The Joy of the Truth » propaganda

What if Natural Were Not Natural?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:00:43 +0000

The Spring 2003 edition of Wilson Quarterly ran an article called, “What is Natural?” The author, Andrew Stark, was exploring the standards used by insurance companies to decide what treatments to cover and which ones not to cover. One of the standards that he explores is the classic standard of a true medication or treatment returning the human body to natural functioning. Of course, like a true modernist, Stark then asks the question what exactly is natural? One example that he gives is the question of covering Viagra but not birth control pills. The idea of returning to the body to natural functioning would seem to indicate that Viagra should be covered since it returns the natural procreative functioning of the male, and that contraception should not be covered because it works against the natural procreative functioning of female. Then Stark pulls the standard modernist trick “what if.”

But suppose we view “natural” sexuality in recreational, not procreative, terms. Since “most Viagra users are men aged 50–75, hardly peak biological years for procreation,” a writer in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer pointed out a few years ago, “the specter of ‘recreational’ use is hard to ignore.” Viagra users are not fulfilling their natural functioning but thumbing their noses at it. After all, as Robert Scheer wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “Isn’t sexual impotence God’s gentle way of saying to a 75-year-old man, ‘You’ve had enough’?” Contraception, by contrast, enables a woman “to enjoy sex,” Paige Shipman of Wisconsin Planned Parenthood told me, precisely by “eliminating a direct threat to her natural functioning: the ravages on her body that would result from having to bear 12 to 15 children.”

So if sex is understood in procreative terms, Viagra promotes natural functioning and contraception thwarts it. If it’s understood in recreational terms, Viagra frequently mocks natural functioning and contraception protects it. ¹

This common modernist fallacy creates a false supposition on which to base an argument. The argument itself seems perfectly logical, but the very premise on which it is based is made up out of thin air. “Suppose we just change the rules.”

For what reason would we consider sexuality from a recreational viewpoint? It is obvious to human reason that the purpose of human sexuality is greater than pleasure alone. It is equally obvious that at least part of that purpose is procreative. While there are many things in human life that bring pleasure, there are very few for which pleasure is the ultimate purpose because pleasure is such a low good on the hierarchy of human needs.

Of course, once you start heading down a false trail of logic, it is easy to remain misled. Paige Shipman’s comment about contraception preserving a woman’s natural functioning from the ravages of her body that result from having 12 to 15 children is a completely spurious argument. First of all, chemical contraception ravages the body even more than natural pregnancy — artificially aging the cervix, making the body more susceptible to cancer, and causing infertility. On the other hand, the woman’s natural fertility functioning makes it unlikely that she will ever bear 12 to 15 children. The application of little human reasoning to her natural fertility cycling guarantees it. The woman can use natural family planning to limit the number of children she has without using chemicals that would further damage her body.

Modernists like the “what if” game. It allows them to create a logical-sounding argument that calls truth into question while at the same time it makes no real claim to truth itself. It’s a dangerous form of propaganda that can do real harm.

Stark, Andrew. “What’s Natural?” Wilson Quarterly. Spring 2003. 55-56. ↩

Pro-life means anti-murder

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:35:22 +0000

The murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller has pro-life groups scrambling to defend the pro-life movement from accusations that we support murder,

see Pro-Lifers Say Abortionist’s Murder Undermines the Right-to-Life Movement

and for good reason. Almost immediately, pro-abortion commentaries began declaring that the pro-life movement is hypocritical, violent and “extreme.” Of course, such political diatribe was sadly predictable and frankly pathetic. That pro-abortion activists would use the death of one of their own as an opportunity for such propaganda is pretty much unconscionable, especially considering that the comments came out long before all of the facts are even known. We don’t even know the motivation behind the murder.

In stark contrast to this shameless propaganda, the defenses launched by pro-life groups is not mere political expediency. Murder of any human being, even of a human being who is committing murder, is morally evil and would be fundamentally and philosophically opposed to a true pro-life advocate. Reports on Tiller’s murder have mentioned some possible justifications for such a murder that a morality blog should examine.

Justification #1: the murder of an abortion provider is justified because the use of lethal force is morally justified in defense of innocent human life.

Using lethal force in defense of innocent life (or in self-defense) is only justified under very specific circumstances. Most germane to this discussion, the use of lethal force must be the only means possible for saving the innocent life. While pro-lifers may become frustrated at the continued death of the unborn, we cannot honestly make the claim that lethal force is our only remaining option. In fact, Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life and others have pointed out that converting the hearts of abortion providers is actually a greater asset to the pro-life cause, as these doctors then become powerful witnesses to the evils of abortion.

Justification #2: killing one abortion provider saves the lives of hundreds, or perhaps even thousands of children.

First of all, Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League points out that this claim is simply not true. Getting rid of one abortion provider simply opens the door for other providers to step into the gap. Indeed, another abortion provider, a close of friend of Tiller’s, immediately went to Tiller’s clinic to make sure it kept running. More importantly, even if this were true the proportionate good brought about by the evil does not justify the evil of murder. The principle of “the ends do not justify the means” clearly states that no evil may be done so that good may come from it. If killing an abortion provider saves the lives of thousands of babies, those thousands of lives are purchased at too dear a cost. This principle makes the most sense to those who believe in life beyond this world. The babies who are killed by abortion will be take care of by God. Our faith in God’s love and mercy for the unborn victims of murder does not keep us from fighting the evil of abortion, because the battle against abortion is actually the battle for immortal human souls – of the mothers, abortion providers, and leaders who support such evil. So, we fight abortion out of love for these evil doers and a desire for their conversion. Their murder is antithetical to the cause of life for Catholics and for any other Christian.

Justification 3: As a late-term abortion provider, George Tiller deserved to die.

If this is true of George Tiller, it is true of all of us. Yes, George Tiller committed murder, and as a result may be put to death if the conditions for capital punishment are met. However, vigilante justice is never morally justified, and even capital punishment would probably not be justified in America.

In the end, pro-lifers must declare that the murder of George Tiller was philosophically and morally opposed to what the pro-life movement stands for. I join many Catholics today in praying for the soul of George Tiller and for his family. I also pray for the conversion of the person responsible for this heinous crime, whatever his motivations were.

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.

The Joy of the Truth » propaganda

What if Natural Were Not Natural?

Related Links:

Related Posts:

Pro-life means anti-murder

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: