 |
| The Declaration of Independence - The originating document of the United States of America |
|---|
|
| The Declaration of Independence - The originating document of the United States of America |
|---|
The Oxford American Dictionary defines "right" as "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way" Attempts to define such rights are at least as old as Greek philosophy. A popular concept is that of natural rights as opposed to legal rights. Natural rights are thought to be those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and cannot be repealed by human laws. In some philosophies, one is able to forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, in particular, the violation of established law or custom. It is always possible, of course, unjustly to be deprived of the exercise of such rights by physical restraint, such as being deprived of the right to life by being murdered or being deprived of liberty as punishment for violation of an unjust law. Natural law is the law of natural rights.
Legal rights, on the other hand, are those bestowed upon a person by a given legal system. They can be defined, modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws, including those established by consent of those persons to which they apply or common consent of his society. The concept of "positive" law, that is, a law that requires some specific action, is related to the concept of legal rights. Civil rights are a subset of legal rights having to do with individual rights before the law.
I have a website about civil rights here.
Unfortunately, no one seems to have come up with a universally accepted list of "natural rights." Those rights recognized, created or protected by the Constitution of the United States or of the states themselves are expressed by their respective bodies of law and interpreted by their supreme courts. They are, therefore, subject to change as new situations arise requiring new interpretations. In the United States, there is a strong incentive for courts at all levels to let previous decisions become precedents, which cuts down somewhat on the volatility of effective law.
The United States Declaration of Independence is a pronouncement adopted by the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on July 4, 1776. It explains why the Thirteen Colonies at war with the Kingdom of Great Britain regarded themselves as independent sovereign states, no longer under British rule. The first paragraph is an introduction to this explanation.
The second paragraph begins with the statement of the fundamental principle upon which the government of the United States is allegedly based:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."Although this statement is often quoted as a reference, perhaps out of context, events subsequent to the adoption of the Declaration demonstrate conclusively that the following considerations do, in fact, apply to United States legislation:
Men, women, children, non-citizens and/or slaves are indeed distinguishable before the law.The United States does not officially subscribe to belief in any specific activity or event by which the human race is assumed to have originated, or that the term "creator" specifies or refers to a religious concept of any specific religion other than "Nature and Nature's God."
Human life, liberty or pursuit of happiness, or other such "unalienable rights" can be, and, in fact, are, regulated or abrogated in accordance with established law.
People other than adult men, (women and some teenagers), can participate in government.
It is not at all necessary to agree with the legitimacy or fairness of a law to be subject to it and the consequences of its violation.
Many people find the basis for their concept of rights in religion, or their interpretation of their Scripture. Discussion of such popular topics as treatment of non-traditional sexual identification, same sex marriage, sincerely held religious beliefs, public health measures and abortion seem often to be based on the various, and often conflicting, religious beliefs of the participants. One popular reference for human rights is the Holy Bible, but given the plethora of existing bibles and the lack of consensus about their interpretation, this is hardly an unambiguous guide.
As a Catholic, I often find myself drawn into these discussions by people who profess the same religion as I do, but have sincere differing viewpoints on these subjects. The following is my sincere position, based on the official teaching of the Catholic Church, to which I subscribe. Those with opposing (as opposed to "different") principles and I are not likely to find many points of common understanding or agreement.
Where such opposing viewpoints are presented as official Catholic teaching by members of the clergy, I consider the following to have the potential, at least, of exercising my rights to criticize their interpretation identified in Item 17, below.
The term "rights" appears 61 times in the body of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, of which the term "fundamental rights" appears 16 times and "political rights" appears twice. In most cases, the reference is to the exercise of these rights without specifying what they are. Nevertheless, there are some rights specifically identified, numbered here in the sequence in which they appear in the Catechism, not necessarily in order of importance.
1. The natural right of all men* to use the earth to sustain and develop life (*The context of the use of the term "men" here suggests that it means "human being" [Latin: "homo"] rather than a "male adult" [Latin: vir].)
