Wednesday, December 14, 2011

# 7: procreation

"The question of human procreation, like every other question which touches human life, involves more than the limited aspects specific to such disciplines as biology, psychology, demography or sociology. It is the whole man and the whole mission to which he is called that must be considered: both its natural, earthly aspects and its supernatural, eternal aspects."
Pope Paul IV wishes to push forth the essential mission of man. The reason why sex exists, the reason why we exist in general in nature is to procreate. Nothing we do on this Earth is more important.

What my illustarion shows is the most natural, most accepted, most fixed social structure in everyday life's dealings with sexuality, family, etc. It displays man and woman in union together as they await the birth of their child. The picture is made to say that nothing is more beautiful than this moment. We capture our essential good nature in these moments.

This obvioiusly has severe consequences against those who move against this fixed mission of man. I speak of homosexuality and its surge over the last century as a primary cultural element that pushes against Paul IV's principles. since two men or two women cannot procreate, it is considered unnatural and thus immoral to commit as human beings within the church. This is no qualm between science and faith. It just boils down to the question of faith itself: what are human beings meant to do? What is our grand mission? The answers to these questions will form a social construction of groups that believe in certain things over others. Some might just say that what our purpose in life is to seek happiness. If that's the case, then there is no wrong with homosexual couples. They would say that what they feel is natural to them.

FAscinatingly enough, this emergence of homosexuals seems to come out during the strong secularization of our nation. AS the power of the church was drained, those who once feared its influence and power are now coming out more and more with what they truly believe. People aren't afraid anymore. history i think shows this change of culture where people no longer live behind the shadow the church. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the church has not always been right. It too is human, and I think people are starting to think for themselves of what our natural purpose of man really is.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Love is beautiful, both marriaged and non-marriaged

The Pope said:

9. In the light of these facts the characteristic features and exigencies of married love are clearly indicated, and it is of the highest importance to evaluate them exactly.

This love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will, whose trust is such that it is meant not only to survive the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also to grow, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment.

It is a love which is total—that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself.

Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness.

Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare." (8)

The Pope has said that the marriaged love is fully above all human, it is a compound of sense and sprit; also it is a special relationship between the husband and wife, by which they generously share everything; the love is also a faith that all others are exclusive until the death; in the end, the pope points out that the marriaged love is also fecund, it creates the well-being of the interchange of husband and wife, and the children as well.

I am agree with the definition of marriaged love from pope. Now, how about the unmarriage love? For example, the homosexual love?

We have talked about the science and religions in our class, as a scientific person, I believe that everything can be defined by the Natural Law except for one thing-----The Love. In a scientific perspective, love is bonded to sex, people love because they has sexual needs, and I do not think that way. I believe the love is broader than the sexual needs. People do love each other for non-sexual purposes, for example, a friendship is one type of love that do not involve any sexual needs.

Also, the love creates not only a good relationship between two people, but also among others as well. If two people love each other, they will understand how good the love is, and they will start to love the other people, and then the world. Love will create a good initiative.

Therefore, the love does not mean to be only between a girl and a boy, it could be between any individuals! And, again, the love does not have to be mixed with sex. People has the right to love any one they want.

Love is beautiful no matter if it is marriaged or non-marriaged, heterosexual or homosexual, same age or different age. When people love each other, they get together and stay with each other, this is how simple the world is and the world should be.


Sunday, December 11, 2011

Why Still ?

Pope:

8. Married love particularly reveals its true nature and nobility when we realize that it takes its origin from God, who "is love," (6) the Father "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named." (7)


Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives. 


The marriage of those who have been baptized is, in addition, invested with the dignity of a sacramental sign of grace, for it represents the union of Christ and His Church. 


After reading this message of the Pope, a lot of people may doubt and ask if a marriage between the husband and the wife is perfect and is in God's plan, how is it possible that the divorce rate is still this high in the United States, which some people refer the United States as a nation of Christianity. I did a little research after reading the message and find the following from Divorceguide.com:

For the past decade, the overall American divorce rate has remained stable, at around 50% for first marriages. The statistics are become more depressing for each successive marriage, with 65% of second marriage ending in divorce and even high rates for third marriages and beyond. Divorce rate statistics show that 3.6% to 5% of marriages are ending every year, cumulating in a large portion of adults who have personally experienced divorce at some point in their lives. 


I felt okay when I was reading the first line that saying the divorce rate has remained stable, I thought it is good that rate did not increase that much during past decade, however, I had no clue that the rate already got this high as 50% for first marriage. Sure I have no clue why the rate is this high and I think I do understand why some people may argue that marriages these days are no longer perfect or are in God's plan. In my opinion, I as christian still think that marriage is still in God's hand and speaking of the issue of high divorce rate, I think it really does depend on what perspective you are looking from. I think that a lot of marriages these days or during past decades, they come fast and easy and go fast and easy as well. They are no longer like those in our parent's era. Perhaps people now don't think carefully or consider marriage well enough before they get married. May be the concept of marriage has changed? I don't know.

