Before we discuss the details of abortion, we must address point of view - that is, what is the purpose of discussing abortion? The bishops would maintain that the purpose of discussion is conversion to their view. Are they open to information at all, let alone discussion. More to the point, has their view been compromised by electoral politics? If it has, there is no point in discussion within the Church. There is only condemnation on both sides.
Within the Church, the question is whether the pro-life Magisterium is short-circuited by the political and economic Magisteria of the Church. The social gospel is clear - the way to fight abortion is economic as well as political. Further, the obligation of Catholic politicians is not to back up the Church's position. The Cuomo Doctrine is supported by Dignitatis Humanae, whether this was intented by the Vatican II Fathers or not.
That there were no Mothers involved in doctrinal development brings in the question of sexism in the Church - whether women are ordained and whether the sexual teachings of the Church are defensible at all. The foundational belief in sacred continence colors all other discussion, although calling it sacred seems to short-circuit the discussion. Can the Church survive if this discussion cannot be broached? What kind of Church is left if it does?
Would the Church be open to natural law discussion on late-term abortion? Would it consider whether any right to life is dependent on whether the child has any hope of survival or is destined to be still-born. Is a woman obligated to put the interest of a doomed child above those of her health? Even having the discussion has political risk, and by politics I mean within the clergy. Disputing doctrine has consequences for clergy, theologians and Catholic hospitals.
Then there is the question of timing. What Catholic politicians say in the primaries is different than what they say (or side-step) in the general election. It seems that the time for discussion is after one has taken office. The question remains, is discussion possible or is the question conversion v. explanation of the science and law. Must Catholic politicians even have a position on the moral law on abortion? Do they have any special qualification? Do they have an obligation to explain themselves at all? I would hope that they do, but after the election and that doing so should have no impact on their ability to receive Communion, which is a whole other foundational discussion.
Discussions of whether an embryo or a fetus (a little person) can have legal protection is the American constitutional scheme can occur, but there are realities that, once explained, lead to only one answer. There is no question on who decides. It cannot be the states. Doing so brings resurrects the ghost of Plessy v. Ferguson. That simply cannot be allowed. The question for Congress is also clear. Can it come to a pro-life conclusion in the first trimester, literally, can it get the votes and are Catholic politicians bound to vote a certain way? Must they follow their oaths or the dictates of faith?
Equal protection cuts both ways. If children have equal protection rights in the first trimester, what does equal protection mean in securing those rights? Equal protection is a double edged sword. Certain things must happen if the child is seen as a sink of rights, both in terms of who is punished and who is investigated. You cannot finesse the question. If abortion is murder, than women must be punished and miscarriages investigated. Legal reasoning is the only reasoning that matters in such a debate and the answer is clear. It's no. Logically it must be in a constitutional republic.
The economic question is whether social democracy is socialism? It isn't by the way and the prior is both doctrinal and it already exists in the child tax credit - so the question is adequacy and how to get there. The approach taken by Senator Harris, who is not Catholic, is by far the most generous. On Eugenics issue, simply invoking the term seems to come up with the answer. Again, the Court has decided, unanimously and the answer is no, at least for now (Box v. Planned Parenthood). The question of the rights of a doomed child seems clear cut morally. The doctrine is wrong.
As for Down's Children, we can be creative in discouraging abortion - but doing so is an expensive proposition involving respite care, adequate disability compensation and whether it is good for such children to work and what support are they owed? For conservative Catholic politicians and voters, is the answer obligatory or a matter of prudential judgment? Are they protected by Dignitats as well?
Then there is birth control. It is as, if not more, effective in preventing abortion. Scientifically, it is not murderous, because one is not an organism until one has organs, post gastrulation. Again, the Church is wrong. Will it allow discussion? St. John Paul did not think so, or at least his cardiologist seemed absolutely convinced of the medical ethics, although it was not the traditional Catholic position.
For the election and discussion, the question is whether the issue is troll bait, or even a product of electoral interference. Should the pro-life movement be drawn into a debate that may be instigated by the Internet Research Agency or is doing so cooperation with evil? I would contend that the answer is that participation is cooperation with evil. That must be discussed and discussed now, especially in regard to a president who is compromised in a way that can be considered disloyal and who is not fit to exercise the office to which is elected. Cy Vance has an opinion on that and it should be controlling. Book him, Danno.
No comments:
Post a Comment