Boston, baptism and abortion
Saturday April 19, 2008
Categories: Catholicism, Decline and fall
According to Diogenes, and based on the most recent data available, 2008 might be the year when a single Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Boston aborts more unborn children than the number of baptisms in the entire Roman Catholic Archdiocese...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Right, because "the faithful" only includes Roman Catholics.
The pro-life movement has been woefully unsuccessful in convincing the public of it's claims. Too many people seem more interesting in highly emotional, fanatical raging against the system (loudly and in public) than actually convincing people that abortion is wrong.
Also, the pro-life movement tends to be conservative, and has failed to address a major cause of abortions in a meaningful way-- poverty. Telling a poor woman, "Bootstraps, bootstraps, bootstraps!" may be ideologically consistent, but it sure hasn't worked so far, and the abortions continue.
Finally, focusing only on abstinence and attempt to completely halt a behavior that is a powerful, basic biological drive in humans is NOT working, and nor will it ever. Not in this culture.
Railing about the evils of contraception doesn't help, either.
It's a fight that is already lost. Consider this. If McCain wins, the Democrats will probably keep a majority in the Senate, which means no pro-life justices, which is why he can afford to make pro life a litmus test for his vp choice. He knows that it won't matter after the election. If Obama wins, pro-life gets criminalized. The pedophile scandal can easily be extended to Evangelicals (James Dobson, it is often forgotten now, entered the public realm in the 1970s with a book that could easily be interpreted as advocating child abuse.) And we've seen this week how easy it is to take the children away from parents in religions that are unpopular. Either way you lose, the only question is how badly, for at least two years, probably four and maybe forever.
And there is a major credibility problem with the pro-life movement which has made it impossible for it to succeed. The spokesfolk for it tend to be pretty yucky, nutty and generally unappealing (the author of this blog, who may be a bit nutty at times, generally excepted). It is impossible for people to take them seriously. And then there are the folks who, as was pointed out, rail about contraception! If you want to slam the doors fast, that is the way to do it. It's an automatic loser.
The pro-life movement hit its high water mark in 2004 and there is no doubt that that success led to the Democrats winning Congress in 2006. The only way it is going now is down.
Reagan, brilliant politician that he was, tapped into the evangelical movement to obtain a solid core of voters. He may have been a man of faith but he certainly did not attend church. Same for Bush. My impression is that these politicians have just used abortion as an issue to garner votes. There are many politicians who are sincere but at the national level the big power players are not interested. Go through the list of Republican standard bearers and try to pick out which ones are really Christians and might be sincere. Rush? Coulter? Anyone from Fox?
My hope is that there can still be a major decrease in the number of abortions. Most people on the pro-choice (abortion) side of the issue think that there ought to be some limits and that there ought to be fewer abortions. Not all are sodomites or pederasts. If people of faith on both sides would stop the name calling, give up their favorite hatemongers and talk with each other we could make a start. I would suggest that this begin with a spreading of God's Word and his works. If I were Satan (my mother-in-law would have removed the if) I would do my best to keep Christians divided.
Steve
The first two commenters have a really good point. The Pro-life movement seems to have a real identity crisis. What do they really want? To reduce or eliminate abortions? or just convert the entire population to their way of thinking on all issues related to sexuality?
The latter is Never. Going. To Happen. But for the last ten years, that's exactly the approach that's been taken, and it has seriously damaged the movement. They need to seriously prioritize.
Quick post, as we're all excited here in NYC with the visit of the Holy Father and the Mass at Yankee Stadium to begin in about 20 to 30 minutes.
Sorry to disagree with all the doubters, but the pro-life movement has made significant gains in public opinion over the past 20 years. To those who say that "all is lost" I say all the more reason to re-double the fight.
President Bush has been a great blessing during the past 8 years in the pro-life fight. Imagine how far worse things would have been with Gore elected in 2000 or Kerry in 2004.
The statistics that Rod cited (more abortions in one PP clinic in boston than baptism in the entire Archdiocese of Boston) simply point oit the urgency of this issue.