God's Design: Completing One Another


From the Pope:

8. Married love particularly reveals its true nature and nobility when we realize that it takes its origin from God, who "is love," (6) the Father "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named." (7)

Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.

 Modern Translation:


Marriage love, of men and women are the results of this god designed system where they complete each others flaws. As children of god, we were given the responsibility to find a significant other to continue this lineage of procreation that which was passed on to us. This design that drives us to find a significant other results of a perfection, thus saying so about the design itself. In short, this design of mutual partnership is perfect.

The picture on the right-hand side is taken from Xenogears, a video game developed for the Sony Playstation. The plot was based after that of the bible including many references to names and people such as Abel, Isaac, and many more. This picture is a scene of two one winged angels with body figures representing a male and a female. In the game, it was discussed as man and women are not able to fly up to heaven with one wings. But if they were to join together, they  both will be able to fly up to heaven. Thus representing that of perfecting one another.

Where I Stand:

In the past, I would agree to this ideology of perfect design, one that was created to establish a marriage where one person completes the other. A saying that moved me back then goes somewhat as followed: it is not about being perfect, but accepting the other's flaws and making them perfect for you. However, as of now I am no longer near this Natural Law of finding a perfect other. The ideal is just to unreal, people are flawed. In this day of age, you rarely see a perfect couple, more particularly, a stable marriage.

The following linkhttp://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/ppoint/divorce.pdf
leads off to a pdf file that of a collection of data taken from a research for marriage and divorce rates. The research was developed to induce the responsibility of marriage. As the title goes, marriage is listed as a reproductive contract. Though the deduction are of significance, the results from it plays more into this belief of perfect design for marriage. Accordingly, it was found that divorce rates are rather significant and are more common among young women than men. Furthermore, divorce is more likely if reproductive interest of one is not met.

In the research, reasoning behind divorces were taken. Some of which ranged from financial state of men and women, adultery, cruel behavior, and desertion as top 3 reasons of divorce to that of divorce rates. A man who is unstable tends to have less kids than that of a stable man. A man of low state is also more proned to being divorced by act of the woman and cases as not getting married at all. Divorce rates are also found to be high thus questioning that of the design.

Perfection for one another: Fantasy

 I believe that this ideology of Pope Paul VI developed from his ideal fantasy and strong belief and applying it to reality. As much as Robin fantasize being a blue people from Avatar, I can say similar to that of the ideals of Pope Paul VI. To say that it is from fantasy, not just the Pope, anyone would fantasize at one point of having the perfect marriage, the perfect wive/husband, the perfect life. It is human nature to do so. But in reality, such thing isn't true. Life consists of persistence, hard work, and many more other factors. For Pope Paul VI, he has higher authority than that of most people do. Much like how headmans of non-industrial societies are able to regulate villages, the Pope can do by similar means being able to socially construct people.

I won't say that it is bad not to seek a significant other that perfects oneself. I still believe in finding someone worthy although not perfect. But in response to say that it was designed, a Natural Law that depicts the behavior of marriage, that is complete utter bullshit. Even the data from the research proved it so with the high divorce rates.


Religiously Free America

"As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives" (Para 17).
"This love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will" (Para 20).
Here we see Pope Paul VI explain the tradition of marraige being SOLELY with a man and a woman. He says it is "exclusive to them alone" and implies that it cannot be included to a homosexual couple. In the second quote, the words free will are what stood out to me. Homosexuals also have the "compound of sense and spirit" and desire to share the same marital experience as "an act of free will". However, in our supposedly free country, the majority of the states cannot grant this right to many of its citizens.
Politically this is wrong and against what our founding fathers had sought out in the beginning when writing the Bill of Rights. In the Bill of Rights the very first amendment is freedom of religion along with speech, press, and petition (1st link). Now some may think what homosexuality has to do with religion but it is in fact a religion of its own. There is an actual website called gaychurch.org (2nd link) where you can search for any of the listed 6,700 gay churches around the world including the United States. It seems that if the state cannot grant homosexuals the right to marraige, it would seem that they are going against the first amendment and denying their religion.
Not only does this issue strike politically but also socially and psychologically. Now more than ever we see kids getting bullied for their sexual orientation and worse, committing suicide due to the anxieties of the bullying. Tehachapi was one of these kids who could not take the stress of being harrassed for who he is (3rd link). Reasons such as these are why the anti-gay bullying campaign "It gets better" have been founded to help causes like these. (video and 4th link).
We are all subjects of different cultures and subcultures and the sooner we realize and can respect the differences and perspectives the better. It is ok to kindly disagree on issues and matters but it is not ok to deny rights or harrass others for these differences. Pope Paul VI can lead and advise Christians but cannot criticize the world or society for how others live their lives.

