Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage, Pro-Family
In a recent edition of the Western Catholic Reporter, I saw a letter to the editor regarding an alternative view of the three basic Pros - Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage, and Pro-Family. The respondent wrote about the "Language Trap" and how pro-life really meant anti-abortion and that a better way was to support abortion to preserve a mother's life, but not for use as a back-up method of birth control (basically the respondent is Pro-Life, but just didn't know it). The respondent also believed that Pro-Marriage really meant anti-same sex marriage and considered everyone to be equal and to truly be pro-marriage, one had to accept gay and lesbian marriage. Lastly, the respondent viewed Pro-Family as being anti-gay family and anti-gay rights; therefore, to be truly pro-family, one had to welcome all forms of "family" types and styles.
It is ironic that the original letter to the editor highlighted the existence of the language trap, yet missed the nature of the trap so completely. This is another one of those examples of the madness that has crept into our culture. I responded with a letter to the editor of my own and placed a copy of that letter in my blog.
First, I am Pro-Life. This means so much more than being anti-abortion. In fact, those of us who are Pro-Life are actually closer to being Pro-Choice (from a language perspective) than those who claim to be. We don't use the term "choice" because it has become synonymous with "abortion"; however, the practice of abortion has been around for literally thousands of years and was considered by many early feminists, like Susan B. Anthony, to be a tool of oppression used by men against women. The reality is that the Pro-Life movement has been about providing a choice to women that previously felt that they had no choice. A choice to have a child when they feared the stigma of single-motherhood, a choice given to them by those who wouldn't judge. A choice to give birth to a child, when financially, without help, it might have been extremely difficult. A chance to bring a life into the world when they were abandoned by all others, and to give that life to a family that might never be more than two without help. Abortion has been around since before the foundation of modern medicine. It was considered barbaric by Hippocrates and sinful (forbidden) by the early Christian Church - the practice of abortion is specifically forbidden by the original Hippocratic Oath and by the Didache (one of the earliest, extra-biblical Christian writings).
Ironically, the writer of that letter to the editor fell victim to one of the largest myths perpetrated by the anti-life propaganda machine. The writer assumed that the pro-life movement had anything to do with allowing women to die as a result of their pregnancies. WRONG. This was never an issue. Even according to the Roman Catholic Church, if a woman's life is in danger and the necessary medical procedure saves her life but causes the death of her unborn child - this is a tragedy, but it isn't a sin, nor is it condemned by most Pro-Lifers or the Church. A more direct example is the treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, where the baby has implanted outside of the womb. The child must be removed in order to save the life of the mother, but it currently isn't possible to re-implant the embryo in a safer location. The child dies, but the medical intent was not to kill the child, but only to save the mother. Had this procedure not been done, both would have died. Generally, Abortions are not performed to save a mother's life. The sole intent of an abortion is to kill the baby. A current hot topic is that of the Partial Birth abortion. Read up on what is involved in such an abortion and it becomes very apparent that it is not something to be performed on a woman who is in ill health or in any danger of dying. If you were late in a risky pregnancy and you needed to have the child removed to preserve your health, you might have labour induced early, or undergo a cesarean section; and, depending on the gestational age of the child, this might be risky for the child (but it would be morally acceptable). However, to have labour induced and then stopped midway through the procedure in order have the doctor murder the child and then continue with the delivery... Sorry, but the sole intent was to kill the baby and the mother's life and/or health was not an issue.
Of course, for me, being Pro-Life is so much more than being anti-abortion. I also oppose the death penalty, euthanasia, torture (even in military or prison settings), cosmetic animal testing, and animal abuse. I favour fair trade with developing countries and reject the exploitation of women and children around the globe. Being Pro-Life means pro-all life, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.
On the side of marriage and family, our society has reached a point where we want everybody to feel happy and normal. We don't want to offend anyone, and we want everyone to see us as being "good" or "politically correct" or "open-minded". My grandmother was a very wise woman and she told me many things - one of which was a warning to not be so open-minded that my brains fell out. And so it goes - we used to treat depression and now we have "death with dignity" - we are fast approaching a time with the prescription for suicidal depression will be a lethal dose of pills.
The reality is that we have marriages and families that are disfunctional, certainly less than ideal. But instead of striving for the ideal and promoting the best, even knowing that not all will or can acheive it (yet be better off with the knowledge of what can be), we have changed our goals. I doubt there will ever be a time when we won't have single mothers and/or fathers (whether unwed or divorced or widowed). I don't want to make anyone feel badly about their situation and we, as a society, should certainly be open to the diversity that exists with families, especially for the sake of the children. However, I draw the line at encouraging the deliberate creation of single parent families. I am very concerned about the ressurgence of polygamy, especially in its current form. And, I am flabbergasted that any government would redefine "marriage" in order to make marriage conform to the lifestyle choices of homosexuals. Gays and Lesbians have always had the right to marry, the same as everyone else. Some exercised this right, although some of the reasons may not have been the best. Marriage is not supposed to be soley about "sex" and "lust", it is about companionship and procreation. Marriage is about providing a stable environment in which to raise children - who need both a mother (female) and a father (male) as role models (even if the children may be gay or lesbian). It is the downfall of "marriage" that we have reduced it to something that two or more people do just because they can, or "because I love him/her/it".