2. The natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being by others, and the right to exercise freedom, especially in moral and religious matters as an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person within certain limitations
3. The right to act in conscience and in freedom to make moral decisions, not being forced to act contrary to his conscience or prevented from acting according to it, especially in religious matters (See also CCC.html#2106 and CCC.html#2108.)
4. The right to fulfill one's vocation, to act according to a sound norm of conscience and religious belief, and to safeguard privacy
5. The right to social development that makes accessible food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and other things required for a truly human life
6. The right to peace, the stability and security of a just order, the security of society and legitimate personal and collective defense
7. The right to honor and assistance of the family by the political community
8. The right to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family's own moral and religious convictions
9. The right to protection of the stability of the marriage bond and the institution of the family
10. The right to profess one's faith, to hand it on, and raise one's children in it, with the necessary means and institutions
11. The right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate
12. The right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits
13. The right to protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, and alcoholism
14. The right to form associations with other families and so to have representation before civil authority
15. The right of parents to educate their children, and to choose a school for them which corresponds to their own convictions
16. The right of adult children to choose their profession and state of life, free from pressure in the choice of a profession or in that of a spouse
17. The right justly to criticize that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community
18. The right of every human being to respect and protection of life from the first moment of his existence
19. The right of homosexual persons to acceptance with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, with avoidance of every sign of unjust discrimination
20. The right of a child to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage, the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents
21. The right of justice and charity in the care of earthly goods and the fruits of men's labor, respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property, the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good
22. The right of economic initiative, to make legitimate use of one's talents to contribute to the abundance to benefit all and to harvest the just fruits of his labor
23. The right to the honor and respect of one's name and reputation
24. The right to communication of the truth within the condition of fraternal love, the respect for privacy, the common good, avoidance of scandal, and strict discretion
25. The right of the private lives of all persons, including those engaged in political or public activity, to be respected
26. The right to information provided by the media to serve the common good, based on truth, freedom, justice, and solidarity, by communication that is true and complete within the limits set by justice and charity, communicated honestly and properly, upholding the moral law and the legitimate rights and dignity of man
Application of the Christian mandate to love one's neighbor in John 15:12 and the foregoing Items 2, 3, 4, 7, 16, 19, 23 and 25 argues strongly against hostility toward persons whose gender identification, physical characteristics or sexual orientation are different from one's own or those generally recognized. While it is certainly true that the Old Testament strongly condemns male homosexual activity, there is nothing in the Bible that condemns homosexual attraction or unconventional gender identification. The Bible equally condemns adultery between a husband and another's wife, but it does not imply that homosexual attraction automatically implies proscribed sexual activity any more than heterosexual attraction does. The position of the Catholic Church is that: "These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."
Basically, what this says is that chastity is chastity and virtue is virtue, whether your thing is men, or women, or goats!
It seems to me that those who would rush to judge persons whose sexual attraction or identity are different from their own rarely have such uncompromised vision themselves that they are entitled to cast stones at others. On the other hand, society has a right justly to criticize that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community. This includes the public display of media or behavior that it considers obscene, profane or indecent or offends generally accepted community standards. As a practical matter, offenders of public morals would probably do themselves and the public a positive service by more discretion.
The foregoing leads me to believe that sexual unconventionality is a spontaneous human condition which produces unique challenges. It is probably pathological, inasmuch as it inhibits reproduction, but so are other chronic disorders and infirmities to which many human beings are victim. With virtue, determination, respect and support of the communities of which they are a part, they have the opportunity, like the rest of us, to live happy, prosperous, rewarding, and holy lives.
I have additional comments about this subject here.
Catholic clergy of my acquaintance have repeatedly railed against what they call "same sex marriage." Curiously, they don't seem to have a problem with female clergy of other religions, against which the same objections apply. I find their arguments less than convincing.