Plan B

23. And now We wish to speak to rulers of nations. To you most of all is committed the responsibility of safeguarding the common good. You can contribute so much to the preservation of morals. We beg of you, never allow the morals of your peoples to be undermined. The family is the primary unit in the state; do not tolerate any legislation which would introduce into the family those practices which are opposed to the natural law of God. For there are other ways by which a government can and should solve the population problem—that is to say by enacting laws which will assist families and by educating the people wisely so that the moral law and the freedom of the citizens are both safeguarded.

Alright, so with this part in the Pope's piece, I thought of the Plan B pill. What I took out of this paragraph is the Pope preaching the public not to allow giving the people "those practices" such as the pill, condoms, the Plan B pill, and others, which would hinder the natural law of God. The Pope doesn't want those type of things being publicly advertised as ways to help not get people pregnant. There had been some controversy over the idea of changing the rule that people 17 and younger need a prescription to obtain the "morning after" pill. This is another contraception pill that women can use the morning after if something went wrong (condom broke, forgot to take their birth control pill) that will prevent a fertilized egg from attaching the uteran wall if taking within 72 hours of the act. People have an issue with the idea of the pill was to be over-the-counter for women of all ages who could get pregnant. I believe it's because we have a problem with thinking of a young 13 year old having sex and worrying that she is pregnant, therefore going and buying the pill. We don't want to think of someone so young becoming pregnant and raising a child when she herself is a child. I feel that for those reasons, it is okay to have contraceptives. If a girl is not on the birth control pill or using a condom and something bad happens, she should have that other option to get the Plan B pill, which one would be able to right now, just with the embarrassment and shame of her parents when she has to go get a prescription for it. One thing that isn't working for the Pope in this paragraph is when he mentions that there are other ways in which we can solve this problem: enacting laws and educating people. People in this world are being educated about sex and ways to be safe, but obviously the people aren't listening. I feel that it is our right to choose when we want to follow that "natural law of God" and have kids. We should be able to use contraceptives such as the Plan B pill and birth control. We aren't hurting anyone, we are just prolonging a process that can be achieved at any time, when you want it to happen.

SAVE THE PILL!

Responsible Parenthood

10. "Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.

With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)

With regard to man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man's reason and will must exert control over them.

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)"

Analysis:

This excerpt by the Pope clearly describes the boundaries married people must abide by in order to gain approval by the Church. The Pope claims that married need not use birth control to prevent conception, and instead they can engage in sexual intercourse when the woman's body is naturally infertile such as when she is breast feeding. I agree with the Pope's statement that a part of being a responsible about parent hood is to have control of sexual drives and desires but there is such a things called human flaw. Even if a couple is God fearing, they are not perfect and i do not expect the church to understand flaws nor encourage it, but from a realistic point of view, it is unreasonable for humans to consider a natural act as "forbidden or meant for just the purpose of reproducing. Susan Bordo was able to explain this human flaw with the idea of "docile bodies." Although it has been a while since we have discussed Susan Bordo in class, I believe it is relevant to talking about sexual concepts since most restrictions about sex is aimed at women. the excerpts also contains the quote: "From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow." This particular statement contradicts the Pope's expectation of married couple to control their sexual drives while still claiming that they cannot wholly control their actions. The Bible and the Church in my opinion, offer a guidelines for a moral lifestyle but ethics and responsibility must be achieved through experience and it is important for character building to let people make their own decisions.


Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. "Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong."

Analysis:

This paragraph, is a clear statement against people who consider using contraceptives to avoid having an abortion in the event the intercourse results in pregnancy. The Pope says that it is not lawful to use one evil, evil being contraceptives, to prevent yourself from engaging in another bigger evil (abortion). I believe that the Church's view of sex as something that should be only engaged in for the purpose of reproduction is becoming outdated due to the invention of birth control and contraceptives which has resulted in many social changes that the Church stands against, but humanity prefers convenience and freedom.Descartes, a philosopher, develops a conception of the mind where the senses and the imagination are also mental faculties. Further, he argues that we are essentially thinking things that can know our minds clearly and distinctly, but must work much harder to come to an understanding of our bodies. This is exactly how why it is harder and harder for people today to abide by the Church's restriction due to the fact that families today have exposure to media full of sex which has an impact on how they view as lawful and unlawful. Descartes also he draws a very sharp distinction between mind and body. He claims that the mind is essentially thinking and body is essentially extended, so the two have nothing at all in common. I do not believe in this claim because the mind does not conceive a thought without requiring an action of some form from the body. Even through abstinence, people may have worship God and prove to him that they have priorities where their faith falls first, but it is impossible to deny your body from something that is natural. . It is natural for humans to acclimate to any change that makes their lives enjoyable and comfortable which does not mean they are intending on committing an evil act, but people today are not ready to risk a child's future to please the Pope's demand for people to leave the possibility of parenthood to fate.


