The three types of men who support abortion

The other day I read perhaps the best article on abortion that I've ever read, and I started looking through the combox. There was one man, John, who seemed to be making the bulk of the pro-"choice" arguments, and so, like many others there, I engaged him.

He and I went back and forth a bit, but a red flag came up for me when the answers to very simple questions were met with multiple long and (seemingly) lofty philosophical treatises, metaphysics trumping science (the old "personhood" question), a limited understanding of history, and analogies that didn't make logical connections and/or proper distinctions. I tried to pull him back to basics, attempting a pseudo-socratic dialogue, but his words and paragraphs -- and justifications -- kept multiplying.

John insisted that his arguments for the killing of the unborn are based on "nuanced" considerations about which he has given much thought. And don't get me wrong, I am sure that he has indeed given a lot of thought to how he and society can justify abortion.

But as his academic theories, word play, and relativism reached higher and higher into the ethers, I came back with this:

Don't whitewash what you believe. Own it. Don't multiply words to justify it. Own it. You believe that an entire class of human beings may be killed at will by the stronger and more powerful. There is hardly a more fitting description of oppression. When the strong kill the weak, and champion it, it is most dishonorable. As a woman, it's the most disturbing thing in the world to find men such as yourself, who instead of protecting and providing, join the cads and the players who love nothing more than to help women get rid of their "mistakes." 

I hope you will be an honorable man one day and protect the weak, not champion their killing. We have a crisis of manhood in America, and a strong, honorable, decent man is hard to find these days. Step up to your role, John.

His response was to quickly wave away my challenge ("One person's strong, honorable, and decent man is another's trash," he said, whatever that means), and return to the ethers of philosophy and why he has decided that some humans are less human than others.

Which brings me to my thoughts today. What follows is pretty much a stream-of-consciousness in which I attempt my own amateur (!) psychoanalysis of men who support abortion.

As I see it, there are three general types of male abortion supporters.


1. The Ignorant Apathetic

The ignorant and/or apathetic man supports abortion for no other reason than it's legal and it's what we have done in America for some 40+ years. "Sure, I support a woman's right to choose." And that's it. Not much thought goes into it, not much investment one way or the other. Just your typical man in the mushy-middle of morality and policy, a ball bearing who goes with the tilt of the culture.


2. The Lech (otherwise known as the cad, the reprobate, the rake, the libertine, the debaucher...)

The lecherous man supports abortion for obvious reasons: He uses women as objects for his own selfish pleasure, eschews any responsibility for her heart or her human dignity, and needs abortion to be readily available in case the baby-making act makes a baby. The lech demands consequence-free sex, and he must have freedom to use and abuse at will, with no respect for life, love, honor, or moral obligation. Abortion is a necessary "good" in his life, and he will vociferously defend its legality and accessibility.


3. The Man Trained Against Manhood

This man, in my humble opinion, is the saddest case. I believe this man is exemplified by Barack Obama. Stay with me.

I've often wondered why Obama, who is generally such a weak and unmanly man, would be so fierce, unyielding, and completely committed to abortion (even voting to let a child die who survives abortion). Why? How could this be? But it's a phenomenon that makes sense if we consider his background.

Obama was raised by a radical-leftist-secular-feminist-socialist mother. His father wanted nothing to do with little Barack, essentially abandoning him, and became simply a myth and a longing in young Barack's life and dreams. It's actually incredibly tragic to ponder, truly heartbreaking.

So, this fatherless boy was not raised to know what it means to be a strong man who stays, protects, provides. He had no idea, and in fact the opposite was modeled to him by his absent, negligent father. Meantime, he had his strong, outspoken, and deeply committed feminist mother who taught him what a "man" should be, according to her radical template. Obama himself has described his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, as "the dominant figure in my formative years.... The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics." He called her "a lonely witness for secular humanism."

Not surprisingly, he grew up and married another strong radical feminist, Michelle Robinson. Both these women were and are the dominant forces his life, and they no doubt pounded it home to him that women have an absolute right to abortion. I'd be surprised if Barack Obama has ever had a true friendship with a strong pro-life woman, or even meaningful interaction with one. But the message he received time and again, from all the women in his life -- the woman that raised and formed him, the woman that married him, and even the radical women he hung out with at Columbia and later in politics -- goes like this: "You men have no right to tell us women what to do with our bodies. We have a right to abortion on demand and without apology. You are either with us on this most basic of freedoms, or you are a misogynist brute oppressor."

What is a fatherless, lonely, ungrounded boy/man to do? I can hardly blame men like this, because at least for a time, they simply don't know any better. They defer to the women they love regarding "women's issues" and "women's bodies" and "justice for women", because they really believe it's not their place to speak. These men really believe that this is how one "supports" women.

They don't know that millions and millions of women do not believe that our liberation, success, and joy hinges on a contrived death match between mother and child.

They don't know that legions of strong, outspoken, intelligent women (including the classical feminists) do not accept that the "right" to shred and dismember our own offspring is essential to being "a fully participating member of society".

They don't realize that inherent in honorable manhood is the loving protection of the most weak and vulnerable.

I can only speculate that it's because they have rarely seen an honorable man up close. Maybe they haven't had a role model of a man who sacrifices his life for others, keeps his commitments, and steps up to defend and protect women and children.

But at base, this type of man champions abortion because he believes that's what he's supposed to do to show that he cares about women. His manhood is deeply impoverished, for sure, and it's been trained out of him, and I feel most sorry for this kind of man.


So there you have it. My thoughts for this day. Take them or leave them.

But women, we have a huge role here in supporting our men. We must continue to impress upon the men in our lives (and online, frankly) that real men, honorable men, are those who step up and protect the weak and the vulnerable, not try to find pseudo-intellectual loopholes to strip human rights from a whole class of defenseless human beings. We must impress upon them that they are hard-wired for this task, and that we women want them to be good men.

John from the combox, I don't know what shaped your views on abortion, but I want you to be a good, strong man. We women are cheering you on. You were made for this challenge. Live up to it, my friend. We need you.

+++++++

The glaring errors of Everyday Feminism's "Menstruation Myths"

Nothing shocks me anymore. And yet, I still become speechless at the utter inanity that is out there. I saw the following cartoon the other day, which is just one segment of a much larger panel depicting a friendly little "uterus" discussing supposed "menstruation myths" in an apparent attempt to educate:

From everydayfeminism.com

Besides the growing realization that we have lost our ever-loving minds in this society and abandoned all human reason, there are two glaring problems I see here.

First, the science is all messed up.

For example, the reason that "transmen, non-binary, genderqueer folk" menstruate -- is because they are women!!

Yes, it's true! Though these people may "feel like men" in their minds, hearts, desires (and that's another issue altogether), their BIOLOGY, their very nature, is female. They are biological women. That is why they menstruate. They have a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, an endometrium. These are women, menstruating as only women do.

This is science. This is biology.

As for "intersex" folks (also known as hermaphroditism), it happens in a fallen world that some children are born with ambiguous genitalia, perhaps having external organs that appear to be one sex, but a chromosomal make-up that indicates the other. This disorder is the result of a problem in the development of the child while still in the womb. If that child hits puberty and begins to menstruate, that is the female reproductive system at work.

But the bad science is only one part of the problem I see. Notice what happened in the middle there? The little girl mentions what her mom taught her, and then the friendly little uterus undermines parental authority by saying, directly, "No, Jo, your mom is wrong."

This is key to all the reprogramming going on in our culture today. Undermine the authority of the clearly unenlightened parents and inject into young minds the prevailing cultural ideology of "gender fluidity". In this backwards paradigm, mom and dad are the ones actually standing in the way of the true education of children, and these pesky parents can and must be gotten around. (Never mind that Catholic parents have a duty and thus a right to be the primary educators of their children, a duty that no state or culture can legitimately usurp.)

Finally, if you go to the entire panel (take a deep breath first!), you will note something that is glaring in its absence:

There is no mention of why the female body menstruates! 

I'm not sure how one can work up a whole panel of "facts" and "science" about menstruation and accompanying body parts with nary a word about WHY the body menstruates in the first place?

To understand ourselves fully as human beings, shouldn't we first understand our very human natures? This silly and inaccurate cartoon is devoid of any real thought, any real depth, any real truth. I look at the proliferation of such superficial, ideological, political fluff and I understand more and more why our youth are floating aimlessly, finding less and less satisfaction in life, disconnected from anything real, becoming more hopeless, and never quite understanding their own humanity.

Thankfully, there is an antidote to all of this insanity! Our Faith stands ready to respond with reason and reality and meaning and depth and joy!

Bring it on. Let's have that conversation about the nature of our bodies, the nature of our humanity, the meaning of our lives. Let's teach our children well, before a non-scientific, unreasonable, utilitarian talking cartoon uterus gets to them first.

Truth, goodness, and beauty wins every time.

Quick Takes: Guess who I met?! (Take #6)

Late have I posted thee, Quick Takes...

1)   I have read a lot about discerning God's will over the years, and I've even written about it myself. But this piece by Peter Kreeft is the best I've seen yet:

Discernment

Kreeft gives us five principles and six clues to discern the correct path when we are in doubt. Check this out:

Here is a sixth clue. If God has one right choice in everything you do, then you can't draw any line. That means that God wants you to know which room to clean first, the kitchen or the bedroom, and which dish to pick up first, the plate or the saucer. You see, if you carry out this principle's logical implications, it shows itself to be ridiculous, unlivable, and certainly not the kind of life God wants for us—the kind described in the Bible and the lives of the saints. 