According to the Catholic Church, the matrimonial union between a man and a woman is indissoluble, and by its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring. Therefore, whatever it is called, a union between two men or two woman, a subsequent union by a former spouse, and/or one that contemplates the possibility of dissolution by divorce, is not what the Catholic Church considers a "marriage." In effect, Catholic marriage is different from other kinds of contracts, even both are described by the same word. Indeed, civil marriages of Catholics who had recourse to civil divorce from a living spouse are referred to in the Catechism as "civil unions." They are not recognized as marriages by the Catholic church, a fact that Catholic clergy would do well to remember in the instruction of their congregations. These "other" marriages differ in no fundamental way from civil unions between persons of the same gender. Pope Francis has endorsed the availability of civil unions as a way for same sex couples to have a family, to which the rights in the foregoing Items 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 16, 19, 23 and 25 appear to pertain.
Nevertheless, civil law in the United States, which governs civil marriages, does not require lifetime commitment of the spouses, permits dissolution by civil divorce, and does not acknowledge any kind of sacramentality, or religious identity of the union. It continues, however, to use the term "marriage," the same word used by Catholics for their religious sacrament. In the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by the United States Constitution. No such right to a Catholic (or any other religious) marriage is implied.
Attempts to erase the distinction between such unions and what Catholics consider "marriages" by blessings or other religious recognition are probably best avoided as inappropriate and harmfully confusing. In Windsor v. United States, the United States Court of appeals for the Second Circuit put it this way: "But law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status--however fundamental... A state may enforce and dissolve a couple's marriage, but it cannot sanctify or bless it. For that, the pair must go next door."
As a widower, my relationship with marriage is essentially historic and currently academic. Other people have beliefs and practices, religious and otherwise, which do not appear to have the capability actually to harm me and seem good to them. As long as they respect mine, I feel that I have a Christian moral responsibility to respect theirs, whatever they happen to be, while retaining my own, in accordance with the Christian admonition to "love one another."
You can read my thoughts on marriage here.
One hears occasionally about conflicts between "sincerely held religious beliefs" and requirements of civil or criminal law. For the record, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This prohibition is extended to the states and their subdivisions by the Fourteenth Amendment. This appears to address the same rights as Items 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 15, 17, 23 and 25, above.
In spite of the argument often heard from litigants in a criiminal trial in which religious beliefs are alledged to play a part, when there a conflict between perceived religious and civic duties is alleged to exist, United States courts have generally been very careful to uphold the spirit of this provision. "The government is taking away our religious freedoms" is a bald faced lie! Such conflicts are often resolved by reinterpretation of the legal requirement to remove the religious objection. In the few instances where this is not possible, the onus falls on the objector to make what accommodations are necessary.
A problem frequently arises where an individual claims a religious exemption simply because he doesn't want to obey the law. Since the courts have a limited ability to determine what an individual belief, and the sincerity by which it is held, actually is, however, such cases are often difficult for the courts to resolve.
A famous example is that of Kim Davis, a former county clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, who gained international attention in August 2015 when she defied a U.S. federal court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in accordance with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Basically, the requirements of the job for which she purposely ran for office, aggressively campaigned, freely solicited support, was duly elected, and voluntarily accepted payment had changed. Rather than simply resign (or change her views), she defied a court order by not issuing any marriage licenses, a clear violation of the requirements of the function for which she campaigned and her society was paying her. She was jailed for contempt of court.
The guiding principle established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United_States, is that religious duty is not a defense to a criminal indictment. The First Amendment forbids Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against unlawful action, regardless of anyone's religious opinion on the matter. While United States law seeks to accommodate religious belief to the extent possible, an individual is himself responsible for what he believes and what he does about it. The "sincerely held religious belief" of the Catholic Church is that: "It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom... Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community."
In the final analysis, if an individual's religion requires him to violate the law, it may, in the worst case, require him to accept the consequences, however onerous, also. Such is life! My religion urges me to submit myself "to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake." I believe that it is "the will of God, that with well doing" I may "put to silence the ignorance of foolish men," not using my liberty "for a cloak of maliciousness, but as a servant of God, honoring all men."
(I Peter 2:13-17).
