Thursday, October 04, 2007

Planned Parenthood Opens in Aurora... People still lack logic on the abortion question

October IS Respect Life Month, so I will highlight pro-life issues a little more during this month. Here is the latest on what is going on with the huge Planned Parenthood facility that opened up in the western Chicago suburb of Aurora, IL:

From the Chicago Tribune:
10/3 Clinic Opens Among Cheers and Protests

cheers?--"yeah, the Grim Reaper has settled in our town!"

More from the Trib:

October 3, 2007

Offering choices

"You know the great thing about pro-choice? That's right, people, choice! When did that become such a dirty word? It is not synonymous with "pro-abortion."

"As a married 20-something with two kids, I can say that I don't believe that I could have an abortion. The only reason I can say that at all is because I have the luxury of never having been faced with such a heart-wrenching decision. Just like I have the choice to seek out such a health-care provider, those who choose differently can avoid one. No one viewpoint should dictate or limit the choices of all, regardless of a desire to police the morals of all. The Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora will provide so much more than abortions -- screenings, exams, treatment, prenatal care, counseling, adoption referral, even assistance for women and children living with domestic violence.Shame on those who wanted to mix church and state, and cut off much-needed services to those who badly need them and choose to use them!

-Mary Braddish, Sandwich, IL"


"Choice" is great!... unless, that is, it becomes a deadly weapon that you aim at the innocent!
Ms. Braddish, allow me to help you out with some of your questions. Is "choice" a great thing? When did "choice" become such a dirty word? Well, choice is great when you are talking about talking about your choice of side orders, or Pepsi vs. Coke, or a real choice between different political parties in a truly free democratic election. Choice is good in selecting between the best schools for your child, or the best health care providers (that is, those who heal not those who kill), etc. We, as Americans, love choice of course. But one man's freedom to choose--when not balanced with the common good and the inherent rights of others--can become a recipe for evil.

"Choice" becomes a bad word precisely when one person's "choice" impedes upon the basic human dignity and fundamental rights of another person. Historically, it was determined that neither states nor individuls had the "choice" whether to keep slaves or not... you see, that free choice by the slaveowner impeded upon the right of the slave to live a free and humane life. "But the slave is not human!... the slave is MY property," protested the slaveowner. Ooops, they were in the dark about that, weren't they. We realized that slaves were not animals, they were fellow human beings who possessed the same inherent human dignity as the slave owner. The trick is that our culture has blinded itself to what is obvious through basic science and philosophy: the pre-born child in the womb is a human person, regardless of his or her dependence on the mother.

"I have the luxury of never having been faced with such a heart-wrenching decision."
Well, thank the good Lord for your kids sake that you had that luxury. Ask yourself which of your 2 children deserved to die if you HAD BEEN in a difficult spot and had to make "such a heart-wrenching decision." What financial/psychological/health conditions would have made it the reasonable choice to destroy your child in the womb? Can you imagine taking their lives now that you have seen them continue to grow and develop outside of the womb? When did they receive their own rights and dignity?... the second they crossed through the birthcanal? That seems a rather arbitrary place to make the distinction. One second before birth and one second after birth the baby looks, weights, etc. the same. On one side of the birth canals, however, "it" is merely a blob of tissue and organs that are merely part of a woman's body (like an appendix or a tumor) and on the other side "he or she" is a human person with inalienable human dignity and rights. Even if you do not believe in abortion through all 9 months, you still have to draw a line of distinction between animal/body part and distinct, individual human person. No matter where you draw the line it would be arbitrary.

How can we have laws that charge someone with double homicide when they murder a pregnant woman, and then legally allow a pregnant woman to "choose" herself to kill the very same child in the womb at a Planned Parenthood Clinic. Can you honestly say that the status of the fetus in the womb--whether it is just a part of a woman's body with no inherent rights to protection, and a pre-born human person with human dignity and rights--does that status depend on whether or not a woman wants the child to be born? Does loving a fetus in the womb and wanting him or her to come to term and be born actually bestow upon the fetus the status of human personhood? What a ludicrous idea!

Of course, I have sympathy for a woman who faces a crisis. However, we do not help her by assisting her in an action that murders a defenseless child and scars her with trauma for life.

"No one viewpoint should dictate or limit the choices of all, regardless of a desire to police the morals of all."
No one view except, I guess, your viewpoint, Ms. Braddish: the view point that a child in the womb is merely the property of a woman and is only accorded rights, dignity, and that status of human personhood IF THE WOMAN WANTS IT TO. Allowing for abortions DOES limit the choices of many... just ask yourself, if you were allowed the chance to choose--would you have wanted to be born, and given a chance to live your life? What choice is given to those babies... those babies who cannot speak for themselves, though, they are, in fact, human persons (even if their brain is still in development and cannot yet execise their own power to choose). Why do we have "living wills"?--precisely so that we can respect the rights and what would be the choices of a person who is, at the moment, unable to exercise or communicate their choices for themselves. This is not a case of policing morals. This is another application of the precept basic to any civilized society: Do not murder. This is a case of protecting a basic human right to life. This question, therefore, has nothing to do with "mixing church and state". That is a red herring. She writes that simply to pray on many secularists fear and hatred for people who live by deeply-held religious beliefs. Even an atheist should be able to know that it is simply wrong and dangerous to a society to allow the killing of an innocent human life in the womb. If we can make it illegal to destroy the eggs of some endangered bird, then we should be able to use our common sense to apply the same respect for valuable life to the human person in the womb.

Men, women, teens, families in Aurora have EVERY RIGHT to protest against Planned Parenthood. They do not want this multi-million dollar death mill coming into their city (a city with a large lowerclass population, by the way) and manipulating their daughters and sons with fear, presenting them with only one choice (the one that SEEMS easy at the time--murder and cover up)... and not presenting other choices--such as giving birth and/or adoption. If they really wanted to present a woman with all of her choices, why wouldn't they do free ultrasound to show the woman what/who she would be terminating? So, forgive me if I do not trust Planned Parenthood's "counseling" services as much as Ms. Braddish. Planned Parenthood, after all, is part of a big profit abortion industry. They are selling a product--death, and they use fear as their main selling point. I think of the undercover reports of Planned Parenthood skirting around their legal obligation to report statuatory rape. I think of how they press for a denial of parental rights to know when their underage daughters are undergoing serious medical operations (abortion) that can forever affect their physical, psychological, and spiritual health.


More from the Trib:

Perspective Readers Respond... Secularist bias against peaceful religious protesters and charges of anti-Catholicism to boot:

Labels: , , ,