Why We March National Catholic Reporter by Michael Sean Winters
My reaction:
In most jurisdictions, abortion was not considered manslaughter. It was considered the equivalent of killing a puppy.
Overturning Roe judicially would actually make things worse, at least in the way that Scalia would do it, by denying federal supremacy on the question. Now, the way Justice Clarence Thomas would do it, by not allowing the states latitude but instead declaring the humanity of the unborn, might not.
The experience of slavery showed how a multi-state solution to this problem will not work. Indeed, overturning Roe would simply have more people travel to other states for abortion than they do currently (or to other countries), while those who cannot afford to travel would seek back alley abortions again (as some do now). Also, overturning Roe in this way would also gut other federal precident on equal protection.
That would be worse.
The March for Life is destructive because it focuses on Roe, which though unjust to the unborn, was constitutional (because the Constitution is unjust to the unborn until the Congress uses its power to make it not so). As long as Roe is the focus, the movement remains locked in the pipe dream of its removal and will find itself in the swarmy embrace of the Federalist Society and its fringe theories about the rights of states.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Abortion policy's legal and moral realities | National Catholic Reporter
Abortion policy's legal and moral realities | National Catholic Reporter An NCR Interview with George Dennis O'Brien
My response:
I disagree with the authorn and Aquinas on ensoulment. The question of ensoulment centers on what a soul is. Materialistically, which is the only thing we can test out, it is the life force that begins deliberative development and holds off entropy, which occurs rather markedly at death and does not occur before gasrulation.
Prior to gastrulation, removing stem cells from the blastocyst won't result in any lasting damage to the child - indeed twinning could occur - either by nature or manufacture. Of late, Catholic theologians have been making the unfounded claim that at this time God adds a soul. Poppycock! During this time period before gastrulation, hybids with a non-human parent develop in exactly the same way as fully human blastocysts. Unless you infer that the non-human hybrid has a soul, you cannot infer that the human blastocyst does as well. Science has also shown that the maternal DNA controls developoment at this stage - that development based on both parents does not occur until gastrulation.
At gastrulation, something is different. Development comes from the genes of both parents and seems to have a different motivating force, which could be called a soul.
As to the question of the Bishops and abortion - if they have a position on outlawing abortion, it is incumbent upon them to produce legislation that deals with the issues of criminality, malpractice if the fetus dies and enforcement, including the onerous power to investigate miscarriages (without which your abortion law contains an exception planned parenthood could drive a truck through). Until the bishops man up and produce a bill, they cannot deny anyone Communion for opposing something that does not exist.
My response:
I disagree with the authorn and Aquinas on ensoulment. The question of ensoulment centers on what a soul is. Materialistically, which is the only thing we can test out, it is the life force that begins deliberative development and holds off entropy, which occurs rather markedly at death and does not occur before gasrulation.
Prior to gastrulation, removing stem cells from the blastocyst won't result in any lasting damage to the child - indeed twinning could occur - either by nature or manufacture. Of late, Catholic theologians have been making the unfounded claim that at this time God adds a soul. Poppycock! During this time period before gastrulation, hybids with a non-human parent develop in exactly the same way as fully human blastocysts. Unless you infer that the non-human hybrid has a soul, you cannot infer that the human blastocyst does as well. Science has also shown that the maternal DNA controls developoment at this stage - that development based on both parents does not occur until gastrulation.
At gastrulation, something is different. Development comes from the genes of both parents and seems to have a different motivating force, which could be called a soul.
As to the question of the Bishops and abortion - if they have a position on outlawing abortion, it is incumbent upon them to produce legislation that deals with the issues of criminality, malpractice if the fetus dies and enforcement, including the onerous power to investigate miscarriages (without which your abortion law contains an exception planned parenthood could drive a truck through). Until the bishops man up and produce a bill, they cannot deny anyone Communion for opposing something that does not exist.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Bp Tobin "Unimpressed" With Obama's Tucson Speech | National Catholic Reporter
Bp Tobin "Unimpressed" With Obama's Tucson Speech | National Catholic Reporter by Michael Sean Winters
As long as repealing Roe is the sin qua non of the pro-life movement, Bishop Tobin, A/B Dolan and Michael Sean Winters will be stuck in a rut. While Roe was tragic, it was not wrong.
Jurisdictionally, the ruling is correct - whether a fetus is a person or not cannot be an issue decided by the States (and should not be - doing so would tear the nation apart much as the question of slavery did). The 14th Amendment makes this a federal question. The unambiguous language of the amendment also makes birth the absolute marker for recognition - however Congress can adjust it under its enforcement powers under the amendment and its rights as THE sovereign legislature.
