Humanity, Natural Law, and Eugenics

I know I haven't posted in a while, but that is because I have been refining this essay. Recently I have been immersing myself in material on abortion, birth control, and sexual ethics in general. Conversations with friends, news articles... you name it. So this is pretty much my pro-life treaties, so I won't have to return to this topic at length later.

Eugenics

This article caught my eye and pretty much made my stomach lurch. It appears that 41 members of the Australian Parliament have introduced a "soft" eugenics bill, which would require the state to subsidize the abortions of children who are handicapped on the basis that it is economically more feasible to terminate such pregnancies than to support or care for those lives postpartum.

Consider some general prenatal diagnosis/abortion statistics from the Western World:

• Down Syndrome - 92% termination rate
• Klinefelter Syndrome - 58% termination rate
• Turner Syndrome - 66% termination rate

Those opposed to this bill have obviously likened it to the policies of Nazi Germany, which targeted those who's "life was unworthy of life" (the criminal, degenerate, dissident, feeble-minded, homosexual, idle, insane, religious, and weak) for elimination from the chain of heredity.

America's Eugenics Past

As much as we would wish to imagine that such programs have not and do not exist here in the good ole U.S. of A., we would pretty much be deluding ourselves. In the past, as many as 30 states have legalized compulsory sterilization around the 1930's. Who led the charge, you may ask? Margaret Sanger and an organization she founded named the American Birth Control League (renamed Planned Parenthood in 1942). Given the origin of eugenics and it's usage by the Third Reich, I think it would be interesting to get an understanding of Ms. Sanger's perspective on why she supported forced sterilization.

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
-Margaret Sanger, Letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble (12/19/1939)

"The Jewish people and Italian families who are filling the insane asylums, who are filling the hospitals and filling our feeble-minded institutions, these are the ones the tax payers have to pay for the upkeep of, and they are increasing the budget of the State, the enormous expense of the State is increasing because of the multiplication of the unfit in this country and in the State.”
-Margaret Sanger, Testimony before the NYS Legislature

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
-Margaret Sanger, Woman, Morality, and Birth Control

"There is only one reply to a request for a higher birthrate among the intelligent, and that is to ask the government to first take the burden of the insane and feeble-minded from your back. Mandatory sterilization for these is the answer."
-Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review (10/1926)

Among the early members of the ABCL were Lothrop Stoddard, appointed by Sanger as director. Stoddard was a white-supremacist often linked with the Third Reich. How many people did the USA forcibly sterilize? Roughly 75,000.

Abortion

Many pro-abrtion advocates take the Joe Biden approach, asserting that it would be immoral for me or anyone else to assert when life begins. Why? Because it is supposed to be a matter of opinion or religious belief. Fortunately, that's not really true, as the USCCB wrote in their condemnation of Joe Biden's policy. Even from a Catholic perspective, when life begins is not a question of "faith" or something which has been Divinely revealed to the human race, but simply a question of biology.

What is it?

Now, if we are dealing with a biological question, what is the subject and what is discernible about it? Well, through embryology we can know that even a single celled zygote is:

1. A living organism
2. That it's DNA betrays it to be of the species Homo sapien
   
3. That it is a distinct organic being in that it does not have replicated DNA from either of it's parents (and thus not part of some other greater whole).

These are overwhelmingly accepted facts. Many pro-choice advocates such as Mary Anne Warren in her article On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion and Brian E. McKinley in his essay Why Abortion is Moral concede this point. I would at this time remind my reader of the earlier question, posed to Barak Obama at the Saddleback Forum and Joe Biden on Meet the press, "When does life begin?" The answer, as Mr. McKinley (pro-choice advocate) put it so eloquently:

"Yes. Pro Choice supporters who claim it isn't [alive] do themselves and their cause a disservice. Of course it's alive. It's a biological mechanism that converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow. It's alive. Anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. "Life begins at conception" they claim. And they would be right. The genesis of a new human life begins when the egg with 23 chromosomes joins with a sperm with 23 chromosomes and creates a fertilized cell, called a zygote, with 46 chromosomes."

