What is the best way to respectfully disagree with a pope? I guess the best way is to just state the case that, as wise as the pope is, and as much as he knows about faith, compassion, and virtue, it just might be that he’s a little wrong on some things, right? Well, my reaction to the words of Pope Francis yesterday is just that: I respectfully disagree. I have firm footing to stand on… after all, popes have been misinformed about science in the past, right? As long as he’s not speaking ex-cathedra on an issue of Faith or Morals, I am not obliged to take on Faith what he says.
Yesterday, Pope Francis said, “The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it” (you can see more of his comments here). And on this point, the pope is wrong. Let me be more specific: IF there was a Big Bang, then I agree that it would have required a Divine Creator. But to take for granted that a Big Bang must have happened, just because the scientific evidence points to it? A big mistake, and an abrogation of authority.
The laws of physics are powerful: to a physicist, a little information about a projectile flying through the air in a big, swooping parabolic arc allows him to tell you exactly where the projectile was launched from, and at what speed; and allows him to determine where the projectile will land. And he’ll be right every time, because the laws of physics are well-known and very precise.
The physics that determine the scientist’s understanding of the origin of the universe are no different. We observe details about the world around us, apply the well-known physical laws that dictate how the universe behaves, and calculate backwards in time to arrive at the Big Bang… or, similarly, to arrive at the theory of evolution. The laws may be more complex, but the process is identical.
Think again of the simple example of the projectile seen arcing through the sky. What if God used his “magic wand” to create the projectile in mid-flight, and gave it all of the properties (speed, trajectory, etc.) to make the observant scientist conclude a launch point somewhere over on the farside of the hill. If the scientist didn’t see God create the projectile in mid-flight, he would be unpersuadable. He would only believe (the heathen!) that the projectile was fired from the point indicated by his calculations.
You see, scientists have no say over “initial conditions.” If they are not in complete control of the experiment to observe the starting point, then they can only assume that the same rules applied over the entire duration of the “experiment” they are trying to observe, and can only deduce the initial conditions.
But scientists were not paying attention during the origin of the universe. They can only tell us what the evidence indicates. But what we’re talking about is God--you know, the all-powerful Being that created the laws of physics and is not bound by them. So we are talking about a matter of Faith. You must believe that God created the universe - it can’t be proven. If you believe, then no amount of data can tell you how He did it, because He could have established the initial conditions in any manner He saw fit. It turns out that the physicists have to make an awfully big assumption: they assume God chose to be bound by the laws of physics that He created. And don't the Faithful have evidence that He does not bind Himself to these laws? If God performs miracles, then it follows that He chooses to violate His own physical laws from time to time.
At this point, I’d like to make clear what I’m NOT saying: I’m not saying that the Big Bang could not have happened. It could have. God could have chosen to create the universe through a Big Bang. What I am saying is that scientists have no business telling us how the universe started; they are not philosophers or theologians (as much as they might like to think that they are). The role of science is to tell us what the evidence and theories point toward. Our theologians and philosophers should interpret the scientific evidence together with Revealed Truth and are singularly empowered to draw conclusions; but instead, we see them bowing to the supposed final authority of science. And let's contemplate the possibility that it's not our place to know with certainty our origins; after all, it is hubris indeed to think that God can be fully understood.
The pope should reassert his authority and help us understand the most likely way that God might have created the universe; but he should not begin his speech by foolishly conceding that scientific assertions are undoubtedly right. After all, the only group wrong about physics more than the Church is… physicists!
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Art for Art's Sake: But What Is "Art"?
J+M+J
For some time now, I've read, with much interest, the blog posts of conservative writer Matt Walsh. The other day, while perusing some of his older pieces, I came across a commentary on popular entertainment. His words struck a chord in my traditionalist, right-wing heart, so naturally I shared the post on my Facebook feed, only to discover that (surprise, surprise!) there exist others that do not share the mutual opinion Matt Walsh and I hold concerning the immoral and, largely, unintelligent fare of popular entertainment (specifically within the musical industry, but obviously extending into other artistic arenas).
I think it is universally accepted that, as human beings, we are highly influenced by the artistic surroundings in which we immerse ourselves and that art, in ways that often surpass the influence of a lecture or instructive text, through its subtlety, has a profound ability to shape our thoughts, perceptions, ideas, and even persons. For that reason, it is vitally important, if we care not only for ourselves, but for the whole of society, that we consider the weight of the songs to which we listen (especially given the ubiquitous presence of the i-Pod these days) or the movies we frequent or the books we absorb. Our art is a reflection of ourselves, and sometimes that includes the brutal or difficult truths of human nature, but while we can always acknowledge the depraved or disordered aspects of human existence, we should always be seeking to correct these evils, instead lauding that which is best in humanity.
When considering the lyrics of popular music, such as those Beyonce songs detailed in Walsh's original article, our concern is not exclusively over the sexually explicit nature of the lyric content, but also that the songs themselves are vapid, degrading (to humans in general, but to women specifically), and cliche. This isn't to suggest that all art be saccharine - filled with unrealistic, fanciful visions of unicorns and rainbows - but that genuine art should amaze us with its grandeur and majesty, displaying the very best of humanity and pointing toward the truth.
Art is supposed to evoke reflection (whether joyful or sorrowful), provide beauty (even if that beauty is enveloped in sadness or tragedy), and display the truth in an attempt to elevate humanity to the higher aims of goodness, respect, decency, honor, courage, empathy, etc. But, let's be honest, how is singing about oral sex in a limo accomplishing this? It's not championing truth, it's not commenting on social injustice, it's not relating a meaningful story, it's not instructing listeners/viewers...it's simply talking about sexuality and human beings in the meanest, coarsest, most vulgar, and most cavalier of ways, without a hint of subtlety. And the monotony and repetition in "discussing" sex, drugs, etc. renders it dull and unimaginative, failing to offer a glint of true inspiration to its audience. Aristotle said, “The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.” Somehow, I don't think Beyonce's blow by blow "account" of a salacious encounter exudes "inward significance." It's like the same junk recycled in the same unoriginal way, over and over and over again, yet somehow, most Americans just can't get enough. And while an individual can obviously have different artistic tastes (different types of musical or literature genres, various types of architecture, etc. certainly appeal to different people), the concept of art itself - its overall aim or intent - should be universal. If we hold art to certain standards, then, naturally, the mere claim that something is "art" does not make it so.
Interestingly though, many insist that there is no universal standard for what constitutes art - that there's a certain degree of sophistication in Beyonce's hyper-sexualized musical offerings, though it's undoubtedly not everyone's "cup of tea," and that it is unduly rigid and wholly inaccurate to suggest that the content is highly, well, stupid. It's been proposed to me that the utilization of Monica Lewinsky's name as a verb somehow elevates a song about having sex in the back of a limousine to some standard of intelligence or insight. Now, I am willing to concede that the lyrics may be sexually "astute," however, when it comes to identifying these words as substantive, meaningful, insightful, or beautiful (even tragically beautiful), I find it absolutely impossible to do so. This music, besides being unbelievably immoral and grossly depraved, is indeed stupid, by which I mean: "tediously dull, especially due to a lack or meaning or sense" (incidentally, further definitions of "stupid" include "inane; annoying or irritating; troublesome" - all of which characterize this type of popular music, in my humble opinion) and the tired, monotonous focus on sex in these songs is just that - devoid of meaning and tedious in its sexual obsession. Therefore, despite the "original" use of a proper noun as a verb, the whole song (and others like it) remains bleakly uninsightful and not terribly *thought*-provoking (though such songs are certainly provocative). Again, simply because something is "original" doesn't qualify it as art: I believe we could all recall various things we have seen throughout our lives which were undeniably "original," yet undoubtedly horrible in their grotesqueness. Any one can label anything as art - regardless of the talent (or lack thereof) required to produce said work - but the real consideration is: does this song (painting, film, etc.) offer genuine artistic insight, beauty, or meaning?
With all my grandiose visions of what art should be, a natural refutation to my arguments is that my "personal" artistic scope is too limited: who am I to impose my beliefs on the world (i.e. the classic contemporary objection to any quantitative and objective moral, ethical, or social claims)? It is true: I, in the great scheme of human history, am of considerably little importance and my personal opinions on any number of issues are of very small regard. However, the definition I provide is not one of my own making: it has been the general consensus for hundreds of years in a variety of societies throughout different time periods that art should offer beauty, enchantment, wonder, insight, meaning, and consideration in the hearts and minds of those it reaches, regardless of the medium. It should champion the good in humanity, criticize the flawed, condemn the depraved, and seek out the truth. It should offer meaning, substance, and yes, entertainment, but not at the complete expense of the other considerations.
Similarly, I recoil at this notion of "different strokes for different folks" as a justification for condemning objective criticism. Certainly, one may not agree with the classical definition of art, but, by dismissing any but the very broadest of definitions, aren't we really suggesting that human beings - despite our unique ability to intelligently discern - are not capable of crafting thoughtful, articulate, and reasonable arguments for judging the nature or content of a given practice, decision, etc.? Is it really so wrong to classify a song with lewd, monotonous sexual lyrics (or the type of "music" it represents in general) as disordered, lacking meaning, and, well, even destructive: destructive to our souls, because of the immorality it upholds; destructive to our relationships, because of the cavalier attitude it encourages toward sexual intimacy; destructive to our bodily and mental health, because it conditions us to settle for the basest aspects of our nature - to give in to animalistic inclination without involving reason; and destructive to our society at large, because it encourages unbridled sexual license (and we all know human beings desire sex enough without further encouragement). Isn't the distinction between man and beast (namely, humanity's intellect) something we should revere and utilize with care? When did making careful judgments become so unbelievably contentious and taboo?
