as well, but continuing to allow abortions is not the answer either. She rightly points out that society needs to treat the disabled better. They need to have better housing for the adults, better health care and early intervention for the children. We need to protect better those with intellectual disabilities from abuse, sexual, physical, emotional, and financial. Caring for "the least of these" (Matthew 25:40 and 45) should take priority over setting money aside for lawyers to CYOA.

Keep your priorities straight, people!

North Dakota can't stop there. There is the obvious reality that this law is completely unenforceable. It's great to have it on record that disabled people are human beings, that their lives are valuable and they are loved and respected. But you need to go beyond that. So, women can't abort them unborn, we need to treat the ones that are born better. We need to educate pregnant women about the realities of DS instead of letting the myths reign. We need to let them know they are supported. This law needs to be a first step toward treating the disabled like the valuable members of the human family that they are.

Otherwise, you are just putting a Band-Aid on a great injustice. You're just giving lip service to the rights of the disabled without actually doing anything to help them.

North Dakota has made a good first step. They are demonstrating that their heart is in the right place. They need to go all the way if they hope to reverse the trend. Keeping it legal will only support the status quo, but making it illegal isn't enough to change the status quo.

Boycott MSNBC

I'm done. This is it. I'm politically liberal, but I am sick and tired of people on my side-of-the-fence's pro-abortion rhetoric. Watch this:


I would ask her to listen to herself. She is judging a being, that she admits has the potential to someday be a person, based on how much a financial burden they are. So, to her, people are only worth how much they can produce? How much of a financial burden they are?

Let's expand this logic. There are there are over 1.5 million people living in long term care facilities in the US. They don't have jobs. Many of them are not mentally or physically capable of work. I'm sure it costs quite a bit to keep them all alive between the room and board and all the medications. Using her logic, why don't we kill them all?

There are 8.7 million Americans unable to work due to disabilities. If they are not a drain on their family's resources, they are clearly a drain on the government. Why don't we kill all of them too?

Oh, that's right. Because killing the disabled or the elderly is murder.

She says that the belief that the fertilized egg is a person is just that, a belief. So apparently science can tell us when life begins? Science cannot tell us definitively when life ends, how can science tell us when it begins? Life is the ultimate mystery. No one will ever be able to figure out exactly how it works. No one knows where it comes from or where it ends because newborn babies don't talk and, except for maybe that Jesus guy, no one has ever come back from the grave. This is purely the realm of philosophy and religion. Science cannot touch it, just like science cannot touch God.

Her junk science is judging, at the very least, a unique grouping of human cells to only be worth as much as it can be worth on the marketplace. It is putting a financial value on life. Regardless of your beliefs on when life begins, you must see the inherent immorality of such a judgement. It is morally repugnant to judge anyone, even a "potential human," based on their economic usefulness.

I know that life starts at conception, but even if I ignore that fact, Melissa Harris-Perry's logic is dangerous and deeply morally flawed.

I stopped watching CNN a while back because they had one "journalist" who had clearly forgotten how to do an appropriate interview. Now, between this and Toure, I will no longer be watching MSNBC. I only watch FOX NEWS sometimes for the humor; I can't believe rational, intelligent people actually believe some of the spin on that channel. So, I guess I'll start reading the newspaper?

7 Quick Takes Friday #1

--- 1 ---

I got accepted this week for an internship! It's with Feminists for Life, a pro-life feminist organization as the name suggests. They work toward helping women to eliminate the reasons why women feel forced to have abortions. For example, they have a college outreach program in which they work with schools to make it easier for pregnant and parenting students like having a daycare for them and being flexible with school work. My job will be working with the college outreach program and working on their quarterly magazine, The American Feminist. As their motto says, "Women deserve better than abortion." I wasn't expecting to get the internship because I've already graduated from school and I figured they would be looking for people still in school to work on their campuses. I'm so excited for the coming few months!

--- 2 ---

Yes, pro-life feminists do exist. I'm one of them. I've been one of them for a while, but since my son was born unexpectedly, I've developed a passion for it. I talk more about that in my little rant here.

--- 3 ---

And here is a more recent picture of my little bundle of joy:

The little one, not the big one. The big one is my husband.

