“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.
No comments:
Post a Comment