As human beings, we have been gifted with great potential: reasoning faculties, compassionate spirits, and artistic talents, to name some of our most praiseworthy attributes. To offer anything less than our best, whether that be in creating astounding, inspiring artwork, living with meaning, purpose, and conviction, or attempting to correct the ills we witness around us (or within us), is ultimately to cheat ourselves and humanity of so much. So, while a mere song or book may seem innocuous enough, anyone who has heard the poetic words of Shakespeare, or read the vivid descriptions of Dante, or gazed in awe at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, recognizes art's ability to shape our futures, our minds, our hearts, and our souls.
M.K.
For some time now, I've read, with much interest, the blog posts of conservative writer Matt Walsh. The other day, while perusing some of his older pieces, I came across a commentary on popular entertainment. His words struck a chord in my traditionalist, right-wing heart, so naturally I shared the post on my Facebook feed, only to discover that (surprise, surprise!) there exist others that do not share the mutual opinion Matt Walsh and I hold concerning the immoral and, largely, unintelligent fare of popular entertainment (specifically within the musical industry, but obviously extending into other artistic arenas).
I think it is universally accepted that, as human beings, we are highly influenced by the artistic surroundings in which we immerse ourselves and that art, in ways that often surpass the influence of a lecture or instructive text, through its subtlety, has a profound ability to shape our thoughts, perceptions, ideas, and even persons. For that reason, it is vitally important, if we care not only for ourselves, but for the whole of society, that we consider the weight of the songs to which we listen (especially given the ubiquitous presence of the i-Pod these days) or the movies we frequent or the books we absorb. Our art is a reflection of ourselves, and sometimes that includes the brutal or difficult truths of human nature, but while we can always acknowledge the depraved or disordered aspects of human existence, we should always be seeking to correct these evils, instead lauding that which is best in humanity.
When considering the lyrics of popular music, such as those Beyonce songs detailed in Walsh's original article, our concern is not exclusively over the sexually explicit nature of the lyric content, but also that the songs themselves are vapid, degrading (to humans in general, but to women specifically), and cliche. This isn't to suggest that all art be saccharine - filled with unrealistic, fanciful visions of unicorns and rainbows - but that genuine art should amaze us with its grandeur and majesty, displaying the very best of humanity and pointing toward the truth.
Art is supposed to evoke reflection (whether joyful or sorrowful), provide beauty (even if that beauty is enveloped in sadness or tragedy), and display the truth in an attempt to elevate humanity to the higher aims of goodness, respect, decency, honor, courage, empathy, etc. But, let's be honest, how is singing about oral sex in a limo accomplishing this? It's not championing truth, it's not commenting on social injustice, it's not relating a meaningful story, it's not instructing listeners/viewers...it's simply talking about sexuality and human beings in the meanest, coarsest, most vulgar, and most cavalier of ways, without a hint of subtlety. And the monotony and repetition in "discussing" sex, drugs, etc. renders it dull and unimaginative, failing to offer a glint of true inspiration to its audience. Aristotle said, “The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.” Somehow, I don't think Beyonce's blow by blow "account" of a salacious encounter exudes "inward significance." It's like the same junk recycled in the same unoriginal way, over and over and over again, yet somehow, most Americans just can't get enough. And while an individual can obviously have different artistic tastes (different types of musical or literature genres, various types of architecture, etc. certainly appeal to different people), the concept of art itself - its overall aim or intent - should be universal. If we hold art to certain standards, then, naturally, the mere claim that something is "art" does not make it so.
Interestingly though, many insist that there is no universal standard for what constitutes art - that there's a certain degree of sophistication in Beyonce's hyper-sexualized musical offerings, though it's undoubtedly not everyone's "cup of tea," and that it is unduly rigid and wholly inaccurate to suggest that the content is highly, well, stupid. It's been proposed to me that the utilization of Monica Lewinsky's name as a verb somehow elevates a song about having sex in the back of a limousine to some standard of intelligence or insight. Now, I am willing to concede that the lyrics may be sexually "astute," however, when it comes to identifying these words as substantive, meaningful, insightful, or beautiful (even tragically beautiful), I find it absolutely impossible to do so. This music, besides being unbelievably immoral and grossly depraved, is indeed stupid, by which I mean: "tediously dull, especially due to a lack or meaning or sense" (incidentally, further definitions of "stupid" include "inane; annoying or irritating; troublesome" - all of which characterize this type of popular music, in my humble opinion) and the tired, monotonous focus on sex in these songs is just that - devoid of meaning and tedious in its sexual obsession. Therefore, despite the "original" use of a proper noun as a verb, the whole song (and others like it) remains bleakly uninsightful and not terribly *thought*-provoking (though such songs are certainly provocative). Again, simply because something is "original" doesn't qualify it as art: I believe we could all recall various things we have seen throughout our lives which were undeniably "original," yet undoubtedly horrible in their grotesqueness. Any one can label anything as art - regardless of the talent (or lack thereof) required to produce said work - but the real consideration is: does this song (painting, film, etc.) offer genuine artistic insight, beauty, or meaning?
With all my grandiose visions of what art should be, a natural refutation to my arguments is that my "personal" artistic scope is too limited: who am I to impose my beliefs on the world (i.e. the classic contemporary objection to any quantitative and objective moral, ethical, or social claims)? It is true: I, in the great scheme of human history, am of considerably little importance and my personal opinions on any number of issues are of very small regard. However, the definition I provide is not one of my own making: it has been the general consensus for hundreds of years in a variety of societies throughout different time periods that art should offer beauty, enchantment, wonder, insight, meaning, and consideration in the hearts and minds of those it reaches, regardless of the medium. It should champion the good in humanity, criticize the flawed, condemn the depraved, and seek out the truth. It should offer meaning, substance, and yes, entertainment, but not at the complete expense of the other considerations.
Similarly, I recoil at this notion of "different strokes for different folks" as a justification for condemning objective criticism. Certainly, one may not agree with the classical definition of art, but, by dismissing any but the very broadest of definitions, aren't we really suggesting that human beings - despite our unique ability to intelligently discern - are not capable of crafting thoughtful, articulate, and reasonable arguments for judging the nature or content of a given practice, decision, etc.? Is it really so wrong to classify a song with lewd, monotonous sexual lyrics (or the type of "music" it represents in general) as disordered, lacking meaning, and, well, even destructive: destructive to our souls, because of the immorality it upholds; destructive to our relationships, because of the cavalier attitude it encourages toward sexual intimacy; destructive to our bodily and mental health, because it conditions us to settle for the basest aspects of our nature - to give in to animalistic inclination without involving reason; and destructive to our society at large, because it encourages unbridled sexual license (and we all know human beings desire sex enough without further encouragement). Isn't the distinction between man and beast (namely, humanity's intellect) something we should revere and utilize with care? When did making careful judgments become so unbelievably contentious and taboo?
As human beings, we have been gifted with great potential: reasoning faculties, compassionate spirits, and artistic talents, to name some of our most praiseworthy attributes. To offer anything less than our best, whether that be in creating astounding, inspiring artwork, living with meaning, purpose, and conviction, or attempting to correct the ills we witness around us (or within us), is ultimately to cheat ourselves and humanity of so much. So, while a mere song or book may seem innocuous enough, anyone who has heard the poetic words of Shakespeare, or read the vivid descriptions of Dante, or gazed in awe at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, recognizes art's ability to shape our futures, our minds, our hearts, and our souls.
M.K.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Upholding Personal Choice by Condemning Personal Choice
J+M+J
As the whole Hobby Lobby contraception coverage controversy continues to boil over with a fury, I can't help but marvel at the inconsistencies presented by dissenters of the Supreme Court's decision. In most liberal circles, the general consensus is that this "catastrophic" outcome is no less than an assault on womanhood, the impoverished, and personal choice; oddly, their conviction that this whole ordeal will undoubtedly bring about near-apocalyptic consequences for the future of American women and the collective sexual freedom of all, sounds quite reminiscent of the dire predictions conservatives offered when the Affordable Care Act was initially enacted - warnings progressives dismissed as hyperbolic nonsense. Articles, like this one from Slate, continue to flood the internet, presenting a host of concerns over the initial decision and subsequent judicial developments from the High Court. Are these concerns misplaced? Or, even worse, is the liberal contingent's insistence that all organizations and corporations provide a veritable host of birth control - including those that act as abortifacients at least some of the time - actually inflicting more harm than good on those they hope to help, namely, women and the poor?
In a society where women are told they are invincible, unconquerable, tenacious, and talented, it's a bit ironic that they are also reminded with vigor that their success, whether professional or personal, is intrinsically linked to a little pill. Never, in all my years, have I ever heard a similar statement made regarding the success of men, yet women seem utterly dependent on medical intervention to curb a naturally functioning aspect of their bodies and, subsequently, make all their dreams come true. In other words: women need to turn off their biological "femininity" to be fully accomplished. Cyndi Lauper, music icon and women's rights advocate, in her open letter to the Daily Beast, even equated the Pill with "allowing [women] to...determine [their] own destiny."
"I am woman, hear me roar (that is, only if I'm on the appropriate birth control regime - otherwise, I'm a floundering mess)."