Clue number six is the principle that many diverse things are good; that good is plural. Even for the same person, there are often two or more choices that are both good. Good is kaleidoscopic. Many roads are right. The road to the beach is right and the road to the mountains is right, for God awaits us in both places. Goodness is multicolored. Only pure evil lacks color and variety. In hell there is no color, no individuality. Souls are melted down like lead, or chewed up together in Satan's mouth. The two most uniform places on earth are prisons and armies, not the church. 

Take a specific instance where different choices are both equally good. Take married sex. As long as you stay within God's law—no adultery, no cruelty, no egotism, no unnatural acts, as, for example, contraception—anything goes. Use your imagination. Is there one and only one way God wants you to make love to your spouse? What a silly question! Yet making love to your spouse is a great good, and God's will. He wants you to decide to be tender or wild, moving or still, loud or quiet, so that your spouse knows it's you, not anyone else, not some book who's deciding.

Read it all here, and stop fretting about what to do!



2)   The press and social media have been abuzz with the tragic story of 29-year-old Brittany Maynard, who is suffering from a devastating cancer and is set to commit physician-assisted suicide in just a few days. This poignant response to Brittany comes from another young woman who is also dying of cancer:

Dear Brittany: Why We Don’t Have To Be So Afraid of Dying & Suffering 

that We Choose Suicide

Please pray for all involved, and please remember that the "right to die" eventually becomes the "duty to die". Lord, have mercy.


3)  A while back, I began to press my friend Jenni (mother of nine, longtime blogger) to write her husband's vasectomy reversal story. She was gracious enough to give in to my pestering, and the result is here:

The Reversal 

Jenni and her husband are not the only couple I know to have undergone a reversal of either a vasectomy or a tubal ligation. Although the Church does not require reversal for those who repent of the sin of sterilization, it's an incredibly healing and beautiful act for those who can take that step. And God willing, it often ends in the gift of more children.

Get Jenni's blog, Circling Jericho, on your blog roll or reading list; her writing is beautiful and she keeps it real, all the time

4)  "When did female empowerment become female infantilization?"

Yeah, that's what I'd like to know!

"Women once were encouraged to be strong and independent, to brush aside insensitive words and actions and to emerge stronger. But now, politicians, pundits, even celebrities are feeding an outrage machine by telling women they should be offended by anything and everything."

And as a woman, that offends me! This is dead on:

Feminist Hysteria is Causing the Infantilization of Women

If I were a feminist... well, I am a classical feminist, but if I were a feminist as manifested today, I would feel weak and frightened and threatened by every word spoken or act taken that did not agree with my very narrow worldview. I would feel like a victim at every turn, to the point of not being able to hear someone say "bossy" without starting a national movement to eradicate the word, and the seemingly innocuous acronym "TMI" would assault my delicate ears as a personal affront (read the article; this is for real). Goodness, I would be so helpless that I'd be reduced to forcing others buy my contraception for me (if I used it, which I don't), because it's too tough to walk to the Walgreens on the corner and use my own money to buy it, and it's unthinkable to even suggest that my lazy boyfriend/partner/husband get off the couch and pay for the contraception himself.

I'm glad I'm not a modern-day feminist because I prefer to be strong, competent, and independent. And all grown up.



5)  I'm pretty sure I'm a crack cocaine Words With Friends addict. (Sorry, I get those two things confused.)



6) So, I just got home from the most amazing evening! Five hundred of us gathered to support 1st Way Pregnancy Center and to hear this wise and beautiful woman speak:

Shameless picture-dropping

Abby Johnson, when I read your book and even posted about it, never did I imagine I would one day call you a friend. You are a gifted speaker, and honestly, you could be a stand-up comedienne with your perfectly timed comic relief in the midst of an incredibly delicate subject. You had us rolling in laughter -- and shedding a few tears as well. Someone on Facebook said tonight that she could have listened to you all night. I concur. Yes, I'm all fan-girly right now. But honestly folks, there is a reason that the abortion industry is very, very afraid of this woman. Abby, keep kicking the devil's butt. You were made for this.


7)  And maybe someone out there was made for little Jesse.... He needs parents, and perhaps they are reading this right now:

Click my picture for more info!

Jesse is four years old and is blind. He had a difficult start in life, but is doing well now. From his profile page:

He was abandoned at the gates of his orphanage when he was 9 months old. His blindness was caused by an untreated eye infection, and he was so ill he was sent to a palliative care home to die. He arrived a very sick and frightened little boy but was nursed back to health and given the opportunity to gain confidence and trust others around him. He is currently healthy with no further medical problems but is delayed in some areas of his development such as walking and feeding himself.

Read more about Jesse here, and please pray for this precious child to find a family of his own.

+++++++

Have a great weekend everyone, and thanks to Jen for hosting!

What is so wrong with women's bodies?

