Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Mortals=Fools (Puck was right)


Sometimes I think that doing this is beneficial to my health. No, really. If I didn't spout off my opinions and gripes on here, I'd either keep it all inside, which would give me an apoplexy sooner or later, or I'd go and gripe to people, usually the persons involved if available, at which point they would maim/kill me. So let's all give a big round of applause to the internet and these fine people here at for keeping me alive.

Every morning, I get my news fix. I read Zenit with my coffee before lauds, and the Houston Chronicle over breakfast shortly after. This morning, I read an absolutely remarkable story here about more activity in the Texas State Legislature, that prestigious body of lawmakers who, when things aren't going their way, runs off and pouts in another state so that nothing can be done. (Anyone remember the summer of '03?)

At the moment, they are considering a law that would require stricter parental consent for minors getting abortions. Now, I seem to recall a time not so long ago when I couldn't go for a checkup without my parents standing right behind me. This is how things were until the day I turned 18. So, if I don't have the ability to get my height measured and things looked over in general, why on Earth are young girls allowed to obtain a surgical procedure without parental permission?

Now, back when the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing the case to strike down juvenile executions, there were several arguments presented, including that the minor does not have sufficient maturity to be held to the same level of accountability as adults, and so should not be treated like adults. As many of you know, I am big on the concept of the "million dollar question". For me, that is the question regarding an argument which, in the deft handling of one solitary sentence, essentially reduces the argument or point made to either a pile of idiocy or uselessness. For this case, the million dollar question was asked by Justice Antonin Scalia, when he asked something along the lines of "so wait, you're telling me that they don't know enough to be treated like an adult when they are killing someone, but they do when they are requesting to have an abortion?" This was, in fact, almost exactly what they were trying to tell him. He ended up voting against the ruling, but he deserves some credit for that question. Quite a bit of credit, really.

Then there was the part where the Women's Health and Family Planning Alliance (WHFPA) lamented that as a result of various laws, abortions performed had reduced to a mere 300. Now, call me crazy, but when a law makes the number of abortions go down, isn't that generally regarded as a good thing? Even Sen. Clinton uses the "safe, legal, rare" rhetoric when she speaks of abortions. Well, I suppose its still safe, its definitely still legal, and its also becoming rarer. I'm not seeing the problem.

But, of course, what would an abortion debate be without hearing from the National Abortion and Reproduction Rights Action League (NARAL)?

"They're obsessed with restricting and obstructing as opposed to preventing," said Kae McLaughlin, executive director [of NARAL].

Well, actually, if you think about that statement for more than, let's say, five seconds, the flaw in the logic will become perfectly clear. When you make it difficult to do an action, that is a method of prevention. If I make it illegal for Jane McKay to get an abortion (that was a completely made up name, by the way), then that at least makes it less likely, if not impossible, for Jane to get her abortion. Hence I have prevented Jane as much as I can. Now, of course humans have free will, and short of putting her in a jail cell until the kid comes out, I can never absolutely prevent the abortion. But I do remember learning in my Poly Sci class that in areas that have more stringent abortion laws, fewer abortions on the whole (ie, both legal and illegal) occur, so in passing such a law, they would almost certainly be preventing abortions from occuring.

Ms. McLaughlin, as I recall, was the same woman who, back when the Democratic party was tossing around (in a very hypothetical manner, I presume) the possibility of dropping abortion from the platform, said that that wasn't necessary, but that they should re-phrase their stance in "religious language". I must admit, I'd be very interested in seeing what that entails.

Just so long as we can all agree that simply putting "Thou shalt..." before a statement does not constitute "religious language".

+Ad Majorem Dei Gloram+
“The 'assured results of modern scholarship', as to the way in which an old book was written, are 'assured', we may conclude, only because those who knew the facts are dead and can't blow the gaff... The Biblical critics, whatever reconstructions they devise, can never be crudely proved wrong. St. Mark is dead. When they meet St. Peter there will be more pressing matters to discuss.”
-C.S. Lewis, Christian Reflections


At 2:53 PM, Blogger Kathryn Judson said...

May I suggest going over to and signing up?

At 8:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, David, you fill me with hope for the future of the Church. :-) Love ya.



Post a Comment

<< Home