Focusing on Roe is also irresponsible, meaning it relieves the pro-life movement and its leaders in the hierarchy from dealing with the quandry of HOW to extend rights to the unborn. It is not up to Obama,or even to Catholic legislators to come up with this solution - it is up to the partisans to do so.
The onus of change is clearly on the movement. Until it has a proposal, neither Obama nor Biden need do the movement's work for them. We can, however, point out the obstacles the movement must overcome to put forward legislation:
- dealing with making sure that natural miscarriages don't produce malpractice suits because a legal person dies without at the same time violating the equal protection rights of these legal persons
- deciding how criminal responsibility is meted out in killing a legal person without violating the equal protection rights of doctors by exempting mothers
- deciding how much power to give the state in investigating the deaths of legal persons - or how to avoid investigators borrowing families who have had miscarriages without leaving a hole in the law so big that the law is unenforceable.
It is not up to pro-choice Catholic politicians to resolve these quandries for you and until you propose a bill that deals with them (essentially by ignoring first trimester pregnancies), it is irresponsible to say that Abortion is the number one issue on which politicians are to be judged. In fact, without some draft legislation that addresses the issues I raise responsibly, ABORTION IS NOT A PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE AT ALL.
As long as repealing Roe is the sin qua non of the pro-life movement, Bishop Tobin, A/B Dolan and Michael Sean Winters will be stuck in a rut. While Roe was tragic, it was not wrong.
Jurisdictionally, the ruling is correct - whether a fetus is a person or not cannot be an issue decided by the States (and should not be - doing so would tear the nation apart much as the question of slavery did). The 14th Amendment makes this a federal question. The unambiguous language of the amendment also makes birth the absolute marker for recognition - however Congress can adjust it under its enforcement powers under the amendment and its rights as THE sovereign legislature.
Focusing on Roe is also irresponsible, meaning it relieves the pro-life movement and its leaders in the hierarchy from dealing with the quandry of HOW to extend rights to the unborn. It is not up to Obama,or even to Catholic legislators to come up with this solution - it is up to the partisans to do so.
The onus of change is clearly on the movement. Until it has a proposal, neither Obama nor Biden need do the movement's work for them. We can, however, point out the obstacles the movement must overcome to put forward legislation:
- dealing with making sure that natural miscarriages don't produce malpractice suits because a legal person dies without at the same time violating the equal protection rights of these legal persons
- deciding how criminal responsibility is meted out in killing a legal person without violating the equal protection rights of doctors by exempting mothers
- deciding how much power to give the state in investigating the deaths of legal persons - or how to avoid investigators borrowing families who have had miscarriages without leaving a hole in the law so big that the law is unenforceable.
It is not up to pro-choice Catholic politicians to resolve these quandries for you and until you propose a bill that deals with them (essentially by ignoring first trimester pregnancies), it is irresponsible to say that Abortion is the number one issue on which politicians are to be judged. In fact, without some draft legislation that addresses the issues I raise responsibly, ABORTION IS NOT A PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE AT ALL.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Much-praised pastor becomes a bishop | National Catholic Reporter
Much-praised pastor becomes a bishop | National Catholic Reporter
On the Communion issue, the bishops have not coherently said HOW abortion should be banned. Until that happens, there is no policy for Catholic politicians to adhere to.
I like what he is doing with Administrators - however this role should be given the office of Deacon or Deaconness, without any kind of promise of celibacy or duty of continence. I suspect he knows this but is taking small steps.
On the Communion issue, the bishops have not coherently said HOW abortion should be banned. Until that happens, there is no policy for Catholic politicians to adhere to.
I like what he is doing with Administrators - however this role should be given the office of Deacon or Deaconness, without any kind of promise of celibacy or duty of continence. I suspect he knows this but is taking small steps.
Phoenix bishop's response to hospital ignites questions of authority, identity | National Catholic Reporter
Phoenix bishop's response to hospital ignites questions of authority, identity | National Catholic Reporter
The bottom line really is that its not his hospital. Perhaps the bishops should get out of the business of judging the bioethics of hospitals that they do not own, since the seem to own most everything else in the diocese under the conventions of Canon Law. Their moral voice would be stronger without the perception that they are attempting to exercise ownership where they have none. Indeed, it would really be strengthened if they turned over all administration and property rights to more modern non-profit corporate structures and became official paupers - like the sisters who do actually own the hospitals.
On the bioethics question, perhaps the locus of study should be with Catholic Health Association and its owning Orders rather than the Bishops. While the Bishops should surely discuss and advise CHA, they should not try to micromanage within someone else's structure, either individually or as a group. CHA does its own work on Catholic identity. They don't need the USCCB for that function.
