Prolife redeemer Norma Mccorvey dies at 69
I see that the woman who's case became Roe vs Wade, that made abortion legal, and later repented has died at 69:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/02/18/norma-mccorvey-roe-roe-v-wade-dead-abortion/98093844
The article also quotes from a Catholic priest and his wish that abortion soon will be illegal.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/library/7246-statement-on-the-death-of-norma-mccorvey
----
“She was victimized and exploited by abortion ideologues when she was a young woman, but she came to be genuinely sorry that a decision named for her has led to the deaths of more than 58 million children," Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, said in a statement. "Norma’s conversion to Christianity, then to Catholicism, was sincere and I was honored to be part of that journey. I’m sorry she won’t be here to celebrate with me when we finally abolish legal abortion in this country, but I know she will be watching.”
----
In fact the rates of abortion have declined steadily since 1990, and less than half now, while the population has increased from 250 to 320 million people. The priest claims 58 million abortions, while the U.S. population has increased by 100 million since 1973.
Given a Republican controlled Congress and President, perhaps we are just one Supreme Court justice from not only reversing Roe vs Wade (and allowing states to decide, as Trump suggests), but making the law of the land that abortion is illegal, as the Catholic priest desires.
I have no personal stake in the question. I've never had children, and never created a pregnancy, I never had to ask what I'd do if a woman I had sex with, my wife or not, whether I'd support or encourage her to have an abortion. Its certainly a crude decision, so easy enough to say "safe, legal and rare", but when I'd support one, I'm unsure personally.
My maternal grandmother married around age 19, and she birthed 8 children, 7 living past infancy, and perhaps 2-4 miscarriages along the way, and also one secret and illegal abortion, during the depression, I can be glad for my cousins, but would have preferred that she had access to birth control, and she and my grandfather could have chosen how many kids to have. And although my mom was third born, if she had been one of the aborted, or contracepted children, I would have nothing negative to say about that, or I wouldn't exist, yet I wouldn't call it a tragedy, but a prudent choice, or a hard choice.
And I'm certainly not against large families if parents love children, and they can afford to breed like rabbits, and that's there choice, I won't say anything against that.
And the "breed like rabbits" was in fact a joke given by the current Pope 2 years ago:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/20/378559550/pope-francis-says-catholics-dont-need-to-breed-like-rabbits
----
The National Catholic Reporter says Francis "made what appears to be an unprecedented statement that Catholics may have a moral responsibility to limit the number of their children." It describes the pope's remarks this way:
"Telling the story of a woman he met in a parish in Rome several months ago who had given birth to seven children via cesarean section and was pregnant with an eighth, Francis asked: 'Does she want to leave the seven orphans?'
" 'This is to tempt God,' he said, adding later: 'That is an irresponsibility.' Catholics, the pope said, should speak of 'responsible parenthood.'
" 'How do we do this?' Francis asked. 'With dialogue. Each person with his pastor seeks how to do that responsible parenthood.'
" 'God gives you methods to be responsible,' he continued. 'Some think that — excuse the word — that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No.' "
----
So he was talking about a catholic woman specifically, but certainly his interest in the subject was not just for catholics, but seeing humanity as a whole. Yet the only sanctioned birth control method the church supports is the rhythm method, or withdrawal perhaps, or abstinence? And so people who fail in those methods may still "breed like rabbits". And a controversy on the ACA was including birth control, which the church felt should not be allowed. So it can NOT prevent women from buying their own birth control, but they don't want their healthcare plans to support it.
Could it be that the Republicans will succeed in and that Abortion in America will be illegal before 2020? It seems an easy "scapegoat" issue that Trump can support, and many religious people already believe America has been cursed because we allow abortion or because of immoral gays, or immorality in general. And a small shift in public sentiment isn't even needed, just 2 more Republican picked Justices, with one in the works, and an elderly Ginsburg at 83. So her death in 2017 could lead to a "let states decide" decision by 2018, and if the Republicans can hold on that election cycle, maybe one more case to outlaw in all cases besides the safety of the mother. Who knows?
And it does seem like Planned Parenthood should just "roll over" and withdraw from accepting public funding, because they're going to lose it anyway.
