The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Talking about Akin to Dan Callahan

    By Flavius on Wed, 08/22/2012 - 8:35pm |

    More years ago than most of you have been alive I attended Dan and Sydney's parties on Carver Street,behind the DivinitySchool.

    When W was angsting over his stem cell decision  a few weeks before 9/11 he called on Dan for advice , Which Dan described  later on Margot Adler's "Justice Talking" program.

    Back on Carver Street  Dan and Sydney were just a couple of Catholics albeit brilliant, well educated (Yale and Bryn Mar) compassionate ,liberal ones.Before Dan moved on to be the Publisher of The Commonweal and then Director of the Hastings Institute.But his parties were a coming together of people whose ideas and writings I had admired in my by then abandoned Catholicism.

    When we here try to explain our position on Choice remember we're not just trying to preach to one another or even  to Joe the Catholic plumber. We should also explain or attempt to explain it to thoughtful , liberal Catholics who have accepted the Church's position that being a Catholic means you accept all the Church's position, not just the ones that are easy,

    (There's a term for those who accept most of the Church's position but not all.Non Catholic.Like me.)

    If I could get one piece of advice to David Axelrod it would be: talk to Dan Callahan.

    Comments

    Liberal Christians feel pressure as well. Many Democrats are amazed that intelligent people believe in a wise old Sun God. We are considered irrational by many in the party. Christians are asked if God created the universe, who created God? The reply is that God is self created. This is followed by laughter from our critics.

    Far from being saddened by the laughter, we just read books like "A Universe From Nothing Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing" by physicist Lawrence M.Krauss. Krauss tells that we just have to accept the fact the laws of quantum physics. Krauss has no idea where the laws originated. For a Christian watching someone rejecting acceptance of one thing while accepting another as a given is hilarious.

    The video of Lawrence M Krauss debating Colbert's Conservative persona on the Colbert Report regarding the need for a God to create the universe was also amusing. Part of the rationale was that sentient beings had built a machine that used stuff that already existed to create what is felt to be the glue of the universe, the Higgs Boson. 

    To create Boson and by extension the Universe, God wasn't needed All that is required is a group of physicists, mathematicians, engineers and technicians. I wonder what the machinery and staffing looked like when they created a ga-jillion bosons from nothing. The humor never ends. 


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/22/2012 - 10:21pm

    The Right Right doesn't even consider the Christian Left, Christian. We get attacked from all sides:)


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/22/2012 - 10:40pm

    Oops Religious Right


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/22/2012 - 10:41pm

    FWIW, this atheist doesn't laugh at you or at any believers, even those who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I recognize that trying to understand the origin of the universe is problematic whether you want to assert that nothing is something and so some non-nothing had to come from it (à la Krauss) or if you want to assert that God is the origin and want to assert that God always was. In a similar sense à la Hawking, one can state that the Universe always was, as time began at a singularity with the big bang, and "one cannot go south from the South Pole". To me, they're all equally vague hand-wavings that might make sense to those who assert them but which still do not satisfy as being complete explanations. I think it's interesting to consider these as kōans, but I do not anticipate any satisfactory answer to the sound of one hand clapping.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 08/24/2012 - 2:35pm

    On a more serious note many of us do have serious concerns about the anti-abortion stance being used to do actual harm. Texas is ending funding to Planned Parenthood which gives primary health care to 50% of  a subset of 130,000 poor women in the state.

    When the anti-abortion laws of the Dominican Republic were brought to bear on an unwed 16 year old pregnant teen who developed leukemia during her pregnancy, chemotherapy was delayed because the doctors were concerned about therapy killing the fetus. The end result was that chemotherapy was not started in a timely manner.Both mother and fetus died.

    In some cases of rape, women requesting the Morning After pill are not given the medication due cause of the religious belief of caregivers. 

    It seems to me that the only patients who bear the brunt of religious convictions are the poor.

    As a Christian, I find that simple fact disturbing. I think my poison is moral. I would treat the leukemia and took comfort the the teen could become pregnant again when she was in a better financial situation, or be alive to be able to adopt.