Life begins at conception. While admitting that it is, from a purely scientific perspective, a human being they move into a deny its "person-hood" or "moral humanity". So the question is no longer concerned with when life begins, but evolves along a more sinister line...

What is a person?

I can see why so many in the pro-choice community wish to cast the issue as a faith/opinion type of question. Realizing that the objective biological evidence undermines their goal, they try to drive the question into blurry intellectual thought. The sliding benchmark, from viability, to being "fully developed"... Wait, fully developed? A prepubescent child isn't "fully developed". The above authors enumerate a number of traits a member of the human race must possess before they can be considered a person: consciousness, the ability to feel pain, developed reasoning, capacity to communicate, etc. Failure to live up to at least one of these standards renders a human being as a non-person or lacking "moral humanity". Missing some of these traits makes you less human (which Ms. Warren places on a scale with chimps and dolphins). What it really becomes is a personal judgment call. Developed reasoning?

Better yet, consider this example. Imagine you are exposed to a 63 year old man who is overwhelmed by Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. Imagine that he is completely paralyzed save for a twitch in his right cheek and eye, and a barely mobile index finger. He is mute. Would you expect him to be able to feel pain, communicate, possess developed reason, etc? While you can reasonably conclude that he may be conscious, you can't very well prove that he doesn't feel pain, or can't communicate in any form whatsoever, or directly measure his rational abilities. Perhaps, if you hooked this gentleman up to a very particular computer (built specifically for him) you would learn that he is Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant mathematicians to ever live. He is fully conscious, communicates with blinks and twitches of his eye through an infrared lens, and regularly contemplates the unimaginable of quantum physics. Now consider those in comas, the truly insane, and the catatonic... are these standards concrete enough to remove all subjective discernment?

Biology and Fuzzy Ethics

The problem with this method of thought is that it appeals to negative proof. Inherently a logical fallacy, negative proof is an appeal to the lack of evidence to the contrary, as though it were evidence itself. "So-and-so cannot be a person because it hasn't been proven that he/she is." Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you have never in your life committed murder, masturbated, etc? If you cannot, than we must consider you to be a chronic masturbater who slaughters the men and women regularly. The evidence please?

Consider these two definitions of "person":

"A person is an individual substance of a rational nature. As individual it is material, since matter supplies the principle of individuation... Man alone is among the material beings person, he alone having a rational nature. He is the highest of the material beings, endowed with particular dignity and rights."
-Boethus, De Persona et Duabus Naturis

"[A person is] a thinking intelligent Being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing in different times and places; which it does only by that consciousness, which is inseparable from thinking, and as it seems to me essential to it."
-John Locke, Essay on Humane Understanding

One of these two definitions suffers a defect, and I would say it is the latter primarily this reason. Locke does not account for where reason and consciousness come from. What causes them, do they spontaneously occur on their own? Boethus clearly understands it to be an aspect of a being's nature, intrinsically linked to the "individual substance" (which constitutes it as a "being"). Locke, however, never really delved too deep into substance, deeming it to be too obscure. All that he would say is that a substance was that in which characteristics subsist. When we see Boethus' definition - and the connection with the objective substance - we know that reason, rights, and dignity are inherent and not simply random occurrences free of cause.

On a side note, I'd like to raise the issue of China's coercive and sex selective abortion policies. For something which many on the political left view as a "woman's rights" issue, I find it odd that many women are not given the "choice" and that it is being used to eradicate women. Not that the USA has anything to do with it. Oh, wait... that's right, we have in the past and probably will in the future. I'm just glad I won't be in power in China when those 100,000,000 men who will never get laid realize why that is.

***Will update with a section on contraception later***

The Bridge

I was reading an article the other night about how San Francisco officials are planning to install suicide nets on the Golden Gate Bridge, to prevent jumpers from leaping to their deaths. It was then that I recalled that a documentary was made a few years back about the Golden Gate suicide rate, titled The Bridge... a film I had wanted to see at the time, but didn't have the opportunity. Low and behold, it is on youtube, in ten parts.

