Pages Menu
RssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jun 2, 2009

Late Term Abortion: A Mother’s Story

Late Term Abortion: A Mother’s Story

parents

Robin Young of National Public Radio’s “Here and Now” interviewed one of the patients of murdered late-term abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller.

“We speak with a former patient of late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, the Wichita, Kansas doctor who was murdered on Sunday. She explains why the procedure was so necessary for her.”

Abortions past the 20 week “age of viability” are difficult to justify by pro-choice advocates. How could the loss of one of the three physicians who performs these procedures, which are less than 1% of abortions, represent any moral or clinical loss? The implications for the physical and mental health of families becomes evident in this interview. The values presented in this story are about the desire and wonder of having children, the anguish of carrying a doomed child, the inability of doctors to present the couple with any real alternatives.

An earlier ban on late term or “partial birth” abortions provides an exception for the health of the mother. Aren’t these just cavalier acts of barbarism by selfish women?

What would you do with a child that you wanted very much but who would not survive birth? What would be the most loving and caring thing to do? This is a very compelling story that should give us pause when we want to throw the first stone.

My Late-Term Abortion
President Bush’s attempt to ban partial-birth abortions threatens all late-term procedures. But in my case, everyone said it was the right thing to do — even my Catholic father and Republican father-in-law.
This article provides another instructive example from 2004 published in the Boston Globe.

In this second case, the situation seems to be less clear cut since the birth of this child would have meant a short and very unacceptable quality of life for the child as judged by the parents.

In both cases there were voices which opposed the choices made by the parents. Reviewing both cases is useful in terms of gaining a more nuanced perspective on the ethical and moral issues involved and the struggles of these couples.

Read More

Posted by on May 18, 2009

We Are the Only Christians: Choice, Democracy, and Obama at Notre Dame

America Magazine, published by the Jesuits, has an interesting editorial on the controversy about pro-choice President Obama speaking at Notre Dame University’s commencement yesterday and receiving an honorary degree.

Another Catholic publication ( in the hands of lay people – no less) Commonweal has a more focused pro-Obama position in a post on its blog dotCommonweal.com by Paul Moses.

The issue according to these statements is the relationship of the Church as an organization, the faithful as a social movement, and the Government.

America’s editorial quotes St. Augustine in his criticism of the Donatists in his native North Africa and their refusal to have anything to do with the Imperial government. Donatism had other positions as well such as their rejection of Christians who had defected under persecution. “They believed that the church should be a community of saints not sinners.”

Even in the 4th century and earlier the politics of church and state caused a lot of controversy. Today at Notre Dame, President Obama like all of his predecessors holds some positions that do not agree with official Church teaching. George W. Bush invaded Iraq contrary to Pope John Paul II’s opposition to the policy of pre-emptive war.

The American bishops have championed a “seamless garment” pro-life agenda that opposes abortion and capital punishment. The bishops also advocate one primary solution which is legislation to once again make abortion illegal. The split in the Catholic community is over tactics. Many do not feel that re-criminalizing abortion will actually solve anything since it will only drive the practice underground.

In the 20th century there has been an attempt by Christians – in particular Catholics in the pews – to accommodate to a secular ethic of government. (Divorce, homosexuality, and birth control are now sanctioned by secular government even though these practices are contrary to traditional Christian teaching.) The broader issue is how does one advance a Christian agenda for social relations while supporting the secular ethic of not forcing one’s belief on another. In the abortion issue there is also the question over the best tactics for discouraging this and other activities that are not pro-life.

President Obama’s talk yesterday at Notre Dame proposes a pragmatic solution of providing incentives and support services for mothers to choose to deliver their unborn children. This seems to be the most effective approach to build a national policy of compassion and support for families and children. If our goal is to significantly reduce abortions this is probably a better tactic to implement such a Christian and humanitarian vision.

Read More

Posted by on Apr 3, 2009

Obama at Notre Dame: Why the Catholic Right is Wrong

Obama at Notre Dame: Why the Catholic Right is Wrong

notre-dame-indiana-dome1

The Cardinal Newman Society has launched a petition drive objecting to President Barack Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame University’s commencement this year. Here is another approach to the issue.

George B. York III sent this letter to the National Catholic Reporter. It is presented here by permission of the author.

God and Man at Notre Dame

Notre Dame’s President, Fr. Jenkins, has extended
an invitation to President Obama to speak on
campus; the President has accepted. Some object,
asking, How could the President of Notre Dame
compromise with abortion? Closely observing
Jesus’ behavior in the Gospel of Luke, (7:40 and
following), I find Fr.Jenkins’ position consistent
with Jesus’ behavior, and in no way a compromise
with abortion.

In the story of Jesus’ evening in Simon’s
house an outsider, a woman, washes Jesus’ feet
with her tears and dries them with her hair. Simon
thinks, `Doesn’t he know what kind of woman she
is?’ Knowing what Simon is thinking, Jesus
surprises him by simply pointing to ways in which
Simon did not welcome Jesus; in so doing, Jesus
invites Simon to convert from hypocrisy to a
different way of judging and acting toward fellow
humans. While Jesus is uncompromising toward
misdeeds or sin, isn’t he also uncompromising when
it comes to accepting others, friend and foe alike, in
this case, welcoming the woman and challenging
but not rejecting Simon? Are humans defined only
by their real or supposed misdeeds?

About the strategy of some of his brother
bishops to `make war’ on abortion, South Dakota
Catholic Bishop Cupich told them: `…a prophecy of
denunciation quickly wears thin …what we need is a
prophecy of solidarity, with the community we
serve and the nation that we live in’. (quoted in
Commonweal Editorial, 5/12/08).

The way of implementing a prophecy of
solidarity is indicated by American Jesuit
Cardinal Avery Dulles. In commenting on
envisioning unity among Christians; he says, `The
first condition . . . is that the various Christian
communities be ready to speak and listen to one
another. . . . The process of growth through mutual
attestation will probably never reach its final
consummation within historical time, but it can
bring palpable results. . . . The result to be sought is
unity in diversity.’ (First Things, ’07)

Those are not just a Christian condition and
result; they are fully human. Does experience not
validate a claim that the better way between
different, opposed individuals and groups is one
leading to “unity in diversity”? Are exclusion and
isolation anything but impotent and sterile? Aren’t
Simon and the woman drawn within a more human
process? As a result don’t they depart from their
evening with their ability to hear reason and with
their freedom intact? In fact, is it not credible that
both Simon and the woman are invited, if not
actually drawn, closer not only to Jesus but also to
one another? Finally, to return to Bishop Cupich’s
solidarity, doesn’t `E pluribus unum’ mean unity in
diversity — union, not in sameness, but in
difference?

Such solidarity is impossible when one’s
starting point is that expressed in Simon’s initial
attitude: “Doesn’t Jesus know what kind of woman
she is?” Therefore, I have to wonder, Is it truly
Christian or even human to start, as some seem to
start, with a question like: “Doesn’t Fr. Jenkins
knowwhat kind of man Obama is?”

Isn’t the call to every Christian to put on the
mind of Jesus who Christians believe emptied
himself of power and the ways of power and drew
others neither by compromise with sin nor by
isolating rejection or coercion? To the extent a so-
called `prophecy of denunciation’ expresses a spirit
like that of the Pharisees (Simon’s initial attitude),
isn’t it a betrayal of the mind of Jesus? ? Isn’t such
prophecy animated by a spirit aiming at institutional
control, expressing a desire to force conformity in
the name of real or supposed truth? In the case of
NotreDame, doesn’t it express an ill-advised wish to
forceFr. Jenkins to dis-invite a supposedly unclean
Obama?

To the extent your answer is `Yes’, you see
why I say that Fr. Jenkin’s invitation to Obama
could be called a compromise with abortion only if
Jesus’ firm but friendly challenge to Simon could be
called a compromise with hypocrisy.

George B. York, lives in Denver. His
publication, `Michel de Certeau or Union in
Difference’ (2009, ISBN 978 0 85244 684 3),
concerns Faith in the understanding of a celebrated
French Jesuit historian.

Read More