What does this message tell our young girls about the innate abilities of women? That we are only capable of greatness if we negate a primary aspect of our natural, biological make-up? That the possibility of bearing or rearing a child is the death knell for accomplishment? While it would be naive to suggest that having a child never presents new challenges to the life of any parent - whether man or woman - it would also be short-changing women to assert that children so hamper one's ambitions as to deem them near impossible.
And to add insult to sexist injury, this mentality is expounded upon in the equally popular sentiment which asserts that "having a uterus" naturally predisposes a female both to support contraception and (inherently) to sanction its mandated purchase. When lamenting the Supreme Court's emergency temporary injunction (afforded to companies and organizations maintaining a religious objection to the approval of third parties in providing birth control), Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West (in the aforementioned Slate piece), suggest that it was a specific physical characteristic that prompted the Supreme Court's dissenting justices to disapprove of the decision: a uterus. Undoubtedly, of course, it was the three dissenting justices' anatomy that caused them to disavow the decision (it couldn't possibly have been their liberal ideology, right?). Similarly, it's only natural that every one of the justices who ruled in Hobby Lobby's favor at the initial decision was male - because men are absolutely opposed to birth control, correct? Yet, despite all the sexist rhetoric, Planned Parenthood provides statistics that the majority of men not only embrace birth control, but furthermore, believe it should be fully covered by insurance with absolutely no out-of-pocket costs. Hmm. I wonder why men would be interested in this, too? Could it be that men (albeit, in a different capacity) are also impacted by sexual activity, fertility, and possible procreation? When we relegate the opinions of individuals, particularly women, to stereotypical thought, are we really championing personal choice, conscientious discernment, and individualism? Or are we instead conditioning young girls and women to adopt only those beliefs popular society thinks are appropriate for females to hold?
Another group "egregiously" assaulted by the Court's decision is, of course, the poor. Opponents of the decision argue that the undue burden placed on poverty-stricken employees by not having an exhaustive list of birth control universally covered by employers would simply be too much to bear. Let us consider for the moment the real source of medicine's astronomical prices; that is, our society's unbelievable dependence upon this third party payment system: a system which, ironically, was thrust upon us through government regulation decades ago and has created a systemic problem, in which people no longer weigh the "value" of a given drug, procedure, or visit with their own monetary investment, because insurance is "paying the bill." If people had to actually draw their own cash out of their pockets to make health care purchases, they would most certainly think more critically about how their money is spent on health and, subsequently, medical providers would be forced to lower their prices, since no one would be willing to pay the bills that insurance currently covers. It's common sense. Unfortunately, however, we would rather have the satisfaction of having "someone else" foot the bill for our antibiotics, routine check-ups, or birth control than to implement change that would really reduce the cost of medical care. Thus, we see that people aren't complaining about the system...instead they are complaining about another person's unwillingness to compromise his deeply seated convictions to subsidize things he finds morally reprehensible.
So, instead of advocating for real, tangible change in altering the course of medicine in our country to benefit us all (but particularly, the poor), liberal organizations, such as The National Organization for Women, are instead channeling their energies in attacking...the Little Sisters of the Poor?? Yes, liberal advocates for impoverished women are black-labeling groups of nuns who dedicate their lives to serving the poverty-stricken, the elderly, and the dying. It makes perfect sense: attempt to shut down, thwart, or cripple organizations and people seeking to improve the lives of those around them, whether those individuals be religious sisters living in poverty themselves to better serve others, or the leaders of companies like Hobby Lobby, which pays its employees nearly double the national minimum and provides flexible hours, or Eden Foods, a company committed to healthy living and organic, sustainable farming (which, when you consider the birth control issue from a "health" perspective, is it any surprise that a company dedicated to organic living would reject paying for class one carcinogens?). What the liberal mentality seems to be forgetting here is that many of these organizations would rather, however reluctantly, cease to operate than reject their strongly held ethical positions. So, in their zeal to have the birth control of all women paid for by people other than then the women themselves (and their spouses, partners, etc.), liberal advocates just might be shooting themselves in the proverbial foot by literally forcing these organizations to cease the great services they provide in order to secure their convictions.
It is also important to remember amid all the emotionally-charged rhetoric, that the Green family (owners of Hobby Lobby) and similar corporate heads cannot making anyone "forego" anything. For one thing, employees enter into voluntary employment contracts with their employer and are free to go elsewhere if they are dissatisfied with any aspect of their current employment (we are not discussing involuntary servitude here). Secondly, people can buy practically anything they want for themselves. Understandably, there will always exist certain goods that people may want (or even things they might need, or feel they need) which are also cost prohibitive, but unfortunately, that's life. If one cannot afford something he feels is necessary, life adjustments must be made. It seems undeniable that comfortable shelter, reliable transportation, and a whole host of other things are considered vital in American culture - and these are even good, wonderful, beneficial things to promote well-being - but even so, they aren't guaranteed to any of us. As adults, we all need to understand that we have choices to make about nearly every aspect of life: financial decisions, personal decisions, career decisions, etc. and we must face the challenges and realities of life, even when it is unpleasant or difficult. Sometimes, we have to trudge along through inconveniences or even outright hardships, but that's human existence. It isn't our employer's responsibility to safeguard us from every decision we personally make, but it is our responsibility to take ownership of our personal liberty and the consequences of our decisions, great and small.
Finally, the irony of "championing personal choice" by forcibly mandating others to act against, well, against their "personal choice," is comical to epic degrees (but somehow the hilarity seems to be lost on many). Since this is not an issue of outlawing birth control, women will still have other options for obtaining it (like, um, paying for it on their own, perhaps?), but employers will completely forfeit their own personal choice by surrendering their right to object to financing those things they find morally reprehensible. It seems, however, that certain choices just aren't as important as others. For example, it would appear, given popular consensus on the matter, that the physical needs, desires, or choices of one individual are inherently more valuable than the spiritual and ethical considerations of another. Yet, when we think beyond our personal inclinations, why should one's desire (i.e. "choice") to engage in an active sex life usurp another individual's commitment to oppose the ending of a child's life (however developmentally small that human being may be)? Because, despite what the media tells you, this is the crux of the matter: it's not a war on women, it's not mere religiosity, but rather, it's a question of ethics.
The ironies, the inconsistencies, and the improbabilities of the popular arguments against the Hobby Lobby decision are enough to make one's head spin, but one can only hope that after greater reflection we can all recognize the hypocrisy of forcing others to act against their carefully formulated convictions to uphold some twisted (and extremely limited) view of "personal choice." And with all that stands to be lost by compelling employers to act against their organization's values, one has to wonder: who really has it out for the American people?
M.K.
As the whole Hobby Lobby contraception coverage controversy continues to boil over with a fury, I can't help but marvel at the inconsistencies presented by dissenters of the Supreme Court's decision. In most liberal circles, the general consensus is that this "catastrophic" outcome is no less than an assault on womanhood, the impoverished, and personal choice; oddly, their conviction that this whole ordeal will undoubtedly bring about near-apocalyptic consequences for the future of American women and the collective sexual freedom of all, sounds quite reminiscent of the dire predictions conservatives offered when the Affordable Care Act was initially enacted - warnings progressives dismissed as hyperbolic nonsense. Articles, like this one from Slate, continue to flood the internet, presenting a host of concerns over the initial decision and subsequent judicial developments from the High Court. Are these concerns misplaced? Or, even worse, is the liberal contingent's insistence that all organizations and corporations provide a veritable host of birth control - including those that act as abortifacients at least some of the time - actually inflicting more harm than good on those they hope to help, namely, women and the poor?
In a society where women are told they are invincible, unconquerable, tenacious, and talented, it's a bit ironic that they are also reminded with vigor that their success, whether professional or personal, is intrinsically linked to a little pill. Never, in all my years, have I ever heard a similar statement made regarding the success of men, yet women seem utterly dependent on medical intervention to curb a naturally functioning aspect of their bodies and, subsequently, make all their dreams come true. In other words: women need to turn off their biological "femininity" to be fully accomplished. Cyndi Lauper, music icon and women's rights advocate, in her open letter to the Daily Beast, even equated the Pill with "allowing [women] to...determine [their] own destiny."
"I am woman, hear me roar (that is, only if I'm on the appropriate birth control regime - otherwise, I'm a floundering mess)."
What does this message tell our young girls about the innate abilities of women? That we are only capable of greatness if we negate a primary aspect of our natural, biological make-up? That the possibility of bearing or rearing a child is the death knell for accomplishment? While it would be naive to suggest that having a child never presents new challenges to the life of any parent - whether man or woman - it would also be short-changing women to assert that children so hamper one's ambitions as to deem them near impossible.
And to add insult to sexist injury, this mentality is expounded upon in the equally popular sentiment which asserts that "having a uterus" naturally predisposes a female both to support contraception and (inherently) to sanction its mandated purchase. When lamenting the Supreme Court's emergency temporary injunction (afforded to companies and organizations maintaining a religious objection to the approval of third parties in providing birth control), Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West (in the aforementioned Slate piece), suggest that it was a specific physical characteristic that prompted the Supreme Court's dissenting justices to disapprove of the decision: a uterus. Undoubtedly, of course, it was the three dissenting justices' anatomy that caused them to disavow the decision (it couldn't possibly have been their liberal ideology, right?). Similarly, it's only natural that every one of the justices who ruled in Hobby Lobby's favor at the initial decision was male - because men are absolutely opposed to birth control, correct? Yet, despite all the sexist rhetoric, Planned Parenthood provides statistics that the majority of men not only embrace birth control, but furthermore, believe it should be fully covered by insurance with absolutely no out-of-pocket costs. Hmm. I wonder why men would be interested in this, too? Could it be that men (albeit, in a different capacity) are also impacted by sexual activity, fertility, and possible procreation? When we relegate the opinions of individuals, particularly women, to stereotypical thought, are we really championing personal choice, conscientious discernment, and individualism? Or are we instead conditioning young girls and women to adopt only those beliefs popular society thinks are appropriate for females to hold?
