Wednesday, January 14, 2004
General Wesley Clark's Curious Views on Abortion
When asked about his views on abortion, Democratic Presidential Canidate Retired General Wesley Clark stated that life begins with the mothers decision. Safe to say, this is not a Catholic way of thinking, and I would argue Catholics in good conscience, wishing to remain faithful to the perennial teachings of the Magesterium, cannot endorse such a canidate. Let's think this position out.
First, in order for medical practices to be effective, there must be standards. Yet the idea that life simply begins with the mothers decision is absurd, in that everything is relative and arbitrary. While one may believe the life begins at conception, another may believe life doesn't begin until birth, and yet another could just as well argue that the child's life doesn't really begin until it's independent from the mother! By this logic, terminating the pregnancy\life, could not be argued against. It's a very consistent argument from one who says "It's a womans choice" but it shows the utter absurdity of the culture of death.
We must demand consistency in that two plus two does indeed equal four. What do I mean by that? That indeed, something that is true for one, is true for another. Truth is truth, independent of anyone's belief on the subject. Tomorrow every math scholar could say two plus two equals five, yet they would still be wrong. Likewise, when life begins is a standard. It doesn't begin when the mother says it does. It begins independent of her thoughts on the issue. Sacred Scripture tells us God knows us in the womb. Therefore, we are life inside that womb, and logic would extend it(and 2000 years of Church teaching confirm this) life begins at conception. Indeed, General Clark's standard would be impossible to impose as law, because it doesn't have any real standard by which to measure it. The Absurdity of the idea on it's face I think would be it's primary reason for rejection.
Second, is the idea that life begins only with the mothers decision. The simple fact is that the father helped create that life. Where is his decision on when life begins. The statement, in and of itself, is a sexist statement.
Another argument would be medically, what is the difference in one minute, between a child in the womb, then snap your fingers, being born? Yet by Clark's logic, there must be a substantial difference, because one life would be protected, whereas the other would not. Is there any evidence that proves such a difference? The answer is clearly negative.
Furthermore, the mother knows the chances that if she engages in sex, life could start. She knows when she's fertile. As this article points out, one of the biggest myths is that the women had no idea they could get pregnant, it's all one big mystery. This is a completely foolish idea. A woman knows when she's fertile, let me repeat that. If she still decides to take the risk, then obviously, if you play with fire, you get burned.
Faced with these questions, the honest reader must conclude that Clark's plan would be an invitation to disaster for America, resulting in making the abortion problem not only worse, but completely out of control. As Catholics are called to defend the innocent lives who are lost in abortion, General Clark must be held accountable for such zany beliefs, and those who are thinking of voting for Clark, and are faithful Catholics, or even Non-Catholics who uphold the sanctity of life, one must think if electing this man will honestly make the innocent more safe.
When asked about his views on abortion, Democratic Presidential Canidate Retired General Wesley Clark stated that life begins with the mothers decision. Safe to say, this is not a Catholic way of thinking, and I would argue Catholics in good conscience, wishing to remain faithful to the perennial teachings of the Magesterium, cannot endorse such a canidate. Let's think this position out.
First, in order for medical practices to be effective, there must be standards. Yet the idea that life simply begins with the mothers decision is absurd, in that everything is relative and arbitrary. While one may believe the life begins at conception, another may believe life doesn't begin until birth, and yet another could just as well argue that the child's life doesn't really begin until it's independent from the mother! By this logic, terminating the pregnancy\life, could not be argued against. It's a very consistent argument from one who says "It's a womans choice" but it shows the utter absurdity of the culture of death.