"Suppression of what is distinctly woman = oppression of women"

-- "LJP", (a really smart Bubble reader)

So there I was, sitting in the Great Clips waiting room as my 13-year-old son was getting a haircut. I started flipping through a Glamour magazine and was drawn in by a slick double-page ad for an implant contraceptive called Nexplanon.

A beautiful, smiling young woman beamed out from the page, with all her potential life plans laid out attractively: "get a job", "find my own place", "fall in love", "save up", "take a trip", "finish school" (strange how "get married" was not among the desired options, hmmm...).

Considering the risks and side effects, why is this woman smiling?
Oh, wait, she's "not an actual patient".

Now, the cultural assumption is that all healthy young singles have lots of healthy sex of course, and Nexplanon reminds us that a healthy young woman would be wise to have a plastic stick full of synthetic hormones surgically implanted under her skin for three years so that her perfectly healthy female body is thrown into biological disarray through the release of chemicals into her system, purposely derailing her natural, healthy female functioning, so that she can live a full and happy and healthy female life.

Make sense?

And after her healthy female body is made to malfunction as planned, the young woman (who, remember, is not being treated for any sickness or pathology) may experience the following "frequent" and "common" side effects, according to the manufacturer:

Changes in menstrual bleeding patterns
Mood swings
Weight gain
Headache
Acne
Depressed mood
Vaginitis (inflammation of the vagina)
Breast pain
Viral infections such as sore throats or flu-like symptoms
Stomach pain
Painful periods
Mood swings, nervousness, or depressed mood
Back pain
Nausea
Dizziness
Pain
Pain at the site of insertion

Aaaaand, "This is not a complete list of possible side effects". Nice. Sounds great so far.

But to keep smiling and fulfilling her dreams, the chemically-altered woman must not only expect "side effects", but must take on actual "risks", which include:

Problems with Insertion and Removal (may require surgery)
Ectopic Pregnancy
Ovarian Cysts
Breast Cancer
Serious (deadly) Blood Clots
High blood pressure
Gallbladder problems
Rare cancerous or noncancerous liver tumors

You know, so that she can get her own place, fall in love, get a job, save, finish school, travel, and such. What a deal!

Staring at that Glamour magazine, I wondered as I often do, "What is so wrong with women's bodies?"

What have modern feminists done? Why have they turned on their own nature?

I flipped forward a few pages and yet another two-page contraception ad assaulted my eyeballs: ParaGard copper intrauterine device (IUD) with the tag line (I kid you not):

"Birth control that fits your life, naturally" 

...because apparently nothing says "natural" like a copper device being surgically forced all up into one's female parts! Foreign metal objects stuck into the womb are just what I envision to feel like a natural woman. Am I right, ladies?

A full and beautiful female existence is promised with this device, too, telegraphed via cutesy, artsy animated scenes of the good life. Whoops, but the usual nasty side effects, risks, and warnings have to be presented as well, in the fine print. I find the the sixth warning particularly appealing and empowering for today's young woman, don't you?

6. Perforation -- Partial or total perforation of the uterine wall or cervix may occur rarely during placement, although it may not be detected until later. Spontaneous migration has also been reported. If perforation does occur, remove ParaGard® promptly, since the copper can lead to intraperitoneal adhesions. Intestinal penetration, intestinal obstruction, and/or damage to adjacent organs may result if an IUD is left in the peritoneal cavity. Pre-operative imaging followed by laparoscopy or laparotomy is often required to remove an IUD from the peritoneal cavity.

What a "natural" fit!

Forgive me, dear reader, but what the hell is wrong with everyone? Feminists should be about affirming women, affirming all that is uniquely feminine, correct? And yet current feminist orthodoxy is all about the opposite, with its slavish worship of the contraceptive indicative of its disdain for the functioning female body. The very things that make us female are, in feminist eyes, the very things that block our human fulfillment.

If you disagree, then show me how and where I am wrong. I want to be wrong, truly.

Of course, this contempt for healthy female function goes further than just derailing the reproductive system with contraceptives. If the best attempts to impair a woman's biological processes don't work and a pregnancy occurs (i.e., if healthy bodily function continues), we must necessarily then advance to the killing of our offspring as the way to achieve our womanly goals.

Just listen to lead feminist Barack Obama; he'll tell you so. Last month, he celebrated the anniversary of Roe v. Wade as he has before, by affirming the necessity of women to access abortion, "[b]ecause this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams."

See that? It's consistent with the whole philosophy. The very opportunity for women to fulfill their dreams hangs on their ability to negate what their female bodies do naturally. Contraception will mess up menstruation, ovulation, and conception, and as a necessary back-up, abortion will end gestation. Menstruation, ovulation, conception, gestation -- all those uniquely female things that hinder women's lives!

