Jivin J's Life Links 9-15-09

web grab.jpgby JivinJ

  • The Globe and Mail has an in-depth article on India's problem with sex-selection abortion. The problem is biggest among the upperclass:
  • But $100 on the birth of a girl - or even $2,500 at her marriage - means nothing to the country's wealthiest families. And that is where the gender gulf is yawning most deeply. The richest neighbourhoods in the country - the wealthy farming areas of the Punjab, the middle-class areas of Mumbai and other cities, and here, the leafy neighbourhoods in the south of the capital - have the biggest gaps....

    High-caste families in urban areas of the Punjab have just 300 girls for every 1,000 boys, researchers financed by Canada's International Development Research Centre reported last year. In South Delhi, it's 832 girls born per 1,000 boys; in the state of Haryana, home to the high-tech hub of Gurgaon, it's 822. (In "normal" circumstances, demographers expect to find 950 to 1,000 girls born for every 1,000 boys).

    Conventional wisdom has long held that as India develops - as more families struggle their way into the middle class, more girls go to school and more women join the work force - traditional ideas about the lesser value of girls will erode. The incentive to abort them would fall away.

    Instead, the opposite has happened, and the reasons - and solutions - have government and activists stumped.

  • The Washington Post asked DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius about abortion, health care and communion:
  • Ms. Romano: Do you think that the federal government should do some federal funding of abortions, personally?

    Secretary Sebelius: Well, the President has made it pretty clear that Congress and the new health insurance plan will not provide federal funds for abortions.

    Ms. Romano: Well, I know that. I was asking you what you thought.

    kathleen sebelius washpo.jpg

    Secretary Sebelius: I am the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and I will support the President's proposal moving forward.

    Ms. Romano: You are also a pro-choice Catholic, and I was reading some stories out of your home state recently where one of the bishops took an action. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

    Secretary Sebelius: Well, the Archbishop in the Kansas City area did not approve of my conduct as a public official and asked that I not present myself for communion.

    Ms. Romano: What did you think about that?

    Secretary Sebelius: Well, it was one of the most painful things I have ever experienced in my life, and I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, and I feel that my actions as a parishioner are different than my actions as a public official and that the people who elected me in KS had a right to expect me to uphold their rights and their beliefs even if they did not have the same religious beliefs that I had. And that's what I did: I took an oath of office and I have taken an oath of office in this job and will uphold the law.

    Ms. Romano: Do you continue to take communion?

    Secretary Sebelius: I really would prefer not to discuss with you. That's really a personal - thank you.

  • At the Daily Loaf, a woman shares the 3rd part of her abortion story and her issues with Planned Parenthood in NY:
  • When I reached the top of the staircase, I saw at least 70 pale, exasperated women waiting. I went to the desk and was given a wristband and a bit more paperwork. Then, I waited.....

    I suppose in NY, PP is the way to go if you have no insurance, but barring that, stay away. Why the hell is there only 1 clinic in all of Manhattan? Why do they over-schedule patients when there are only 2 doctors working?


    Comments:

    'The Daily Loaf'

    I remember street language for a bowel movement was 'pinchin a loaf'.


    After reading this bit of bovine scatulation I believe this 'rag' is appropriately named.

    yor bro ken

    Posted by: kbhvac at September 15, 2009 10:30 AM


    In part two, she says to a protester at PP: “It’s not a baby yet,”

    First of all, THERE is the lie that all pro-choicers choose to believe to ease their consciences.

    Second of all, I wonder if her decision (and her attitude) would be different if she knew that it WAS in fact, a baby....

    Posted by: Peg at September 15, 2009 11:16 AM


    Abortion for sex-selection is also our problem here in the USA:

    Almond D, Edlund L.
    Son-biased sex ratios in the 2000 United States Census. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U S A. 2008 Apr 15;105(15):5681-2.

    So, yes, here in the US, ppl are choosing to abort because some medical test has given the info that the fetus is, more than likely, a female -- although these tests have error rates, so there is some portion of fetuses who are aborted because they are male fetuses mistaken for female fetuses. Is that progress for all of us feminists?

    Posted by: Row1 at September 15, 2009 11:34 AM


    Jim,

    " Are the Archbishop also feel the same about politicians who are involved with carrying out the death penalty?"

