Monday, January 24, 2011

38 Years After Roe vs. Wade: Abortion Still Flunks Morality 101


Last Saturday marked the 38th anniversary of the infamous Roe vs. Wade decision, which legalized abortion in the United States. Since that ruling, an astounding 52 million children have been killed and there seems to be little on the horizon to suggest even a small reduction in the ever-growing number. The arguments about abortion are admittedly tired and there seems to be little that one can say that has not been said. Nevertheless, in the face of such great evil, it is necessary to review once more why abortion violates basic morality and human rights.

The proponents of abortion, when they are not making exaggerated claims about women’s health and the need to rid the world of disabled persons, have consistently made one simple assertion—that women have a right to control their bodies and that they should not be forced to use their bodies in ways that they would rather not. There is an undeniable logic in this argument; as a lover of liberty, I am persuaded that each individual is the sole owner of her body and that a law that infringes upon that ownership by restricting how a person uses her body violates a basic tenet of justice.

But nature makes the bodily ownership of a woman complicated because there are times in which a woman’s body is the necessary sanctuary for another human being and she cannot exercise unfettered use of her body without doing harm to another and if she does not wish to be a host for that life, she must kill.

Abortion rights advocates have tried to wiggle around this ugly reality of killing by setting arbitrary dates for when an unborn person can rightfully be deemed a person. The most radical pro-choicers have set birth as the moment when a fetus makes the magical transition into personhood. This is absurd. Is there anything substantially different between the being which was previously within the woman’s body and now, outside of it? What is this metaphysical transformation that now renders what was previously a non-person a person with human rights?

Recognizing that this is nonsense, some abortion rights advocates have set viability as the reasonable cut off point for when a fetus become a human person. They argue that prior to viability, the fetus is a non-person because the fetus depends wholly on the woman for survival. But this logic makes independence, the standard upon which human rights depend. This is a dangerous position for human beings who are often partially if not wholly dependent at various points of their existences, most especially at the beginning and the end of life.

Human babies are dependent on their mothers long after birth. No human infant can survive without the constant care and nourishment that their mothers provide. In fact, once a child is born, the infant’s incessant demands on the mother are even more taxing. New mothers find they are actually more restricted by the care required by their new infants than when they were pregnant. Babies require both material resources like clothing and shelter and bodily resources such as breast milk and being held. The new infant’s dependency is so extensive that if the pro-abortionist were actually consistent in his position, he would have to concede that a mother must also have a right to infanticide. Some ethicists, like Peter Singer, are at least intellectually consistent enough to admit this.

For those who are honest enough to admit that abortion is indeed killing a unique human person no different than an infant, some still maintain that the rights of women to control their body trump the need of the infant to receive sustenance from the mother. Where the needs of the child conflict the right of the mother, they claim that it is the mother’s rights that ought to prevail. In short, that child has no rights.

The primary flaw in this argument is failure to realize that rights are often relational. A person can make claims upon another based on the relationship that that person has with the other. The relationship between mother and child makes these otherwise unreasonable demands, just obligations. There is a natural contract between the child and mother—a contract imposed by nature—that women are morally bound to recognize. Claims can be imposed upon a woman by her child which she is obligated to respond to by virtue of the fact that the child is her offspring. The sound of a crying baby might naturally move all of us to compassion or at the very least curiosity, but that very same sound to the ear of a mother constitutes a command.

Children do not ask to be placed into the world and sometimes, women do not even ask that they be placed in their wombs, but nevertheless, here they are, making their claims. The perpetuation of the human race depends upon this natural process in which claims are made upon the bodies of women by other human beings. The only way to silence their demanding voices is to kill them.

And surely, it is wrong to kill another human being who has not used violent aggression against you. There is nothing religious about this claim. One does need to be a Catholic to acknowledge this basic fact of life. All cultures have recognized that it is wrong to kill another human being. The only way to grant a woman unlimited autonomy in her body is to grant her a license to kill. In other words, the woman must be granted the right to transgress against the most basic right of another human being. She must become herself an aggressor.

Only women are asked to offer up their bodies so that another might live; only in a woman’s body does a soul become flesh. Some feminists have described the fetus as a parasite, a leech. So be it. Leeches we all once were. On what grounds do we look down our noses upon a new generation of leeches? Since it is through this parasitic system that human life depends, then let us stand in awe of it. For although our bodies are indeed our own, they are undeserved gifts and how rarely are we granted the opportunity to offer gratitude for this unmerited favor.