Not exactly sure how I feel about this movie. Given the content, it is tastefully made. While there is video of numerous suicides, there is no sappiness or sterility... and doesn't really attempt to shock the audience. There are ethical issues I have with the making of this film. Refusal to disclose to the city why they wanted to film the bridge (in getting permits to set up cameras at various locations), failure to notify the authorities when the camera crew honed in on potential jumpers, failure to disclose to the family and friends interviewed that the crew had actual footage of the suicides, etc.

But anyway... given that this is San Fran and all, there is a stipulation in the legislation that requires the nets only be put in place if studies show the nets will not have an adverse affect on the bird population. No surprise there...

The Church and Slavery

Last night I was having a conversation with a lovely lady about the consistency of the Magisterium on the topic of slavery. Often times we hear that the holy Roman Church has changed its position on various issues, and she was curious whether that was the case with this issue.

"We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters... the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect. By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters... that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living."-Pope Paul III, Sublimus Dei

The above quotation from Pope Paul III is a solemn condemnation of the practice of enslavement of innocent men and women. Not only does he exercise his supreme teaching authority, he renders any attempt by on the part of Christians utterly null and void (temporal authority). There are however instances in history where the holy Roman Church permitted slavery.

"Fearing lest strangers induced by covetousness should sail to those parts, and desiring to usurp to themselves the perfection, fruit, and praise of this work, or at least to hinder it, should therefore, either for the sake of gain or through malice, carry or transmit iron, arms, wood used for construction, and other things and goods prohibited to be carried to infidels or should teach those infidels the art of navigation, whereby they would become more powerful and obstinate enemies to the king and infante, and the prosecution of this enterprise would either be hindered, or would perhaps entirely fail, not without great offense to God and great reproach to all Christianity, to prevent this.... grant[ed] among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit..."-Pope Alexander VI, Romanus Pontifex

In instances, such as the one above, the Bishop of Rome sanctioned the use of slavery as a punishment for Christians or Muslims who aided non-Christian states in colonizing or impeding the colonization by Catholic states of the New World. I suppose Pope Gregory XVI (In Supremo) really put it best, when he expressed it to simply be an issue of justice.

"We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples."

After all, how often do we see "community service" render as a penalty for criminal offenses, men and women picking up trash along a highway with a shotgun toting office hovering over them?

Hunger

This is a movie I can't wait to see. Its at the New York Film Festival, but I haven't been able to get tickets... damn it. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to settle on the retrospective for Death by Hanging.

And in this corner, weighing in at...

Our most august Roman Pontiff, Benedict XVI, has thrown a bit of a hay maker which may be a knockout blow in regard to the slimy comments made by a Rabbi earlier this week about Pope Pius XII.

More here...

The appropriate forum?

The Chief Rabbi of Haifa in Israel, Rabbi Shear-Yashuv Cohen, was invited to the Vatican to address our most august Roman Pontiff and the Synod of Bishops (meeting to discuss Sacred Scripture) on the perspective of Jews concerning the Torah. Well, upon learning that the meeting coincided with the 50th anniversary of the passing of Pope Pius XII, Cohen went beyond the pale of his discussion topic and went on a tirade about the possible canonization of the late Pope, Iran, and the state of Israel:

"We cannot forget the sad and painful fact of how many, including great religious leaders, didn’t raise a voice in the effort to save our brethren, but chose to keep silent and help secretly... We cannot forgive and forget, and we hope you understand our pain, our sorrow... What happened once should not happen again. My being here makes me feel that we can expect your help, and I am sure your message will be listened to by influential people all over the world... raise your voice, so together with the help of free world defend, we can protect and save Israel from the hands of our enemies.”

All of that is deeply related to Biblical exegesis... of course.

Is this what the pro-life movement has come to?

Certainly my more primitive urges would rejoice at the idea of Britney Spears nude on a bear skin rug, on her hands and knees...

But I never actually though that such an image would be realized in sculpture... depicting her delivering her first son. What the fuck was the sculptor on when he made this thing?

I must at least admit that the artist has a fine eye for detail, because he depicts Miss Spears with out any pubic hair, which is all too close to real life (I'll opt out of linking those pictures). The piece is named Monument to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston. Yes, many years from now, young Sean Preston will contemplate what it was like as his head tore through his mother's birth canal, and he can turn to this piece for clarity. Only thing is I doubt she was in the doggy style position stroking a dead bear's ears.