And if this outcome was "sufficient" to the religious right, I might welcome it, even being fully illegal, if it would break the unholy alliance between the Evangelical Christians and the Republican party, but it is surely too much to hope for, and does any self-righteous soul stop with mere complete victory? No, the republicans will find other "wedge issues" that keep people divided on their team, and of course Democrats will grab the wedges on the other side, and the insanity will continue. Of course, Gay Marriage must be reversed for instance.
I've been exploring the ideas of "mass psychosis" of late, in the Trump phenomenon on the Right, and perhaps the SJW antioppression oppression on the Left, and it does seem like that the abortion fight is one of the key issues that has divided us, and so somehow now being for "only lower taxes on the rich" and "prolife" are united together as self-evident truths that can not be questioned.
At some level the abortion debate seems either unimportant, but on other levels it is central, like environmental problems of consuming ever more resources on a finite world, and economic as well, since economic growth is the only model we know, and its fully clear everything we do and project about the future is that it must be bigger than the present, and if growth stops, then all our debt models fail, and capitalism itself fails. And all that seems to hit before climate change, and before shere population mass fails us, before mass starvation, but poverty will come, and a poorer future can't support the cities we have, and the land itself can't support as many people, if we also need the land for animals, like when we depended on horses for transportation.
So on my neomathusian side, slowing population solves no problem, but increases the amount of time we have to find alternative means of survival, while perhaps I'm wrong, and perhaps if things have to fail before we change, then sooner is better, because we'll have less people to feed, and there'll be fewer starving in a crisis time? It's all unimaginable in our world of abundance, while that abundance is illusionary as long as we need to consume millions of years of "ancient sunlight" to keep everything running.
But there's another side, modernity has created opportunities for everyone, including women, to find fulfilling things to do besides having children, so a large fraction of the population has chosen to be childless, and even if this was always true for many men, it is more true for women now, and some demographics are now at below-replacement birth rates, which increases problems with having more elderl supported by fewer young people. So the idea of retirement at 65 may be an unaffordable luxury, and not just for individual savings, but SS and medicare programs.
If you think systems need to be controlled, you'd wonder how society has succeeded as long as it has, and surely our technical advances have enabled great things, and capitalism based on growth economics has produced a willingness for individuals to work hard for their own share of the pie, and keep everything going, while that work ethic is less attractive when you can't get ahead, and just see your parent's generation drowning in debt. And it could be childlessness itself is a reaction against a world that doesn't seem to support parenthood, with too many costs and demands to do well, and sufficient distractions that many won't take the risks of raising children.
I feel confidence the "necessity as the mother of invention" that the future will create is a return to larger families, and those who can learn to live together now will prosper better than those who try to live the false "nuclear family" or worse "single parenthood" model which never could be seen as viable, and that social programs will never help sufficiently.
So I imagine the future has two solutions coming - conservatives will cling to family systems as they've always done, and liberals will have more fun experimenting with how "intentional families" can thrive without the bonds of blood to keep people caring about each other. And I see Dostoyevsky's "Isolation" as where we're at now, with childless households isolated in the suburbs with no need for neighbors, and digitally connected to people far away, but without emotional support. So this pattern would seem to only change if technology fails and we suddenly find we can't maintain distant connections.
But I started on abortion and I'm sure the "safe, legal and rare" is the only answer and giving women access to "family planning" is vital, even if they also gain advice from their church leaders.
It does seem like "liberal dream" is ending, but not without a fight. Who knows if we won't have "universal health care" from 2022 to 2038, after the great depression hits in 2018 and the Republicans are swept out of office in 2020? But we may be a lot poorer then too. And it may yet be just a transition period back to decentralization and we won't have a united states after 2038, just 20 some years away. Abortion may yet be legal in 2030 but its safety in greater question.
Such imaginings are almost useless, but attempted just to show how much change is upon us. The technical singularity might yet save us, or maybe not in the ways we expect, but it would be nice to keep some of modern connectivity going.