We must hold the three major remaining candidates accountable as to what they will do (Clinton, McCain, Obama) if elected ... and make our selections accordingly this November.
EWTN and some of the 24-7 news networks are carrying the Mass at Yankee Stadium. Hope that you all tune in.
Elizebeth Anne, The Pro-life movement seems to have a real identity crisis.
The "pro-life" label is not a "movement" or a single body of people. It is merely those who want to outlaw killing the unborn. Hardly an "identiy crisis".
What do they really want?
Want, or expect? Nothing in particular.
The best thought experiment here: pretend you are in the deep South and oppose slavery on human rights grounds. There is no hope to outlaw slavery anytime soon. Can you bring yourself to vote for a pro-slaver (oh, I mean a pro-choicer, just somebody who won't outlaw slavery)? Don't know about you, but I never would. Ever. If I couldn't find somebody opposed to slavery on the ticket, I would write in.
It's not that I would expect to eliminate slavery, it's just that I can't vote for people so callous about human rights. Ugly people, whether they own slaves or not. Heck, they might come and want to kill or enslave me next (not an unreasonable fear for a Catholic here).
For these same reasons, I will never vote for a pro-choicer. Ever. No. Matter. What. And I know literally scores of people personally who feel just like me. But we don't "expect" anything. That's not the point.
I have no idea where the abortion data Diogenes refers to comes from, and I'm not aware that there is any state agency in Massachusetts that reports abortion statistics by facility. In any event, the number of abortions performed in Massachusetts dropped by about 1/3 from the late 1970s through the 2000s, both in terms of overall numbers and in terms of per population and per pregnancy rates. I suspect it would be an unusual demographic event if the number of abortions performed in a state or major city changed by more than 10% in a single year.
You know, if slaves had actually been double-layered balls of cells the size of a pinhead, embedded in the slaveowners' mesenteries, I would feel that their claim to the right to make decisions on behalf of the slaves had a good deal more validity. Mdavid's analogy is fallacious, because it assumes that which it is attempting to demonstrate--that an embryo is the moral equivalent of a full-grown, independently living human being outside of a woman's body.
Mdavid: you've kinda missed my point. I understand prolifers being unwilling to vote pro-choice. I understand that being someone's number one priority. But the pro-life movement has begun really attacking all forms of birth control, too. And that's where you end up losing a lot of people.
"Mdavid's analogy is fallacious, because it assumes that which it is attempting to demonstrate--that an embryo is the moral equivalent of a full-grown, independently living human being outside of a woman's body."
And what makes an unborn child (or an "embryo") less worthy of life than a human being outside of the womb? A fetus has the same DNA it will have as a newborn - it clearly has a distinct genetic identity. If we are going to argue that since an embryo is dependent on its mother, it does not deserve status as an independent human being, then we might as well deprive infants of their status as human beings as well, since no infant can survive without the protection and care of its parents.
"You know, if slaves had actually been double-layered balls of cells the size of a pinhead, embedded in the slaveowners' mesenteries, I would feel that their claim to the right to make decisions on behalf of the slaves had a good deal more validity."
No offense, but you seem awfully eager to define away what counts as human life and what doesn't.
The commonality between mdavid's analogy and the abortion debate should be obvious: a dominant sector of sciety was locked into a refusal to recognize the humanity of an entire class of human life. Granted, obviously, the plantocracy and their apologists' failure seems more egregious because the human lives in question were walking, talking right in front of them.
So the ten day old zygote seems harder to make the case for. But where does one draw the line? Most everyone seems to recognize Blackmun's trimester scheme as the artificality it really was. If we also nearly all recognize that there's no real difference between a full-term fetus five minutes before birth and the newborn baby five minutes after, at what point between that and zygote does that natal life deserve recognition as life worthy of protection by us? At viability? When brain waves start?
The typical pro-choice position is: We don't know. We'll leave that to each person (woman) to decide. I respond that that's a moral copout. If lives really are at stake, this cannot be left as a matter of private taste or preference. A society has the right and the obligation to debate and decide the important moral questions. The debate isn't going away.
