My older sister Marcy died on Father's day following a stroke some seven years earlier. In a few minutes Marcy went from being a bright and vibrant person who loved to dance, sing and travel to a person confined to a wheel chair needing basic assistance.
Who knows why a Loving God allows these things to happen? Who knows the lessons Marcy learned throughout this difficult time? I know what I saw and experienced.
Marcy was always full of life and was Pro-life. She raised her family of four to love and respect the gift of life.
All this time her children supported her and acted only for her well being, providing the medical care and love she so desperately needed. Never once did any of her children act against Marcy's interests. They exhibited much love toward their mother.
When her death was expected in a few weeks, they arranged hospice support making certain she received food an nutrition according to her condition. The nursing home people from Briarwood were extremely loving in their care for her, right up until the end. she had an opportunity to receive our church's Sacrament of the Sick (Last rites) shortly before she died.
As an active pro-life person I know that not all people receive this care and concern. I am so thankful that she was treated with such dignity all the days she lived with disabilities. I am especially grateful I was able to visit with her to say good bye.
Marcy, we will meet again in the presence of the Lord. Say Hi to Mom and Dad
Monday, July 14, 2008
ARGUMENTS AGAINST ABORTION
THE BASIC ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST ABORTION -There are three steps, or premises, to the argument for outlawing abortion.
The first is that one of the most fundamental purposes of law is to protect human rights, especially the first and foundational right, the right to life. The second is that all human beings have the right to life. The third is that the already-conceived but not-yet-born children of human beings are human beings. From these three premises it necessarily follows that the law must protect the right to life of unborn children.
There are only three possible reasons for disagreeing with this conclusion. “One may deny the first, second, or third premises. For if all three are admitted, the "pro-life" conclusion follows.
First, there are those who admit that all persons have a right to life and that unborn children are persons, but deny that this right should be protected by law (the first premise). This is a serious legal error. The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation. 'The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. `The moment a positive [human] law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....’81 " (C 2273).
Second, there are those who admit that the law should protect the right to life and that unborn children are human beings, but deny that human beings have the right to life (the second premise). This is a very serious moral error.
It is essentially the philosophy of power, of "might makes right." Those in power - doctors, mothers, legislators, adults - decree the right to kill those who lack the power to defend themselves: the smallest, most vulnerable, and most innocent of all human beings. No good reason can justify this decree; a good end does not justify an intrinsically evil means. If the babies shared the powers of the abortionists and could fight back with scalpels, there would be few abortions.
Third, there are those who admit that the law should protect the right to life and that all humans have that right, but deny that unborn children are humans (the third premise). This is a serious factual and scientific error.
Before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, all science texts taught the biological understanding that the life of any individual of any species begins at conception, when sperm and ovum unite to create a new being with its own complete and unique genetic code, distinct from both father and mother. All growth and development from then on is a matter of degree, a gradual unfolding of what is already there. There is no specific or distinct point in our development when we become human. (What were we before that, birds?) Only when abortion became legal did the science textbooks change their language and cease teaching this understanding - not because of any new science but because of a new politics.
(This article was excerpted from the Luke Hart series “Basics Elements of the Catholic Faith” (section 7) published by the Knights of Columbus. The series is available free of charge from New Haven. )
The first is that one of the most fundamental purposes of law is to protect human rights, especially the first and foundational right, the right to life. The second is that all human beings have the right to life. The third is that the already-conceived but not-yet-born children of human beings are human beings. From these three premises it necessarily follows that the law must protect the right to life of unborn children.
There are only three possible reasons for disagreeing with this conclusion. “One may deny the first, second, or third premises. For if all three are admitted, the "pro-life" conclusion follows.
First, there are those who admit that all persons have a right to life and that unborn children are persons, but deny that this right should be protected by law (the first premise). This is a serious legal error. The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation. 'The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. `The moment a positive [human] law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....’81 " (C 2273).
Second, there are those who admit that the law should protect the right to life and that unborn children are human beings, but deny that human beings have the right to life (the second premise). This is a very serious moral error.
It is essentially the philosophy of power, of "might makes right." Those in power - doctors, mothers, legislators, adults - decree the right to kill those who lack the power to defend themselves: the smallest, most vulnerable, and most innocent of all human beings. No good reason can justify this decree; a good end does not justify an intrinsically evil means. If the babies shared the powers of the abortionists and could fight back with scalpels, there would be few abortions.
Third, there are those who admit that the law should protect the right to life and that all humans have that right, but deny that unborn children are humans (the third premise). This is a serious factual and scientific error.
Before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, all science texts taught the biological understanding that the life of any individual of any species begins at conception, when sperm and ovum unite to create a new being with its own complete and unique genetic code, distinct from both father and mother. All growth and development from then on is a matter of degree, a gradual unfolding of what is already there. There is no specific or distinct point in our development when we become human. (What were we before that, birds?) Only when abortion became legal did the science textbooks change their language and cease teaching this understanding - not because of any new science but because of a new politics.
(This article was excerpted from the Luke Hart series “Basics Elements of the Catholic Faith” (section 7) published by the Knights of Columbus. The series is available free of charge from New Haven. )
Elections Have Consequences
In her column “Let Common Sense Prevail”, Wanda Franz, Ph.D. President NRLC, points out that the pro-life movement must focus on getting Supreme Court justices appointed who are guided by the Constitution
In an election year, these efforts must be guided by plain common sense, as summarized in the following principles.
First, “elections have consequences.” Just recall how Bill Clinton wrecked the pro-life policies of his presidential predecessors, how he gave us judges such as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Second, “there are no ideal candidates for political office”—or, at best, very few of them. Anyone who thinks that one day there will be a majority of saints running Capitol Hill is foolish.
Third, “the point is not to make a statement but a difference”—more accurately, a positive difference.
Fourth, “don’t fall in love with your candidate.” We all know candidates who are 100% pro-lifers, but have no chance of getting elected. …..close ranks behind the pro-life winner and support him in the general election.
Fifth, “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” By insisting on the unattainable we may lose the attainable. And when we lose as pro-lifers, babies die. The thing about pro-life common sense is that it compels you to act, instead of pontificating about your “principles.” Act
In an election year, these efforts must be guided by plain common sense, as summarized in the following principles.
First, “elections have consequences.” Just recall how Bill Clinton wrecked the pro-life policies of his presidential predecessors, how he gave us judges such as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Second, “there are no ideal candidates for political office”—or, at best, very few of them. Anyone who thinks that one day there will be a majority of saints running Capitol Hill is foolish.
Third, “the point is not to make a statement but a difference”—more accurately, a positive difference.
Fourth, “don’t fall in love with your candidate.” We all know candidates who are 100% pro-lifers, but have no chance of getting elected. …..close ranks behind the pro-life winner and support him in the general election.
Fifth, “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” By insisting on the unattainable we may lose the attainable. And when we lose as pro-lifers, babies die. The thing about pro-life common sense is that it compels you to act, instead of pontificating about your “principles.” Act
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)