Another group "egregiously" assaulted by the Court's decision is, of course, the poor. Opponents of the decision argue that the undue burden placed on poverty-stricken employees by not having an exhaustive list of birth control universally covered by employers would simply be too much to bear. Let us consider for the moment the real source of medicine's astronomical prices; that is, our society's unbelievable dependence upon this third party payment system: a system which, ironically, was thrust upon us through government regulation decades ago and has created a systemic problem, in which people no longer weigh the "value" of a given drug, procedure, or visit with their own monetary investment, because insurance is "paying the bill." If people had to actually draw their own cash out of their pockets to make health care purchases, they would most certainly think more critically about how their money is spent on health and, subsequently, medical providers would be forced to lower their prices, since no one would be willing to pay the bills that insurance currently covers. It's common sense. Unfortunately, however, we would rather have the satisfaction of having "someone else" foot the bill for our antibiotics, routine check-ups, or birth control than to implement change that would really reduce the cost of medical care. Thus, we see that people aren't complaining about the system...instead they are complaining about another person's unwillingness to compromise his deeply seated convictions to subsidize things he finds morally reprehensible.
So, instead of advocating for real, tangible change in altering the course of medicine in our country to benefit us all (but particularly, the poor), liberal organizations, such as The National Organization for Women, are instead channeling their energies in attacking...the Little Sisters of the Poor?? Yes, liberal advocates for impoverished women are black-labeling groups of nuns who dedicate their lives to serving the poverty-stricken, the elderly, and the dying. It makes perfect sense: attempt to shut down, thwart, or cripple organizations and people seeking to improve the lives of those around them, whether those individuals be religious sisters living in poverty themselves to better serve others, or the leaders of companies like Hobby Lobby, which pays its employees nearly double the national minimum and provides flexible hours, or Eden Foods, a company committed to healthy living and organic, sustainable farming (which, when you consider the birth control issue from a "health" perspective, is it any surprise that a company dedicated to organic living would reject paying for class one carcinogens?). What the liberal mentality seems to be forgetting here is that many of these organizations would rather, however reluctantly, cease to operate than reject their strongly held ethical positions. So, in their zeal to have the birth control of all women paid for by people other than then the women themselves (and their spouses, partners, etc.), liberal advocates just might be shooting themselves in the proverbial foot by literally forcing these organizations to cease the great services they provide in order to secure their convictions.
It is also important to remember amid all the emotionally-charged rhetoric, that the Green family (owners of Hobby Lobby) and similar corporate heads cannot making anyone "forego" anything. For one thing, employees enter into voluntary employment contracts with their employer and are free to go elsewhere if they are dissatisfied with any aspect of their current employment (we are not discussing involuntary servitude here). Secondly, people can buy practically anything they want for themselves. Understandably, there will always exist certain goods that people may want (or even things they might need, or feel they need) which are also cost prohibitive, but unfortunately, that's life. If one cannot afford something he feels is necessary, life adjustments must be made. It seems undeniable that comfortable shelter, reliable transportation, and a whole host of other things are considered vital in American culture - and these are even good, wonderful, beneficial things to promote well-being - but even so, they aren't guaranteed to any of us. As adults, we all need to understand that we have choices to make about nearly every aspect of life: financial decisions, personal decisions, career decisions, etc. and we must face the challenges and realities of life, even when it is unpleasant or difficult. Sometimes, we have to trudge along through inconveniences or even outright hardships, but that's human existence. It isn't our employer's responsibility to safeguard us from every decision we personally make, but it is our responsibility to take ownership of our personal liberty and the consequences of our decisions, great and small.
Finally, the irony of "championing personal choice" by forcibly mandating others to act against, well, against their "personal choice," is comical to epic degrees (but somehow the hilarity seems to be lost on many). Since this is not an issue of outlawing birth control, women will still have other options for obtaining it (like, um, paying for it on their own, perhaps?), but employers will completely forfeit their own personal choice by surrendering their right to object to financing those things they find morally reprehensible. It seems, however, that certain choices just aren't as important as others. For example, it would appear, given popular consensus on the matter, that the physical needs, desires, or choices of one individual are inherently more valuable than the spiritual and ethical considerations of another. Yet, when we think beyond our personal inclinations, why should one's desire (i.e. "choice") to engage in an active sex life usurp another individual's commitment to oppose the ending of a child's life (however developmentally small that human being may be)? Because, despite what the media tells you, this is the crux of the matter: it's not a war on women, it's not mere religiosity, but rather, it's a question of ethics.
The ironies, the inconsistencies, and the improbabilities of the popular arguments against the Hobby Lobby decision are enough to make one's head spin, but one can only hope that after greater reflection we can all recognize the hypocrisy of forcing others to act against their carefully formulated convictions to uphold some twisted (and extremely limited) view of "personal choice." And with all that stands to be lost by compelling employers to act against their organization's values, one has to wonder: who really has it out for the American people?
M.K.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Mississippi's Proposition 26- Some Thoughts
J+M+J
Proposition 26, a ballot initiative in the State of Mississippi that would have amended that State’s Constitution to define the term “person,” was defeated on Tuesday night, and it wasn’t nearly as close as expected. Here is the text of the proposal:
"Initiative #26 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the word 'person' or 'persons', as those terms are used in Article III of the state constitution, to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof."
I was very surprised to read analysis today, (like this on CNN) indicating that women “weren’t even sure how far-reaching [the amendment] would be because the language was so ambiguous.” Ambiguous?
We (you, me, Americans in general) have lost the ability to be honest with ourselves. There is nothing ambiguous about the proposed amendment. It is something like a first principle: a thing that is either true or it is not true; something with which you can either agree or disagree. There’s nothing ambiguous about first principles. The State Constitution either should, or should not, define the term “person” to include human beings from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or their functional equivalent.
We are dishonest because it is easier to let ourselves believe that the language is ambiguous, rather than face the fact that we know the truth, and we don’t like it - perhaps because we have violated the principle.
I can understand a person voting no because they do not think that a fertilized egg is a human being; I certainly don’t agree with it, but I understand it. If they really, truly think that, then they are being logical. But I think that a great majority of those that voted no on the proposal think that a fertilized egg is a human being from the moment of fertilization. They lied to themselves.
No, the proposed amendment was not ambiguous; not even the repercussions of the proposal are ambiguous. We can agree, for example, that an adult woman is a person. There is no ambiguity contained in that sentence (she either is or isn’t). Neither is there any ambiguity in the repercussions of that statement: violating (that is, killing, hurting, stealing from) a grown woman is wrong, and society recognizes that by punishing someone who does it. So, if a fertilized egg is a person? The same repercussions follow: that hurting or killing a fertilized egg is wrong and should not be allowed! Of course, there are particulars to every case; if a person is being attacked and defends himself, society recognizes the subjective specifics of the situation, and does not punish the self-defender. (Would a woman who experiences a miscarriage be put on trial? Really?)
I think voters are hiding behind feigned “ambiguity,” simply because they don’t want to address the real question that an honest vote raises: Do my actions reflect my beliefs? We all put blinders on to our wrongdoings; we find ways to trivialize them, justify them… or we ignore them altogether. Modern science - and those who package it and provide it to us - is great at allowing us to focus on exactly what we want to focus on, and to ignore everything else. To be clear: for a woman taking the pill, there is a chance during each cycle that a fertilized egg will be flushed from her body - prevented from implanting by the direct working of the pill she takes to suppress ovulation every day. But she doesn’t see that, she doesn’t feel it. There’s only the possibility of it - she might not even know about it (except for the publicity this amendment has given to this very likely possibility). It’s so much easier to ignore.
So let’s be honest:
Do you believe that a fertilized egg is a person? In your heart of hearts… when no one is looking… what percentage of people can really, honestly say “no” to themselves?
If you believe that a fertilized egg is a person, and you knew that taking a pill could (and over the course of taking the pill for ten years, almost certainly will, more than once) force that person to be flushed from its temporary home, how can you go on taking that pill?
As many as 70% of women of child-bearing age use the pill. I ask you to look inside your heart and ask yourself: do you believe that a fertilized egg is a human being, with a soul imbued by God? Do you understand that it is a medical fact that the pill acts by preventing fertilized eggs (humans with souls, unless you really think otherwise) from implanting in the uterus and forces them to be flushed out? Can you really go on doing this to your babies?
We don’t need laws or constitutional amendments to tell us what’s right and what’s wrong; more of us need to stand up and do the right thing, regardless of what society tolerates. What we must do is pray: pray and do what we know in our hearts to be right, and help our friends and family to do the same. If enough of us do that, maybe then we can change the world. Change will not come from the top down; no politician cares enough to change the world. It has to start with us.
Proposition 26, a ballot initiative in the State of Mississippi that would have amended that State’s Constitution to define the term “person,” was defeated on Tuesday night, and it wasn’t nearly as close as expected. Here is the text of the proposal:
"Initiative #26 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the word 'person' or 'persons', as those terms are used in Article III of the state constitution, to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof."
I was very surprised to read analysis today, (like this on CNN) indicating that women “weren’t even sure how far-reaching [the amendment] would be because the language was so ambiguous.” Ambiguous?
