The Joy of the Truth » politics

Pro-choice is the Death of Love

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:51:27 +0000

In a previous blog post, I pointed out that abortion advocates have problems even if they call themselves pro-choice. The overemphasis of the individual’s choice tends to isolate the mother from the support of the community. Our culture is pretty much telling unwed mothers, “It’s your choice, so it’s your problem.” Whether a mother decides to kill her baby or give her baby life, the pro-choice movement makes the decision and all its consequences hers and hers alone. Her right to choose removes society’s responsibility and compassion.

Wesley Smith, an outstanding opponent of Euthanasia, teaches that the same thing happens with the “right to die.” The individual’s choice to end his or her life in the face of suffering or despair removes our responsibility to reach out to them in love.

“But I know people and you know people who became suicidal,” he continued. “They might not be alive today if it had not been for the mental health professionals and friends and loved ones who stood in the gap and said, ‘No, we love you, there’s another way’.”

“We are disengaging from each other,” Smith said. “We are losing love for each other, and that is reflected in how we treat people who are in despair and darkness.” ¹

One interesting thing about Smith was that he said he did not understand why euthanasia is a progressive issue. Apparently Wisconsin is being targeted by pro-death advocates and Wisconsin is known as a blue state. I wonder if Wesley Smith falls into the same misunderstanding of modern liberalism as many Catholics. Liberalism is no longer founded on progressive ideals, but instead on philosophical Modernism, the belief that truth cannot be known except through personal experience. Modernism emphasizes personal choice as the most important value, since it sees truth as a personal thing (“What’s true for you may not be true for me”). Pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion advocates call themselves pro-choice because the personalized choice is what matters most to them. However, their over-emphasis of personal choice means a neglect of community responsibility and love.

Klein, Franz. “Wisconsin is a ‘major target’ for pro-euthanasia groups, speaker says” Catholic Times. October 1, 2009. 12. ↩

The Joy of Dialogue: Immigration

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 07 May 2010 14:00:45 +0000

As I write this I have just returned from having breakfast with a few friends. We get together once in a while to enjoy good company, good food, and great conversation. I was thinking on my drive home how fortunate I am to have people with whom I can have deep intellectual discussions. As we talk we often get into debates and I tend to talk as a bit of a know-it-all, which makes me appreciate my friends even more for their patience and their willingness to engage me. However, it’s not that I think I’m right and they’re wrong. I listen to their arguments and test them. And then I test my own thought process, usually later in the day, and often will change my opinions and clarify my thinking about the issue we are discussing. Then, the next time we get together I will humbly explain how I have come to understand the issue more.

Today the main debate was about immigration. I was attempting to take the side of the United States bishops and to understand where they’re coming from in their opposition to the law passed by Arizona. However, as I argued with the person who is staunchly in favor of enforcing the immigration laws (and who is frankly at least of a know-it-all as I am, and therefore a lot of fun to debate), I began to refine my approach and my thoughts on the subject. Perhaps the bishops need to focus on identifying how our current laws are unjust to people who want to enter our country legally, and on fixing those laws if they are indeed unjust. Instead it seems they join the voices of those who would disregard the law completely and prefer to have them unenforceable. Immigration is a difficult topic for Catholics. We are called to generosity, but we are also called to the responsible use of our country’s resources. Catholic teaching does allow for cultures to protect their identity and in doing so to protect their borders against those who would enter illegally.

However, finding the balance between protection of one’s culture and borders on the one hand and being generous to those in need on the other hand is a prudential decision that is sometimes difficult for Catholics to agree on. Dialogue and debate in matters such as these is not only fun but fruitful.

I am indeed fortunate to have friends with whom I can debate and discuss and who will still respect me even when I’m wrong and or even when I stubbornly argue a point without appearing to listen to the other side. This is part of the intellectual life Catholics are invited to participate in. To read, think, and dialogue with others in order to discover truth is part of the joy of the intellectual tradition. If you find yourself mentally stagnating especially in the area of applying your faith to our culture, find some friends you can have respectful debates with and make an appointment to have breakfast with them on a regular basis. Not only will you have fun and fellowship with your friends, you’ll also discover the joy of interacting with the truth and trying to discover the best way to apply to our lives.