Ultimately abortion doesn't matter to me. Its not my sacred cow on any side. I feel no remorse at ending the life of a 6 week old fetus, and its just a matter of safety for me. But dependable birth control is a higher value worth defending. At minimum "family planning" may not be a "human right" but it is a colletive sensibility.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/02/18/norma-mccorvey-roe-roe-v-wade-dead-abortion/98093844
The article also quotes from a Catholic priest and his wish that abortion soon will be illegal.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/library/7246-statement-on-the-death-of-norma-mccorvey
----
“She was victimized and exploited by abortion ideologues when she was a young woman, but she came to be genuinely sorry that a decision named for her has led to the deaths of more than 58 million children," Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, said in a statement. "Norma’s conversion to Christianity, then to Catholicism, was sincere and I was honored to be part of that journey. I’m sorry she won’t be here to celebrate with me when we finally abolish legal abortion in this country, but I know she will be watching.”
----
In fact the rates of abortion have declined steadily since 1990, and less than half now, while the population has increased from 250 to 320 million people. The priest claims 58 million abortions, while the U.S. population has increased by 100 million since 1973.
Given a Republican controlled Congress and President, perhaps we are just one Supreme Court justice from not only reversing Roe vs Wade (and allowing states to decide, as Trump suggests), but making the law of the land that abortion is illegal, as the Catholic priest desires.
I have no personal stake in the question. I've never had children, and never created a pregnancy, I never had to ask what I'd do if a woman I had sex with, my wife or not, whether I'd support or encourage her to have an abortion. Its certainly a crude decision, so easy enough to say "safe, legal and rare", but when I'd support one, I'm unsure personally.
My maternal grandmother married around age 19, and she birthed 8 children, 7 living past infancy, and perhaps 2-4 miscarriages along the way, and also one secret and illegal abortion, during the depression, I can be glad for my cousins, but would have preferred that she had access to birth control, and she and my grandfather could have chosen how many kids to have. And although my mom was third born, if she had been one of the aborted, or contracepted children, I would have nothing negative to say about that, or I wouldn't exist, yet I wouldn't call it a tragedy, but a prudent choice, or a hard choice.
And I'm certainly not against large families if parents love children, and they can afford to breed like rabbits, and that's there choice, I won't say anything against that.
And the "breed like rabbits" was in fact a joke given by the current Pope 2 years ago:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/20/378559550/pope-francis-says-catholics-dont-need-to-breed-like-rabbits
----
The National Catholic Reporter says Francis "made what appears to be an unprecedented statement that Catholics may have a moral responsibility to limit the number of their children." It describes the pope's remarks this way:
"Telling the story of a woman he met in a parish in Rome several months ago who had given birth to seven children via cesarean section and was pregnant with an eighth, Francis asked: 'Does she want to leave the seven orphans?'
" 'This is to tempt God,' he said, adding later: 'That is an irresponsibility.' Catholics, the pope said, should speak of 'responsible parenthood.'
" 'How do we do this?' Francis asked. 'With dialogue. Each person with his pastor seeks how to do that responsible parenthood.'
" 'God gives you methods to be responsible,' he continued. 'Some think that — excuse the word — that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No.' "
----
So he was talking about a catholic woman specifically, but certainly his interest in the subject was not just for catholics, but seeing humanity as a whole. Yet the only sanctioned birth control method the church supports is the rhythm method, or withdrawal perhaps, or abstinence? And so people who fail in those methods may still "breed like rabbits". And a controversy on the ACA was including birth control, which the church felt should not be allowed. So it can NOT prevent women from buying their own birth control, but they don't want their healthcare plans to support it.
Could it be that the Republicans will succeed in and that Abortion in America will be illegal before 2020? It seems an easy "scapegoat" issue that Trump can support, and many religious people already believe America has been cursed because we allow abortion or because of immoral gays, or immorality in general. And a small shift in public sentiment isn't even needed, just 2 more Republican picked Justices, with one in the works, and an elderly Ginsburg at 83. So her death in 2017 could lead to a "let states decide" decision by 2018, and if the Republicans can hold on that election cycle, maybe one more case to outlaw in all cases besides the safety of the mother. Who knows?
And it does seem like Planned Parenthood should just "roll over" and withdraw from accepting public funding, because they're going to lose it anyway.