Social Issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jq9ExvMjoc

Refusal/Conscience Clause approved by George W bush in his lame duck presidential period allowing health care providers and employees in the health care facilities can refuse to participate in tasks that challenge their religious, moral or political beliefs. This includes pharmacist, who can refuse to give the customers medication if he or she does not approve of it and clinic mangers may choose to deny appointments for abortion, HPV vaccinations, STI exams, sterilization or Birth control prescription if they are against it. The clause is broad enough to cover the entire health care spectrum where even custodial staffs working in a hospital may deny complying with an order and claiming it to be offensive. The major flaw in this clause is that it does not require the people who may refuse to provide service to defer the patient to another employee for the service. Where does that leave a woman in need of HPV vaccination? Her doctor might perform the necessary service but the patient have to have the green light from the front desk and pharmacy staff to obtain the full service for the amount of money she will be paying. This bill exudes the Pope’s belief of natural design. Any action against natural design is condemned unlawful by the church, but what about resuscitation of a man dying of a disease? If God is the master of the world and no one must challenge his decision, then should we stop a heart attack from killing a man? What if that was God’s intentions?

The Church focuses so much attention on the concept of fornication, birth control and the idea of women having control of their marriage and body that they do not realize the areas where their claims do not make sense. The pope himself states that a child is the greatest gift to married couple, but it is only true when the child is conceived in a woman’s womb, but it is abomination to conceive a child through in-vitro. When a loving couple wants to be parents, should they not be provided a chance to give a happy home to a child?

Female healthcare has become too political to be even discuss it as human beings free of party restriction. Why else would President Bush pass such a discriminatory bill during his lame duck year? This bill does not only affect women but also homosexuals, transsexuals, blacks, white, Asian etc. This is a pre-civil rights movement law now recreated to include not just a racist agenda, but also a sexist one. It is now being executed through the health service because let’s face it, everyone needs a doctor at some point. As the pope encourages fear amongst young adults about pregnancy and pre-marital sex, he also claims it a crime to make these fears disappear by making contraceptives available to young people. Responsibility cannot be forced on adults or children. It is a characteristic that has to be honed through mistakes and experience, but the only reason contraceptives are available to young adults is that the society we live in today refuses to sacrifice the life of a child so that its young parents can learn to be responsible. Preventative care is being responsible. People using contraceptives are responsible enough to know when they can provide a home for a child so the child can be treasured as a “gift,” rather than a mistake. Rather than providing rationed amount of care and sustenance for five children, couples have become responsible enough to know that they can give quality care for two or three children. The law and the hospitals must consider the belief of their employees, but those beliefs are only valid as long as they do not cause harm to another human being. If an employee refuses to care of a patient, then they must be required to provide the patient with a referral. Most health care providers have taken the initiative to demand this action from them but it is still shocking to have such a hateful and flawed bill in the United States.

A Flawed Design





God's Loving Design

8. Married love particularly reveals its true nature and nobility when we realize that it takes its origin from God, who "is love," (6) the Father "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named." (7)

Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.

In a nutshell, the Pope is saying that marriage is not created by blind chance, but it is part of God's design, and therefore said marriage will result in a perfect and inseparable union. Unfortunately, if this was the case, I don't think both of my parents would be on their third marriage. In fact, such statistics that suggest that divorce is higher and marriages are decreasing undeniably lessen the credibility of God's design.

I strongly disagree with this passage for several reasons. First, it is declarations like this one that give divorce a terrible reputation. Indeed, divorce is not a good thing, but many times it alleviates a really bad situation and allows all involved parties (the parents, the children) to move on. Second, this passage indirectly states that if two people are to divorce, all they are really doing is abandoning God's design, which is supposed to be inherently flawless. With so much divorce these days, is it really us or God's design? In fact, I would even claim that we have become a culture of divorce. A successful marriage is seemingly more rare these days, which makes me believe that this 'design' has been miscalculated.

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

In this section the Pope is essentially stating that abortion and other ways of terminating or preventing pregnancy, such as sterilization, are evil or sinful. He is directly addressing methods such as Plan B in the paragraph "Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse is specifically intended to prevent procreation...". He seems to be condemning the use of condoms as well. Overall, these precautions "...contradict the moral order..." and "...must therefore be judged unworthy of man...".