Standard Medical Practice and International Rights

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 05 May 2010 15:08:15 +0000

Our culture now considers shutting down the healthy fertility system and killing babies to be basic woman’s health. Long ago the abortion movement abandoned their slogan “safe, legal, and rare.” They are now successfully pushing to make abortion everyday, commonplace, and accepted medical practice. The practice of medicine used to be considered the practice of making a sick person whole and healthy. It is now becoming a commodity business that offers whatever the customer thinks he or she wants. Even while the morally reprehensible act of abortion is constantly under fire and is increasingly unpopular, activists are moving to make abortion a basic human right on the international stage.

Top Abortion Law Firm Says Government Funded Abortion is a Human Right
By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) A top abortion-rights law firm recently released its conclusion that the last decade of international legal trends indicate that abortion is not only an international human right, but that government funding is part of that right. They claim that the “vicious” health care debate in the United States over abortion funding shows that the U.S. is flouting international law.

In “Reproductive Rights at the Start of the 21st Century: Global Progress, Yet Backpedaling on Gains in U.S.,” the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) argues that “funding for abortion services has increasingly been recognized as a necessary tool for ensuring access to a fundamental human right.”

C-fam.org

We need to shout from the rooftops! True woman’s health is making sure her body, including her fertility system, does what it is designed to do. True woman’s freedom is the ability to choose to enjoy her sexuality within the context of marriage and family love so that she is not used as an object of pleasure and so that her sexuality fulfills the purpose of its power: to create family love.

Counting the Cost: Lines Drawn in the Sand

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:34:58 +0000

When Barak Obama was elected president of the United States, thanks in large part to liberal Catholics, I stated that I hoped God would turn the evil of empowering a pro-death party into good for the Catholic Church by purifying our intellect and forcing us to stand up for the Truth more strongly. President Obama’s recent commencement address at Notre Dame University provided a clear sign that God is indeed at work.

How many times have pro-death speakers been invited to speak at Catholic universities in recent years? How much protest did you hear? Last May, Catholic Answers and other groups published long lists of Catholic universities that opened the door for commencement speakers who did not represent Catholic teachings. Protest was fairly limited to these groups and one or two bishops. Suddenly Notre Dame’s invitation to the president draws lay people and bishops out of the woodwork to protest and to stand up for the truth about the sanctity of life.

Archbishop Chaput out of the Archdiocese of Denver offered a statement that beautifully articulates exactly why Catholics are rising up. Is the sleeping giant (the Church, not the bishop) awakening in America? What wonders will God work when His saints finally arise?

Alarmism & Propaganda in the Prolife Movement Revisited

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:08:15 +0000

There are inherent dangers in criticizing certain causes such as the prolife movement when one is a Catholic educator. People will often assume that such criticism reveals leanings toward the culture of death. In the case of my last blog article, Alarmism and Propaganda Have No Place in the Pro-Life Movement. I honestly didn’t get much reaction at all, but some of the reactions I did receive on the John 654 Catholic Social Network seemed at first a bit defensive. Margie provided a wonderfully thoughtful response. She also provided a link to the actual document in question.

I am willing to admit that I may be ignorant of the total ramifications of this issue. Margie made the point that some prolife groups are filing lawsuits over this document, which shows that the “accusations” are not routine and are serious. I hope that she is right, and that these lawsuits do not prove to be frivolous.

However, after reading the entire document I continue to be convinced that prolife reactions were more alarmist and propaganda than legitimate self-defense. The document was a “lexicon” – a glossary to help law enforcement agents understand the lingo used in documents from the Department of Homeland Security. One of the definitions in this glossary was

antiabortion extremism – (U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who are virulently antiabortion and advocate violence against providers of abortion-related services, their employees, and their facilities. Some cite various racist and anti-Semitic beliefs to justify their criminal activities.

