Responding to Christa

A liberal commenter named Christa sent an me an email answering some questions I posed to liberals. (She tried the comment box, but it didn't all fit.) My first draft of answers for her was waaaaaaay too long for a blog post. I have tried to cut it down to a manageable size, and I have limited the topic to abortion. I will get to her other points (politics, homosexuality) in subsequent posts, God willing.

Christa, I am going to continue engaging you “simplistically,” not because I am “simple” or an “uneducated Republican” from Arizona (to quote some of your points), but because I often employ the Socratic Method of dialogue. The Socratic Method is named for Socrates. He was an ancient philosopher whose works (along with Plato and Aristotle) helped form the foundation of Western Civilization. Being that you are on the far left (which typically disdains Western Civilization), I don’t expect that you are familiar with Socrates or his Method.

But I do believe in simple truths which help us understand a complicated (and really messed-up) world. Now, to your points (I have put Christa's words in red):

       You repeatedly stressed your need for simplicity and clarity…and I will answer your questions in simplistic  terms and then elaborate.

Question #1

       'You began life as a single cell.' Do you agree with that statement?"

             No.

 Thank you for your direct and honest answer, Christa. The full question was posed like this, by the way: "When I was homeschooling my sixth-grade daughter a few years ago, her secular Harcourt science book began its chapter on human biology with the following sentence: 'You began life as a single cell.' Do you agree with that statement?"

      Elaboration

      Question #1

         God trusts women with their bodies and so do I. Abortion is a difficult, graphic and emotional topic. It is an intensely personal decision and I believe individual women, not big government, should make that decision.

I am confused by the first statement, “God trusts women with their bodies....” What does that mean? And where do you get that? Please elaborate. For example, if a woman wants to take a hacksaw and cut off her arm, is God pleased with her? Seriously, I don’t know what you mean. 

And, you said that you, too, trust a woman with her body. That’s nice, but wholly irrelevant to the question of when human life begins.

    The point at which “life” begins is a question that remains unanswered. 

Unanswered by whom? In fact, medical science answered that question long ago. Go to this website (scroll down) and see quotes from no less than nine secular teaching textbooks on human embryology/prenatal development, two National Geographic prenatal development videos, statements from medical doctors and professors from institutions such as Harvard, the Mayo Clinic, UPenn, etc. After you have researched, please respond: Unanswered by whom?

   The Catholic Church’s answer evolved significantly for a thousand years. 

You are confused on this issue. Unlike we moderns (who have recourse to the knowledge of embryology contained in the textbooks mentioned above), the ancient Church did not have the benefit of 21st Century biological science. What you are referring to here is the question of “ensoulment” of the unborn child, a question which was bandied about by theologians for a time, including St. Thomas Aquinas. 

Dissident Catholics (including Nancy Pelosi, who was publicly corrected by the bishops) have misrepresented the facts of history in an attempt to justify abortion. In reality, the issue of “ensoulment” (a metaphysical, not a scientific issue) is separate and apart from the question of whether or not abortion was ever permitted by the Church. It was not. Ever. As in, never. The Catholic Church has always and forever taught that abortion is intrinsically evil, regardless of the separate discussion of "ensoulment." 

     

      The scientific community cannot come to an agreement either. 

I have no idea where you are getting this (unless it’s from a Planned Parenthood pamphlet). See above, or consult an embryology textbook. If you can show me any peer-reviewed journal articles showing that the scientific community is confused on this issue of elementary biology, then show them. But I believe you are confusing two issues. You are confusing the biology (science) of when a new human life begins with the concept of “personhood." The latter question is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one. Christa, it is so important to make distinctions.

     

      I believe a “soul” or “spirit” emerges at some point during the gestation process, but I do not know the  timing. 

Okay, so now we are talking metaphysics, not science. You “believe” that some sort of “soul” “emerges” (from where?) at some point in the womb, but you don’t know when. So, you really don’t know anything at all about it. Your subjective belief has no weight. For example, I might believe that my cat can read, but believing won’t make it so. Can you give me something other than your opinion?

      I do, however, believe that the single cell of a recently fertilized egg is not a human being.

But again, you are giving me your subjective “belief.” By that standard, I can say, "I believe Christa is not a human being." That would be absurd, of course, because you and I both know that your value and dignity as a human being is inherent, and not based on my opinion of your humanity (or lack thereof). 

This is a matter of life or death we are discussing, so it’s of the utmost importance that you get it right. If, as you maintain, even scientists have no idea when life begins, then you can’t be sure either, right? Can you back up your belief in some way besides “feelings”? Give us your reasoning?