    The Catholic Church does not teach that the death penalty is intrinsically and always evil, unlike direct abortion.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 15, 2009 12:10 PM


    I know I am being a "bad" prolifer here, but I am tired of prochoicers and their talk of "abortion is not a decision women take lightly," etc. I think MANY women take it lightly, and are even cavalier about it. I was on the bus the other day and I heard a woman talking about having an abortion. It was her SECOND one in a year's time. She had had the first one at six months. I heard her casually say "it was a boy." And this is in a large city where contraception is readily available.

    Prolifers are always talking about the e-vell abortionists, but why don't we admit that many aborting women just don't want to be bothered?

    Posted by: Phillymiss at September 15, 2009 1:11 PM


    Phillymiss,

    If a woman is having her second abortion in one year, I'd say either she's extremely fertile, her mate is extremely fertile, or she's sleeping with more than one man at a time. Pathetic, irresponsible, and stupid.

    Posted by: Janet at September 15, 2009 1:21 PM


    "......she's sleeping with more than one man at a time."

    I don't know if I said that correctly. I didn't mean "at the SAME time." :)

    Posted by: Janet at September 15, 2009 1:23 PM


    "......she's sleeping with more than one man at a time."

    I don't know if I said that correctly. I didn't mean "at the SAME time." :)
    Posted by: Janet at September 15, 2009 1:23 PM

    Don't knock it til you've tried it.

    Posted by: Hal at September 15, 2009 4:48 PM


    The Catholic Church does not teach that the death penalty is intrinsically and always evil, unlike direct abortion.
    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 15, 2009 12:10 PM

    Bobby, we've been through this before. You're well aware that the official position of the Catholic Church is that the death penalty as it exists in the United States is immoral and sinful. Yet there is no outrage against CINO's who support it.

    Posted by: Hal at September 15, 2009 5:03 PM


    "Bobby, we've been through this before. You're well aware that the official position of the Catholic Church is that the death penalty as it exists in the United States is immoral and sinful. Yet there is no outrage against CINO's who support it."
    Posted by: Hal at September 15, 2009 5:03 PM

    Hal,
    I believe you are right about the death penalty as it exists in the U.S. since we have other means of ensuring the protection of our citizens from these criminals besides execution.
    Some good news from: www.catholicsmobilizing.org/

    "The Catholic Mobilizing Network to End the Use of the Death Penalty was launched on January 25, 2009. It is working in collaboration with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Its goal: to put the Church’s teaching about the death penalty into action. We seek to foster respectful dialogue about this serious life issue...."

    Hopefully we'll see the bishops become more vocal in the future.

    Posted by: Janet at September 15, 2009 6:08 PM


    "Bobby, we've been through this before. You're well aware that the official position of the Catholic Church is that the death penalty as it exists in the United States is immoral and sinful. Yet there is no outrage against CINO's who support it."

    Hal,

    This is wrong. It is not the official position. Look at the quote in the catechism again.

    "2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
    "If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
    "Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68] "

    Look at the first line: "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty" Yes, JPII has said that it is rare if PRACTICALLY nonexistent, but language is nowhere NEAR definitive. Even liberal dissenter theologians will tell you that this language is nothing close to definitive. In teh EXACT same encylcial that JPII wrote this, look at what he says about the abortion:

    "Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable.72 Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops—who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine—I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.73"

    All the criteria for an infallible teaching statement as expressed by Vatican I are present in the statement about abortion. There are 0 such criteria in the statement about the death penalty. He doesn't define anything, doesn't declare anything. As the first line of the paragraph on the death penalty states, it has been the traditional teaching of the Church to NOT exclude recourse to the death penalty. The Pope saying that it's pretty are these days does not change that tradition. It would take a statement of the same magnitude as the one on abortion which, again, is found in the same encyclical.

    In fact, no where can you find any statement by a pope or council which calls the death penalty sinful or immoral. There are dozens upon dozens of such condemnations of abortion with this kind of language.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 15, 2009 7:18 PM


    Janet,

    I took a look at that link, and they don't seem to actually show where this teaching is found. All I could fin is a quote from JPII and a quote from Rev. Federico Lombardi, which they made seem like was from BXVI. I've never seen anything that could even be construed by as a statement condemning the death penalty as grave. Do you know what this website has in mind when it talks about the Church's "official" teaching on the death penalty?