We must demand consistency in that two plus two does indeed equal four. What do I mean by that? That indeed, something that is true for one, is true for another. Truth is truth, independent of anyone's belief on the subject. Tomorrow every math scholar could say two plus two equals five, yet they would still be wrong. Likewise, when life begins is a standard. It doesn't begin when the mother says it does. It begins independent of her thoughts on the issue. Sacred Scripture tells us God knows us in the womb. Therefore, we are life inside that womb, and logic would extend it(and 2000 years of Church teaching confirm this) life begins at conception. Indeed, General Clark's standard would be impossible to impose as law, because it doesn't have any real standard by which to measure it. The Absurdity of the idea on it's face I think would be it's primary reason for rejection.
Second, is the idea that life begins only with the mothers decision. The simple fact is that the father helped create that life. Where is his decision on when life begins. The statement, in and of itself, is a sexist statement.
Another argument would be medically, what is the difference in one minute, between a child in the womb, then snap your fingers, being born? Yet by Clark's logic, there must be a substantial difference, because one life would be protected, whereas the other would not. Is there any evidence that proves such a difference? The answer is clearly negative.
Furthermore, the mother knows the chances that if she engages in sex, life could start. She knows when she's fertile. As this article points out, one of the biggest myths is that the women had no idea they could get pregnant, it's all one big mystery. This is a completely foolish idea. A woman knows when she's fertile, let me repeat that. If she still decides to take the risk, then obviously, if you play with fire, you get burned.
Faced with these questions, the honest reader must conclude that Clark's plan would be an invitation to disaster for America, resulting in making the abortion problem not only worse, but completely out of control. As Catholics are called to defend the innocent lives who are lost in abortion, General Clark must be held accountable for such zany beliefs, and those who are thinking of voting for Clark, and are faithful Catholics, or even Non-Catholics who uphold the sanctity of life, one must think if electing this man will honestly make the innocent more safe.
Comment Boxes Added
For those who wish to leave comments, we have given comment boxes, courtesy of Haloscan
For those who wish to leave comments, we have given comment boxes, courtesy of Haloscan
Welcome to the Culture of Christ Blogspot!
I'd like to thank everyone for taking their time to visit this new project between Mr. Latar and myself. Me and Apolonio have had some fierce disagreements in the past on issues which are free to discuss, but on issues where discussion isn't free, where the Church does give definitive teaching, we are both steadfast to them. The area of the Churches social teaching is one of those areas.
Furthermore, as we are both members of todays youth(myself a little senior than Apolonio) we both understand the need to present the message of Christ and his Church to todays youth. Many youths have questions about the role of sex, what marriage should be, and wonder about what they read, hear, or see. This weblog has the intention of fixing some of these problems. It is my hope that anyone seeking answers, may find them here.
Part of combatting todays liberalized secularized culture will also involve direct engagement of those spokesmen and outlets which promote those messages contrary to authentic Christianity. This will include;
1.) Analysis of the Media in the way it displays culture.
2.) Analysis of the role of education in promoting this culture(contraceptive and sex education, "Human Relations Classes")
If there are any other ideas, or anyone would be interested in writing for this blog, please let either myself or Apolonio know.
I'd like to thank everyone for taking their time to visit this new project between Mr. Latar and myself. Me and Apolonio have had some fierce disagreements in the past on issues which are free to discuss, but on issues where discussion isn't free, where the Church does give definitive teaching, we are both steadfast to them. The area of the Churches social teaching is one of those areas.
Furthermore, as we are both members of todays youth(myself a little senior than Apolonio) we both understand the need to present the message of Christ and his Church to todays youth. Many youths have questions about the role of sex, what marriage should be, and wonder about what they read, hear, or see. This weblog has the intention of fixing some of these problems. It is my hope that anyone seeking answers, may find them here.
Part of combatting todays liberalized secularized culture will also involve direct engagement of those spokesmen and outlets which promote those messages contrary to authentic Christianity. This will include;
1.) Analysis of the Media in the way it displays culture.
2.) Analysis of the role of education in promoting this culture(contraceptive and sex education, "Human Relations Classes")
If there are any other ideas, or anyone would be interested in writing for this blog, please let either myself or Apolonio know.