(This is just a silly aside, but do you realize that the logical conclusion of this belief is that "you," Christa, were never conceived?)

You must admit that you really don’t know for sure if life begins at conception. And if you don’t know, then shouldn’t you err on the side of life? 

I mean, if you were hunting in the woods (I doubt you hunt, but still...) and you weren’t sure if that creature behind the tree were a deer or a child, would you shoot? I am guessing you would never, ever shoot until you were 100% positive that it was not a child. Am I wrong?

***********************

But now we have to make the distinction between the science (does a new human being start at conception) and the metaphysical question of “personhood” (which is what I suspect you have been talking about all along). 

Traditionally, abortion activists tried to dehumanize the unborn by calling them “blobs of tissue” or “part of a woman’s body,” etc. But these days, the science is so obviously on the side of pro-lifers, (ultrasound has brought home the humanity of the unborn) that the abortion activists have started to reframe the debate. So, now it’s all a matter of “personhood”.... Yes, we may be killing, they say openly, but it’s okay because we are not killing a “person” since there is no “meaningful life” until {fill in the blank with something completely arbitrary}.

Pet Peeve Alert!! Did you ever notice that with any genocide, it’s always about one group (with more power) deciding that another group is not quite "human"? How come they never decide that they themselves are not human? It's always the other guy! Ha ha!

There should be no litmus test for who gets to belong to the human family. As the saying goes: Either we are all human, or none of us is. 

   I do not believe abortion is murder…and I suspect you don’t either.           

    If a 16 year-old high-school girl is kidnapped and raped by a serial rapist, gets pregnant and gets an abortion, should she get the death penalty? If not, why not? It was premeditated. According to your beliefs, it ended a “life.” Should the young girl get the lethal injection? Should the doctor? If you truly believed it was murder, you would not accept any exceptions and you would support the teenage girl’s execution.

  

    This is the problem with ‘simple’ minds that require ‘clarity’…life is often complicated. Regardless of your opinions on abortion, the issue has inherent ambiguity [see execution of rape victim…]

You suspect wrongly. Yes, I believe abortion is murder, and no, I wouldn't support the death penalty in your scenario, since I am against the death penalty in most cases. I believe you said you were Catholic? Read what the Catechism says about the death penalty. 

And, you must not be the least bit familiar with the pro-life movement. The pro-life community believes that there are two victims in an abortion: the child and the mother. I could elaborate on that for hours, but this post is already too long. 

If abortion were illegal, it would be the abortionists who were prosecuted. Even my “simple mind” knows that. No one has ever proposed otherwise.

The last thing I will respond to today is your closing statements:

     My reaction to this specific right-wing forum is unique. I see a group of “Catholic” women hiding behind  the cloak of “Christianity” expressing very un-Christian positions. 

Why did you put the word “Catholic” in quotes? Are we not Catholic? Seeing that we submit to the teachings of the Catholic Church, and that we defend and love her in every moment of our lives, how are we faux “Catholics”? Doesn't it make more sense that those who reject and mock the teachings of the Catholic Church should wear the quotes around the name?

What specific “positions” do we espouse that are “very un-Christian”? Please be specific.

      I think it is sad because you have intentionally insulated yourselves by seeking others who think like you.

Christa, I'm guessing your good friends are liberal.... Is that "sad" in your mind? Or, do you hang out with pro-life Catholic Republicans? I'm guessing not. Don't we all "seek out" people with whom we have things in common? It doesn't mean we don't have family, neighbors, co-workers and yes, friends, who think differently than we do. 

    “Bubble” is an appropriate description for this blog. To each their own…but I am grateful the Christianity to which I’ve always been exposed doesn’t require such a narrow, limited and restricted life.

I’m not sure what brand of “Christianity” you have been exposed to, but I thought you said you were Catholic? There is only one Catholicism. What Christianity are you talking about?

Christa, everyone is welcome in the “Bubble”... it’s infinitely expansive. Just like the truth and beauty of the Catholic Church. And just like the mercy of God. There is nothing restrictive about it; on the contrary, I have lived both in and out of the Church, and life in Christ is utter freedom compared to the slavery that is sin. 

I never pass up a chance to repost my favorite quotes from G.K. Chesterton (a convert from atheism):

"The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."

"[When the convert] has entered the Church, he finds that the Church is much larger inside than it is outside."

 God bless, Christa!

Oh, and PS:  Somebody became a Catholic yesterday!  You have really got to see this.....