And in that regard I do think some small progress has been made, albeit mostly on the margins: the advent of ultrasounds has made more recognizable the humanity of the unborn. So too have the horror of partia birth abortion. But most of all, the reality is that pro-lifers are having children in much greater numbers than those who favor choice. And many of these children, as they reach adulthood, are all too aware of the reality of how easily, and legally, they themselves could have been aborted. Especially (let's be blunt) if they were girls.
Which is why while a majority of Americans oppose banning abortion outright, most also favor restricting it more than currently obtains.
Alkali:
Why do you bother nibbling away at the edge of this issue by questioning the validity of the data provided by Diogenes? It misses the central question. Even if the number of abortions performed at PP in Massachusets were 1/2 or 1/4 or 1/10 the number of baptisms conferred in the archdiocese of Boston, the central question of the morality of this act remains.
Elizabeth Ann says:
"But the pro-life movement has begun really attacking all forms of birth control, too. And that's where you end up losing a lot of people."
In truth, the argument against birth control preceded the one against abortion. The former has to do with the unnatural disconnect between sexuality and the creation of human life. Abortion, of course, is the tragic "end game" consequence of dismissing the disconnect and seeing sexual relations as a good when divorced from openness to life.
Let us determine what path the remaining 3 candidates (Clinton, McCain, Obama) would pursue as President in this area. My vote in November will depend on which candidate I determine is more likely to contribute to the creation of a culture of life in this country.
Eleazer Williams, I'm a person who understands that biologically speaking the life of a unique human individual begins at conception, and I'd prefer our laws to recognize that fact.
However, I'd be willing to work with your "brain waves" construction, provided you were able to understand and appreciate that I make no promises re: working to convince others to join me in my understanding and wish to protect even the earliest human lives.
The problem for many pro-abortion individuals would be the fact that embryonic brain waves have been detected as early as 42-48 weeks gestation--note that that merely speaks to "detection" which means it's entirely possible that these brain waves begin even earlier. So, in the first place, you're going to have to select a totally arbitrary time for legal protection to begin: 35 days? 40 days? 42 days? 48 days? 50 days? etc., all of which are going to be problematic from both a legal and a moral standpoint: legal, because proving that a woman is at, say, 53 days instead of 48 is going to be beyond our current technology, and morally because even if we could prove gestational age by days, you're going to have the same situation you do now, with what is a "legal human person" and what is a "totally disposable human product of conception" being separated by the thinnest and most artificial of margins.
Of course, I would rather have unborn humans protected at the roughly six-week margin (which would be the result of this) than to have it remain legal to kill unborn humans even when they are in the birth canal, as our current laws permit. But I doubt very many of those who consider themselves pro-choice will go along with your brain waves suggestion, as many women are just confirming pregnancy by the gestational point we're talking about here.
R in NYC: I appreciate that perhaps it doesn't matter what the statistics are. I was just pointing out that these seem off to me.
Erin, I don't know where you got the information on fetal development that you offer, but it is not scientifically accurate. Here is some information on brain development from The Facts of Life: Science and the Abortion Controversy, a book by two scientists, Harold Morowitz and james Trefil.
Synapses are what form the overwhelming number of connections between nerves. Since the functions of the brain depend almost exclusively on the ability of nerve cells to communicate with each other, synapses are also key to understanding the brain. . . . The cells that will eventually be part of the cerebral cortex [the higher brain, the foundation of human consciousness] begin forming in the seven-week embryo. . . . They migrate to positions in what will eventually be the cortex, where they build up in layers. . . . Before synapses are formed, the fetal brain is just a collection of nerve cells. The fetus is incapable of awareness or volition. . . . [The] burst of synapse formation [between 25 and 32 weeks gestation] marks the period during which the brain is transformed from a collection of individual cells into a connected machine capable of carrying out human thought. . . . [B]efore the wiring up of the cortex, the fetus is simply incapable of feeling anything, including pain. . . . [S]ignals may be sent by the nerves, but there is simply nothing to receive them. They stop at the brain stem for the simple reason that there is nowhere else for them to go. (Morowitz and Trefil 112-113, 116-117, and 158-159)
I realize that you don't actually care about fetal brain development, because you consider a fetus to be a human person whether it has a brain or not, but if you are going to cite facts, you should be careful that they are correct.