--- 4 ---

I've been having a blast leading a Bible study at my church. Right now, we're using the Year of Faith study by Fr. Mitch Pacwa. I'm leaning toward our next study being of the Theology of the Body. No, that wouldn't strictly speaking be a Bible study. We'll see how my time management goes. Maybe I can do a more traditional Bible study, too.

--- 5 ---

Next month is C-section awareness month. I'm sure I will talk about this a few times over the next month. I wanted to let you know that ICAN of Syracuse will be hosting an exhibit "Cesarean Stories" at the Basic Baby at Shoppingtown Mall here in Syracuse. The opening night will be April 13th. If you're in the area and you're interested in learning more about c-sections, I hope to see you there.

--- 6 ---

I still think this video is hilarious. Find out how to become Pope here:

--- 7 ---

And this YouTube channel has other gems. Check out this one about 8 common animal misconceptions:

For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

A Plague on Both Your Houses

Source

Once again, we hear in the news about a pregnant teacher losing her job at a Christian school because she got pregnant out of wedlock. I appreciate the fact that Lifesite news seemed pretty unbiased in covering this story. If they had picked a side, I probably would have thrown over a desk.

So, a woman signs a contract saying she'll live up to the Christian ideal to be a good role model for the students. She falls. We all fall. Nobody is perfect. Didn't Christ Himself say that whoever among you that is without sin cast the first stone?

Source

This does not mean that actions do not have consequences. I'm not saying that she should have been kept on as a teacher. But what is worse?

Having sex outside of marriage

or

Kicking a pregnant woman out?

She set a poor example for her students of chastity. The school's administration is setting a poor example to the whole world as to what it means to be pro-life. The number one cause of abortion in this country is the worry that you will not be able to financially support the child. Yes, she broke her contract and for that she needs to be moved out of her position. That will show the children that actions have consequences. But she needs a job and out of respect for the unborn child, the school should help her secure employment elsewhere. 

And what makes this latest story worse is that the father of the child was offered a job at the very same school! So, the school knows he had premarital sex, but he gets offered a job while she gets fired. Is this because the woman has the misfortune of being the one whose sin is blatantly obvious to the world? 

This stuff gets on the news because those who look down upon Christianity rejoice in stories like this. They've caught us committing one of secular society's cardinal sins: hypocrisy. It is a sin in the Bible, too. 

Source

No, we don't need to worry about what people think of us. 

Source

But we do need to think about that unborn baby and the status of unborn babies everywhere.

If we don't defend them, who will?

Social Justice Catholic vs. Pro-life Catholic: A False Dichotomy

I even fell into it myself. We were having a discussion yesterday in my Bible study about everything that was wrong in the Church and the new Pope. I said, "Church leaders in the southern hemisphere tend to be more involved in social justice issues tempered with being very socially conservative."

I almost smacked myself.

Source

It drives me nuts when other people do it. I hate it when comparisons are made between the social justice Catholics and the orthodox Catholics. As if you have to be one or the other, you can't be both. But isn't real Catholicism both? If one really understood the Church and tried to live out her teachings, you'd have to be both.

Let me illustrate using our new Pope:

And the Pope on the bus goes...

When Pope Francis was the Archbishop in Buenos Aires, he refused to live in the Bishop's palace. He lived in an ordinary apartment with an elderly Bishop that he helped take care of. I imagine this like the 65.7 million caregivers in the US looking out for older family members. He used public transportation instead of a chauffeur. He took the Jesuit vow of poverty seriously.

Pope Francis has said that abortion of a child conceived in the rape of a mentally handicapped woman is wrong. Rape? Mentally handicapped? While what he said is absolutely correct, the hypothetical situation he used is one of the worst I could think of. This simply illustrates his orthodoxy in pro-life matters.

The same lips that made that statement also chastised priests for refusing to baptize children born out-of-wedlock. He said essentially that these women sacrificed bringing these unplanned children into the world; They should not have to go door to door to find a priest willing to baptize the child.

One of the biggest pro-choice complaints is that pro-lifers seem to be willing to go to the ends of the earth to protect the child in the womb but won't lift a finger to help a child already born. This Pope, chosen from the ends of the world, clearly cares for children born and unborn and has an understanding of what women with unplanned pregnancies go through.