The Corona virus pandemic has produced public objections in the United States to widespread vaccination and other public health measures greatly unlike those associated with smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, hepatitis, influenza, pertussis, shingles and polio, against which progressive societies are commonly vaccinated. In some cases, these objections have been amplified by members of the clergy. They have led to public unrest, outrage and violence - on both sides. None of them, in my opinion, outweigh the reasons for implementing effective prophylactic measures, including vaccination, against this virulent and deadly disease. Nonetheless, such objections are so varied, widespread and profoundly held that argumentation with those who hold them is usually a waste of time.
Many of these objections are the result of misinformation from what should be reliable media. Such misinformation is a violation of the rights of everyone in society in accordance with Item 26. This is a very serious social offense, since people are dying as a result of it! To the extent that media agents are responsible for dissemination of incorrect or inaccurate information, or outright lies, they are responsible for the deaths directly resulting from them. Over 700,000 people In the United States have died from Covid-19 virus at the time of this writing. I consider such a tragedy in a country with the scientific and communication resources of the United States to be a national disgrace!
Living beings reproduce by a biological process that makes periodic copies of each cell. This process involves molecules containing instructions about how to do that within each one. Disease viruses replicate by infecting a living cell with instructions about how to make the virus, so the cells of the host (humans in the case of the pandemic) make viruses instead of themselves. This makes the host ill by redirecting the necessary replacement of aging cells with healthy new ones. These new viruses then propagate through breath and personal contact to other hosts, where they infect new host cells to begin the process over again. Once detected in the body, otherwise healthy hosts produce organisms called "antibodies" that begin to destroy the viruses produced. A sufficiently healthy host with a healthy immune system will eventually produce enough antibodies to destroy viruses faster than they can make him increasingly ill, and he will eventually recover. An insufficiently healthy host will eventually die from the effects of the virus. While this process is going on, the host is capable of infecting other people, and may himself die from the disease caused by the virus.
An infected host can be prevented from infecting others by isolating him (or her) until either he has sufficient antibodies in his system, or he expires from the effects of the virus and so does not breathe on or contact others. Vaccines "supercharge" his ability quickly to produce antibodies to destroy the viruses, making him much less likely to infect others. Since unvaccinated people are a risk to other unvaccinated people, public health measures such as vaccination, masking and social distancing protect vulnerable people, such as those with immature or compromised immune systems, from infection by hosts of active viruses.
The main purposes of such measures are twofold: to protect individuals from infecting, or being infected by, other individuals, and to protect the human species as a whole from the effects of transmission by infected members.
The purported right not to mask, limit physical contact or get vaccinated appears to be based at least in part on Items 2, 3, 15, 17, 25 and, where recommended measures are believed to be harmful, Item 13 as well. Basically, the argument seems to be that personal freedom implies that one has an intrinsic right to decide what he allows to be done with or to his own body. I happen to agree with that.
It is difficult (!) to argue rationally, however, that anyone has a right to infect anyone else with a fatal disease. Here, Items 2 and 3 imply a right of somebody else to believe that someone who is not vaccinated, masked, or far enough away is a mortal danger. Item 6 might be operative here, too, along with Item 13 since everybody has a right to health protection.
There are very few instances, if any, in which anyone is forced to wear a mask or get a vaccination, irrespective of politically motivated "spin" on the actual situation. The choice is virtually always to do that or to be refused entry to places; lose one's job; be suspended from school; be unable to travel, shop, party, visit one's friends, go to the gym, or stay alive! Life is full of choices. That's what freedom is all about. Item 15 maintains that this freedom extends to that of parents to determine what health requirements will be imposed on their children by the school. In order to exercise this freedom, however, they may have to establish and pay for a new school that conforms to their beliefs, or educate their children at home.
Item 11 admits that if one doesn't like the society in which he lives, he always has the right to move someplace else. It seems unjust for one to refuse easily achieved public health measures, however motivated, and then to consume valuable community health care resources when he becomes ill as a result. Whatever society's duty to provide health care services to its members, it does not seem reasonable to be required to extend those services to those who deliberately allow themselves to become ill. I agree with the views expressed by the Pope and North American cardinals in their "Unity Across the Americas | COVID-19 Vaccine Education" presentation, that getting vaccinated, as I have, is an expression of love for one's neighbor. On the other hand, I defend the right of anyone to refuse vaccination for anything for any reason as long he lives, and is willing to die, completely isolated and alone.