Which brings me back to the first quote up top:

"Suppression of what is distinctly woman = oppression of women"

I challenge secular feminists, pro-"choice" activists, and reproductive rights advocates to refute that statement if you can. How can you claim to champion women and to love women's bodies when you promote contraception and abortion, which are pitted directly against a woman's biology, which assault her very nature? I don't see men's groups fighting against all that is distinctly male, do you? So, what gives?

Why do you rebel against the functioning female body?

Why do you seek suppression of what is uniquely female?

What is so wrong with women's bodies the way they are?





Related links:

I HATE the Essure commercials

Your periods, your way

The Natural Family Planning post

"I am Woman" -- ironic ode to the embryo

My husband is the early riser in the family, and on most weekend mornings I stumble downstairs, bleary-eyed, as the kitchen radio screams out the hits of the 1970s. This can be torture or it can be wonderful, depending on my mood and the song.

On a recent morning, my positive energy surged I when I recognized the first notes of the feminist anthem, I Am Woman. Helen Reddy was belting it like a boss, and I was right there with my sista singing along...

Yes, I am wise! But it's wisdom born of pain! Yes, I paid the price, but look how much I gained!

Dancing around, remembering how I learned this song as a little girl, and how much my strong, conservative mother loved it...

If I have to, I can do anything! I am strong! I am invincible! I am wooooomaaaan!!

Dancing more, humming the next lines because I did not know the lyrics...

I am woman watch me grow, see me standing toe to toe, as I spread my lovin' arms across the laaaand!

And then -- I did a double-take. No, that can't be, can it? I couldn't have heard that word, not in a feminist anthem! "Dean, did you hear that? In this song?" I quickly googled the lyrics and there it was:

But I'm still an embryo…

*blink, blink*

Whoa! Ms. Reddy said "embryo"! She just compared herself to an embryo!

But I'm still an embryo, with a long long way to go, until I make my brother understaaaand!

I googled again. The song topped the Billboard charts in December 1972. Mere weeks before Roe v. Wade became the horrific, bloody law of the land on January 22, 1973.

Could it be that in those weeks prior to Roe, it was still okay to be an embryo? Even in the minds and vocal cords of feminists?

If we assume that feminists still had hearts of flesh and not stone back then, we could translate the lyric like this:

"I'm here! I'm small, I'm insignificant to some, you can't see me yet, but I'm on my way. I have so much to offer, so much to show you, and once I make that long, long journey to visibility, my brothers will understand that I have been here all along! I am worthy, I have dignity, and I am just like them!"

However, if we were to translate it as feminism stands today, it would have to go like this:

"I'm a non-human parasite with no rights, a dangerous, dreaded burden sucking the life out of women and society, a piece of garbage to be killed at will and thrown into the trash with the rest of the medical waste. Nothing is as worthless as I am."

But honestly, that latter interpretation does not seem to fit with the spirit of the song, nor does it make any sense in that line, does it?

Therefore, I'm siding with the embryo-as-our-young-hero scenario, just as Helen Reddy presented it back in the more civilized, less blood-thirsty days of feminism. Back when we women could sing and remind others of our own worth and dignity without crushing the worth and dignity of other weak and fragile members of our human family. Feminists back then (I'm going to tell myself) still had love enough to speak the name of embryo without contempt and as a logical metaphor for the underdog -- whom we women naturally, instinctively nurture and protect, cheering him forward until he finds his own voice.

Oh, you embryos in 1972, you slipped by just in the nick of time! You were still the good guys then!

Ah, what feminism coulda, shoulda been! Sing it, Helen!

+++++++

Related post: The Sheer Idiocy of "Every Child a Wanted Child"




.

Quick Takes: The Democratic National Convention Edition

I'm getting political today, and yes, I have very strong opinions when it comes to politics. So, if you really dislike me, you may hate me by the end, yikes. You've been warned! ;)

I am replacing the Quick Takes logo today with the logo of the Democratic Abortion Convention Democratic National Convention, to set the tone for today's theme:

Which brings us to our first Take...

1) Why are the Democratic logos so creepy, communist-style, Dear Leader, hero worship, father figure with happy children-citizens, faux egalitarian in their design? Seriously, it looks like it could work in North Korea.


2) One conclusion drawn from the Sandra Fluke speech: She absolutely identifies primarily as a victim of unthinkable oppression. Sheesh lady, cry me a river with your private Georgetown law degree. You are a well-fed, comfortable, spoiled, First World woman of leisure just like the rest of us. Did you not get the memo? No one is silencing your big mouth anymore than they are silencing mine. Gimme a break.

Can someone tell me again why I have to lose my religious freedom for a pack of her easily accessed $9 neutering chemicals? And can someone explain how whimpering and sniveling for free contraception is the very measure of the "empowered" feminist today? Why are modern feminists too weak and dependent to navigate Walgreens?