We (you, me, Americans in general) have lost the ability to be honest with ourselves. There is nothing ambiguous about the proposed amendment. It is something like a first principle: a thing that is either true or it is not true; something with which you can either agree or disagree. There’s nothing ambiguous about first principles. The State Constitution either should, or should not, define the term “person” to include human beings from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or their functional equivalent.
We are dishonest because it is easier to let ourselves believe that the language is ambiguous, rather than face the fact that we know the truth, and we don’t like it - perhaps because we have violated the principle.
I can understand a person voting no because they do not think that a fertilized egg is a human being; I certainly don’t agree with it, but I understand it. If they really, truly think that, then they are being logical. But I think that a great majority of those that voted no on the proposal think that a fertilized egg is a human being from the moment of fertilization. They lied to themselves.
No, the proposed amendment was not ambiguous; not even the repercussions of the proposal are ambiguous. We can agree, for example, that an adult woman is a person. There is no ambiguity contained in that sentence (she either is or isn’t). Neither is there any ambiguity in the repercussions of that statement: violating (that is, killing, hurting, stealing from) a grown woman is wrong, and society recognizes that by punishing someone who does it. So, if a fertilized egg is a person? The same repercussions follow: that hurting or killing a fertilized egg is wrong and should not be allowed! Of course, there are particulars to every case; if a person is being attacked and defends himself, society recognizes the subjective specifics of the situation, and does not punish the self-defender. (Would a woman who experiences a miscarriage be put on trial? Really?)
I think voters are hiding behind feigned “ambiguity,” simply because they don’t want to address the real question that an honest vote raises: Do my actions reflect my beliefs? We all put blinders on to our wrongdoings; we find ways to trivialize them, justify them… or we ignore them altogether. Modern science - and those who package it and provide it to us - is great at allowing us to focus on exactly what we want to focus on, and to ignore everything else. To be clear: for a woman taking the pill, there is a chance during each cycle that a fertilized egg will be flushed from her body - prevented from implanting by the direct working of the pill she takes to suppress ovulation every day. But she doesn’t see that, she doesn’t feel it. There’s only the possibility of it - she might not even know about it (except for the publicity this amendment has given to this very likely possibility). It’s so much easier to ignore.
So let’s be honest:
Do you believe that a fertilized egg is a person? In your heart of hearts… when no one is looking… what percentage of people can really, honestly say “no” to themselves?
If you believe that a fertilized egg is a person, and you knew that taking a pill could (and over the course of taking the pill for ten years, almost certainly will, more than once) force that person to be flushed from its temporary home, how can you go on taking that pill?
As many as 70% of women of child-bearing age use the pill. I ask you to look inside your heart and ask yourself: do you believe that a fertilized egg is a human being, with a soul imbued by God? Do you understand that it is a medical fact that the pill acts by preventing fertilized eggs (humans with souls, unless you really think otherwise) from implanting in the uterus and forces them to be flushed out? Can you really go on doing this to your babies?
We don’t need laws or constitutional amendments to tell us what’s right and what’s wrong; more of us need to stand up and do the right thing, regardless of what society tolerates. What we must do is pray: pray and do what we know in our hearts to be right, and help our friends and family to do the same. If enough of us do that, maybe then we can change the world. Change will not come from the top down; no politician cares enough to change the world. It has to start with us.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Warning: Side-Effects of Government Health Care Coverage Include A Definite Loss in Freedom
J+M+J
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin
In a nation founded upon the belief that safeguarding personal liberty is more vital to humanity than simply maintaining one's physical well-being, it is travesty indeed when many Americans are clamoring for “universal health care” at the cost of relinquishing yet more freedom to an ever-growing federal government. The reverence once bestowed on liberty, a reverence felt so deeply in the American consciousness that the blood of patriots saturates our soil, seems all but a memory, as so many Americans, in an effort to “ensure” – seemingly – health care coverage for all, dismiss the catastrophic consequences such actions would bring to our cherished, however imperfect, way of American life. Instead of championing the virtue of self-responsibility and accepting the trials which freedom naturally entails, modern Americans, generally speaking, seem all-to-willing to hand over the fruits of liberty for the “promise” of material safety – a “promise” made by historically untrustworthy politicians, at that. Our ancestors, the custodians of our sacred liberty, would, undoubtedly, shake their heads in utter regret at the compromises we have made at freedom's expense.
It would be sheer naivety to refer to our current situation as anything other than bleak. Yet, our forefathers were confronted with seemingly insurmountable odds, too, in their quest to protect those God-given rights, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” (notice that list does not include the right to a health care plan) for themselves and their descendants. So, rather than sinking into the abyss of social/political despair, it is essential for conscientious citizens, committed to revitalizing our nation – not revamping it in a mess of radical change – and defending the Constitution, to reject Washington's proposed health care reform – no matter the perceived benefits – and, once again, uphold the virtue of individual responsibility.
Today, the natural question arising in the minds of many Americans, especially when it appears the government is handing them health care coverage (nevermind the quality) on a silver platter, is: what recourses do we have, what avenues can we pursue to remedy the undeniable problems of our current health care system, without bowing down to the political self-proclaimed demi-gods in Washington? It seems clear that by practicing self-discipline and restraint, many of America's health care ailments could be greatly relieved, if not all-together cured, without the intrusive hand of government mandating our every move.
Health Insurance and the Doctor-Patient Relationship
One of the chief ways of improving our health care system would be to largely eliminate the health insurance companies’ involvement in the doctor-patient relationship. The obvious was once made clear to me when someone pointed out that all other insurance policies (i.e. auto, home, life, etc.) don't cover any and all problems that may arise for the insured. No one balks that car insurance does not cover the costs of refueling one's car or providing routine maintenance for said vehicle. Everyone seems to understand that auto, home, or life insurance only covers you in the event of an accident or catastrophe. Yet, for some reason, people simply expect that every wellness check-up their child receives, every visit to the dentist, should be covered, if not in its entirety, at least in part by insurance providers. Subsequently, since a third party is often footing a patient's bill, hospitals, physicians, pharmaceutical companies, etc. can, with little reserve, charge astronomical fees for their services, resting assured in the knowledge that the “limitless” pockets of insurance agencies won't fail to compensate them. Had the exchange of goods and services remained between physician and patient, the price of medicine would undoubtedly have remained in check, having been reined in by the consumer's means. Furthermore, by largely removing the responsibility of payment from the patient, the presence of insurance companies has provided little incentive for citizens to be mindful of the health care dollars they spend as individuals or as families. When some else is footing the bill, why not consent to the extra tests, medications, procedures, etc., even when prudence would recommend some fiscal restraint?
Medicine and the Law
Few people outside the medical profession realize the litigious nightmares that all too often await doctors – even the most conscientious among them – should they (heaven forbid!) make a mistake when treating a patient. For some reason, we place doctors and other health care professionals on an ivory pedestal, believing that any decent physician should be literally incapable of making a medical misjudgment or providing a less-than-perfect surgery outcome. And then, when a physician does make a mistake (after all, they are, in fact, human), well, heaven help him or her. In addition to having to pay untold amounts for “malpractice insurance,” the utter terror of being sued, which seizes upon many doctors, causes them to make many wasteful decisions – but, can you really blame them? A perfect example of this problem is seen in the field of obstetrics, which is particularly vulnerable to litigious backlash, since people have largely come to expect the “perfect baby.” In the United States, one in every three births is done through Cesarean section, and while the c-section is surely a life-saving procedure in limited circumstances, it is a surgery that is abused by the frequency in which it is employed and which poses unnecessary financial and physical risks to patients and society as a whole. But, as long as the c-section is viewed as the “safest” route in the event of a perceived obstetrical “emergency,” doctors, in an effort to safeguard themselves from the unscrupulous lawyers who breathe down their necks, will continue to utilize it, whether or not it is truly in the best interest of mother and child. What we desperately need in this country is tort reform to restrain the lawyers (and their clients) who wish to profit by abusing the law.
Corruption in the Medical Industry
Under the current system, it becomes far easier for doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies to raise their fees to artificially high levels, since they are well aware that the majority of patients are not paying the entirety of the cost out of their own pocket. When third party payment is involved, it gives those in the medical profession little incentive to lower fees (in an effort to satisfy the financial means of the average consumer), and conversely, creates incentive for doctors to order more tests, hospitals to offer countless medical interventions, and pharmaceutical companies to solicit drug after side-effect inducing drug. Hence, we have millions of Americans carefully – and I'll add expensively – treating myriads of symptoms with a half a dozen prescriptions – taking many of these drugs simply to counter the ill-effects of others. Additionally, the disdain commonly felt by many in conventional medicine toward alternative methods of care – everything from chiropractic care, midwifery, homeopathy, etc. - conditions the public to believe that only expensive (and often invasive) traditional medicine is able to alleviate their health ailments and that, furthermore, alternative methods of care are largely unsafe and even life-threatening.
Patients and (a Lack of) Self-Responsibility
In an age of instant gratification, America's love affair with the “pop-a-pill” mentality of the day makes perfect sense. Why submit oneself to tiresome – and sometimes distasteful – changes in diet, exercise, or lifestyle, when merely taking a pill could considerably lessen or possibly eliminate the symptoms of a disease or condition? It should come as no surprise that Americans have out-of-control health care costs, when, for example, after most women (and men) hear that I opted for natural, midwife-assisted child birth for my two children, they look at me incredulously and say, “Are you crazy not to take drugs?” or “How could you endanger your children's lives like that?” If we, as patients, rely so heavily on prescription drugs and expensive and (sometimes) unnecessary surgeries and procedures, all the while dismissing those who educate themselves to alternative (and proven) forms of care, how can we expect anything better than what we currently have: a costly and largely wasteful health care system?