Well, Sig, I got my facts from that well-know pro-life agitprop source known as WebMD, along with a quick perusal of some embryology sites. The question at hand is "measurable brain waves" not "capacity for human thought and/or feelings of pain," just as it is with the end-of-life questions. A person in certain types of illness/injury states that cause cessation of some higher brain functions may not be capable of human thought and/or pain sensations, but as long as some brain activity is measurable we don't get carte blanche to kill them, either.
Elizebeth Anne, But the pro-life movement has begun really attacking all forms of birth control, too. And that's where you end up losing a lot of people.
I didn't miss your point. You just didn't read my post.
My point is clear: most pro-life people don't belong to some "pro-life movement" that is trying not to "lose" people. Pro-lifers just won't vote for people who will allow the unborn to be killed.
As a pro-life voter, it's not my problem that people kill their unborn, nor that the public likes this freedom. I think most pro-lifers are smart enough to know they won't outlaw abortion until the culture changes. So what? I still won't vote for bad people, and the abortion litmus test is a good way to ferret out the evil guys. I think most pro-lifers I hang with (the "movement", I guess) feel like I do here.
If true, that is a disturbing statistic, but not nearly as disturbing as the fact that, at least sometime in the early-to-mid 90s, there were more abortions in the District of Columbia than live births. Not sure whether that is still true today.
Curiously, I'm seeing many more baby strollers in places like Dupont Circle and Logan Circle in DC where there were none 15 years ago. I suspect that most of these families will flee to the suburbs when the kids hit 5 or 6, but perhaps a few will stay.
I still won't vote for bad people, and the abortion litmus test is a good way to ferret out the evil guys. I think most pro-lifers I hang with (the "movement", I guess) feel like I do here.
Of course, the "good people" you vote for are responsible for over 3,000 dead Americans in Iraq, 100s of thousands of dead Iraqis, executive citizens who die under the death penalty, torture.
Erin, I didn't find any references to "brain waves" on WebMD. Perhaps I didn't look at the right areas. Maybe if you could give me a url I'd be able to find what you read. I did find this, however:
http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm
When people, including physicians, talk about "brain waves" and "brain activity" they are referring to organized activity in the cortex. While no embryo or fetus has ever been found to have "brain waves," extensive EEG studies have been done on premature babies. A very good summary of their findings can be found in Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus," a review article (often cited by "pro-lifers" writing about fetal pain, but not about brain development) by K.J.S. Anand, a leading researcher on pain in newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM:
Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.
There are reasons, based on the physics of the EEG, why this has to be so. Remember, an EEG involves measuring varying electrical potential across a dipole, or separated charges. To get scalp or surface potentials from the cortex requires three things: neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them. Since these requirements are not present in the human cortex before 20-24 weeks of gestation, it is not possible to record "brain waves" prior to 20-24 weeks. Period. End of story.
This article also gives a good account of the origins of the misinformation you received. Perhaps part of the misunderstanding is the term "brain waves," a non-technical term that non-technical people sometimes mistakenly use to describe electrical activity in cells, even that which is not specific to organized brain function.
I'm not an medical expert either, so if someone who knows more about this than I do wants to give better information, please do.
Remember that Hitler and Ceaucesciu were anti-abortion.