Sandra, I wish you could meet some of the women I know and get some inspiration! Talk about strong women! They are educated and well-read, they are fabulous wives to their beloved husbands, they manage households and finances, they raise broods of children, educate those children, adopt special needs orphans, have careers, volunteer at church and for the poor, are active in politics and have a roaring good time over a meal and margarita with friends while looking darn cute in those shoes -- and they do not whiiiiiiiine over what they don't geeeeeeet from the government, and they don't scream "I'm a victim!" "I'm oppressed!" "I've been silenced!" in the freest, greatest, most prosperous nation on earth.

If either of my daughters acted like Sandra Fluke, I would have failed as a mother. You think I'm exaggerating? Check it out -- the obvious hero of Democrats and the very poster child for women's oppression. Fair warning: It's painful to watch.





Special note: Within the first 47 seconds, she has told two demonstrable lies, which she herself knows are lies. First, the hearing was on religious liberty, not contraception, and she has no expertise thereof that would qualify her to testify before Congress. Second, there were two women on that panel, not zero. Unless the women were ghosts. Or holograms. Or maybe Ms. Fluke is blind. Or maybe she's just lying. I'll let you decide how she got that so wrong. After the first lies, they just kept coming. Dear God, they never stopped.

Anyway, could I say it any clearer? Ms. Fluke does not speak for me, my daughters, my sister, my mother, my aunts, or my friends. Classical feminists, I am so sorry for what they've done to your feminism. Weep for us.


3) I thought Sandra Fluke was the low point of the Convention, but I was proven wrong on Thursday night. Let me preface by saying that I have heard an endless string of scandalous statements from Catholic Democrats in my day, from Pelosi to Biden to Sebelius and so many more. But Caroline Kennedy took the cake. The venue, the premeditation, the thoughtful design that went into it…. I still can't believe it.

Caroline Kennedy invoked her Catholicism to advocate for unfettered abortion in America. Let me restate: She used the very fact of her Catholicism to champion the cause of abortion on demand. Oh, yes she did. So that those hearing her would think it's okay to be a Catholic and advocate for abortion!

"As a Catholic woman [oh, yes, she placed her religion exactly at this paragraph of the speech, deliberately], I take reproductive health seriously, and today, it is under attack. This year alone, more than a dozen states have passed more than 40 restrictions on women’s access to reproductive health care. That’s not the kind of future I want for my daughters or your daughters. Now isn’t the time to roll back the rights we were winning when my father was president. Now is the time to move this country forward."

It was one of the four of five times in my life that I actually expected lightning to come down. Not kidding, that's what I thought. And though I usually watch the proceedings on MSNBC for so many reasons, the TV happened to be turned to FOXNews. While I was still bellowing (you really should be at my house during political season), I noticed that the shock of what she said was not lost on others. I suddenly heard Bill O'Reilly speak of how utterly stunned he was. He could not believe it either. Could not believe it. I still can't:

Yes, that was the worst of it for me, more insidious than Sandra Fluke, and more show-stopping than the painfully embarrassing attempts to restore "God" and "Jerusalem" to the Democratic Platform after someone had decided to take them out.


4) So, as crazy as I always am during political season, it's even worse in the era of facebook. Some of you were following my facebook play-by-play of the Convention, and when the Caroline Kennedy scandal happened, there was quite a flurry of exchanges! Lots of fly off the handle pissed off hysterical ranting thoughtful musings on Kennedy's words were posted on the open threads. Ultimately, Kara, a firebrand Catholic warrior pensive and soft-spoken convert, penned a simple status update to express her concern:

Catholic my ass.

Some of us adopted that as our status as well, and then demanded begged inquired of JoAnna if she would make us a meme to go along with Kara's nuanced sentiment. Within moments, we had this:

Feel free to use and share. :)

Hey, if we can't have a little fun while our nation goes to hell in a handbasket, then what kind of Catholics are we?


5) Now it's time for video comic relief!

Let's go meet some of the Democratic delegates for some "man on the street" style interviews. Keep in mind, these are not folks on the fringe, they are the movers and shakers of the Democratic Party in their home states and local communities.

First, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Hope and Change 2 -- The Party of Inclusion (there's a commercial first, sorry):




 Next, we have a roving reporting asking the Democratic delegates their position on "choice":

In this fun piece, Democratic delegates give their opinions on what to do about corporate profits:

 



And finally, delegates react to the DNC video that creepily described all United States citizens as "belonging to the government":




Guys, if you are as horrified about the thought of a second Obama term as I am, please, I beg you to vote this year, as well as volunteer on phone banks, donate money to Romney-Ryan, put signs in your yard and on your car. This is a crucial election.


6) We will close out the DNC part of this Quick Takes the same way the DNC itself was closed out -- with a benediction from Cardinal Dolan of New York. The Cardinal prayed for unborn children's right to life, for the integrity of marriage, and for the protection of religious liberty, all of which are threatened by the Democrats. Do you think they heard?