Margie reflected reactions that I have heard from prolife groups – that this definition amounts to an accusation that prolife groups are violent. What I see is a very narrow definition of people who are willing to commit violence in the name of anti-abortion activism. This definition does not even pertain to prolife groups, but only to the few violent whackos who have placed bombs at abortion centers or shot at abortion providers.

Secondly, I have heard prolife leaders ask why prolife extremists were singled out. While it is true that pro-abortion extremists were not mentioned in the lexicon, other “liberal” causes were. The lexicon included terms such as leftwing extremist and environmental extremist. All of these “extremism” terms are used in the same way as the term “Muslim extremism,” specifying a subgroup of a population who are willing to use violence in the name of their cause.

Whether or not I am correct in my read of this situation, my warnings remain true. Alarmism and propaganda have no place in the prolife movement. These are the tools of the enemy because the enemy does not have the weapon of Truth. Truth is stronger in the end than emotional deception. We weaken our own cause when we react with only emotion rather than with reasoned passion.

Alarmism and Propaganda Have No Place in the Pro-Life Movement

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:11:54 +0000

Many pro-life groups have been abuzz about the memo issued by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI that seemed to indicate that pro-lifers were considered potential terrorists by the government. I first heard this complaint from Janet Parcell’s America. Mrs. Parcell tends to be a little alarmist, even though she does a great job of making Christians aware of issues happening in Washington long before those issues become common knowledge through other media outlets. I am disappointed to hear the same alarmism coming from Life Issues, an organization I truly admire.

Tagging Pro-Lifers as Rightwing Terrorists

There’s been much talk about the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI warning America about potential rightwing terrorists. One of the sources of these terrorists they predict will be veterans returning from war. I always thought of them as heroes. A second group they pointed their finger at was those who are “dedicated to [an] opposition to abortion.” Another of their concerns was people who believe government has taken control away from state or local authorities—exactly what Roe versus Wade did. I never thought working to protect innocent unborn babies was remotely an act of terrorism. But I guess we’re in good company with the veterans. Kidding aside, this new document could be used as a platform for a pro-abortion president to try to silence his opposition.

From Life Issues Radio Transcript 05/04/09

I think we need to exercise a little bit of prudential caution here. I have noticed that pro-life reports are becoming ever more alarmist and hypersensitive since President Obama took office. We do ourselves no favors by playing this game. This “document” was actually an alert memo – something that is by its very nature temporary. It was intended to give law enforcement a profile of potential for violence so that they could catch early signs. It was not intended as a permanent profile of criminal populations.

The memo’s mention of veterans was not an indication that all veterans are violent threats. Rather, it was an indication that veterans are more likely to be disgruntled or even angry at the current administration (especially given their strong support for Bush & McCain), and that anger could potentially lead to violence because any group who is angry at the government is more likely to have members who express their anger through violence.

Likewise, can any pro-lifer claim that our stress levels have not risen since President Obama took office? Isn’t it possible that some of the less emotionally stable members of the vast pro-life movement could express their increased frustration in violent ways? The memo was not stating that all or even most who are opposed to abortion are likely to be violent, but simply that the current political situation has increased the ire of pro-lifers, and any group who is angry at the government is more likely to have members who express their anger through violence.

My guess is that under the Bush administration, similar memos were issued about homosexual activists and ardent abortion supporters. Just because we didn’t hear about it doesn’t mean the memo wasn’t there. These memos are routine.

A more legitimate target for concern is the press that chose to make this memo public while ignoring similar memos that could have been interpreted to call homosexual activists terrorists.

Pro-life groups really need to exercise more prudence. It does us no good to use propaganda and “political speak” that have no truth behind them. When we do this, we turn the fight against abortion into just another political wrangle. We have the Truth behind us. We should use it.