Monday, January 3, 2011

Fear, Nationalism, and Ignorance: The Sins of Guantanamo Bay


Last week, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said “It’s probably going to be a while” before Obama can fulfill his promise to close Guantanamo Bay. That Gitmo is a stain on the nation’s image and possibly a fuel for anti-American terrorist activities has been said too many times, by too many people; these arguments hardly merit repetition. But even more important than our image, and the prudential considerations concerning our safety is our duty before God. Before a God who loves and a Christ who is the prince of peace, we have disdainfully detained and violently treated innocent men who happened to be at the wrong place, at the wrong time and of course of the wrong religion. It is not only embarrassing; it is sinful.

It is now well documented that a majority of those detained at Guantanamo Bay are not and have never been sworn enemies of the United States and posed no security risk to Americans prior to their having been subjected to torture and unlawful detention, which may have inevitably led to their radicalization. Many of those whom the government has admitted are not guilty or cannot be proven guilty remain detained. And even worst, the detainees have been subjected to human rights abuses, such as receiving unsafe dosages of malaria drugs to treated conditions which they were never shown to have.

Yet, it is unlikely that anything resembling justice will occur at Guantanamo. This is not only due to callousness of the Bush administration officials like Dick Cheney, or even the incompetence of the Obama administration. No, the enemy is us. It is our silence and flouting of the Gospel mandate to love our neighbor as ourselves that most explains this travesty.

The first Guantanamo sin is fear. Three-hundred and sixty five times, the Scriptures say, “Be not afraid.” Yet, all of us have a hard time heeding those words. We regularly allow fear to dictate public policy. As a result of the attacks of 9-11, American citizens have permitted the United States government to violate the rights of citizens and foreigners alike. It is fear that has led to two wars that have cost more American lives than were killed during the September 11 attacks as well as hundreds of thousands of uncounted Afghanistan and Iraqi citizens. And it is fear that dictates that terror suspects must be detained without trial, cannot be tried in a United States court, and cannot be released when they are clearly innocent.

While the fear of terrorism is real, it is grossly out of proportion to the risk that it poses. The fact is that Americans are far more likely to be victimized by domestic criminals. Yet, no war has been declared on murder, rape, or armed robbery. And no one has suggested that the government indefinitely detain those who might be inclined to murder, rape, or rob despite there being no evidence that that they have done so. Likewise, terrorism does not justify the indefinite detention and mistreatment of prisoners.

And it is this double standard that brings us to the second Guantanamo sin and that is nationalism. Yes, nationalism. In his letter to the Galatians, St. Paul said, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). While the Scriptures proclaim the oneness of the human race, human beings eagerly revert to atavistic tribalism. Peoples all over the world are inclined to think that there is some great virtue in giving preferential treatment to those who happened to have been born within the same arbitrarily set border as themselves. It is purportedly the pinnacle of morality to place American lives as well as American rights over those of others around the world.

Even in our Churches this preferential treatment is rampant; for while prayer petitions are routinely offered for US soldiers (which is a good thing to do), they are never offered for Arabs who suffer as a result of these two wars. Yet, they suffer far more than Americans. A conservative estimate of the collateral damage of the Iraqi war indicates that over 66,000 Iraqis have died, over 175,000 have been injured, and almost 2 million have been displaced. Do these victims not deserve at least our prayers?

In the case of the detainees, many Americans cannot countenance the thought that foreigners are equally entitled to the natural rights protected by the United States constitution. That many of these men were born in places where such rights are not acknowledge is tragic but they are no less deserving of them. For these truths are not the patented inventions of Americans, but rather they are self-evident truths endowed by the creator. When Americans acknowledge that even suspected terrorists have a right to due process, they are not being naïve, they are simply assenting to the truth. And when Christians proclaim that Muslim prisoners must be treated with justice, they are being faithful to God.

The third Guantanamo sin is ignorance. Thomas Aquinas said that ignorance of that which one is required to know in order to act morally is sin. But for many Americans ignorance is bliss. Many of us have had a few good laughs at watching television programs mocking those who know a great deal about the private affairs of celebrities but do not recognize the vice president. Yet, this ignorance is far from harmless. It is this ignorance and nonchalance that allows government officials to carry out these injustices. Surely, Americans have a duty to care about those activities which are authorized by their representatives and funded by their tax dollars.

Like many Americans, I participated in this ignorance. Like many Catholics, I placed overturning Roe vs. Wade above all other issues of justice. And in the hope of seating one more pro-life judge, I accepted the logic of the Bush administration that there is a special class of people called “enemy combatants” who deserve neither the protection of the United States Constitution nor the Geneva Conventions. I, furthermore, justified this position by giving little credence to those voices that exposed the injustices, which occurred in Guantanamo. I said, these people were leftists and naive of the necessities national security and for a very long time, I ignored them. For this ignorance, I repent and I ask you to do likewise.