Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Mr. Obama snubs annual American March for Life, sheds light on his own, and America’s, rationale for permitting abortion

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/abortion-protesters-lose-presidential-seal/2009/01/23/1232471590633.html

The Sydney Morning Herod ran an interesting little article on Saturday, reporting on how the new American President, Mr. Barack Obama, has snubbed the annual March for Life:

For eight years, marchers had been greeted by a message from President George Bush, who supported their cause and appointed two Supreme Court justices sympathetic to it.

In contrast, Mr Obama issued a statement yesterday reaffirming his support for a woman's right to choose to end her pregnancy.
Even more interesting, though, was what that statement had to say, by implication, about why Mr. Obama upholds the supposed ‘right’ to kills one’s own unborn children:

Roe v Wade, the statement said, "not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters".
Fascinating. The paterfamilias’s right to privacy within and sovereignty over his own household was, of course, the basis for many ancient societies’ tolerance of infanticide, commonly by exposition e.g. tethering the infant to a post in some hostile environment and leaving him or her to die. One might have expected such an ‘advanced’ society as America’s to have moved on from this kind of (dare I say it, MgS?) absolutism, especially since that country’s very Constitution lists man’s rights, in descending order of priority, as being to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. (Note that, as should be well-known, I abhor that liberal and Masonic document, but of course I will uphold one person’s right to life against another’s right to privacy in such “family matters” any day.) A right to privacy clearly comes under either liberty or the pursuit of happiness (both of which the Americans misconceive, though), which are, according to the Americans, subordinate to the right to life, so one might have thought that, when there is a question of a conflict between one person’s very right to life and another’s right to mere privacy, a rigorous investigation would have to be made into whether or not the person is, indeed, entitled to his or her continued earthly existence. Apparently not, according to the august judges in Roe vs. Wade.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. John Chrysostom, Bishop, Confessor, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 2009

9 comments:

Louise said...

Very well said, Pole.

Cardinal Pole said...

Thank you, Louise. Strange, isn't: a right to privacy trumping the right to life, despite the clear order of priority given in the American Constitution.

Cardinal Pole said...

"isn't it", that should be.

Louise said...

Yes, even within their "American heresy" they can't get it right!

Louise said...

Now, Pole, as you know I am pretty much in favour of a Catholic Confessional State, but I am still wanting to explore the issue a bit (given how much secularist brainwashing I have to deprogram out of my mind).

So, there are some who maintain that the worst thing which ever happened to Christianity was when it became the state religion under Constantine. Now, I don't think that's true, myself, but what are some of the arguments one might put forward to Christians in general in contradiction of that idea?

Also, I have been reading excerpts from "The Twilight of Atheism" in which the author (a protestant) says that the main positive purpose of atheism is to help Christianity stay on track.

I realise that he would have a different idea of state-Church relations than the Church anyway, but his thesis was that as one group of any citizens has significantly more power or voice than others (eg the secularists are currently ticking off a lot of Catholics with their "keep religion out of politics" mantra) it provokes a big backlash. Hence, atheism could be seen as a backlash against the more vocal, powerful and loopy of the religious people etc. Might he have a point here and do you think it is at all possible to achieve a confessional state?

I'm just thinking out loud here and exploring the topic, not putting out firm ideas and well thought out arguments etc.

Also, you seem to consider there to be a wide gulf between pre- and post-conciliar Catholicism. How do you understand the situation?

Louise said...

Regarding what are some of the arguments one might put forward to Christians in general in contradiction of that idea?
what sorts of ideas from scripture, in particular, would back up your view?

Cardinal Pole said...

I'll get back to you on those questions soon, Louise (no time at the moment).

Louise said...

Thanks, Pole. There's a lot there!

Cardinal Pole said...

Louise,

Still no time right now (and as you know I don't usually go on the Internet on the weekend) but I'll have time on Monday so expect a response then.