Counting the Cost: More Babies Dead

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:06:28 +0000

Catholic voters who chose Barak Obama as president must really be kicking themselves (one would hope). While the president has done some good things so far, the death toll continues to mount. This morning President Obama overturned President Bush’s ban on using federal funding for research into embryonic stem cell research.

Once again, the great orator couches his decision in terms that make the opposition unreasonable and self-serving, stating that his decision ensures that no scientific data will be “distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda.”

President Obama further opined:

“Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry,” Obama said. “It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

The problem with this line of thought is that the ban on federal funding did nothing to inhibit free and open inquiry. It simply said that federal money would not fund this particular area of scientific research for moral reasons. Taken to its logical conclusion, federal funding should be granted to groups that want to step over other moral lines as well. How can someone with the president’s policy pick and choose which moral lines can be crossed? Let’s experiment on Alzheimer’s patients in ways that will lead to their deaths. Let’s do lethal experimentation on the handicapped. After all, “It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

Let’s be clear here. First of all, stem cell research that does not destroy human embryos has developed an increasing numbers of successful treatments. Embryonic stem cell research, which has been prodigiously funded by private sources, treats none. The reason for the failure of embryonic stem cells is that they grow too fast and too unpredictably, resulting in tumors and other abnormal growths. So, why would be be pumping more federal money into research that has born no fruit? One word – money. The scientific or medical company that does develop a cure based on patented stem cell lines has legal custody of that cure. This is not true of adult stem cell developments, since the cure has its source in the patient’s own body.

So, who is serving a political agenda? Obama’s decision potentially benefits “big business” medical research companies much more than it will benefit patients, despite his propaganda about finding cures and advancing medical progress.

My fellow Catholics, what price will we pay for our socially liberal administration that has so far shown no signs of decreasing the body count on the war, but every sign of increasing the body count of our innocent unborn?
[ad#seasonal]

The Choice Between Cultural Indoctrination and Critical Thinking

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:33:33 +0000

Fairytales and children’s books are often the targets of criticism by those who fear indoctrination from the Right or from the Left. The essay Children of the Left, Unite by Caleb Crain is a case in point. While Crain attacks such claims from the Right, he at the same time levels the same attacks on children’s books from the Left.

What caught my attention wasn’t the tired debate about literature, but the underlying worldview of the entire indoctrination debate that is shared by both sides. As we abandon intellectual skills of reasoning and critical thinking as a culture in favor of more practical educational outcomes of fact memorization and job skills, our culture has simplified, polarized and politicized every aspect of social life.

Marxist principles have been dripping steadily into the minds of American youth for more than a century. This isn’t altogether surprising. After all, most parents want their children to be far left in their early years — to share toys, to eschew the torture of siblings, to leave a clean environment behind them, to refrain from causing the extinction of the dog, to rise above coveting and hoarding, and to view the blandishments of corporate America through a lens of harsh skepticism. But fewer parents wish for their children to carry all these virtues into adulthood. It is one thing to convince your child that no individual owns the sandbox and that it is better for all children that it is so. It is another to hope that when he grows up he will donate the family home to a workers’ collective.

Simple virtues such as sharing, respect, taking care of your surroundings, etc. have somehow become Marxist principles that are the sole possession of the Left. Teaching your child to share the sandbox will lead to that child embracing Socialism or Communism and fighting for the universal ownership of all goods.

The best way to make sure our children are not indoctrinated is to teach them to reason things out and to think critically. For example, thinking through the virtues listed above would help us to realize that virtue is always about balance. Sharing is a good thing as it engenders generosity and thoughtfulness of others, drawing us out of ourselves and making us aware the needs of others. However, the extreme abolition of all private property does not have these benefits. In fact, removing private property removes the option of generosity by forcing what should be freely chosen. Sharing is a balance between selfishness and extreme ideology. In fact, all virtue is a balance between extremes. Reasoning can help us see that. Politicizing cannot.