I have additional comments on the morality of vaccination versus abortion here.
The rights and violation of which regarding abortion are discussed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church starting with paragraph 2270. "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely
It should be noted that the first words of paragraph 2270 are "Human life." My Oxford Dictionary of the English Language defines "abortion" as "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy," alternately, "the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus by natural causes before it is able to survive independently." These definitions are often referred to by the terms "induced" or "procured" abortion and "spontaneous abortion" or "miscarriage," respectively. The unmodified word "abortion" generally refers to an induced abortion, by chemical or surgical means, the purpose of which is to remove the unborn child from the mother's uterus, while, or after, causing or allowing it to die. In spite of the opposing publicized opinions of many Catholics, including most clergy that I know, it is the "causing or allowing it to die" part to which the Catholic Church objects, not the "removing" part.
The term "survive independently" is also subject to interpretation. I don't know how old an individual human being needs to be to survive without the care of others, but it is obviously well beyond childhood! I am positive that I personally cannot "survive independently," and I'm over 80 years old! There are, of course, hardy individuals who can survive living alone in the wilderness, sometimes referred to as "mountain men" or "swamp dwellers," but I am not one of them, and neither is a small child. The best way to assure the survivability of an unborn child of a healthy mother is to leave it alone! Mom will automatically supply all it needs until it is ready to be born, because her body is designed by Almighty God to do that! After that, it will certainly need constant care and attention for years if it is to survive "outside the womb," as any successful parent knows quite well.
The Catholic Church teaches that: "Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being. Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual.... It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."
In addition, the Church maintains: "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival. It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material. Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity which are unique and unrepeatable."
So it is not necessarily the expulsion of the unborn child from the uterus, it is its killing or other maltreatment to which the Church objects. This is not "splitting hairs." The former is moral or immoral depending on its purpose and the care with which it is accomplished. The latter is objectively immoral. This is a fundamental distinction!
Failure to make this distinction doesn't make sense. Mississippi, Nebraska and West Virginia reportedly have made illegal the dilation of the uterus and removal of the unborn child. The exceptions to this provision do not appear to support removal of the fetus to perform necessary prenatal surgery or to save its life in the event that the mother is gravely sick or injured. How is letting an unborn child die because of the definition of word used for a medical procure "pro-life!"
The concept of morality is closely associated with that of religious belief. Views on abortion are often colored by religion. Item 3 appears to be the operative principle here. The mother, as the natural custodian of the unborn child, has the sole, absolute right to act in conscience and in freedom to make moral decisions regarding if, when, how, and under what circumstances to have it removed from her own body or not. This the essence of the Roe v. Wade decision. She has an absolute right not to be forced (by anyone) to act contrary to her own conscience or prevented from acting according to it, or to be oppressed, punished, or terrorized, either way.
If anyone's religion teaches that he is responsible for keeping the mother from committing a sin or crime by exercising this right according to her own conscience, his sole option in a free society is to convince her not to do that! In the case of terminating her pregnancy, that may require furnishing the proper incentives, including all those commonly otherwise provided by a loving and caring husband! Jesus said that his kingcom was for those who fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, gave the homeless shelter, clothed the naked, looked after the sick and visited those in prison. (Matthew 25:31-40) It seems to me that this applies especially to suffering pregnant mothers! His commandments on the subject are to love (Matthew 19:19, 22:29; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:28 and John 13:34, 15:12-17) and to preach the Gospel (Mark 16:15). That's it! Doing something otherwise to "prevent abortion," especially if it involves interfering with unalienable maternal rights or those of her child to be loved and raised as a wanted and cherished gift of God, is blatantly unChristian!
