Cardinal Egan and Partial Birth Abortion

All religions have doctrines that, at times, seem to superscede common sense. How is it that a Jewish family can declare a loved one dead simply for falling in love with a non-jew? Does that make sense for any tradition or community, to expel an adherent based on one single issue?

We also need to be careful at preaching ultra-morality on one hand while condoning immorality on another. For example, Cardinal Egan is strongly suspected of helping to cover up child abuse by priests under his supervision.

"The House took up the bill on the same day that the Rev. Paul Shanley, formerly assigned to the Archdiocese of Boston, was arrested in San Diego on charges that he repeatedly raped a young boy during the 1980s. The House action also follows reports that New York Cardinal Edward M. Egan, while serving as bishop of the Bridgeport diocese, failed to alert police or child protection authorities to allegations of abuse by priests."

www.snapnetwork.org/legislation/CONN_backs_stricterpenalties.htm

Tom said : "It makes absolutely PERFECT sense, Rabbi Hirschfield, to stress the importance of the right to life if faculty of a religious institution overlook an issue so fundamental as the right to life, though the Cardinal Newman Society NEVER gave its definition of a strong Catholic identity nor did it attempt to reduce a two thousand year old story to a single doctrine, as there are many other on-campus issues they address at many so-called 'Catholic' institutions."

The Article said : "Despite claiming to be about Catholic identity, their own President, Patrick J. Reilly declared that their "only issue is life, the right to life"

So Tom, you either didn't read the article, or didn't get it. One of the author's complaints is that the group is obviously a multi-issue group, but when they feel it's strong to say so, they claim to be one-issue. That's deceptive and manipulative, and in trying to defend them from their own words, you have done nothing but confirm the contradiction between what Reilly says and what the truth is.

There is nothing wrong with stressing the right to life and making it a top priority if you feel strongly about it. There is something with isolating one idea, insisting that the world be viewed through a single lens, and ignoring all other issues. There is something wrong with prioritizing one life over another (unborn child vs. mother) before knowing the circumstances. Also, there is a big problem if you think abortion is the only "right to life" issue in the world.

If you were really "pro-life" instead of simply "anti-abortion", you would see that hunger, health care, hate-crime, capital punishment, and even gay marriage bans are all "right to life" issues. The Catholics in particular, and much of the "pro-life" base, are quite culpable in many of these matters. To focus only on the actions of other people is a symptom of cowardice.

Why are Catholics constantly working to change other people, or to stop other people from doing things? There are real actions that they could be taking, but instead they just sit around and blame everyone else for the troubles they see in the world.

I think you need to go back over the article to see that there are certain extreme circumstances where a late-term abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. It's horrible and it's tragic, but the life of the mother must ALWAYS come first

The rabbi made the point that Judaism will allow an abortion in this circumstance, and chances are Justice Breyer (who is Jewish) had this in mind when he struck down that provision.

I personally know women who are post-abortive and have heard the testimonies of several others who have suffered emotionally and psychologically from the aftereffects of abortion. There's a ministry (Rachel's Vineyard) devoted entirely to helping post-abortive women deal with their grief and live meaningful lives overcoming the aftereffects of abortion.

Plenty of source material at http://www.afterabortion.org/news/index.htm

'Each case is different and decisions need to be made by individuals who are actually present, not by an outside community who have nothing to do with the individual in question, and can't even agree amongst themselves.'

Sounds rather good on paper; however, the majority of partial-birth abortions performed aren't a result of maternal mortality being a factor. Goes back to my original post on weighing the odds on who's fundamental rights to life are being violated.

'In any case, you still fail to address the issue in the article, which is that to judge the whole world based on one issue is wrong and unproductive, no matter what issue that is.'

I'm not stating that the whole world should be judged on one issue; it is a fundamental issue, however, which all other issues are built upon. A child dismembered, de-brained, or bludgeoned to death as a result of induced-labor contractions and thrown away in the garbage isn't going to reep the benefits of a stout health-care plan, lower taxes, robust economy, affordable housing, or anything of the like.