So, here we go: A Pope that talks the talk and walks the walk, going above and beyond the call of duty to truly live out the Gospel in his everyday life. The more I learn about him, the more I think he is exactly what the Church today needs. A perfect synthesis of the "social justice Catholic" and the "pro-life Catholic." The Cardinals seem to have done a wonderful job. And, note to reader: smack me if you ever hear me pit these two against each other ever again.

The Reproductive Health Act: A Pro-Life Feminist Rant

Tonight at the monthly Lay Dominican chapter meeting I heard for the first time people discussing in person Governor Cuomo's Reproductive Health Act. It's hard to cut through the verbose bill and the vitriol on both sides. Basically, it will make it easier for women to get late term abortions and it will strongly penalize hospitals that refuse to do abortions or make referrals (i.e. Catholic hospitals).

I've written about this less than a month ago, but I'm going to say it again from another angle.

I can think of several circumstances in which this dashing young man would not be here. 

Abortion ends an innocent human life before it has a chance to begin and the blood is on each and every one of our hands. It's not simply on the woman's hands or the abortionist's hands. It is on the hands of all of us who allow this culture of self-centeredness and instant gratification to continue.

I wish I could take credit for this one. I doubt that business would approve of my current use, however. 

We all want a quick fix. Just now, I was really hungry. Instead of reaching for something wholesome that would help me be healthier in the long run, I grabbed whatever was the easiest out of my fridge. We all do this on the bigger issues as well. The education system is in shambles, let's just throw more money at it. We're all getting fatter, let's just ban junk food. Women in poverty who are striving to make a better life for themselves are getting pregnant with unwanted children, let's just get rid of the fetus.

This does not address any of the underlying problems. In fact, it makes the underlying problems worse. I go into this in great detail in the original post, so I won't rehash it here.

If Gov. Cuomo really cared about women, he would not weigh down a perfectly laudable bill (the Women's Equality Act) with an abortion bill that does nothing to help women and will cause the entire thing not to pass. He wouldn't hold laws that protect domestic violence victims, promote equal pay for equal work and stop pregnancy discrimination hostage for his presidential aspirations. If, God forbid, he ever got the Democratic nomination for president, I would gladly split my ticket for only the third time ever in entire my voting life (and I'm quite the regular voter). Heck, I'd happily drive Republicans to the polls.

It is a lie to claim you are pro-women and do nothing to address the underlying causes of abortion. Shame on you, Cuomo! If you really cared, you would not hold the Women's Equality Act hostage. You would not be for the "quick fix." Abortion is not a simple problem, there is no simple answer. Women deserve better and children should not be forced to pay the ultimate price.

Catholicism and abortion in cases of rape

Everyone should know by now about the infamous quote by Senator Akin. If you don't know, you can find an article here.

This has made me wonder, what is the Catholic response in regards to abortion in the case of rape?

I know that in the Church, it is considered licit to indirectly lead to the death of a pre-born child when the mother's life is at stake. For example, when a mother has uterine cancer that will kill her if the uterus is not removed and it cannot wait until the child is viable. Then, the goal is to save the mother's life, not to kill the child. In that case, killing the child is a horribly unfortunate outcome. As it says in the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services":

47. Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.  

So, effectively, the Church makes an exception in the case of the mother's life being in danger. We highly respect women who give their lives for their child, like St.  Gianna Beretta Molla, but we don't force the choice on them. That said, I need to clarify that the exception is for the life of the mother, not for the health. Many Catholics feel that making an exception for the health of the mother is too big of a loophole. The value of the life of the child should not be dependent upon the physical and mental effects of the pregnancy on the mother.

Perhaps that gives us a window into the Catholic response to the question of abortion in the case of rape. A pamphlet distributed by the USCCB states:

 Children are sometimes conceived as a result of an evil act, such as rape, but a child's worth does not depend on the circumstances of his or her conception. A child is always a great good in the eyes of God and a source of joy and love to his biological or adoptive family as well. While nurturing such a child to birth requires courage and sacrifice, aborting a child conceived in rape simply answers violence and injustice with even greater violence and injustice.

Pro-life Catholics rejoice in legislation that limits abortion to cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother because it will greatly reduce the number of abortions. However, they do feel that a child should not be punished for the sins of the father.