    I would give the Morning After pill as part of the Christian compassion one would show to a traumatized person.

    i find nothing Un-Christian in my stance.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/22/2012 - 10:38pm

    Seems quite "Christian" in the sense you use the term.


    by Flavius on Thu, 08/23/2012 - 4:55am

    It seems to me that the only patients who bear the brunt of religious convictions are the poor.

    This is the key and often unstated point.

    Wealth(ier) women can always buy their own abortions, even if it means going out of the country for them. But the poor are always the pawns, the ones who convert to Catholicism when the West invades and then convert to Islam when the East retakes the land just to keep a roof over their heads, food on their families and out of jail.

    So when we say that no federal money will be used for abortion, all we're saying is that the poor will have a harder time getting the abortions that wealthy women "easily" get. Even if we outlaw abortion altogether, the wealthy simply go to England for theirs.


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 08/24/2012 - 3:07pm

    Even if we outlaw abortion altogether.

    The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

    Ramona pointed out to me and provided a link. ( If I can find the link I will furnish it )

    Something to the effect; that the Obamacare plan, has an abortion opt in solution.

    No less than a dollar of additional premium, for those who want to support abortion.

    That to me is an alterative to forced taxation.  

    (Reminds me of the Income tax form, that allows individuals to check the box for Clean elections.)

    When I pay my taxes I don't want to pay for pro-life and then reach into the next pocket to support abortions. 

    Let those who want to ignore my religious principles, pay their own way on this matter

    Private insurance instead of forced taxation, to support objectionable treatments.

    My hands are clean. When you pay the "no less than a dollar" YOU pay for it, let your conscience guide you, you take the responsibility for your actions.

    I can only inform you, that you are making a big mistake, but the decision is yours, you bear your own responsibility.  


    by Resistance on Fri, 08/24/2012 - 3:38pm

    But why this issue and no others?  Then don't use my tax dollars to pay for implementation of the death penalty, which I disagree with, or for agricultural subsidies, which I think are silly, or bank bailouts, which I think are unfair, or, of course, for most of our wars?

    Why is the abortion objection special?  Because it stems from a religious conviction?  Certainly, abortion has its secular foes as well.  Should they have to pay while religious objectors can opt out?

    Or, do we have an opt-out society where every citizen has, in effect, a proportional line item veto?


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 08/24/2012 - 4:00pm

    As I understand;  the Constitution provides only for the funding of the government,  for DEFENSE and the GENERAL WELFARE .

    A very wise decision from the drafters.  

    It keeps intrusive government, from destroying the basis for a free society. 

    We the People, with liberty to choose our own paths.

    One could make the case  Defense with an overlay of general welfare is an important function for order.

    Abortions are a personal choice (Liberty), many of them (a majority) could be prevented.

    It is not the responsibility of the government, to fix the mistakes, members of a free society chooses. 

    Is the Defense Department necessary?  

    Is the Death penalty a defense against enemies within?

    also; the writers didn't say welfare.

    General welfare implies a control. (General: Affecting or concerning all or most people)

    If the term general welfare would suggest common good.

    People want to care for the elderly, so we found common ground and because all or most wanted it, we have our government, manage a general welfare program.

    Their is no common ground or common good, with those who are pro-life vs abortion advocates. There is not an all or most condition. Preponderance of the evidence supports no general consensus. Gridlock   

    Just because abortion is a right, doesn't mean the government needs to finance your choice.

    We have the right to bear arms; could we say  "Mr government man, buy me an AK47"

    We have a right to free speech; could we say "Mr government man, buy me a radio station"  

    So the compromise is, abortion advocates should seek funding from an alternative source, if they want to exercise their right; whatever they decide; thats their choice.

    Choose to take contraception, choose to abstain, choose who'll you go to, for an abortion. ( Liberty) 

    If the woman decides to carry full term, the government has programs already in place. Not just on religious grounds; but people of faith and others agreed  "All or most"


    by Resistance on Fri, 08/24/2012 - 5:32pm

    General welfare implies a control. (General: Affecting or concerning all or most people) If the term general welfare would suggest common good.

    But, in fact, there's great disagreement on welfare, as we've seen over the years and see now with a good chunk of the people agreeing that we should cut Medicaid as well as other "welfare" programs.

    Not only is there a growing disagreement on "welfare," welfare itself only helps a small (though growing) percentage of the population.


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 08/24/2012 - 5:55pm

    ...common good...

    Hard to define. I think we can agree that many people might disagree on what this is and agree, also, that actions taken for the common good won't necessarily apply to all of us directly.


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 08/24/2012 - 5:59pm

    A bit of typhus can grow to affect the "general" welfare. The occurrence of poor children in single parent households did grow to unhealthy levels that affected the general population. While "common ground" and "general" sound benevolent, the Supremen Court on several occasions has ruled against the tyranny of the majority.

    But in general, I think I agree with your logic. There is no inherent "right" to a social security program, though it makes some sense as "general" welfare by common agreement. Healthcare as well. 

    But it's not quite as obvious that legal abortions equals "government will pay for abortions", just as my support for legalized marijuana doesn't mean I support a dime bag in every pot, or that government should pay for gay weddings. However, unwanted pregnancies tend to be a drag on society, especially among those who are least able to control or manage them. So we're stuck with a quandary - supporting that general welfare and the needs of the underclass means ethically offending the values of a pretty large group. Do not have a good answer.

    Though I do have a good answer for those who whould favor an unformed zygote with no nervous system or functioning cognitive or even circulatory system over the life of an endangered mother: mindless barbarians. They may think they're being excessively principled, but their really being excessively callous and absurdly pedantic.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/24/2012 - 6:06pm

    I think there's a bit of a mix-up here that I didn't see until I read your comment.

    When we talk about the "general welfare," we aren't necessarily (maybe not at all) talking about rights. These are two different things.

    We're talking about why we, as a people, set up the government way back when. To provide for defense and the general welfare. We're talking about the rightful role of the government.

    We still have to decide what actions fall within those categories and what we want to do. We could decide that it made sense to give everyone a gun, for example.

    Resistance seems to want to include under "general welfare" only what we, as a people, can agree on virtually 100%. If we're deadlocked 50-50, we can't, almost by definition, call it "general welfare."

    But many important advances in the general welfare (assuming one agrees these were advances) didn't garner anything close to 100% approval, and often the discord was quite substantial. There was big opposition to SS and Medicare and integration.

    We can't even always agree on whether something is a right or how far the right extends. Guns, for example. Just about anything that makes it to the Supreme Court involves substantial disagreement on the right course of action.


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 08/24/2012 - 6:19pm

    I think you're misreading him some.

    He certainly doesn't mean 100% when he says "common"

    And he calls abortion a right, but since it's not by common agreement, he suggests funding should come from elsewhere.

    Which I'd be fine with, except the plight of the poor, who often can't afford it and for whom the effects are most negative (as well as the welfare of society as a whole).

    So we're caught in a quandary. Which I'm not sure Resistance even frets about so much - just that few acknowledge his dislike of paying for what he and many consider an ethical abomination.

    Of course war is in a league of its own - an abomination we accept, and almost always one we back with majorities.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/24/2012 - 6:31pm

    Okay...leave aside the 100%. Except, I do think that if there were more agreement on abortion, Resistance might take a slightly different position on the policy, though not the moral principle.

    Disagreement about abortion seems to form a major plank of his argument, so that's why I introduced 100%. Anyway...

    This is getting a bit convoluted, and maybe I misunderstand the facts or the law.

    It's my understanding that RvW says that you can't make a law that outlaws abortion.

    It doesn't say that any woman must be "given" an abortion on demand. She doesn't have a right to it in that sense. She has to pay for it, or have it paid for, in some way.

    So I would argue that we pay for it as part of the "general welfare." General welfare has nothing to do with rights. I agree totally with your point about the poor; they are always the losers in this discussion. Wealthier women will always have options, even if we outlaw abortion.