The point of today's rant is this: it's true the health care system in America needs critical evaluation, but it is not the government's purview to “remedy” the situation. It is undeniable that much waste and abuse occurs in the realm of medical care, but to hand the reins over to the federal government (one of the most corrupt entities around), is merely to jump from the frying pan into the fire. It may be someone's idea of promoting quality health care to simply cry out for the federal government (which, through its absolutely stellar job in such areas as public education, retirement planning, etc., has instilled in all of us unshakable faith in their ability to manage anything) to “save” us, but it's certainly not mine – nor was it the mentality of our ancestors. If we wish to someday, years from now, inspire a sense of gratitude in our descendants, we must once again kindle a love of liberty, self-governance, and personal responsibility in ourselves and our fellows, and for once, shout out: “Yes, WE can!” without really meaning “Yes, the GOVERNMENT can!”
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin
In a nation founded upon the belief that safeguarding personal liberty is more vital to humanity than simply maintaining one's physical well-being, it is travesty indeed when many Americans are clamoring for “universal health care” at the cost of relinquishing yet more freedom to an ever-growing federal government. The reverence once bestowed on liberty, a reverence felt so deeply in the American consciousness that the blood of patriots saturates our soil, seems all but a memory, as so many Americans, in an effort to “ensure” – seemingly – health care coverage for all, dismiss the catastrophic consequences such actions would bring to our cherished, however imperfect, way of American life. Instead of championing the virtue of self-responsibility and accepting the trials which freedom naturally entails, modern Americans, generally speaking, seem all-to-willing to hand over the fruits of liberty for the “promise” of material safety – a “promise” made by historically untrustworthy politicians, at that. Our ancestors, the custodians of our sacred liberty, would, undoubtedly, shake their heads in utter regret at the compromises we have made at freedom's expense.
It would be sheer naivety to refer to our current situation as anything other than bleak. Yet, our forefathers were confronted with seemingly insurmountable odds, too, in their quest to protect those God-given rights, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” (notice that list does not include the right to a health care plan) for themselves and their descendants. So, rather than sinking into the abyss of social/political despair, it is essential for conscientious citizens, committed to revitalizing our nation – not revamping it in a mess of radical change – and defending the Constitution, to reject Washington's proposed health care reform – no matter the perceived benefits – and, once again, uphold the virtue of individual responsibility.
Today, the natural question arising in the minds of many Americans, especially when it appears the government is handing them health care coverage (nevermind the quality) on a silver platter, is: what recourses do we have, what avenues can we pursue to remedy the undeniable problems of our current health care system, without bowing down to the political self-proclaimed demi-gods in Washington? It seems clear that by practicing self-discipline and restraint, many of America's health care ailments could be greatly relieved, if not all-together cured, without the intrusive hand of government mandating our every move.
Health Insurance and the Doctor-Patient Relationship
One of the chief ways of improving our health care system would be to largely eliminate the health insurance companies’ involvement in the doctor-patient relationship. The obvious was once made clear to me when someone pointed out that all other insurance policies (i.e. auto, home, life, etc.) don't cover any and all problems that may arise for the insured. No one balks that car insurance does not cover the costs of refueling one's car or providing routine maintenance for said vehicle. Everyone seems to understand that auto, home, or life insurance only covers you in the event of an accident or catastrophe. Yet, for some reason, people simply expect that every wellness check-up their child receives, every visit to the dentist, should be covered, if not in its entirety, at least in part by insurance providers. Subsequently, since a third party is often footing a patient's bill, hospitals, physicians, pharmaceutical companies, etc. can, with little reserve, charge astronomical fees for their services, resting assured in the knowledge that the “limitless” pockets of insurance agencies won't fail to compensate them. Had the exchange of goods and services remained between physician and patient, the price of medicine would undoubtedly have remained in check, having been reined in by the consumer's means. Furthermore, by largely removing the responsibility of payment from the patient, the presence of insurance companies has provided little incentive for citizens to be mindful of the health care dollars they spend as individuals or as families. When some else is footing the bill, why not consent to the extra tests, medications, procedures, etc., even when prudence would recommend some fiscal restraint?
Medicine and the Law
Few people outside the medical profession realize the litigious nightmares that all too often await doctors – even the most conscientious among them – should they (heaven forbid!) make a mistake when treating a patient. For some reason, we place doctors and other health care professionals on an ivory pedestal, believing that any decent physician should be literally incapable of making a medical misjudgment or providing a less-than-perfect surgery outcome. And then, when a physician does make a mistake (after all, they are, in fact, human), well, heaven help him or her. In addition to having to pay untold amounts for “malpractice insurance,” the utter terror of being sued, which seizes upon many doctors, causes them to make many wasteful decisions – but, can you really blame them? A perfect example of this problem is seen in the field of obstetrics, which is particularly vulnerable to litigious backlash, since people have largely come to expect the “perfect baby.” In the United States, one in every three births is done through Cesarean section, and while the c-section is surely a life-saving procedure in limited circumstances, it is a surgery that is abused by the frequency in which it is employed and which poses unnecessary financial and physical risks to patients and society as a whole. But, as long as the c-section is viewed as the “safest” route in the event of a perceived obstetrical “emergency,” doctors, in an effort to safeguard themselves from the unscrupulous lawyers who breathe down their necks, will continue to utilize it, whether or not it is truly in the best interest of mother and child. What we desperately need in this country is tort reform to restrain the lawyers (and their clients) who wish to profit by abusing the law.
Corruption in the Medical Industry
Under the current system, it becomes far easier for doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies to raise their fees to artificially high levels, since they are well aware that the majority of patients are not paying the entirety of the cost out of their own pocket. When third party payment is involved, it gives those in the medical profession little incentive to lower fees (in an effort to satisfy the financial means of the average consumer), and conversely, creates incentive for doctors to order more tests, hospitals to offer countless medical interventions, and pharmaceutical companies to solicit drug after side-effect inducing drug. Hence, we have millions of Americans carefully – and I'll add expensively – treating myriads of symptoms with a half a dozen prescriptions – taking many of these drugs simply to counter the ill-effects of others. Additionally, the disdain commonly felt by many in conventional medicine toward alternative methods of care – everything from chiropractic care, midwifery, homeopathy, etc. - conditions the public to believe that only expensive (and often invasive) traditional medicine is able to alleviate their health ailments and that, furthermore, alternative methods of care are largely unsafe and even life-threatening.
Patients and (a Lack of) Self-Responsibility
In an age of instant gratification, America's love affair with the “pop-a-pill” mentality of the day makes perfect sense. Why submit oneself to tiresome – and sometimes distasteful – changes in diet, exercise, or lifestyle, when merely taking a pill could considerably lessen or possibly eliminate the symptoms of a disease or condition? It should come as no surprise that Americans have out-of-control health care costs, when, for example, after most women (and men) hear that I opted for natural, midwife-assisted child birth for my two children, they look at me incredulously and say, “Are you crazy not to take drugs?” or “How could you endanger your children's lives like that?” If we, as patients, rely so heavily on prescription drugs and expensive and (sometimes) unnecessary surgeries and procedures, all the while dismissing those who educate themselves to alternative (and proven) forms of care, how can we expect anything better than what we currently have: a costly and largely wasteful health care system?
The point of today's rant is this: it's true the health care system in America needs critical evaluation, but it is not the government's purview to “remedy” the situation. It is undeniable that much waste and abuse occurs in the realm of medical care, but to hand the reins over to the federal government (one of the most corrupt entities around), is merely to jump from the frying pan into the fire. It may be someone's idea of promoting quality health care to simply cry out for the federal government (which, through its absolutely stellar job in such areas as public education, retirement planning, etc., has instilled in all of us unshakable faith in their ability to manage anything) to “save” us, but it's certainly not mine – nor was it the mentality of our ancestors. If we wish to someday, years from now, inspire a sense of gratitude in our descendants, we must once again kindle a love of liberty, self-governance, and personal responsibility in ourselves and our fellows, and for once, shout out: “Yes, WE can!” without really meaning “Yes, the GOVERNMENT can!”
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
And by "Universal" Health Care, What We Really Mean is Health Care for Some...
J+M+J
As the debate over the Obama administration's proposed universal health care bill rages on, many advocates of this governmental overhaul of medical affairs are feverishly playing the morality card. “How could any decent person,” they ask, “be opposed to universal health care? Do we not have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate in their basic medical needs?” Against such rhetoric, opponents of socialized health care are suddenly thrust into a menacing light; they are cast as villains, who are forever thwarting a benevolent and responsible government from acting on behalf of the suffering masses. However, for all their talk of the importance of compassion, it is interesting to note the actual lack of tenderness, especially toward the extremely old, young, or infirm, which marks the self-proclaimed attitudes of Obama's top advisers and the key proponents of his health care agenda. As one delves deeper into the mentality which drives the bill, along with its stipulations to ration health care according to the expected usefulness of the patient, one should quickly realize the hypocrisy of this initiative, whose supporters have the audacity and deceitfulness to label as “universal.”