Veep debate

Vice-Presidential debates are far from a main attraction, though this year seemed to to come with much more hype. Clearly Palin is the chief factor in drawing attention, and I imagine the ratings will be higher than the first Presidential debate of this cycle. All in all, no one screwed up so this will pretty much be forgotten by next week.

There is one thing I do take issue with, and that is Senator Biden's comments on the roll of the Vice President in regard to his role as "President of the Senate":

"And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit. The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us."

And now let us consider what the Constitution actually says:

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

Clearly Senator Biden does not know the description of the job he is applying for. Senator Biden has somehow merged the Vice President's function as the presiding officer of the Senate exclusively with his ability to cast a tie breaking vote. But that is not what the Constitution says at all. If the Vice President is present in session, Constitutional law mandates that he is the presiding officer ex officio, and only in his absence may the Senate select another to fill that post. Now, if he is absent and a tie occurs... how is he to even know, and if he is not present he very well cannot cast a vote. Second, he is the presiding officer over all impeachments save that of the President.

But better yet, what was the perspective of the Framers? From the Senate's own website:

"Several framers ultimately refused to sign the Constitution, in part because they viewed the vice president's legislative role as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Elbridge Gerry, who would later serve as vice president, declared that the framers 'might as well put the President himself as head of the legislature.' Others thought the office unnecessary but agreed with Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman that "if the vice-President were not to be President of the Senate, he would be without employment, and some member [of the Senate, acting as presiding officer] must be deprived of his vote.'"

Endorsement time...

Though I have not been blogging for long, I think its about time I start using my massive bully pulpit, and endorse a presidential candidate...

The Catholic Advantage?

Obviously, for a number of years the Anglican Communion has been in tatters. This morally bankrupt para-church has for the past decade or so been "blessing" same-sex partnerships, been ordaining homosexuals, etc. in the United States and Canada. Provinces abroad, especially in the south have expressed their disgust, with a number going so far as to sever communion with their North American counter parts.

Even within the Episcopal Church of the USA (ECUSA), there has been a surprising amount of dissent from the heterodox ideology spewed by the national province. First the diocese of San Joaquin seceded from the ECUSA. The diocese of Pittsburgh is planning to hold a similar vote on October 4th, but after the success in San Joaquin, the ECUSA's House of Bishops weren't going to be spat in the face twice. Rather they decided to depose the Pittsburgh ordinary and remove him from active ministry before any vote took place, as a way of undermining the "secessionist movement".

So where is the advantage to the holy Roman Church in all of this? Under the guise of "ecumenical dialog", the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is in communication with the Catholic Bishop, Kevin Vann. Aside from completely denouncing the ECUSA in letters of correspondence, the question of "what will it take for use to enter into full communion with you?" came up.

Then there is the Traditional Anglican Communion. Roughly about 400,000 people in size, and having severed communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 70's. Their bishops have voted unanimously to seek full unity with Rome:

"The College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) met in Plenary Session in Portsmouth, England, in the first week of October 2007. The Bishops and Vicars-General unanimously agreed to the text of a letter to the See of Rome seeking full, corporate, sacramental union. The letter was signed solemnly by all the College and entrusted to the Primate and two bishops chosen by the College to be presented to the Holy See. The letter was cordially received at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Primate of the TAC has agreed that no member of the College will give interviews until the Holy See has considered the letter and responded.” + John

Prior to those three bishops doing a backstroke across the Tiber, there was this report:

"It has been widely rumored that Archbishop Peter Akinola, a Nigerian Anglican bishop who has been possibly the most outspoken leader against the innovative trends in the worldwide communion, has reportedly said to Hepworth, 'If you can work out a deal with Rome, make sure we are included.' Archbishop Hepworth, while not commenting directly on such matters, does indicate that this new "Uniate Church" will be a way dissatisfied Anglican people could find their way back to the Catholic Church."

How many Nigerians would that include, if that rumor turns out to be true? Try 17 million.