Something to chew on, from the great Professor Robert P. George: 

"Since no minimally decent political party would let a bigot or misogynist take the podium at its convention—much less bless the proceedings—accepting the cardinal's offer to appear amounts to an implicit but unmistakable concession that there's no bigotry in opposing the redefinition of civil marriage, nor any misogyny in fighting for the unborn."

Thoughts?



7) In all this mess of politics, I can't forget the orphans. Today I want to introduce you to two precious girls who need families desperately, as they are both in danger of being transferred to adult mental institutions very soon.

First, here is Piper:

I am a happy, friendly girl who needs a mama to love!

Basically, Piper's issue is that she's small. Although she is nearly four years old, she’s roughly the size of a two year old. She is easily the smallest child in her group. There is more to her story and several more photos here on my Orphan Report about her.



And next is sweet Janie:

Beautiful as a porcelain doll!

Janie suffers from CP and FAS, but with proper care and treatment in the States, she could thrive and reach her potential! Please go to my Orphan Report about Janie for more information.

I beg you to pray for these children to find families, and also share their faces and info with everyone you know.



Have a great weekend! And thanks to Jen for hosting Quick Takes!



.

Are feminists at war with their own biology?

So, I'm just chugging along writing my next post, when a comment from "college student" (for whom I have a great deal of affection) pops up on a previous post. (Comment #461, by the way!! What a great conversation it's been!)

The part that intrigues me enough to stop writing my new post and write this one instead is the following:

"I have a big issue with gender roles. I have a big issue with all of your assumptions about women, that their bodies were made to breed and sustain other people…."

[blink, blink]


I (and many others) have contended that feminists are at war with their own biology. 


I have to ask "college student" and any other leftist feminist out there: If we women were not "made" to "breed" and "sustain other people" with our bodies, then why, in your opinion, were we made with ovaries and a uterus? Aside from procreation, what meaning or purpose do those organs have?


Are you, in fact, at war with your own body, your own biology? If not, can you help me reconcile your sentiments with a woman's biological reality?


Thanks!

Answering L, for clarity's sake

An anonymous commenter known as "L" left a comment yesterday that I thought was worthy of its own post, as it covered many topics that begged to be addressed. 


Her comments are in red italics.


I agree with college student about sex since the beginning of time and will one up that with "read up on human history." After all it was a long, long time ago that the Catholic Church itself was waffling on the sticky issue of "ensoulment" (for college student, this was the notion that a fetus did not have a soul until 40 days gestation for a male or 90 days for a female... because the church, like most folks at the time, did not see females as equal.) 


L, thank you so much for this opportunity to publicly correct this very common error. The issue of "ensoulment" was a theological concept, a pondering put forward by theologians at the time. There was never a time when the Catholic Church condoned abortion. The Church, regardless of the "ensoulment" discussion, has always and everywhere taught that abortion is an inherent evil. Moral truth does not change. 


Has there been sexism in the Church through the ages? Because her members are human, and sinners, yes. There have been sinners of every stripe in the Church, as much yesterday as today. To read what Pope John Paul had to say about sexism and the dignity of women in general, please read his Letter to Women. If you truly desire the Catholic response to this concern, it's worth your time.


Some Popes denounced any abortion regardless and some said it was okay as long as they did it before ensoulment. 


Some popes "said it was okay"? When you make a statement like that, you really need to cite your evidence. The truth is that no pope ever -- at any time, in any era -- taught that abortion was okay.

There have always been drugs, teas, tinctures to induce abortions - even hundreds of years ago. It is WELL DOCUMENTED. 


You are absolutely correct. Not only has abortion existed hundreds of years ago, but thousands of years ago. Catholicism has stood against abortion since Christ founded the Church over two thousand years ago; after all, abortion (and infanticide) was quite common in pagan Rome. No one on this blog, nor any Catholic I know, would dispute the fact that abortion has always existed. Murder, rape, theft, lying, cheating, and myriad other sins have also always existed. There is no new sin under the sun.


Ever since men have had the upper-hand over women, there has always been rape, incest, domination and subjugation throughout history. But here, in modern times we have a voice to say "NO MORE."


The wording here makes me think of the first part of this story. You are correct that sinful men have oppressed (and continue to oppress) women. Rape, domination, and subjugation are evil and unjust, and I thank God that we live in a nation where we do have a voice to fight that evil and assert our innate human dignity. If you "read up on human history" (to borrow your words), you will see that Western civilization has provided women the greatest freedom and dignity, as well as the loudest voice with which to oppose misogyny. In most cultures outside of Western civilization, women are still systematically and/or legally dominated, subjugated, dehumanized, raped and even murdered. I encourage you to investigate why Western civilization has been so good for women, while other civilizations have continued to oppress and misuse them.