If the government decided that marriage was discriminatory and banned it (as an alternative to redefining it), many heterosexuals would continue to marry. Most, if not all, Christians would certainly continue to marry. We don't do this just because the government grants us certain "benefits" (which only exist because of the inherent inequality that exists within a heterosexual union - only women can conceive and give birth to children and nurse them, which affects seniority in the workplace and pensionable earnings). Yet, homosexuals have pushed for the "right" (it isn't a right, not all people are able to marry) to marry someone of the same gender and have been "waiting" for the opportunity to do so. Many who are taking advantage of the "opportunity" presented with legalized marriage in various countries have stated that it is their desire to make a "statement" showing that they are "normal" and deserve to have "equal" benefits. If this was something that was suitable to same-sex marriage, the only wait would be for the "legalization" of existing marriages (and not just the staged political extravaganzas).
To be pro-marriage, it helps to understand just what marriage is. Today, marriage as been watered down to the point where it isn't surprising that so many marriages are failing. So many people are going through the motions of "marriage" but are not truly married at all. Consequently, we have a large number of people who want to share "marriage" with those who previously were considered to be ineligible. There is no end in sight. We have polygamy being practiced openly in Canada, under the guise of religion, but by all appearances as a means for older men to have sexual relations with very young women, and then to add new young ladies as the previous "brides" get older. Of course, in Canada the legal age for consentual sex for a female is currently only 14 (unless that bill has passed by the time you read this). We have essentially legalized same-sex "marriage" and will soon legalize gay adoption, even though many European nations have shunned that extra step. The theory is that this progress will not have any effect on religious freedom and will simply be a secular evolvement. Yet, those who oppose same-sex "marriage" on religious grounds will be forced to support it. So far, priests are not obliged to perform ceremonies inside a Catholic Church, but Justices of the Peace must perform these ceremonies or quit their jobs, regardless of their religious affiliation. Halls owned by Catholic Groups are being forced to either rent their premises for gay marriage receptions or pay penalties. For a brief while, a lower court in Saskatchewan ruled that a portion of the Bible relating to homosexuals was hate literature - this ruling was overturned by a higher court, for now. And for what? I am pro-life and that also means that I oppose gay bashing, I support the dignity of all persons, and I have no trouble with homosexual attending schools (even Catholic ones), earning an income and living their lives. I would not be troubled if my neighbour was gay, or my sons were taught by a gay teacher, or my wedding flowers were designed by a gay florist (actually, I suspect that they were, but that was none of my business, and the flowers were fabulous). However, I also know that the basic building block for society is a stable marriage and family unit - this means we must move back to the true essence of marriage, not the sham that it has become.
It is ironic that the original letter to the editor highlighted the existence of the language trap, yet missed the nature of the trap so completely. This is another one of those examples of the madness that has crept into our culture. I responded with a letter to the editor of my own and placed a copy of that letter in my blog.
First, I am Pro-Life. This means so much more than being anti-abortion. In fact, those of us who are Pro-Life are actually closer to being Pro-Choice (from a language perspective) than those who claim to be. We don't use the term "choice" because it has become synonymous with "abortion"; however, the practice of abortion has been around for literally thousands of years and was considered by many early feminists, like Susan B. Anthony, to be a tool of oppression used by men against women. The reality is that the Pro-Life movement has been about providing a choice to women that previously felt that they had no choice. A choice to have a child when they feared the stigma of single-motherhood, a choice given to them by those who wouldn't judge. A choice to give birth to a child, when financially, without help, it might have been extremely difficult. A chance to bring a life into the world when they were abandoned by all others, and to give that life to a family that might never be more than two without help. Abortion has been around since before the foundation of modern medicine. It was considered barbaric by Hippocrates and sinful (forbidden) by the early Christian Church - the practice of abortion is specifically forbidden by the original Hippocratic Oath and by the Didache (one of the earliest, extra-biblical Christian writings).
Ironically, the writer of that letter to the editor fell victim to one of the largest myths perpetrated by the anti-life propaganda machine. The writer assumed that the pro-life movement had anything to do with allowing women to die as a result of their pregnancies. WRONG. This was never an issue. Even according to the Roman Catholic Church, if a woman's life is in danger and the necessary medical procedure saves her life but causes the death of her unborn child - this is a tragedy, but it isn't a sin, nor is it condemned by most Pro-Lifers or the Church. A more direct example is the treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, where the baby has implanted outside of the womb. The child must be removed in order to save the life of the mother, but it currently isn't possible to re-implant the embryo in a safer location. The child dies, but the medical intent was not to kill the child, but only to save the mother. Had this procedure not been done, both would have died. Generally, Abortions are not performed to save a mother's life. The sole intent of an abortion is to kill the baby. A current hot topic is that of the Partial Birth abortion. Read up on what is involved in such an abortion and it becomes very apparent that it is not something to be performed on a woman who is in ill health or in any danger of dying. If you were late in a risky pregnancy and you needed to have the child removed to preserve your health, you might have labour induced early, or undergo a cesarean section; and, depending on the gestational age of the child, this might be risky for the child (but it would be morally acceptable). However, to have labour induced and then stopped midway through the procedure in order have the doctor murder the child and then continue with the delivery... Sorry, but the sole intent was to kill the baby and the mother's life and/or health was not an issue.