'I'm asking why you spend so much time fixing the 'wrong' things that you see other people doing, instead of the atrocities that are happening within your own church and your own life, where you might actually have a chance to change something.'

I'm a simple layman in my church; I can voice my displeasure with certain courses of action, but I'm not vested with any power or authority to make changes from the inside out. I admit being displeased with those in authority who re-located pedophyles not being brought to justice or even losing their positions. I believe the church is making strides in the right direction, though. They have counceling sessions with victims and their families, more stringent requirements and psychological screening for seminarians looking to enter the priesthood, safety courses for laymen and women in a position to abuse vulnerable people, and fewer reported incidences of abuse.

Personally, I was a former IV drug user who's been clean for several years now and making every effort to maintain being a productive member of society.

P.S. slowly but surely, we are changing things for the better in the pro-life movement as fewer and fewer women are having abortions. That could change, though, with the so-called 'Freedom of Choice' Act and all the restrictions on abortion it would nullify(state bans on partial-birth abortion, restricting state and federal funding, parental consent laws, informed consent laws).

"I personally know women who are post-abortive and have heard the testimonies of several others who have suffered emotionally and psychologically from the aftereffects of abortion."

Great, I personally know a 17 year old girl who felt naturally inclined to explore her sexuality but didn't have the proper education because her father believed abstinence only and would remove her from school on the sex-ed days. Despite arguing with him for 9 months, her father would not let her abort, and now she will not be attending Yale this fall. Instead she is working in a coffee shop to support herself and her new baby and her future as a brilliant musician is over.

We all have stories. It's all anecdotal evidence, and it doesn't mean anything.

I said: "'Each case is different and decisions need to be made by individuals who are actually present, not by an outside community who have nothing to do with the individual in question, and can't even agree amongst themselves.'

Tom said: Sounds rather good on paper; however, the majority of partial-birth abortions performed aren't a result of maternal mortality being a factor. Goes back to my original post on weighing the odds on who's fundamental rights to life are being violated."

It does sound good, doesn't it? Maybe because it's common sense. What you are saying may be true as well, but it doesn't justify an absolute ban.

I said: "I'm asking why you spend so much time fixing the 'wrong' things that you see other people doing, instead of the atrocities that are happening within your own church and your own life, where you might actually have a chance to change something."

Tom said: "I'm a simple layman in my church; I can voice my displeasure with certain courses of action, but I'm not vested with any power or authority to make changes from the inside out."

That's ridiculous. You say that you focus on changing other people because nobody has given you permission to change yourself? I'm not asking Catholics to change the church, I'm asking them to change themselves and change each other. If you are going to plead impotence in that matter, then you have no right forcing your empty, black and white, fear-filled world view on others.

"You have the right to your own opinion; however you should think outside the box and contemplate that my post could have been for those more openminded to differing opinion than you. I'm sorry about your hangups, but God is changing myself and those around me whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Jesus Loves You!!"

You don't understand what I'm about. You say that I have the right to my opinion, but pregnant women don't have a right to their's? You should certainly be able to see that allowing people to make a choice even if it conflicts with your personal moral viewpoint is open-minded, not closed-minded.

I'm not sure what hangups you are referring to, but you don't have to apologize to me. I will help myself overcome my own 'hangups' while you sit around and wait for God to do it for you. Jesus may have loved me, but he's dead now and I can love myself.

"Once any member of the human race,made in the image and likeness of God, is considered "expendable" for political,social,economic,eugenic reasons or convenience(the cope out of our age),then think holocaust!"

That is precisely what happens to many of the old, the poor, the troops sent to Iraq without armor, and myriad humans in other situations. And while the good rabbi can speak for himself, I think that you are saying precisely what Judaism teaches, except that birth is a blessing, not a punishment.

"In fact, Maimonides describes what we call partial birth abortion as being acceptable if the mother's life is in immediate danger." Where does the Rambam state that partial birth abortion is permitted? How can a fetus that has exited the birth canal to the point where its head is accessible still present a threat to the life of its mother?