Sig, in rechecking my history I see I got confused; WebMD had the simple development info which placed the heartbeat's detectability at around the same time other sites have brain function. I believe I was thinking of WebMD when I was actually on this page of class notes from a biology class from Purdue University:
biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/n100/2k4ch39repronotes.html
Of course, one can insist that the electrical signals detectable at this stage are mere random firings of an as yet uncompleted CNS, which is why I tend to think that a clearer dividing line between what is an individual unique human life and what is not is conception. It is certainly true that all of the growth and development from conception until death, whether that latter takes place before birth, at birth, shortly after birth, during childhood, during adolescence, during adulthood, or during the geriatric period, is occurring on a continuum that will only be disrupted by that death, natural or induced, of the organism to which I have already alluded.
It comes down to whether you think all human life is sacred and worthy of protection, or only some of it is. I think human life is sacred; I think biologically speaking it's pretty obvious that every unique human being traces his/her origins back to his/her conception, so I think human life should be legally protected from conception till natural death. Of course, Sig, if you want to argue that you didn't become a human being until you were born that's fine, but I'm afraid you're simply trying to force me to accept your personal philosophy if you expect me to agree with you.
Daniel, Of course, the "good people" you vote for are responsible for over 3,000 dead Americans in Iraq, 100s of thousands of dead Iraqis, executive citizens who die under the death penalty, torture.
You are wrong. I've never voted for anyone responsible for Iraq (Bush and Kerry both voted to go in), torture (Bush), or the death penalty (Bush and Kerry both supported the death penalty for terrorists).
And I never said anything about "good people". You just made that up, twisting the discussion as you are wont to do.
Your problem: you are so ideological that if you disagree with somebody on issue "A", you feel this gives you the right to slander and change the subject at will. It's shabby and pathetic.
redleg, hitler was not anti-abortion. he was darwinian and had no problem justifying the death of anything
Thanks for the clarification, Erin. one can insist that the electrical signals detectable at this stage are mere random firings of an as yet uncompleted CNS--that's a very good statement of the facts as I've understood them from doctors and scientists. As you say, however, that in itself doesn't prove the humanity or non-humanity of the fetus one way or the other.
It comes down to whether you think all human life is sacred and worthy of protection, or only some of it is. Pretty much, yeah. In fact, I'll go you one better and say that all life, not just humans--is intrinsically sacred and worthy of protection. I believe the lives of women are sacred and worthy of protection. In any positive program you might advocate to encourage helping pregnant women, I would be right there beside you. But as long as you and others like you advocate policies and laws that are, in effect, punitive and life-threatening to women, I'm going to have to stand in opposition to you. Because the life of the mother is worthy, too.
My mother almost died during the miscarriage of her fifth pregnancy. She started bleeding, and the doctor advised her to stay at home, wait and see. By the time she got to the hospital, she had nearly bled to death, and her heart stopped during emergency surgery and had to be re-started. This is exactly the kind of situation that's happening right now in places like Nicaragua and El Salvador where they have the kinds of anti-abortion laws that you want to pass here. Doctors postpone treating pregnant women because they don't want to be prosecuted for suspicion of causing an abortion. So they let women bleed to death or die of septic shock. Women die. Women are sent to jail for 30 years. This doesn't seem like a pro-life policy to me. It seems like an anti-women policy.
One of the best ways to prevent abortion is to make sure that women don't get pregnant unless they want to be. That means making sure they have access to contraception. But you and other Catholics are against allowing women access to contraception, even if they're not Catholic. I think that constitutes trying to "force [them] to accept your personal philosophy."
One of the biggest factors in the push to define an embryo as a person is that this could then be used to ban contraceptives, on the grounds that anything that might, by no matter how far-fetched a theory, prevent implantation could then be defined as causing abortion. Would you deny that this would be your preferred outcome? Like most sensible people, I would like to see abortions become much rarer than they are now. I don't think your advocacy is going to lead in that direction.
This whole discussion is sad. We go around and around and
never come to conclusions. Why do most abortions happen?
Idiot males have pre-marital sex with women. They become
pregnant and want a solution to their "problem" (another
human life being the problem). PP offers a quick and easy
"fix". No responsibility for your actions necessary.
Is it that hard to not have sexual intercourse before being
married? Is it impossible today?