Of course, for me, being Pro-Life is so much more than being anti-abortion. I also oppose the death penalty, euthanasia, torture (even in military or prison settings), cosmetic animal testing, and animal abuse. I favour fair trade with developing countries and reject the exploitation of women and children around the globe. Being Pro-Life means pro-all life, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.
On the side of marriage and family, our society has reached a point where we want everybody to feel happy and normal. We don't want to offend anyone, and we want everyone to see us as being "good" or "politically correct" or "open-minded". My grandmother was a very wise woman and she told me many things - one of which was a warning to not be so open-minded that my brains fell out. And so it goes - we used to treat depression and now we have "death with dignity" - we are fast approaching a time with the prescription for suicidal depression will be a lethal dose of pills.
The reality is that we have marriages and families that are disfunctional, certainly less than ideal. But instead of striving for the ideal and promoting the best, even knowing that not all will or can acheive it (yet be better off with the knowledge of what can be), we have changed our goals. I doubt there will ever be a time when we won't have single mothers and/or fathers (whether unwed or divorced or widowed). I don't want to make anyone feel badly about their situation and we, as a society, should certainly be open to the diversity that exists with families, especially for the sake of the children. However, I draw the line at encouraging the deliberate creation of single parent families. I am very concerned about the ressurgence of polygamy, especially in its current form. And, I am flabbergasted that any government would redefine "marriage" in order to make marriage conform to the lifestyle choices of homosexuals. Gays and Lesbians have always had the right to marry, the same as everyone else. Some exercised this right, although some of the reasons may not have been the best. Marriage is not supposed to be soley about "sex" and "lust", it is about companionship and procreation. Marriage is about providing a stable environment in which to raise children - who need both a mother (female) and a father (male) as role models (even if the children may be gay or lesbian). It is the downfall of "marriage" that we have reduced it to something that two or more people do just because they can, or "because I love him/her/it".
If the government decided that marriage was discriminatory and banned it (as an alternative to redefining it), many heterosexuals would continue to marry. Most, if not all, Christians would certainly continue to marry. We don't do this just because the government grants us certain "benefits" (which only exist because of the inherent inequality that exists within a heterosexual union - only women can conceive and give birth to children and nurse them, which affects seniority in the workplace and pensionable earnings). Yet, homosexuals have pushed for the "right" (it isn't a right, not all people are able to marry) to marry someone of the same gender and have been "waiting" for the opportunity to do so. Many who are taking advantage of the "opportunity" presented with legalized marriage in various countries have stated that it is their desire to make a "statement" showing that they are "normal" and deserve to have "equal" benefits. If this was something that was suitable to same-sex marriage, the only wait would be for the "legalization" of existing marriages (and not just the staged political extravaganzas).
To be pro-marriage, it helps to understand just what marriage is. Today, marriage as been watered down to the point where it isn't surprising that so many marriages are failing. So many people are going through the motions of "marriage" but are not truly married at all. Consequently, we have a large number of people who want to share "marriage" with those who previously were considered to be ineligible. There is no end in sight. We have polygamy being practiced openly in Canada, under the guise of religion, but by all appearances as a means for older men to have sexual relations with very young women, and then to add new young ladies as the previous "brides" get older. Of course, in Canada the legal age for consentual sex for a female is currently only 14 (unless that bill has passed by the time you read this). We have essentially legalized same-sex "marriage" and will soon legalize gay adoption, even though many European nations have shunned that extra step. The theory is that this progress will not have any effect on religious freedom and will simply be a secular evolvement. Yet, those who oppose same-sex "marriage" on religious grounds will be forced to support it. So far, priests are not obliged to perform ceremonies inside a Catholic Church, but Justices of the Peace must perform these ceremonies or quit their jobs, regardless of their religious affiliation. Halls owned by Catholic Groups are being forced to either rent their premises for gay marriage receptions or pay penalties. For a brief while, a lower court in Saskatchewan ruled that a portion of the Bible relating to homosexuals was hate literature - this ruling was overturned by a higher court, for now. And for what? I am pro-life and that also means that I oppose gay bashing, I support the dignity of all persons, and I have no trouble with homosexual attending schools (even Catholic ones), earning an income and living their lives. I would not be troubled if my neighbour was gay, or my sons were taught by a gay teacher, or my wedding flowers were designed by a gay florist (actually, I suspect that they were, but that was none of my business, and the flowers were fabulous). However, I also know that the basic building block for society is a stable marriage and family unit - this means we must move back to the true essence of marriage, not the sham that it has become.
posted by Faith | 5/21/2006 03:46:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home