Catholic Higher Education institutes should also be the locus of the Church's response to bioethics in research, both in their institutions and in society at large. The bishops have enough to deal with on the ethical side without messing up someone else's sandbox.
The bottom line really is that its not his hospital. Perhaps the bishops should get out of the business of judging the bioethics of hospitals that they do not own, since the seem to own most everything else in the diocese under the conventions of Canon Law. Their moral voice would be stronger without the perception that they are attempting to exercise ownership where they have none. Indeed, it would really be strengthened if they turned over all administration and property rights to more modern non-profit corporate structures and became official paupers - like the sisters who do actually own the hospitals.
On the bioethics question, perhaps the locus of study should be with Catholic Health Association and its owning Orders rather than the Bishops. While the Bishops should surely discuss and advise CHA, they should not try to micromanage within someone else's structure, either individually or as a group. CHA does its own work on Catholic identity. They don't need the USCCB for that function.
Catholic Higher Education institutes should also be the locus of the Church's response to bioethics in research, both in their institutions and in society at large. The bishops have enough to deal with on the ethical side without messing up someone else's sandbox.
Obama's Problem | National Catholic Reporter
Obama's Problem | National Catholic Reporter by Michael Sean Winters
My comments:
Many who oppose Obama on health care want a more generous benefit. About a third of the opposition to his approach is liberal. If you simply poll pro-reform of some kind vs. the prior status quo, the numbers are much higher than 43%.
Many don't approve of his handling of the economy because they see too many people in trouble - and they are right to feel that way. Some of his economic advisors, luckily of the former variety, discouraged more radical action and the result is obvious. If a bigger stimulus and more direct aid for underwater home borrowers had been insisted upon and obtained, the economy likely would be in better shape now.
As to the speech, oddly enough every wonk in town, as well as every cause, wants their issue included. Statehood advocates want their mention. Aging issue wonks want demographic issues to be highlighted for both health and Social Security.
He can't listen to everyone. Hopefuly his new chief of staff will get him to listen to the right people. I am sure it will be a good speech - as it is the last hurrah of Robert Gibbs and the opening salvo in the 2012 election. This will set the tone. If he muffs it, he may get primaried. I don't think he'll muff it.
My comments:
Many who oppose Obama on health care want a more generous benefit. About a third of the opposition to his approach is liberal. If you simply poll pro-reform of some kind vs. the prior status quo, the numbers are much higher than 43%.
Many don't approve of his handling of the economy because they see too many people in trouble - and they are right to feel that way. Some of his economic advisors, luckily of the former variety, discouraged more radical action and the result is obvious. If a bigger stimulus and more direct aid for underwater home borrowers had been insisted upon and obtained, the economy likely would be in better shape now.
As to the speech, oddly enough every wonk in town, as well as every cause, wants their issue included. Statehood advocates want their mention. Aging issue wonks want demographic issues to be highlighted for both health and Social Security.
He can't listen to everyone. Hopefuly his new chief of staff will get him to listen to the right people. I am sure it will be a good speech - as it is the last hurrah of Robert Gibbs and the opening salvo in the 2012 election. This will set the tone. If he muffs it, he may get primaried. I don't think he'll muff it.
Canonist Says Deacons Must Refrain From Sex | National Catholic Reporter
Canonist Says Deacons Must Refrain From Sex | National Catholic Reporter by Michael Sean Winters
Frankly, I hope this sparks a debate about the Canons on continence and how these just might be based in misogyny from the classical era. Indeed, re-examining the Canons should cause a rethinking of priestly celibacy, female ordination and the entire body of teaching on sexuality, since one obviously affects the other.
Frankly, I hope this sparks a debate about the Canons on continence and how these just might be based in misogyny from the classical era. Indeed, re-examining the Canons should cause a rethinking of priestly celibacy, female ordination and the entire body of teaching on sexuality, since one obviously affects the other.
Catholic and Orthodox Unity: Close Enough to Imagine | National Catholic Reporter
Catholic and Orthodox Unity: Close Enough to Imagine | National Catholic Reporter by Fr. Thomas Ryan
My comments:
The claim of Rome to be first among bishops may be scuttled if the current Pope is identified as urging the Church in Irelad to cover up sexual abuse. If this crisis goes on much longer, Rome will be too damaged to lead anything - and rightly so.
At some point, recognizing the equality of the Church of England is essential as well to this - indeed, it may be more productive for the Orthodox to have separate talks with Canterbury rather than including Rome in the loop - while letting the African Anglicans (and African anglophone Catholics) pusue unity with Alexandria.