I am increasingly concerned with the division of our culture between Left and Right. If you are a conservative, you cannot care about the environment or promote generosity in immigration policy. If you are a liberal, you better promote universal health care and you can never admit to the benefits of the free market system. We are becoming indoctrinated – not by children’s books, but by our inability to think things through in a critical and reasonable way and by our tendency to accept ideas as all or nothing propositions.

[ad#seasonal]

Counting the Cost of Electing a Pro-Abortion Candidate

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:40:26 +0000

Despite our acknowledgment that electing the first African-American president of the United States is a great victory for justice, love and human dignity, advocates of the Culture of Life have approached Barak Obama with trepidation. His voting record as a senator has been unrelentingly pro-abortion. His campaign promises to Planned Parenthood to pass FOCA and make “abortion rights” a primary issue of his presidency reinforced the perception that Obama would be the most pro-choice president yet elected to office.Even so, many Catholics voted for the Democrat candidate, claiming that their choice was more pro-life than a Republican vote (voting for a third party was rarely, if ever, mentioned as an option). Their claim was that Obama would stop the war and promote social changes that would make abortions less necessary. As I watched listened to the inauguration of our new president, observing the great celebration of “change” and “hope,” I couldn’t help but wonder. At what cost had my fellow Catholics caused our country to pay for this moment of euphoria?

The first installment of that payment has already come due. As fully expected of a Democrat president, Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy by executive order, despite his promise to govern from the center and to listen to opposing voices. This policy prohibited tax dollars from being used to fund abortions in other countries (especially to fund the United Nations Population Control Fund). Our tax money may now be used to kill unborn babies in the name of fighting poverty. This move is a strong statement that the way to fight poverty is to keep poor people from reproducing. It is also a sign that President Obama is going to be more of the same as far as Democrat government goes. President Obama claimed that rescinding the Mexico City Policy would “settle” a “divisive issue” and bring unity. What nonsense. All he has done is to tip the argument toward death and to enrage advocates of life.

In all fairness, we have to admit that most of the buzz about Obama advancing the Culture of Death has been based on what he might do in the future. Rescinding the Mexico City Policy is the only concrete action he has taken so far. However, this action seems to be an indication of things to come.

Also in fairness, we must admit that the news about President Obama is not all bad. He has made at least three decisions that I think show some wisdom. First, he has overturned President Bush’s order that prohibited the states from enacting stricter vehicle emission standards than the federal standards. This action by President Obama returns control of clean air standards to the states, showing perhaps an understanding of subsidiarity (though it could just be typical Democrat environmentalism). It will also force automobile manufacturers to make some necessary changes that market forces have been unable to bring about.

Secondly, President Obama called for the removal of the contraception funding that Nancy Pelosi added to the economic stimulus package. He did so in response to pressure form Republicans and form pro-life advocates, perhaps showing that he is willing to listen to opposing voices after all. There is hope here. However, I am suspicious that his decision was to fight this battle later. If I am right, we haven’t seen the end of the contraception funding issue. For now, though, we can count this decision in the president’s favor.

Thirdly, President Obama has built on President Bush’s idea of “Faith-based initiatives,” except that he has expanded it to include nonreligious social organizations. As long as he does not include faith-based groups, I fully support the change. Supporting community organizations is an effective way to care for people’s needs. Local organizations know the needs of their people better than the removed federal government. Once again it is a sign that President Obama understands the principle of subsidiarity.

Unfortunately, these good decisions pale in scope and weight compared to the funding of abortion abroad. Lives of innocent babies are not a cost I am willing to pay for two small good actions.

What about the lives saved by not electing the war-mongering Republicans? I argued during the presidential race that I did not think that any president could simply withdraw us from the war. So far, indications point to my judgment being correct. Obama made a largely symbolic gesture of closing the Guantanamo Bay prison (some would say more than symbolic, since those prisoners may now be brought to speedy trial and finally receive justice), but early indications are that the war is business as usual – as it almost has to be for the sake of strength in the war against terror and justice for the Iraqi people who would greatly suffer in a power vacuum.