While the Obama administration continues to rally the masses with cries of “universal health care for all,” it is crucial for Americans to carefully question how a government, which itself is ludicrously in debt, will be able to live up to such an expensive promise. One way, socialized health care advocates argue, to achieve the impossible is to ration health care. “Ration health care? Wait, how does one fairly choose whom to care for, and whom, in turn, to deny?” To many in government as a whole, and the Obama administration in particular, one of the primary criteria seems to be that of utilitarianism. According to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Special Advisor for Health Policy to Peter Orszag (Director of the Office of Management and Budget):
“...services that promote the continuation of the polity - those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations - are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia (Emphasis mine).1”
Dr. Emanuel continued along this vein in a 2009 article he co-authored with Govind Persad and Alan Wertheimer, entitled: "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions" in the journal The Lancet. Emanuel and his fellow authors proposed that: "Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favoring the worst-off, maximizing total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness.2” And while the authors admit that, “No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multi[-]principle allocation systems,” they also stress that “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.3” Now, the question becomes: who exactly determines what constitutes as “social usefulness”? If the question is left up to the partisan bureaucrats in Washington, both democrat and republican, is it really that absurd, given the extremely ethical and sound judgment which marks political history, to assume that maybe, just maybe, considerations of an individual's political or social leanings might prove paramount in determining whether or not he is worthy of medical care? And if we are attempting to construct a system in which utilitarianism is a top priority, what has become of true compassion? If we seek to stack patients up against a list of criteria before deciding whether or not it is efficacious for us to serve them, and subsequently, we deny care to the most destitute, the most sickly individuals among us, all in the name of perceived societal preservation, to what have we reduced charity? In fact, if “indulgence or forbearance in judging others,” is a definition of the word “charity,” how can we only bestow charity upon others after they demonstrate their supposed “worthiness” of such a gift?
Additionally, the question of sincerity arises when considering socialized health care's “mandatory charity.” Supporters of Obama's plan, most notably from religious camps, cite the parable of “The Good Samaritan” as an indication that universal health care, under any and all guises, is the moral standard. Yet, it is important to note that “The Good Samaritan” was moved to compassion and assented to this inclination of his own volition. If this same Samaritan had somehow been forced, cajoled, or authorized to treat his suffering fellow with kindness, particularly at the behest of ever-watchful, ever-intrusive government, it would inherently detract from the merit of his actions. Furthermore, it begs the question: if a man is obliged to demonstrate compassion, is he really compassionate?
Government mandated health care bespeaks nothing of true compassion. As a virtue, compassion cannot be legislated or imposed upon anyone. To be sure, governments are often able to deter individuals from evil actions, namely, by the laws enacted which impose consequences for immoral or dangerous behavior. But a governing body is not able to instill virtue in its citizens – virtue must be obtained through the free act of an individual's will, inspired by the grace of God. It is utter folly to believe that men and women can be forced into a compassionate spirit, when the idea of compassion itself necessitates the freedom to love. “It is the very essence of love that the person in love offers himself, with full freedom, to the loved one; love has to be exercised with such freedom that absolutely no one can be constrained to love”4.
Though politicians may try to convince citizens otherwise, compassion is a fruit of charity – not a result of government mandates. In a society that values and respects all life, not merely the lives of individuals whose presence is either useful or desired, a genuine spirit of charity naturally evolves. In trying to artificially “instill” a spirit of compassion through the use of a complex web of vague legislative language, Americans will simply succeed in creating a health care system, which not only provides mediocre care, but is administered with hollow devotion.
M.K.
1.Emanuel, E.J. (1996). "Where civic republicanism and deliberative democracy meet". Hastings Center Report 26 (6): 12-14. http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
2.Persad, G., Wertheimer, A., & Emanuel, E.J. (2009-01-31). "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions". The Lancet 373 (9661): 423-431. http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60137-9/fulltext.
3. Ibid.
4. Galvez, Rev. Alfonso, SJCP. “Theology: Love For the Truth.” Latin Mass Magazine Vol. 18, No. 3., pgs: 40-43.
As the debate over the Obama administration's proposed universal health care bill rages on, many advocates of this governmental overhaul of medical affairs are feverishly playing the morality card. “How could any decent person,” they ask, “be opposed to universal health care? Do we not have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate in their basic medical needs?” Against such rhetoric, opponents of socialized health care are suddenly thrust into a menacing light; they are cast as villains, who are forever thwarting a benevolent and responsible government from acting on behalf of the suffering masses. However, for all their talk of the importance of compassion, it is interesting to note the actual lack of tenderness, especially toward the extremely old, young, or infirm, which marks the self-proclaimed attitudes of Obama's top advisers and the key proponents of his health care agenda. As one delves deeper into the mentality which drives the bill, along with its stipulations to ration health care according to the expected usefulness of the patient, one should quickly realize the hypocrisy of this initiative, whose supporters have the audacity and deceitfulness to label as “universal.”
While the Obama administration continues to rally the masses with cries of “universal health care for all,” it is crucial for Americans to carefully question how a government, which itself is ludicrously in debt, will be able to live up to such an expensive promise. One way, socialized health care advocates argue, to achieve the impossible is to ration health care. “Ration health care? Wait, how does one fairly choose whom to care for, and whom, in turn, to deny?” To many in government as a whole, and the Obama administration in particular, one of the primary criteria seems to be that of utilitarianism. According to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Special Advisor for Health Policy to Peter Orszag (Director of the Office of Management and Budget):
“...services that promote the continuation of the polity - those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations - are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia (Emphasis mine).1”
Dr. Emanuel continued along this vein in a 2009 article he co-authored with Govind Persad and Alan Wertheimer, entitled: "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions" in the journal The Lancet. Emanuel and his fellow authors proposed that: "Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favoring the worst-off, maximizing total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness.2” And while the authors admit that, “No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multi[-]principle allocation systems,” they also stress that “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.3” Now, the question becomes: who exactly determines what constitutes as “social usefulness”? If the question is left up to the partisan bureaucrats in Washington, both democrat and republican, is it really that absurd, given the extremely ethical and sound judgment which marks political history, to assume that maybe, just maybe, considerations of an individual's political or social leanings might prove paramount in determining whether or not he is worthy of medical care? And if we are attempting to construct a system in which utilitarianism is a top priority, what has become of true compassion? If we seek to stack patients up against a list of criteria before deciding whether or not it is efficacious for us to serve them, and subsequently, we deny care to the most destitute, the most sickly individuals among us, all in the name of perceived societal preservation, to what have we reduced charity? In fact, if “indulgence or forbearance in judging others,” is a definition of the word “charity,” how can we only bestow charity upon others after they demonstrate their supposed “worthiness” of such a gift?
Additionally, the question of sincerity arises when considering socialized health care's “mandatory charity.” Supporters of Obama's plan, most notably from religious camps, cite the parable of “The Good Samaritan” as an indication that universal health care, under any and all guises, is the moral standard. Yet, it is important to note that “The Good Samaritan” was moved to compassion and assented to this inclination of his own volition. If this same Samaritan had somehow been forced, cajoled, or authorized to treat his suffering fellow with kindness, particularly at the behest of ever-watchful, ever-intrusive government, it would inherently detract from the merit of his actions. Furthermore, it begs the question: if a man is obliged to demonstrate compassion, is he really compassionate?
Government mandated health care bespeaks nothing of true compassion. As a virtue, compassion cannot be legislated or imposed upon anyone. To be sure, governments are often able to deter individuals from evil actions, namely, by the laws enacted which impose consequences for immoral or dangerous behavior. But a governing body is not able to instill virtue in its citizens – virtue must be obtained through the free act of an individual's will, inspired by the grace of God. It is utter folly to believe that men and women can be forced into a compassionate spirit, when the idea of compassion itself necessitates the freedom to love. “It is the very essence of love that the person in love offers himself, with full freedom, to the loved one; love has to be exercised with such freedom that absolutely no one can be constrained to love”4.
Though politicians may try to convince citizens otherwise, compassion is a fruit of charity – not a result of government mandates. In a society that values and respects all life, not merely the lives of individuals whose presence is either useful or desired, a genuine spirit of charity naturally evolves. In trying to artificially “instill” a spirit of compassion through the use of a complex web of vague legislative language, Americans will simply succeed in creating a health care system, which not only provides mediocre care, but is administered with hollow devotion.
M.K.
1.Emanuel, E.J. (1996). "Where civic republicanism and deliberative democracy meet". Hastings Center Report 26 (6): 12-14. http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
2.Persad, G., Wertheimer, A., & Emanuel, E.J. (2009-01-31). "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions". The Lancet 373 (9661): 423-431. http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60137-9/fulltext.
3. Ibid.
4. Galvez, Rev. Alfonso, SJCP. “Theology: Love For the Truth.” Latin Mass Magazine Vol. 18, No. 3., pgs: 40-43.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Not the Death of a Hero, but the Death of Heroism: Part I
J+M+J
What a world of contradictions we find ourselves in today. As basic human rights, once considered fundamental, become increasingly threatened, abused, or discounted by our modern society, the common rhetoric enveloping the abortion issue has become evermore warped and manipulated to promote the prevalent thinking of the day. Last month’s attack upon the life Dr. George Tiller, an emblem of the pro-abortion movement and a provider of the still highly controversial (at least, for the moment) late-term abortion procedure, has once again brought this issue to the forefront, leaving the American public to navigate the murky and muddled waters of the popular lexicon.
In the days following his death, Dr. Tiller has swiftly been catapulted into the stratosphere of secular “sainthood,” acquiring titles such as “Tireless Supporter of Women’s Dignity,” “A Man Who Honored Women,” an individual of “Extraordinary Courage.” While no reasonable and just individuals are condoning the violence which claimed Dr. Tiller’s life, his ascension to the status of hero betrays our modern culture’s lamentable loss of the concept of true nobility and valor. Our society is witnessing the death of gallantry, as supporters of abortion, including the brutal and grotesque partial-birth abortion, have successfully equated abortion with compassion, and convinced many that self-interest supersedes self-sacrifice.