And also, I just can't believe lack of availability of
contraception is the problem. Is it? Maybe I'm wrong.
Is it lack of education? Really??
Is it every "wrong" to have an abortion? Is it ever
"too late" in a pregnancy where it is wrong to have one?
When? Please, pro-choicers, tell me.
How hard is it to realize that regardless of what you
call "it" (him or her) -- what is killed during an abortion
is a LIVING "thing". It is alive, growing, struggling.
A living thing is killed, terminated, whatever you wish to
call.
This whole thing is just downright heartbreaking.
Behold the fruits of sexual "freedom"...
"each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary"
(even if not by our birth parents)
As far as any so-called "culture of death", until America abolishes the death penalty, you'll always have it.
I agree with Charles Cosimano that "It's a fight that is already lost."
Nonsensical rhetoric like "If Obama wins, pro-life gets criminalized." doesn't help convince people either.
I also agree with Chalres C that "there is a major credibility problem with the pro-life movement which has made it impossible for it to succeed", but it's not that "The spokesfolk for it tend to be pretty yucky, nutty and generally unappealing"; it's that they'r ehypocritical. They tend largely to suppport the death penalty, which is why they get labelled the "so-called pro-life movement".
MDavid put it this way: "The "pro-life" label is not a "movement" or a single body of people. It is merely those who want to outlaw killing the unborn." This may be true as far as it goes, but after theyr'e born, they tend not to give a rat's patootie about the human beings that get born and then abused, discarded, abandoned, unloved. And, to add to MDavid's post, outlawing abortions seems to be the ONLY "pro-life" thing about them. Support for the war? Support for the death penalty? I'd bet it's higher among the soi-disant "pro-life" group which simply goes to show they are only selectively "pro-life".
As for Reaganite in NYC's contention that, "In truth, the argument against birth control preceded the one against abortion. The former has to do with the unnatural disconnect between sexuality and the creation of human life." What a crock! The "former" (i.e. birth control) is not diconnected at all let alone "unnatural[ly]" from sexuality and makin' babies - people USE it when they don't WANT to make a baby. DUH!
re his "seeing sexual relations as a good when divorced from openness to life", the difficulty is some people see sex as ONLY good when it is open to creating a new life, and others see it as good even when it isn't. And your side doesn't get to decide for others and you really seem to hate that fact.
Erin Manning, you said you are "a person who understands that biologically speaking the life of a unique human individual begins at conception". Shouldn't that be "a person who BELIEVES" that? Others certainly disagree with your "understanding", and believe that life begins at birth. Yet others believe it begins when blood begins to be created and circulated within the fetus's bod. And even though you would "prefer our laws to recognize that fact", since it ain't a "fact", I'm sure glad they don't. If your side would allow the free distribution and use of contraceptions, a lot of this would be moot.
"The problem for many pro-abortion individuals"... I know of NO SUCH INDIVIDUAL. I know plenty of pro-choice people, but I have never heard a single solitary soul say "Hey, ya know, abortion is good. Terrific even, and i think ALL people should have one. Or two!" THAT would be "pro-abortion". Most of us take it far more seriously than that, and would prefer people be allowed to make their own choice apart from your particular beliefs.
go read the article: something like 9000 abortions and 18,000 baptisms.
what the 'diogenes' poster did was extrapolate off into the future based on what appears to be a one-year change in the data.
very scientific, that.
if im talking to christians then they understand that etirnity is in their future correct? so what do you think a meciful God would do with a dead fetus? as christians we know the answer to that question is a good one but that still doesnt give people the right to kill someone liveing inside them.
if im talking to non christians then you dont really care or believe in the one true God right? so whats your argument that a fetus isnt a life yet? so what evidence would you use to proove that the fetus is still not yet alive? scientific evidence prooves that the fetus has a heart beat. so what happens when an old persons heart stops? they die. so when you stop a fetuses heart they die. your commiting murder. let me ask you this do you think a person that was a vegtable would rather die or get better and live the rest of there lives? its the same question just presented in a diffrent way.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.