Sadly, I am not finding any resources for a pastoral response to rape. What are priests and lay ministers to do when faced with a woman who has been viciously violated who does not feel as if she can keep the pregnancy? There are guides for ministers helping women who are victims of domestic violence. Where are the guides for ministers helping victims of rape? There is a tremendous lack of Catholic counseling services for rape victims. I have never heard of any. I searched google for "Catholic rape victim" and two of the first three results were about sex abuse crisis.  A search for "Catholic rape counseling" gives links for many rape counseling services, but only one or two are linked to any Catholic organization.

For someone who believes that life starts at conception, the logic of keeping the child makes sense. You wouldn't execute someone for another person's crime, would you? But if one does not believe that life starts at conception, the idea of forcing a rape victim to keep their pregnancy seems grossly unfair and insensitive. While pro-life activists argue that aborting a child after rape is a violence on top of a violence, others argue that forcing a woman to keep the child is further taking away the autonomy of a woman who has already been violated.

I can see both sides of the situation and I think it would help the Catholic Church's position if we only had more services to help rape victims. We can't offer simple platitudes about "nurturing a child...requires courage and sacrifice" without giving women the tools and support to have that courage and make that sacrifice. Where is the canonized saint who was raped and carried the child to birth? Where are the counseling services? Where is the financial and emotional support? Preaching without action makes the Catholic Church appear very insensitive and heartlessly patriarchal in this situation.

In light of recent publicity of this issue, we can be a voice and a hand upholding the dignity of both the rape victim and the unborn child.

Edit: It is still up in the air on whether or not a Catholic hospital can give treatments like Plan B to women who have been raped. I have seen arguments both for and against. The general consensus seems to be that Plan B is morally permissible as long as conception has not already taken place. The debate is still not definitively decided.

There is Hope: Down Syndrome Revisited

My husband made a good point last night. I'm not the parent of a child with Down Syndrome. So as I follow up, I would like to give you a few links of people who are:

http://ellietheurer.blogspot.com/  

http://utterlyunpublishedauthorsdaughter.blogspot.com/

http://downwitdat.blogspot.com/

http://treytonsposse.com/

http://twilsonismakingthemostoftoday.blogspot.com/

http://www.bringingthesunshine.com/

Here are all I could find this morning. I have a feeling there are many more out there, but they are really hard to find.

Adding a new one:

http://tyler-t21andmasonsmom.blogspot.com/

There is Hope: Down Syndrome and Abortion

I was touched by a picture that was posted by the group "Catholic Church" on Facebook:

In case you can't read the sign this boy is holding, it says:

I may not be perfect but I'm happy. I am God's handiwork and I bear His image. I am blessed. I am the 10% of children born with Down Syndrome who survived Roe v. Wade.

This particular situation is very close to my heart. While in college, I worked for 3 years with the handicapped. I am now married into a family that has three children who have Down Syndrome.

There is no rational reason for this statistic. Let's put aside for a moment the standard debate about whether or not life starts at conception. I'm not here to argue about that. Let's just look at some facts:

What exactly is Down Syndrome?

And why am I calling it Down and not Down's? Down's indicates ownership and seems to imply that Dr. Down had the syndrome. Dr. Down was simply a doctor who was among the first to clinically describe the condition.


Down Syndrome is a condition in which the person has a whole or partial extra chromosome 21. This causes a number of different physical affects, from the characteristic slanted eyes to congenital heart defects to mild/moderate cognitive delays.

It is the single most common chromosomal condition. One out of every 691 babies born in the US has the condition. The chances of having a baby with DS increases with the age of the mother. Since people are having children later in life nowadays, it is estimated that the number of people with DS in the US will only continue to rise.

See the extra 21?

What causes it?

There are three causes:

1) In the vast majority of cases, DS is caused by "Trisomy 21." Basically something goes wrong as either the eggs or the sperm develop causing them to have an extra copy of chromosome 21.

2) In 1% of cases, the problem occurs after fertilization; As the cells of the developing fetus divide and multiply, some of those cells accidentally gain an extra copy of 21. This is called "mosaicism."

3) Another very uncommon cause (about 4% of all cases) is when a parent has a small anomaly in their genes that makes it more likely for them to have a child with DS. In this situation the parent's 21 is attached to another chromosome. This does not cause any problems for the parent, but as gametes are formed, the parent has an increased chance of having a gamete with an extra 21. This cause is called "translocation." "Translocation" is not affected by age, "trisomy 21" and "mosaicism" are.

enough said

How do you find out if your child has it?