If a more orthodox approach is indicated as far as government, than this new set of agreements is but a short step away from a single North American, or even northern anglophone Patriarch for the Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox Churchs, with England, Scotland and Ireland joining with Canada and the United States to form a single Church - allowing the Orthodox of South America and the Catholics of spanish South American to form a single Church, with or without Spain, and leaving Brazil and Portugal to their own Patriarch. Quebec, Haiti and France could also unite under one Patriarch. This bridges the gap between having national churches and a universal church. Linguistic divisions seem to be the best organizational modality, at least to me.
My comments:
The claim of Rome to be first among bishops may be scuttled if the current Pope is identified as urging the Church in Irelad to cover up sexual abuse. If this crisis goes on much longer, Rome will be too damaged to lead anything - and rightly so.
At some point, recognizing the equality of the Church of England is essential as well to this - indeed, it may be more productive for the Orthodox to have separate talks with Canterbury rather than including Rome in the loop - while letting the African Anglicans (and African anglophone Catholics) pusue unity with Alexandria.
If a more orthodox approach is indicated as far as government, than this new set of agreements is but a short step away from a single North American, or even northern anglophone Patriarch for the Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox Churchs, with England, Scotland and Ireland joining with Canada and the United States to form a single Church - allowing the Orthodox of South America and the Catholics of spanish South American to form a single Church, with or without Spain, and leaving Brazil and Portugal to their own Patriarch. Quebec, Haiti and France could also unite under one Patriarch. This bridges the gap between having national churches and a universal church. Linguistic divisions seem to be the best organizational modality, at least to me.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Aging Index: A Wake-Up Call for Policymakers - TheFiscalTimes.com
Aging Index: A Wake-Up Call for Policymakers - TheFiscalTimes.com by Michael Hodin
The answer is more kids and possibly higher taxes, rather than lower benefits. That expands GDP in the long term, so that in concert with more technical productivity, makes longer retirement - and indeed - younger retirement - more affordable.
Another piece of the long term sustainability puzzle is the development of self-sustaining environments with food production facilities. If people could grow much of their own food hydproponically, they could spend down their savings less quickly (and receive lower pensions where those still exist) - keeping active in retirement without taking a job away from younger workers. Indeed, as retirees age, they might even provide shelter and a job to younger workers so that they can assit them in growing their food while learning how to run a hydroponic house. This would be the perfect part time job for a young family or couple to take while still in training for a primary career.
The answer is more kids and possibly higher taxes, rather than lower benefits. That expands GDP in the long term, so that in concert with more technical productivity, makes longer retirement - and indeed - younger retirement - more affordable.
Another piece of the long term sustainability puzzle is the development of self-sustaining environments with food production facilities. If people could grow much of their own food hydproponically, they could spend down their savings less quickly (and receive lower pensions where those still exist) - keeping active in retirement without taking a job away from younger workers. Indeed, as retirees age, they might even provide shelter and a job to younger workers so that they can assit them in growing their food while learning how to run a hydroponic house. This would be the perfect part time job for a young family or couple to take while still in training for a primary career.
Monday, January 10, 2011
What Tucson Doesn't Mean | National Catholic Reporter
What Tucson Doesn't Mean National Catholic Reporter by Michael Sean Winters.
There is definitely reason to politicize this tragedy, but not regarding the political discourse. Instead, this should open the conversation about how poorly we fund services to the mentally ill (giving them Medicaid does not help if doctors won't take it) and how hard it is to confine them when they refuse treatment or relapse within it.
This guy should not only not have had a gun, he should not have been walking around at-large. His college should have not only been able to insist he go, but alert the authorities so that he was both evaluated and treated.
How the mentally ill are treated in the criminal justice system should be changed. Obviously deranged killers (through either addiction, alcoholism or mental illness) should be able to plead Guilty By Reason of Insanity and be confined to at least the minimum treatment for the crime committed or until safe, whichever comes last. In the present example, the period would be for six counts of voluntary manslaughter with some leeway as to whether they should be consecutive or concurrent.
There is definitely reason to politicize this tragedy, but not regarding the political discourse. Instead, this should open the conversation about how poorly we fund services to the mentally ill (giving them Medicaid does not help if doctors won't take it) and how hard it is to confine them when they refuse treatment or relapse within it.
This guy should not only not have had a gun, he should not have been walking around at-large. His college should have not only been able to insist he go, but alert the authorities so that he was both evaluated and treated.