I would say that the Pope's outlook on this subject is rather out-dated and even suppressing. The fact that modern technology has given us multiple options in the area of birth control should be embraced, not frowned upon, in my opinion, that is. The Pope is advocating the removal of a woman's right and free will to prevent a pregnancy, or terminate it if she so chooses. In certain situations, the prevention or termination of pregnancy may be the safest or most beneficial choice a woman has. For instance, if a woman's life was put in jeopardy because of a complicated pregnancy, I believe she should have the option to save herself. A person should be able to make decisions which are in their best interest, without feeling like a sinner. Additionally, if a pregnancy was the result of a rape a woman should have the option to terminate the pregnancy. If financially a couple is not in a place to have a child, they should have options in which to prevent childbirth. By generalizing methods of contraception as immoral, the Pope is overlooking many personal situations in which bringing a baby into the world would not be what is best.

Though Plan B and condoms compared to abortion are vastly different, if a situation arises in which a couple should not bring a child into the world, they should have access to these methods. Couples should be able to make the decision for themselves, as circumstances will differ person-to-person.



Plan B

The Pope paragraph 14:

“Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.

Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

In the above paragraph, the Pope has stated many things. It’s pretty obvious that he is against abortion from what he said in the first paragraph—“…all direction abortion, even for therapeutic reasons are absolutely excluded as lawful”. Then he goes to say his beliefs on birth control—“…equally condemned is direct sterilization”. Along with what he said in the second little paragraph, he is certainly against birth control, as well. What I really noticed, though, is what he said in the bottom section about excluding any action taken before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse. Here it seems like without directly saying so, the Pope is surely against any use of the Plan B pill. He feels that this is another violation to procreation and life, so it should be seen as unlawful.

To me, what the pope is saying really takes away from people’s (especially women’s) freedoms. It’s a woman’s choice whether she wants to take the Plan B pill or not. She could have had intercourse in unwanted circumstances, such as being raped. What would the pope say about that situation? I feel like when he describes what is lawful against what is sinful, he basically only looks at married couples and situations within marriage. What if the woman is not married and doesn’t want to give birth to a child that came about in a bad situation or that wasn’t with a man she loved. Besides these conditions, sometimes mistakes happen. So if a woman believes what she did was a mistake and she shouldn’t have a child at the moment then she should be allowed to make that choice. Our society is moving forward with new technologies, and what the pope is saying is very limiting. From his point of view, Plan B can be seen as evil, but to many others today it can be seen as a life saver. As we said in class, our lives have changed due to the creation of new technologies, and not everyone will be accepting of them, but every person should be allowed to make their own choices.

The Natural Law


In the “Humanae Vitae,” Pope Paul VI mentions the importance of observing the natural law:

11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

The Pope explains that although sexual intercourse doesn’t scientifically lead to procreation every single time, it is the duty of a husband and wife (alluding to the marital roles of a man and woman) to realize the sole purpose of such acts. He basically says that engaging in sexual activity means a man and woman accept their duty of procreation which can occur at any time [assuming artificial birth control methods are abstained.] The laws of nature, between a male and a female who should be married, regarding the number of children they are capable of having together, is already predetermined and therefore shouldn’t be tampered with.

In my opinion, this is complete and utter bogus. This statement engages several major debates – marriage between a man and a woman only, anti contraceptive methods, as well as the disapproval of scientific procedures such as in vitro to help with infertility. This would insinuate that couples who can’t afford children, couples who are too young, women who have been raped, and women as well as men who are having difficulties with fertility, among countless other scenarios, should either accept the responsibility of raising a child (despite the circumstances) OR learn to be content that having children was not his or her destiny.

This can have the most detrimental impact on an individual’s social, psychological, emotional, and physical well-being. That’s why birth control (including condoms and various forms of the pill) should be a completely acceptable alternative. There are plenty of responsible, involved couples who need to satisfy basic biological needs every now and then who are simply not ready to raise children. Seeking treatment for infertility problems is another option that should not be shunned upon. This problem doesn't reflect the parenting abilities of an individual and doesn't mean he or she shouldn't be allowed to have the same privilege of having kids. After all, there are plenty of people who are parents that shouldn't be.

The Duggars are a prime example of a family following the proposed “natural law” by having baby after baby, believing that each child is a gift from God that was meant to be. Frankly, this is not practical and no, all those children were not preserved in space and time to be born when they were. It’s called...having sex without protection will eventually lead to pregnancy in most cases and the Duggars just happened to get lucky being so fertile. Overall, we should be in control of our own bodies and should have the power to make decisions that will affect us. No one else should have that influence.

Marriage and Unity

In paragraph 12 of Humanae Vitae in the topic of “Union and Procreation” “This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” This is talking about how one is suppose to be faithful in marriage. By taking the oath of marriage it is saying that you have an inseparable connection that is established by God when you stood at the altar and made your vows. It makes the commitment of marriage seem very powerful and basically says that you are united for with the person you took that vow with.

http://www.pendoreilleco.org/photos/Auditor/gods_design_for_marriage_umjr.jpg

I believe that when one takes the vow of marriage and commits to the act of it that they are committing to be faithful and united with that person. When people say their vows at an alter, I believe that they should mean them and stand behind them. I think Natural Law definitely comes into play here, that it is just morally right to stand behind that vow of unity. It is universal reasoning at work here and if someone isn’t ready to take that vow, they shouldn’t be getting married in the first place. I think the Pope is right here saying that people shouldn’t break their “united significance”. I do think though that in modern society today, divorce is common and sometimes this will be broken with temptation being so prevalent today. Not all marriages can work and that is just life. I think that what he is saying can only go to a certain extent. People should be faithful and trustworthy while in the marriage and no wrongdoings onto the other are morally right but if two people can simply just not get along there is nothing wrong with breaking that vow and moving on if both agree. I don’t think that religion should have anything to do with marriage unless the two people want it to have to do their marriage. In the establishment clause it states, “Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” People should be able to get married however they want, but the vows, whatever those be at the alter they should live by through out their marriage to each other. Marriage should be a sacred type of thing and it should not be done, to simply be done. Natural law versus social constructive is a tough subject but I think that most people would agree that it is morally right when you agree to get married there are things that are morally correct do while being married such as being faithful. This has been seen through out time obviously that people are supposed to be faithful during marriage. It is seen as morally correct and when people break that it has brought about great trouble in the past such as violence, etc. Marriage is a significant promise that should be kept to best of one’s ability while committed to one.

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Let Me Take Control!



Lawful Therapeutic Means

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

I am for the use of birth control. While I myself don’t suffer from the problem of severe acne, anemia, or a few other diseases that birth control can help protect against, I think it’s important to look at birth control as a ‘therapeutic mean’ to cure these things. Therapeutic is defined as of or relating to the treatment of disease or disorders by remedial agents or methods or providing or assisting in a cure, by www.m-w.com.

Some people do take birth control to prevent procreation, but that is not what I’m focusing on. This is about birth control being used for reasons other than preventing birth.

According to Lawrence E Gibson M.D. at Mayo Clinic,

Birth control pills for acne work by reducing sebum — an oily substance that lubricates your hair and skin.” Also adding, “Acne is a skin condition that occurs when your hair follicles become plugged with oil and dead skin cells. Acne most commonly appears on your face, neck, chest, back and shoulders. Acne can be distressing and annoyingly persistent. Acne lesions heal slowly, and when one begins to resolve, others seem to crop up. Depending on its severity, acne can cause emotional distress and lead to scarring of the skin. The good news is that effective treatments are available — and the earlier treatment is started, the lower your risk of lasting physical and emotional damage.”

The Mayo Clinic also notes some cancerous growths in the lining of the uterus (endometrial cancer), ovarian cancer and formation of ovarian cysts can be prevented (by birth control) as well.

In another publishing, this one by www.plannedparenthood.org, it states:

“Most birth control pills, as well as the patch and the ring, contain two hormones — estrogen and progestin. These are called combined hormone methods, and they can protect against acne, anemia, bad cramps, bone thinning, cysts in the breasts and ovaries, endometrial and ovarian cancers, heavy periods, irregular periods, and premenstrual symptoms (like headaches and depression).”

The two above sources are talking about oral contraception’s as a form of birth control, like a pill, but another form of birth control can prevent the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases.

On the religion blog for www.cnn.com, in November 2010 it reports “Pope Benedict XVI said in comments released Saturday that the use of condoms may be morally acceptable in some cases to prevent the spread of AIDS, possibly foreshadowing a shift in the Roman Catholic Church's stance on the issue.”

So I would ask what Pope Paul VI thought of that. One of his own kind, saying-even encouraging-that birth control maybe be morally acceptable. I don’t think looking to one person, from one sect of people, from 100 years ago is reasonable when it comes to the health and issues of society today.

I believe there are multiple reasons to take birth control, and not to just prevent conception, or procreation.

To whose Benefit????

Qoutes from pope

“On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. “(10)

Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God." (13)

“All direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.” (15)

“it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general”

In the above four paraphrases the Pope makes it undoubtedly clear that abortion, specifically, any act of destroying human life is sinful.  He states that man have an obligation to fulfill God’s will, in this case pro-creation, and that they do not have the power to regulate the giving of life for that is solely Gods power. He says that it is unlawful to do evil for the better of good henceforth unlawful to carry out any form of abortion, with the excuse for a better life for the society.