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 15, 2009 7:27 PM


    So let me also add: here is a down and dirty way for knowing if something is considered immoral in Catholic teaching. First, consider paragraph 1857 in the Catechism:

    1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

    As any good Catholic will tell you, in order to have a mortal sin, three things must be present: full knowledge, full consent of the will, and grave matter. What is considered grave matter? Just google "grave catechism catholic church" and do a word find. You will see that whenever the Catcheism discusses murder, abortion, suicide, all these things that Catholics say is sinful, the Catechism will say that it is "grave." Random example, paragraph 2284

    "Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense."

    Notice scandal is a GRAVE offense if another is led into a grave offense. That is unequivocal language that the Church uses and is careful to use when discussing her teaching. Unless I am missing something huge, you will never see (up to this point, maybe in the future though) all uses of the death penalty described as grave by an official statement of the pope or a Church council.

    This isn't anything personal. I have no vested interest in which way the Church, if she ever does, deliberates on this. I submit myself 100% to the teaching authority of the Church, and if she ever teaches that the death penalty is gravely immoral, I am the first one to say "amen." But I also am very careful about Catholic doctrine and what she teaches. I spend a LOT of time reading and studying and cross checking many claims that I hear made. As paragraph 2284 makes clear, it is GRAVE to cause scandal, and if I am incorrect about what the Church teaches and I cause scandal in a grave way to someone, then I have sinned gravely. So I take Church doctrine very, very seriously because my own soul is on the line if I begin to mix in my personal wants and desires with Church teaching. Who gives a crap about my opinion? It is what the Church teaches that I care about knowing and communicating.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 15, 2009 7:59 PM


    Not sure what the purpose of the last paragraph I wrote is...

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 15, 2009 8:00 PM


    Bobby,
    I agree with your commentary. It was 2267 of the Catechism that I based my comment on and I'm not sure where we are in disagreement. That the use of the death penalty in the U.S. is not sinful? That there is no "official position"? Is there a difference? I'm confused. Thanks.

    Posted by: Janet at September 15, 2009 8:49 PM


    Bobby,
    Just to clarify, my comment was based on the current situation as it exists in the United States, where we have a sufficient jail system to confine offenders... I understand that there may be exceptions according to 2267.

    Posted by: Janet at September 15, 2009 8:54 PM


    Bobby,
    www.usccb.org/deathpenalty/pdf/DeathPenaltyCampaignHandout.pdf

    Posted by: Janet at September 15, 2009 9:00 PM


    No, I don't think we're in disagreement, Janet. I was just wondering how much you knew about that website because it seemed to me like the website was saying that the Church teaches the intrinsic evilness of the death penalty. Perhaps I had too much of what I was discussing with Hal in mind when I thought that and I was jumping to conclusions or something. I hope I wasn't coming off as confrontational towards you! God love you.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 15, 2009 9:02 PM


    No problem Bobby. I shouldn't have interrupted your conversation.


    Posted by: Janet at September 15, 2009 9:10 PM


    Janet,

    Thanks for the link. That seems consistent with my understanding of the US Catholic Bishop's general disapproval of the death penalty. Especially in the US, this is important to take into consideration when forming one's conscience.

    Now I think this is something we agree about, Janet, but just to make the point to anyone else, notice that this document never claims that the death penalty is "evil", "sinful", "grave", or anything else. The USCCB has every right to strongly oppose it and, as I mentioned above, is something that US Catholic lay people need to very seriously consider when forming their conscience. But there is nothing in this handout that even suggests that it is the official teaching of the Church that the death penalty is grave matter. The same can not be said of abortion.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 15, 2009 9:14 PM


    "No problem Bobby. I shouldn't have interrupted your conversation. "

    HA! It was no interruption! If anything, you did people a favor by stopping me during my senseless rants. Who knows how many posts I would have written if left unchecked...

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 15, 2009 9:16 PM


    I wonder if Gov. Sebaceous of Kansas sneaks into a church in the dead of night for her communion?

    I wish the Bishop would tell his Priests not to give her communion, and enforce it.

    Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at September 16, 2009 8:41 AM


    Her separation of church and state answer is convoluted.

    In effect she is saying that she puts the temporal before the eternal, i.e., the majority opinion always trumps the right thing to do.

    Gee, I wonder if the majority of people she represented were racist would she vote as a racist or would she fight racism in her vote? Her reasoning is lame and not very smart. Anyone ever heard of Pontius Pilate?

    Simply speaking, Ms. Sebelius is a political opportunist who wants it both ways. Very, very sad for her as her destiny appears bleak.

    Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at September 16, 2009 9:43 AM