    The fact that there's much disagreement abortion is immaterial to the basis on which we provide it--that's where the political battle is joined.

    There'd be a whole lot more "disagreement" about the country going to war if we still had a draft and folks thought they had a realistic chance of doing anything about it.

    If we're going to go the check box route, then there should be a check box for all of the programs we pay for through government. I want to pay for welfare; I don't want to pay for defense. As a matter of principle (not practicality) it's the same thing. As soon as some people get to opt out of the body politic and our collective decisions, we're headed for dissolution.

    Someone who is morally opposed to X needs to win enough hearts and minds to change the law or become a conscientious objector and stop paying taxes, just as the war protestors did.

    One interesting consequence of the check box idea could be that those opposed to abortion would lose some of their moral suasiveness. One could say to them: "You separated yourself from the abortion process. You don't pay for it. It has nothing to do with you. Go away." That's the flip side of the argument for the check box. I'm not sure that's where they want to be.

    Right now they aren't paying for abortions, but they're still have standing in the argument, as it were.

    Anyway, I may be talking at cross purposes here...so I'll stop.


    by AnonymousPS (not verified) on Sat, 08/25/2012 - 4:17pm

    Whose the callous ones you speak of ?  The mother who decides, to give her life to save her child? Or the one that says, "let the little one die"?

    It is the womans choice. If she is of strong faith, she will observe the commandment  even to death.

    "For there is no greater love, than that a man/ woman should lay down his/her  life for another."

    A mother to be, with so much love for her unborn child, she gives her life, instead of taking the childs life.

    The woman makes the decision, knowing she is the one that has to answer for her actions, before the judge. Maybe when the pressure gets intense she weakens?  It is he that accuses or excuses.   Not anyone else.  

    If you show him love, he rewards you with his love. It becomes a strong relationship. Many will never understand that bond of love.  

    God doesn't bind you;  individuals make the determination, to show their love and faith, as they look for his help, during trying times, through prayer.

    If she is not a woman of strong faith and she decides to go outside of the law, She is not bound to God; but  neither should she expect God to hear her prayers. Go it alone, if you choose.

    No one is bound.  It is the womans choice, after all.


    by Resistance on Fri, 08/24/2012 - 7:14pm

    Well you're condemning her ethics with slightly flattering words.

    No, ethically a zygote without a nervous system or cognitive/pain ability is lower on the life scale than the mother, and if she's in danger, she should save herself. There's no one clapping for her death sacrifice in heaven. If it's really meant to be, she can fertilize another egg and try pregnancy again.

    By the way, fertilized eggs get flushed down the toilet all the time. Until they implant on the uterine wall, it's a crapshoot. And even after it's no great odds. And there's no physiological difference between an implanted zygote and one that's expelled - just a different address.

    So if we're going to get upset about an implanted zygote, we should also be down on all fours rescuing that expelled zygote from the toilet, whatever that means to the woman's health.

    In short, I hope you to see how absurd this all is, vs. the reality of someone you've lived with and loved being in mortal danger over a pregnancy that's by no means guaranteed to finish successfully? 

    And if there's a God with any common sense, he can see the absurdity in such a wicked useless Sophie's Choice.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/24/2012 - 7:32pm

    Is the zygote alive without fertilization?   


    by Resistance on Fri, 08/24/2012 - 7:34pm

    By definition, a zygote is the result of fertilization.

    Is there a little bit of life in a sperm, a little in an egg? Perhaps, perhaps not. A little bit more when joined, and maybe more when joined to the uterine wall, and then when the division process starts and real organs and cells form, wow, there's even a chance of survival, existence.

    I wipe out ants on my kitchen counter and just tonight killed a bee.

    I'll have to think about if a zygote is closer to my sympathy level for the bee or the ant, or when these thresholds happen.

    Of course getting positive results from the pregnancy test are often exciting for the parents involved as I recall, but a bit too early to get serious about names and clothes sizes. At least not till 6th month.

    May sound flippant, but pregnancies are a risky business. 

    Okay, back to male things, baseball and beer season from what I recall.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/24/2012 - 7:46pm