When one conjures up the concept of heroism – or, I should say, traditionally, when ones conjures up the concept of heroism – images of complete self-denial are evoked: the fire-fighter who bravely darts into a burning building, without thought for his own safety, or the individual who courageously confronts his fellow’s attacker, despite the personal danger which threatens him. It seems safe to say that, even in our largely self-centered world, had a person, such as our aforementioned fire-fighter, shrunk from his impulse to rescue another in order to safeguard his own well-being, he would have simultaneously forfeited his right to be called a “hero.” Moreover, it is likely that this individual, after refusing to offer his aid to another, would be labeled cowardly: after all, how could a compassionate individual deny a man in his greatest hour of need? Yet, we live in a culture that supports a woman’s “right” to terminate her own child’s life should she deem it necessary for her physical, spiritual, financial, or emotional well-being. In the greatest of ironies, we expect strangers to make greater personal sacrifices for others than we expect parents to make for their own children.
In this topsy-turvy world of ours, self-preservation is paramount. No longer is self-sacrifice heralded; in fact, it is now something to be avoided – no matter what the cost. Not even parenthood, which should be the near pinnacle of selflessness, is exempt from this distorted mentality. For a mother or father to be complicit in the murder of their child seems utterly nightmarish. Nature itself revolts against such a notion. Yet, when abortion advocates assert, as Dr. Tiller himself did, that “…abortion is about women's hopes, dreams, potential, the rest of their lives. Abortion is a matter of survival for women,” people unhesitatingly rally behind such “noble” words, all the while forgetting the innocent children left in the destructive wake of abortion.
True parenthood is the embodiment of self-sacrifice. If, say, a truck was racing toward a child, undoubtedly, in an effort to rescue him, his parent would race headlong into the street, regardless of whether death appeared imminent for parent, child, or both. The possibility, no matter how remote, of saving a life - particularly that of one’s own child - should always trump considerations of personal interest or well-being. Though the physical, emotional, or financial challenges confronting a pregnant woman may seem insurmountable, her willingness to confront those difficulties, should they even threaten her very life, attests to true heroic virtue.
This is not to belittle the heart-wrenching tragedies faced by some pregnant women. Dr. Tiller’s supporters often point to extremely uncommon, though none-the-less devastating, stories of women whose unborn children are diagnosed with a host of incurable diseases or abnormalities, which make their survival outside the womb almost certainly impossible. But, I ask, is true heroism found in turning away from challenging, if not outright terrifying, circumstances? Or is it recognized in the gallant determination to do what is morally sound, regardless of personal cost? Can we really elevate a man to the status of hero, when his life’s work consisted in regularly taking a child’s life (however grim its chances of survival were) to “safeguard” the life of its mother?
Unfortunately, life is often rife with disappointments, sorrows, heartache, and, occasionally, even disaster. These are inescapable components of the human condition. True heroism is found in meeting these adversities with courageous dignity, marked by sacrificial love and devotion to principle. As supporters of Dr. Tiller point out, many women and their families face truly heart-wrenching tragedies surrounding their pregnancies. Yet, no matter how tragic the circumstances they face, it can never justify the outright killing of an innocent human being. Everyday, men and women across the world encounter extraordinary challenges, but by meeting and overcoming these obstacles with moral character and fortitude, they show themselves to be heroic champions over the evil or misfortune that oppresses them. Furthermore, in this heroic triumph over tragedy, men and women often discover a dimension of strength and tenderness within themselves that few people are ever able to comprehend. It is this self-sacrifice that truly exemplifies love and raises the individual above the evil and selfish tendencies often pervading our culture, and, moreover, demonstrates the best there is in humanity. Throughout history, heroes - often themselves ordinary people -have done this: individuals, who, in order to maintain their personal safety or comfort, could have merely stood by and watched their fellow neighbors die, have instead rushed into burning buildings, defended the helpless, or opposed tyrants. As truly valiant and compassionate defenders of those in need, we should champion the cause of all human life (particularly the lives of the most vulnerable among us) and commit ourselves to charitably aiding the women who face these challenging situations, so they may make decisions, which, although difficult, are praiseworthy and truly heroic.
M.K.
What a world of contradictions we find ourselves in today. As basic human rights, once considered fundamental, become increasingly threatened, abused, or discounted by our modern society, the common rhetoric enveloping the abortion issue has become evermore warped and manipulated to promote the prevalent thinking of the day. Last month’s attack upon the life Dr. George Tiller, an emblem of the pro-abortion movement and a provider of the still highly controversial (at least, for the moment) late-term abortion procedure, has once again brought this issue to the forefront, leaving the American public to navigate the murky and muddled waters of the popular lexicon.
In the days following his death, Dr. Tiller has swiftly been catapulted into the stratosphere of secular “sainthood,” acquiring titles such as “Tireless Supporter of Women’s Dignity,” “A Man Who Honored Women,” an individual of “Extraordinary Courage.” While no reasonable and just individuals are condoning the violence which claimed Dr. Tiller’s life, his ascension to the status of hero betrays our modern culture’s lamentable loss of the concept of true nobility and valor. Our society is witnessing the death of gallantry, as supporters of abortion, including the brutal and grotesque partial-birth abortion, have successfully equated abortion with compassion, and convinced many that self-interest supersedes self-sacrifice.
When one conjures up the concept of heroism – or, I should say, traditionally, when ones conjures up the concept of heroism – images of complete self-denial are evoked: the fire-fighter who bravely darts into a burning building, without thought for his own safety, or the individual who courageously confronts his fellow’s attacker, despite the personal danger which threatens him. It seems safe to say that, even in our largely self-centered world, had a person, such as our aforementioned fire-fighter, shrunk from his impulse to rescue another in order to safeguard his own well-being, he would have simultaneously forfeited his right to be called a “hero.” Moreover, it is likely that this individual, after refusing to offer his aid to another, would be labeled cowardly: after all, how could a compassionate individual deny a man in his greatest hour of need? Yet, we live in a culture that supports a woman’s “right” to terminate her own child’s life should she deem it necessary for her physical, spiritual, financial, or emotional well-being. In the greatest of ironies, we expect strangers to make greater personal sacrifices for others than we expect parents to make for their own children.
In this topsy-turvy world of ours, self-preservation is paramount. No longer is self-sacrifice heralded; in fact, it is now something to be avoided – no matter what the cost. Not even parenthood, which should be the near pinnacle of selflessness, is exempt from this distorted mentality. For a mother or father to be complicit in the murder of their child seems utterly nightmarish. Nature itself revolts against such a notion. Yet, when abortion advocates assert, as Dr. Tiller himself did, that “…abortion is about women's hopes, dreams, potential, the rest of their lives. Abortion is a matter of survival for women,” people unhesitatingly rally behind such “noble” words, all the while forgetting the innocent children left in the destructive wake of abortion.
True parenthood is the embodiment of self-sacrifice. If, say, a truck was racing toward a child, undoubtedly, in an effort to rescue him, his parent would race headlong into the street, regardless of whether death appeared imminent for parent, child, or both. The possibility, no matter how remote, of saving a life - particularly that of one’s own child - should always trump considerations of personal interest or well-being. Though the physical, emotional, or financial challenges confronting a pregnant woman may seem insurmountable, her willingness to confront those difficulties, should they even threaten her very life, attests to true heroic virtue.
This is not to belittle the heart-wrenching tragedies faced by some pregnant women. Dr. Tiller’s supporters often point to extremely uncommon, though none-the-less devastating, stories of women whose unborn children are diagnosed with a host of incurable diseases or abnormalities, which make their survival outside the womb almost certainly impossible. But, I ask, is true heroism found in turning away from challenging, if not outright terrifying, circumstances? Or is it recognized in the gallant determination to do what is morally sound, regardless of personal cost? Can we really elevate a man to the status of hero, when his life’s work consisted in regularly taking a child’s life (however grim its chances of survival were) to “safeguard” the life of its mother?
Unfortunately, life is often rife with disappointments, sorrows, heartache, and, occasionally, even disaster. These are inescapable components of the human condition. True heroism is found in meeting these adversities with courageous dignity, marked by sacrificial love and devotion to principle. As supporters of Dr. Tiller point out, many women and their families face truly heart-wrenching tragedies surrounding their pregnancies. Yet, no matter how tragic the circumstances they face, it can never justify the outright killing of an innocent human being. Everyday, men and women across the world encounter extraordinary challenges, but by meeting and overcoming these obstacles with moral character and fortitude, they show themselves to be heroic champions over the evil or misfortune that oppresses them. Furthermore, in this heroic triumph over tragedy, men and women often discover a dimension of strength and tenderness within themselves that few people are ever able to comprehend. It is this self-sacrifice that truly exemplifies love and raises the individual above the evil and selfish tendencies often pervading our culture, and, moreover, demonstrates the best there is in humanity. Throughout history, heroes - often themselves ordinary people -have done this: individuals, who, in order to maintain their personal safety or comfort, could have merely stood by and watched their fellow neighbors die, have instead rushed into burning buildings, defended the helpless, or opposed tyrants. As truly valiant and compassionate defenders of those in need, we should champion the cause of all human life (particularly the lives of the most vulnerable among us) and commit ourselves to charitably aiding the women who face these challenging situations, so they may make decisions, which, although difficult, are praiseworthy and truly heroic.
M.K.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)