There are several tests that can be done prior to birth to determine if a child has DS. To screen for DS, the mother's blood is tested for amounts of different substances and an ultrasound is done to see if the baby has any of the typical markers. These tests have a very high accuracy rate, but they do not diagnose it. To diagnose DS, CVS or aminocentresis is used. Both of these tests are very invasive and carry a very small risk for spontaneous miscarriage. Those tests involve taking a sample and looking at the placenta and the amniotic fluids respectfully. All of these tests are offered to all pregnant women in the United States and the screens are strongly suggested for women over the age 35.

What exactly are the medical issues that children with this condition face?
 -congenital heart defects
-respiratory problems
-hearing problems
-Alzheimer's disease
-childhood leukemia
-thyroid conditions
-intellectual disability

What are the chances of a child with DS having any of these things?

I'm now going to steal wholesale a chart from Wikipedia. From what I have seen elsewhere, I feel that this chart is accurate although I am not familiar with the source the Wikipedia author uses.

Characteristics	Percentage[20]	Characteristics	Percentage[20]
mental retardation	99.8%	small teeth	60%
stunted growth	100%	flattened nose	60%
atypical fingerprints	90%	clinodactyly	52%
separation of the abdominal muscles	80%	umbilical hernia	51%
flexible ligaments	80%	short neck	50%
hypotonia	80%	shortened hands	50%
brachycephaly	75%	congenital heart disease	45%
smaller genitalia	75%	single transverse palmar crease	45%
eyelid crease	75%	Macroglossia (larger tongue)	43%
shortened extremities	70%	epicanthal fold	42%
oval palate	69%	Strabismus	40%
low-set and rounded ear	60%	Brushfield spots (iris)	35%

Now with the numbers on the table, what does this mean in real life?

First of all, these numbers do not mean that the child will have a severely shortened life span. The life expectancy for some one with DS is only 18 years shorter than the average life expectancy (60 years vs. 78). The current DS life expectancy is 35 years longer than it was in 1983, imagine how much more that can be improved in just a few more years. With today's medical knowledge and technology, nearly all of the health issues that face children with DS can be fixed or easily managed.

DS in 1983              DS in 2011           US Average

One of the scary phrases in the chart above is "mental retardation." First of all, while that is the medically correct term, those in the community prefer "intellectually disabled." One needs to keep in mind that this term covers a whole spectrum of realities. A child who needs a little extra time on a test is lumped in with someone who cannot feed themselves with this simple term. Most children with DS are closer to "the child needing extra time" end of the spectrum. In other words, most people with DS are either mildly or moderately intellectually disabled. Most children with DS have the ability with a good education and good medical care to live fully productive, fully normal lives.

I realize that to raise a child with DS will require more time, patience and $$$. There is good news on those fronts as well. Every community in the US has a support group for parents. There you can share with others the whole mess of emotions you are going through and parents have the opportunity to help each other.

Check out the kid on the far left in the Target ad!

Many states have free early-intervention programs that will pay for needed therapies, tests and care up to the age of three. If you are not referred to them by your pediatrician, you can get the information yourself here. (I have personally dealt with the one in NY due to some early concerns about my son and it was a very easy process and they were very helpful.)

After your child turns 3, he or she is guaranteed an education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). "Under IDEA, local school districts must provide "a free appropriate education in the least restrictive environment" and an individualized education plan (IEP) for each child." according to this informative site.

Medical care is another big expense. A child with DS qualifies for medicaid and social security benefits. Also, different states and cities have other resources for necessities like specialized equipment. A good site for info written by a mother of children with DS is here.  

My point here: Down Syndrome is not a death sentence. Living with DS is not even a one-way ticket to a difficult life. The only explanation I can see for the statistic above is misinformation and myths which I have tried to help fix here. If you or someone you know is pregnant and the child has been diagnosed with Down Syndrome, you, or they, need to know that you are not alone and there is help out there. It will be difficult, but there is hope.

For more info:

http://www.ndss.org/

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/down-syndrome/DS00182

http://nichcy.org/