And if this outcome was "sufficient" to the religious right, I might welcome it, even being fully illegal, if it would break the unholy alliance between the Evangelical Christians and the Republican party, but it is surely too much to hope for, and does any self-righteous soul stop with mere complete victory? No, the republicans will find other "wedge issues" that keep people divided on their team, and of course Democrats will grab the wedges on the other side, and the insanity will continue. Of course, Gay Marriage must be reversed for instance.
I've been exploring the ideas of "mass psychosis" of late, in the Trump phenomenon on the Right, and perhaps the SJW antioppression oppression on the Left, and it does seem like that the abortion fight is one of the key issues that has divided us, and so somehow now being for "only lower taxes on the rich" and "prolife" are united together as self-evident truths that can not be questioned.
At some level the abortion debate seems either unimportant, but on other levels it is central, like environmental problems of consuming ever more resources on a finite world, and economic as well, since economic growth is the only model we know, and its fully clear everything we do and project about the future is that it must be bigger than the present, and if growth stops, then all our debt models fail, and capitalism itself fails. And all that seems to hit before climate change, and before shere population mass fails us, before mass starvation, but poverty will come, and a poorer future can't support the cities we have, and the land itself can't support as many people, if we also need the land for animals, like when we depended on horses for transportation.
So on my neomathusian side, slowing population solves no problem, but increases the amount of time we have to find alternative means of survival, while perhaps I'm wrong, and perhaps if things have to fail before we change, then sooner is better, because we'll have less people to feed, and there'll be fewer starving in a crisis time? It's all unimaginable in our world of abundance, while that abundance is illusionary as long as we need to consume millions of years of "ancient sunlight" to keep everything running.
But there's another side, modernity has created opportunities for everyone, including women, to find fulfilling things to do besides having children, so a large fraction of the population has chosen to be childless, and even if this was always true for many men, it is more true for women now, and some demographics are now at below-replacement birth rates, which increases problems with having more elderl supported by fewer young people. So the idea of retirement at 65 may be an unaffordable luxury, and not just for individual savings, but SS and medicare programs.
If you think systems need to be controlled, you'd wonder how society has succeeded as long as it has, and surely our technical advances have enabled great things, and capitalism based on growth economics has produced a willingness for individuals to work hard for their own share of the pie, and keep everything going, while that work ethic is less attractive when you can't get ahead, and just see your parent's generation drowning in debt. And it could be childlessness itself is a reaction against a world that doesn't seem to support parenthood, with too many costs and demands to do well, and sufficient distractions that many won't take the risks of raising children.
I feel confidence the "necessity as the mother of invention" that the future will create is a return to larger families, and those who can learn to live together now will prosper better than those who try to live the false "nuclear family" or worse "single parenthood" model which never could be seen as viable, and that social programs will never help sufficiently.
So I imagine the future has two solutions coming - conservatives will cling to family systems as they've always done, and liberals will have more fun experimenting with how "intentional families" can thrive without the bonds of blood to keep people caring about each other. And I see Dostoyevsky's "Isolation" as where we're at now, with childless households isolated in the suburbs with no need for neighbors, and digitally connected to people far away, but without emotional support. So this pattern would seem to only change if technology fails and we suddenly find we can't maintain distant connections.
But I started on abortion and I'm sure the "safe, legal and rare" is the only answer and giving women access to "family planning" is vital, even if they also gain advice from their church leaders.
It does seem like "liberal dream" is ending, but not without a fight. Who knows if we won't have "universal health care" from 2022 to 2038, after the great depression hits in 2018 and the Republicans are swept out of office in 2020? But we may be a lot poorer then too. And it may yet be just a transition period back to decentralization and we won't have a united states after 2038, just 20 some years away. Abortion may yet be legal in 2030 but its safety in greater question.
Such imaginings are almost useless, but attempted just to show how much change is upon us. The technical singularity might yet save us, or maybe not in the ways we expect, but it would be nice to keep some of modern connectivity going.
Ultimately abortion doesn't matter to me. Its not my sacred cow on any side. I feel no remorse at ending the life of a 6 week old fetus, and its just a matter of safety for me. But dependable birth control is a higher value worth defending. At minimum "family planning" may not be a "human right" but it is a colletive sensibility.
posted by Ares Olympus at 3:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home