What about suffrage? Thank you feminists. NOt Being the PROPERTY (not partner) of one's husband? Thank you feminists. Being able to breastfeed in public? Thank you feminists.


Oh, how I love the suffragists! Thank you, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Victoria Woodhull, Sarah Norton, and so many other strong, courageous women! The early feminists knew that the violence of abortion was a crime against both women and children and an affront to human dignity. Their stories are compelling and inspiring, and I join you in lauding these amazing women.


Now, "women as property" is a non-Christian concept, as the dignity, equality, and partnership of spouses is made clear from the beginning: 

1605 Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone." The woman, "flesh of his flesh," i.e., his counterpart, his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. 

1662 Marriage is based on the consent of the contracting parties, that is, on their will to give themselves, each to the other, mutually and definitively, in order to live a covenant of faithful and fruitful love.  [Catechism of the Catholic Church]

Breastfeeding, in public or otherwise? You've come to the right place! God Himself designed breastfeeding, which is so beautiful that it's actually theological: 

…[Breastfeeding] benefits the child and helps to create the closeness and maternal bonding so necessary for healthy child development.  So human and natural is this bond that the Psalms use the image of the infant at its mother’s breast as a picture of God’s care for man.... [Pope John Paul II's Address on Breastfeeding, 1995]

So, thanks be to God for breastfeeding! And thank you to the seven courageous and devout Catholic mothers who founded the La Leche League in 1956 to support nursing moms when the rest of society had turned to bottle feeding. Even if modern feminism never existed, Catholics are all over breastfeeding.



You may hate contraception and abortion and the using of sex as a cheap way to fill carnal and sinful desires (secular people don't like a lot of this lifestyle either) But stop with blaming feminism. 


I hope you are correct that secular people don't like that lifestyle either. But what part of  secular/liberal philosophy will lead to the cessation of that lifestyle? Can you show me in feminist literature where the "free love" mindset is being fought against or repudiated? Help me understand why modern feminist thought is not an accessory to the sexual mess we find ourselves in today.


Stay out of FoxNews type talking points. 


That came seemingly out of the blue! But let's address it: Fox News talking points on what? Contraception? I have never heard a FoxNews reporter or commentator oppose contraception. I assume they use contraception at the same rate as the general public. In fact, I remember when Sean Hannity (a Catholic) fought on air with a priest, vehemently defending his own use of contraception!


Or perhaps you believe that Fox News has talking points in defense of Catholic moral teaching? It's quite the opposite. Bill O'Reilly (a Catholic) has bashed John Paul II and the Church's teachings on sex more times than I care to remember. I was so offended that I stopped watching Fox News for years because of it. Fox News is most definitely not a mouthpiece for the Catholic Church.


These are effects of the human condition, they don't exist because some women don't want to get pregnant and take a pill to keep from doing so. 


You are absolutely right that sin is part of the human condition, a result of the Fall. And as we humans have the strong tendency to be drawn toward sin (virtue ain't easy!), any mindset or philosophy that facilitates or encourages sin is best avoided. There are better alternatives, which keep us happy and healthy.  :)



L, in conclusion, I can't assume that your misrepresentation of the Catholic Church is due to bigotry or malice, so I will assume it's just that you didn't know. I like your passion, I think we do have points of agreement, and I do hope that you will continue to comment. However, if you are going to make your case against Catholicism, please check Catholic sources to make sure you first understand what Catholics believe. That way the debate is fair and honest, and readers can see both sides presented with integrity. I truly appreciate it.

“The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden.”  

G.K. Chesterton

The "hook-up" culture and a question for feminists

Wow. The commenting has continued at a steady pace for the past three days over at my last post ("How Planned Parenthood talks to your teen"). When a new commenter, "college student", piped in with her own sad experience of the "hook-up" culture on an elite college campus, it had us all -- atheist and Christian alike -- advising her, commiserating with her, and rooting for her.

It's not that we Catholics don't know what the Culture of Death looks and feels like, but her heavyhearted words and resigned attitude made a lot of us pensive, and a bit melancholy. I'm still processing it all, and frankly, I'm angry that we've gotten to this place in our society, and that she and countless other young women are suffering this way.

So, now I'll state the obvious: The situation "college student" describes is the predictable and natural consequence of the sexual revolution: Sex without boundaries, sex without "hang-ups", sex without commitment, sex as recreation. Sex when I want, with whom I want, how I want. Most especially, the free sex must come with no guilt or bad feelings. Yes, the "hook-up" culture is the manifestation of everything feminists wanted, complete with easy abortion to make it all work. They gave us the blueprint, and it's been built to order on a college campus near you, and almost everywhere else.

That leads me to a question that I've often wanted to ask a feminist: How do you think it's working? Do you truly believe that women are happier now that they are experiencing sexual freedom as your philosophy designed it? Does it bring more peace, joy and contentment to a woman's heart? Are women less broken and more whole?

I'm sincerely asking.