My purpose in this analysis is not to promote a partisan criticism of President Obama. To narrowly focused conservatives, Obama can do no right. Just as President Bush could do no right to narrowly focused liberals (the claims that Bush ranks among the worst presidents in history are utterly ridiculous). I want to be sure to point out what our government does right as well as what it does wrong. However, where innocent human lives are concerned, it is important to keep careful watch. An otherwise good president who advocates the killing of innocent lives is not a good president.I have to wonder if pro-Obama Catholics are keeping track. In the end, what cost will they pay for their choice? Only time will tell.

[ad#seasonal]

How Our Country Has Changed

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:09:35 +0000

Every presidential election has stirred this thought in me, but perhaps none more than the race that led to President Bill Clinton’s first term in office. I remember watching the debates and the “town hall meetings” hosted by MTV in which question after question started with the phrase, “As president, what would you do about . . .?” How times have changed.

As our country slowly solidified from individual and independent colonies into a united nation after the forging of the Constitution, the main political model in the United States was “Republican Virtue.” This beautifully idealistic philosophy had a number of tenets that you just don’t find in American politics today.

The role of the government was to protect the common good, but to leave as much freedom as possible to the states (of course, this was in conflict between the federalists and the anti-federalists, but even the federalists believed in subsidiarity).
The country as a whole struggled to balance liberty with order.
Citizens were encouraged to freely sacrifice their own good for the good of the country – to put others first
Virtue was seen as an indispensable requirement for the exercise of freedom
Family was the core of citizenship – mothers had an esteemed role of educating children in the ways of virtue and citizenship
Politicians were citizens who were elected to office primarily because of their proven character. They were people that the citizens trusted. Elected public officials, including United States senators, congressmen and presidents, served their term and then returned to their home and their normal occupation. There was not such thing as a professional politician

I do not mean to imply that America was perfect during this time of Republican Virtue. Negative campaigning, mud slinging, and corruption have always been part of politics (we are always fallen human beings). However, our country at least had an ideal to live up to. When did things change? Historians probably differ on this opinion, but I put the blame on the presidential campaign of President Andrew Jackson. Jackson’s campaign of “New Democracy” changed the public focus from Republican Virtue to competing self-interest. His message was the empowerment of the common man. Who could argue with that as a worthy goal? But “empowerment” meant that government exists to serve the individual citizen rather than that government exists due to the selfless service of citizens for the protection of the common good.

In my opinion, we are now bearing the fruits of the “New Democracy.” We have become a country of entitlement. We tend to see government as a great goodies box that exists to make my life easier. The principle of subsidiarity has been lost by both major political parties. Republican Virtue is viewed with suspicion and even contempt. The concepts of the common good and universal human rights have been replaced by universal private health care and the right to “privacy.” Idealism is scoffed and individualism is idealized.

We now have a Democrat government. Democrats have taken the House, Senate and the presidency. The Democrats tend to embrace the “New Democracy” much more wholeheartedly than Republicans. I think the next four years are going to show us the folly and the danger of such a public mindset. I am happy that we have finally elected an African-American president. However, I fear what free reign of “New Democracy” will do to our country.

We do still hang on to the shreds of what once made our country great. Let’s just hope that some day we can piece it back together and come to realize that responsibility for our neighbor’s welfare rests in our lap, not with the government.
[ad#seasonal]

The Joy of the Truth » politics

Pro-choice is the Death of Love

Related Links:

Related Posts:

The Joy of Dialogue: Immigration

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Standard Medical Practice and International Rights

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Counting the Cost: Lines Drawn in the Sand

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Alarmism & Propaganda in the Prolife Movement Revisited

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Alarmism and Propaganda Have No Place in the Pro-Life Movement

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Counting the Cost: More Babies Dead

Related Links:

Related Posts:

The Choice Between Cultural Indoctrination and Critical Thinking

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Counting the Cost of Electing a Pro-Abortion Candidate

Related Links:

Related Posts:

How Our Country Has Changed

Related Links:

Related Posts: