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 issue: select 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