So where do I stand?? I believe that what the popes’ suggestion (in essence banning abortion), is bound to have both direct and indirect negative impacts on the society.  This is mainly because the way of living that he assumes is partially existent in today’s world. Most of what he stated was based on the fact that people only engage in sexual intercourse when or after they get married, that at that point they would then have an obligation to facilitate perpetuation of life by having kids which is one of their main obligations as a married couple. This picture might seem all rosy, but that is all that it is, a picture….most of today’s sexually active population are doing so out of the traditional bounds of marriage, from young teens to old and mature women. Is this right or wrong, well people are entitled to the own opinions, but to allow innocent lives to be brought into a situation in which their unwanted, sent to foster homes, never get a stable life are always suffering or born with lifetime diseases, is in my opinion far much worse than the ‘evil’ of removing these ‘fetuses’ before they become living, breathing, human beings.

Let’s take scenario in which the pending Ohio Fetal Heartbeat Bill is passed, the repercussions of this would be far beyond imaginable.  Yes it would go along with the pope’s beliefs, but it would be crippling to society.  Many young girls who would have accidentally became pregnant, or have been victims of rape resulting in pregnancy, would be forced to carry these babies to full term. Once they have these kids they are financially unstable to take care of them, adoption becomes the only option. This would have negative impacts on the child, and the mother if she might have wanted to keep her baby. The same fate would probably be faced by kids born into general financially unstable homes. One important thing to keep in mind is that passing the bill would not stop abortion at all. Those mothers who are poor would resort to other unhealthy means of pregnancy termination, those with the funds would fly to a place it would be possible. Result? You end up with a very large population of unwanted kids, as well as increased mortality due to unsafe abortions. The government would end up having to pour out more money just to ensure that these kids are fed and that those young women’s hospital bills are paid for. Need I remind you that this would all be affecting most of the working class women…  So to whose benefit would passing this bill be? If it’s not for the kids, if it’s not for the society,  not for the economy, if it’s not for women (as men are insignificantly affected) Why do it? You cant regualte what people decide to do in their privacy behind locked doors but is that to say an innocent child should be allowed to suffer?

I think an interesting analogy to take into the consideration here would be that of race used by Stuart Hall. He stated in his video on Moodle that classification is human ‘nature’ mainly because it helps attain order. He spoke about how systems of classification become the dispositions of power. So Pope’s letter becomes a call of classifying between good and evil. A way of putting in place a system where those have sex outside the bounds of marriage suffer the consequences of bearing unwanted kids. In the battle between those pro-life and those for abortion, classification again becomes a source conflict in distinguishing when abortion becomes murder.

In my opinion all this CLASSIFICATION is fuelled in one way or another by someone with intrinsic needs, the pope, to try and get as many following Christians as possible and those against abortion, to try and fulfill their own personal beliefs. I say the issue should just be out there let each individual decide what they want to do without having to confine to any blanketing rule or law.

Amendment 26: "Personhood Amendment"

What the Pope has to say:

(15) Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

(20) If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

The first excerpt simply states that nothing unnatural should be used or administered that would interfere with a pregnancy; so birth control, plan b, condoms, or abortion would not be acceptable in his eyes.

The next excerpt goes on to explain that if a couple wishes to not have child after child after child, they can achieve this without the use of birth control methods. God has made special, natural times in a woman’s cycle that render her “infertile.” Didn’t know that there are days of infertility. What a nice guy. Someone should let me know when this magical time is.

These excerpts are most likely some of the ideals that led to the creation of Mississippi’s “Personhood” Amendment.



This amendment, if it would have been passed, would done the following:

The “Personhood Amendment” would have changed the legal definition of the word “person” in Article 111 of the state constitution to include “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”

Amendment 26 would have effectively outlawed birth control.

Whereas many anti-abortion activists would permit exceptions to women who were victims of incest or rape, or in the case of a pregnancy endangering the life of the mother, the Personhood Amendment makes no room for such provisions. A woman is compelled to carry the child to term no matter the circumstances, even if her life is at risk.

Pregnancy, even in the case of rape, would have to be carried out to full term.

Amendment 26 could have illegalized clinically assisted fertility techniques like in vitro fertilization.

Amendment 26 would have denied essential health and reproductive options and services to all women living in the state of Mississippi, not only Mississippi residents.
A miscarriage could be grounds for criminal prosecution.

These provisions are concurrent with the Pope’s “laws”; the amendment strived to implement his notion of not taking action to prevent a pregnancy.



These thoughts and arguments are preposterous; they are a direct attack on women. They are waging war against over half of the United States population. Women’s health has always been behind men’s health… especially their reproductive health. There has been this historically and socially constructed view that the church has about women. Women are viewed as either holy and sacred, like the Virgin Mary, or evil and rebellious, like a witch.

In a patriarchal institution, such as the Church, the men in power have found ways to control women and their bodies. They use religion as a means to do this. And say that it’s okay, because it is what God wants.