How the mentally ill are treated in the criminal justice system should be changed. Obviously deranged killers (through either addiction, alcoholism or mental illness) should be able to plead Guilty By Reason of Insanity and be confined to at least the minimum treatment for the crime committed or until safe, whichever comes last. In the present example, the period would be for six counts of voluntary manslaughter with some leeway as to whether they should be consecutive or concurrent.
Dolan, Abortion & NOW | National Catholic Reporter
Dolan, Abortion & NOW National Catholic Reporter by Michael Sean Winter
It is good A/B Dolan is taking this step - but he needs to take one step farther and give free tuition to any teenage couple in a family way at both the high school and college level and make sure their living and day care expenses are met as well.
He should also pay families in his employ a living wage, meaning that if someone has a child, they get a $1000 per month raise to cover expenses (if not more, given housing prices in NYC). He should also lobby for tax policy so that the state and the fed each kick in $500 per month per child.
As for Roe being unjust - yes and no. It was surely unfortunate, but under the constitutional rules for who has protection and how they should get it, the ruling was absolutely just. Who is a person is a matter of federal jurisdiction, not state and until someone is a person, their interests are not to be considered in public policy (that's privacy). A constitutional amendment is not needed to do this, however caution is.
One cannot begin life at conception - or even gastrulation - and not consider what would happen to society if each person were given equal access to justice after that point (meaning that abortion would not be punished as a medical misdomeanor but as a felony with all concerned - including mothers - subject to punishment and that all failed pregnancies would be subject to some type of investigation - including natural miscarriage - as well as tort action - thereby denying care for anyone who has a pregnancy until the danger of miscarriage is passed (at the behest of insurers). An adult policy would take the paranthetical issues into consideration. It is not up to pro-choice Catholic politicians to come up with work-arounds and until the pro-life side does, pro-choice pols get a free ride.
As for NOW, they are pretty much pro-abortion - however, unless they had a draft of his speech, they protested because they expected the worst. It would take both the economic measures I mentioned previously, the ordination of women and a rethinking of how crisis pregnancies are dealt with - like in Phoenix and Brazil where the child has no chance of living and therefore no right to life - for them to stop their opposition to Church policy.
It is good A/B Dolan is taking this step - but he needs to take one step farther and give free tuition to any teenage couple in a family way at both the high school and college level and make sure their living and day care expenses are met as well.
He should also pay families in his employ a living wage, meaning that if someone has a child, they get a $1000 per month raise to cover expenses (if not more, given housing prices in NYC). He should also lobby for tax policy so that the state and the fed each kick in $500 per month per child.
As for Roe being unjust - yes and no. It was surely unfortunate, but under the constitutional rules for who has protection and how they should get it, the ruling was absolutely just. Who is a person is a matter of federal jurisdiction, not state and until someone is a person, their interests are not to be considered in public policy (that's privacy). A constitutional amendment is not needed to do this, however caution is.
One cannot begin life at conception - or even gastrulation - and not consider what would happen to society if each person were given equal access to justice after that point (meaning that abortion would not be punished as a medical misdomeanor but as a felony with all concerned - including mothers - subject to punishment and that all failed pregnancies would be subject to some type of investigation - including natural miscarriage - as well as tort action - thereby denying care for anyone who has a pregnancy until the danger of miscarriage is passed (at the behest of insurers). An adult policy would take the paranthetical issues into consideration. It is not up to pro-choice Catholic politicians to come up with work-arounds and until the pro-life side does, pro-choice pols get a free ride.
As for NOW, they are pretty much pro-abortion - however, unless they had a draft of his speech, they protested because they expected the worst. It would take both the economic measures I mentioned previously, the ordination of women and a rethinking of how crisis pregnancies are dealt with - like in Phoenix and Brazil where the child has no chance of living and therefore no right to life - for them to stop their opposition to Church policy.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
St. Joseph’s Hospital: A phoenix in the desert | National Catholic Reporter
St. Joseph’s Hospital: A phoenix in the desert | National Catholic Reporter
While the Bishop directed that the Eucharist be removed, a little reporting is warranted as to whether this has, in fact, occurred. I would hope that it is being reserved somewhere clandestinely in the same way that the archbishop who confirmed me, Nick Elko, would sneak the Eucharist through Kremlin Square when he was the Catholic Archbishop of Moscow or when he said Mass in the Gulag - and yes, I am equating Olmsted with Stalin.
While the Bishop directed that the Eucharist be removed, a little reporting is warranted as to whether this has, in fact, occurred. I would hope that it is being reserved somewhere clandestinely in the same way that the archbishop who confirmed me, Nick Elko, would sneak the Eucharist through Kremlin Square when he was the Catholic Archbishop of Moscow or when he said Mass in the Gulag - and yes, I am equating Olmsted with Stalin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)