Jesus never demanded, "Lock Her Up!" That was Donald J. Trump, the notorious liar, adulterer and bully! On June 24th, 2022, three of his Court appointees, and two other Justices of the United States Supreme Court, ruled, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, returning to individual states the power to regulate any aspect of abortion not protected by federal statutory law. This decision repudiated a God-given right of choice and specifically gave the state, rather than the mother, the ad hoc authority to decide how, or even if, to care for herself and her unborn child. Contrary to some publically expressed opinions, it did not recognize or confer any rights upon the child. Several states subsequently passed draconian laws that punish, to varying degrees, those who procure or assist in providing abortions. Opposing legislation is now pending in many of them. Hospitals in these states are already turning away life-threatening emergency obstetric cases for fear of prosecution under these same laws.
Of course, people who have exercised their right to religious freedom voluntarily to subject themselves to the beliefs and sanctions of a body of religion choose thereby freely to accept its punishments. In the case of a Catholic procuring or assisting in the murder of an innocent human being, they are those associated with mortal sin. In the case of an unborn human, it is excommunication "by the very commission of the offense." This censure is legitimately imposed only by the Catholic Church, as represented by the sinner's bishop, not by a congregation of self-righteous teenagers, bigots or armed terrorists.
This does not in any way deny the principle that "God is the author of life, and only God should take it away." Regardless of the truth of falsehood of this statement, it is a religious belief espoused by some, rejected by others. Whoever this "God" is, if He is the author of human life, he is also the author of human rights as well. It is difficult to argue rationally that the mother's rights over the child are abrogated by politicians, philosophers, childless clergy, public opinion, acts of (mostly male) legislatures, or teenagers in MAGA hats traipsing around Washington DC and congregating on the steps of the US Supreme Court, shaking their fists and screaming, "Killing babies is WRONG!!"
Nevertheless, many admittedly well-meaning people consider themselves "pro-life," but consider "pro-choice" to be a less substantive God-given right. In spite of claims to the contrary however, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not mutually exclusive. The Catholic Church and I support them both, as proceeding from the same Author. As I see it, to interfere with either is mortally wrong!
I suspect that confusion about this matter is essentially a perversion of the natural function of men to care and provide for women immobilized by the natural function of childbearing. Who would be more likely to fall victim to misconstrue this basic inclination than a politically powerful group of childless professional bachelors, without natural helpmates to guide them away from the lunatic fringe, who believe themselves to have supernatural authority? Men have been abusing and exploiting women, even those they profess to love, for all of human history, so it must be a sin remarkably easy to rationalize.
That doesn't make it right!
So I submit that many, perhaps most, of the so-called "pro-lifers" are, in fact, not "pro-life" as much as they are "anti-maternal rights!" For example:
I maintain that the recognition of the humanity and right to life of the unborn is absolute. Every human child, regardless of age, ancestry, circumstances of conception or physical anomaly, is either human from the first moment of its existence or it isn't. The Catholic Church says it is. Period! Those of us who believe the teaching of the Church have a sacred duty to defend that life by prayer, and support of legislation that would make a mother's task easier. This includes free pre-K child care, after school care, aid to dependent children, prenatal health benefits, child tax credits and rational, convincing, sympathetic, respectful and loving arguments in favor of keeping and protecting her child.
Mixing church and state, especially in the United States, and especially if the purpose is to impose on others the beliefs of whatever political faction happens to be in power at the moment, is a bad idea! It didn't work for the Crusades, it didn't work for the Inquisition, it didn't work for the Holocaust, it didn't work for slavery, it didn't work for the "conversion" of Native American peoples, and it isn't working now.
Rational Catholics like me consider support of any law or practice that would consider any living unborn child as less than human, or support of any intrinsically evil act, however intended, is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and objectively immoral. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. This includes terrorizing pregnant mothers instead of loving them, helping them, supporting them, protecting them from physical, psychological, financial and social harm, and providing for their welfare, irregardless of what anyone believes to the contrary. I find it impossible to accept that anything else would more certainly guarantee the life, safety, health and welfare of their children.
I don't think Jesus would accept that, either.
Feel free to comment or see my discussion of: False Prophets, The Morality of Vaccination versus Abortion, The Personhood Amendment, An Alternative to Abortion and Frankenstein's Children
* and true and just freedom of information