Since the United States’ government is so entangled in religion (what the hell happened to separation of church and state), these religious ideas permeate society today in forms of laws. The Church’s delusional, controlling thoughts about women’s reproductive rights should not be a part of politics today. Women are being politicized and used as a tool to implement the Church’s ideological beliefs.

Amendment 26 strips women of their rights. It controls their bodies in a way that follows the rules of the Church. In order for women to be equal in this society, someone else cannot control their bodies. It sickens me that people thought that this amendment was acceptable.

Here are some stats in Mississippi:

“Mississippi finds itself in a dire situation when it comes to teen pregnancy and sexual health. According to Mississippi First, the teen birth rate is the highest in the nation, at 64.1 births for every 1,000 teenage (15- to 19-year-old) girls. Mississippi also leads the nation in teen infection rates for several sexually transmitted diseases. In a state where the lack of sex education has perpetuated the cycle of teen pregnancy, limiting women’s access to methods of contraception can only worsen the situation” (DM Online).

Women’s reproductive health is in a crisis; sex education, availability of contraceptives, and access to reproductive health measures are all at risk. These are things that should be easily accessible. The Church has a long history of not recognizing women as sexual beings. Women are to be “pure”. They are to be virgins before marriage. They should not desire, but only be desired. Their purpose in life is to reproduce and create a family.



I am appalled that all of these things are still alive in today’s society to a certain extent. Women are individuals that should be able to control their own bodies. They should also be able to protect and care for their own bodies without interference from the Church or government. The government should be helping women, not depriving them of basic reproductive healthcare. The consequences of amendments like the “Personhood Amendment” are dire. They undermine and trivialize women’s health and well-being just for the sake of doing “Gods work”. If there is a God, and he’s so loving like everyone says he is, I think he would be immensely disappointed in our society today.

Friday, December 9, 2011

Posting Assignment #9 (due Sunday 12/11, 11:59 P.M.; comment by 11:59 Monday, 12/12) Talk to the Pope—well, anyway, talk about and around what the Pope says about reproduction and the Universe




 [last post; read it carefully]




It seemed we were unanimous that technologies like hormone birth control ('the pill') necessarily change us.  We didn't get too far into defining how, to what extent and with what outcomes—individually and collectively. 

Pope Paul VI (whose ideas align with many other religious thinkers of many creeds and denominations in the case he makes in Humanae Vitae) does not agree with some of the basic assumptions of Cultural Studies.  He believes in a fixed and unchanging 'human nature' (rather than human subjectivities that are constructed, historical and contingent).  He believes in absolute right and wrong (rather than some degree of variation relative to history and culture).  And—the central topic—he believes that love, sexuality, and family relationships should (must?) have a fixed structure.  Or we will suffer—on earth for sure, and for him: forever after.  He certainly believes in a 'forever after.'  We defined the Pope's position as anchored in Natural Law.  We suspect that many of us share some or all of these beliefs.  We suspect that many of us find them impossible—or as Robin writes: 'nonsense.' We also suspect that many of us are pretty confused, conflicted and incoherent in what we believe about these issues, trying to believe on both sides.  And if Susan Bordo is right (which she is), 'our conscious politics, social commitments, strivings for change may be undermined and betrayed by the life of our bodies' (165).

High stakes.  Clear distinctions.  Incompatible positions.  Big political consequences.  Ugly 'culture wars.'

Deal with the Pope (and all the Pope's Peeps):
  1. Carve out an issueselect one claim Paul VI makes in Humanae Vitae.  Identify the paragraph (by number); quote the relevant text; explain what it means in everyday language (as if you were giving a fellow student friend a fast overview); anchor it with an illustration you create or find. 
  2. Take a position on the issue: make the case for why what the Pope (and all others who share this view of things) argues has good or bad social, political, psychological, relationship, identity—and, and, and—consequences 
  3. Talk to our theory and work: make sure that your post comes from, links to, uses the methods of, and generally advances the work we've done all semester. To the extent that you can use the 'history and science presented in our readings, do it.

So like what? (as anchoring illustrations)  This post engages all matters of 'human life,' 'human rights,' and 'human sexuality' even though it's based on a close, careful reading of a single anchoring philosophical document.  You'll want to work from specifics, and there are lots going around: 

• Mississippi's  'Personhood' amendment

• Ohio's 'fetal heartbeat' law

• MCCL's case against Margaret Sanger

• The U's Stem Cell Institute (and the press about it)

• Plan B (no over-the-counter for 12 year olds)

• every gay / bi / trans issue in the world

• Regions Hospital ceasing to provide abortions

• the 'gay marriage' amendment (and the press about it)

• 'rights' (gay, religious, privacy, human…)

• the 'establishment clause' (church and state)

• '2 child law' in China