Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion (pro-birth)? A 3-part series.

Part III: How do we take back the pro-life movement?

Those who were/are passionate about being anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-stem cell and anti-euthanasia (assisted suicide) and those who held to other pro-life issues just as passionately, began to look at each other as political and ideological enemies. Each side began to resent and attack the other for their narrow view. Since the Church declared that the fight to end abortion is the preeminent right to life issue, church funding for most other right to life issues was diverted to that one cause and began to include political campaigning for a single party over a single issue cause. Some church leaders went so far as to endorse a political party or politician outright, risking their preferred tax status. Those of us who could not endorse the other goals of that political party found ourselves outside of the system. Some of us "put our souls at risk" and actually voted for candidates in the "opposition party". Others caved to the pressure to vote based on a single issue and voted for the approved political candidate in the approved political party. Those who hoped to break the unbreakable unity of the pro-life message had succeeded. Is the damage permanent?

Re-unifying the pro-life movement will begin with respect. Respect for life and for each others' opinions. As I have discussed the problem of a fragmented pro-life movement, I pray daily for unity to prevail. With our voices fragmented through suspicion and talking past each other, our causes falter. We find odd bed-fellows in our struggles.

If we begin by respecting each other, much can be accomplished. To have a meaningful discussion we must listen to each other respectfully. It is not hard to demonstrate to those who have put most of their voice and strength and political will into championing pro-life causes other than abortion, to take another look. Much more difficult is the entrenched anti-abortion pro-life constituency. I have conversations regularly with those who are opposed to unjust war, capital punishment, euthanasia, and are for more and better education, support for the poor and the disenfranchised. Many of these folks are anti-abortion as well as they can extrapolate from the most fundamental right to life of the unborn to the preservation of and dignity of life until natural death. However, many who are strictly against unjust war, capital punishment, have not been willing to look back at the issue of abortion because they feel left out of that movement. With respectful dialog many have been persuaded to join the fight against abortion by seeing it an extension of their own pro-life ideology that began formation while working on other pro-life issues. The fundamental right to be born and not be assaulted in the womb becomes obvious. As has been stated by many church leaders, all other human rights and in particular pro-life rights stem from the right to be born.

On the other hand, you have those who came into the pro-life movement who became entrenched in the single issue of abortion. I understand it is the fundamental right, but not the only right. Many in that camp will not even give respect to a person fighting for the life of the already born, unless they first demonstrate their total allegiance to the plight of the unborn. Many go so far as to fight against these other rights to life in their effort to keep abortion on the front burner. In addition, some within the struggle against abortion have coupled their struggle with other issues which were not traditionally part of the pro-life agenda such as gay marriage and other gay rights. It makes those in the other camp wonder if they are consistent in their pro-life campaign or just single issue. When those who oppose abortion also openly endorse unjust and unending wars and capital punishment, not to mention holding disdain for those fighting systemic poverty, malnutrition, AIDS and other health crisis, their arguments for the preeminence of the right to be born fall on deaf ears. They are seen as at best inconsistent and at worst at war against other pro-life issues.

Both groups have been played for their votes. Both groups have been co-opted by others with other agendas. Both groups must get back to the original consistent message of being unconditionally pro-life and support each other in the struggle. Having divided the spoils of the pro-life movement, the two primary political parties have now helped both sides further alienate. We can re-unite and begin to exert political and social pressure that represents a consistent pro-life stance. Here’s how: We need to listen, understand and support each other. We must stop shouting over each other to make our points. We must adopt a consistent and unconditionally pro-life stance to have credibility with each other. That means those who have not understood the fundamental right to be born, literally gives birth to all other rights. It also means that those who have understood and championed the right to be born must recognize it is inconsistent to abandon the fight for those persons’ right-to-life once they are out of the womb. We must be willing to jettison the add-on agendas of others. We must carefully discuss every issue in light of our position as being unconditionally pro-life.

I am willing. Are you? Share with me your thoughts.

Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion (pro-birth)? A 3-part series.

Part Two....

What were the strategies? How did right-winged fundamentalists hijack the Pro-life movement? How did they redefine it? Can the movement be reunified under the banner of Unconditionally Pro-Life?

Strategies shifted in the abortion debate and the pro-life movement in general. While some of us began to attack the justifications for the culture of death: expediency, national interests, and personal stigma, desperation etc. Others decided to broaden the appeal for new soldiers in the fight against abortion.

Those in the leadership of the anti-abortion flank of the once unified pro-life movement began recruiting our Protestant Evangelical brothers and sisters. These newcomers to the cause did not necessarily hold to the historic teachings of the Church regarding the dignity of all human life. They were, however, already waging their own battle in the area of morality specifically against gay rights and especially against gay marriage. Despite the fact that many of these same Protestant Christians do not hold to the guidelines of the Catholic Church on things like “artificial” contraception and “artificial” conception , opposition to the death penalty or unjust war, not to mention their often voiced disdain for the Catholic Church in general, they needed the help of the Catholic Church to bring back a more Puritan national morality. At the same time, the Catholic, anti-abortion, pro-lifers needed the Evangelical’s support in the fight against legalized abortion. Compromises were made on both sides: The Catholics had to tone down the “artificial” contraception and artificial conception (like in-vitro) issues and ratchet up anti-gay rights issues. In order to court the help they needed they became strange bedfellows with those who in some cases, outright condemn the Catholic Church on many levels and who do not hold to John Paul II’s call to be: unconditionally pro-life, from natural conception to natural death. Including the fight against gay rights as a pro-life issue, alienated many of us who were veterans in the pro-life movement—it just didn’t add up. In addition, the angry rhetoric used by anti-abortionists to insist that only “innocent” life is worth defending, ran against what we had always been taught.

The anti-abortion movement found political clout by joining with their Protestant friends who had already established the “Moral Majority” and had effectively co-opted the Republican Party. They thought they had everything they needed. Although both sides compromised to make this happen, in my opinion, those with a traditional, more comprehensive Catholic world view lost the most: a consistent and coherent basis for their fight, that being that all life is sacred. When the (anti-gay, subjugated women) Moral Majority, the (nationalistic, war mongering, Calvinist) Republican Party and the “new” Prolife movement joined forces, some of us were forced for the first time to rethink our original edict as pro-lifers: from conception to natural death and to form new strategies and in some cases choose new bedfellows as well.

Part Three:How do we (the unconditionally pro-life) take back the pro-life movement?

The following blog posts were originally written as my input to a series of articles once published in a now defunct national magazine. Later, I posted them to my private blog for review. They are posted in 3 parts. To make the most sense, read them in chronological order.


The Problem with the Pro-Life Movement in America, Part One

What was the pro-life movement in the US?
Once upon a time, the pro-life movement was primarily made up of Catholics who, following the teachings of the Church, determined that euthanasia, the death penalty and unjust war violated the right-to-life and dignity and the sacredness of human life. It was not far-fetched for those of us working for pro-life movement to consider some of the systemic causes for these injustices against the dignity of human life. Some of those causes were seen to be poverty, labor problems, racism, educational disparity and international tensions due to nationalistic goals. After Roe v. Wade, abortion was added to the list. Thinking Catholics, notably our Popes and other theologians had determined that systemic causes were leading society to embrace a culture of utilitarianism and death. The United States was squarely in the sights of the Church as a battleground for these issues.

In the case of euthanasia, society was pushing for cost containment of health care (much like today). To many, allowing someone to languish in a persistent vegetative state, while receiving continuous and sometimes costly health care, seemed to be a waste of resources. The financial and emotional hardship on families, primary caregivers and society, seemed to justify the premature ending of a person’s life. Debates erupted about quality of life—when to prolong it and when to cut it short. In the pro-life movement, there were those on both sides of the issue as well. The Catholic Church finally gave some guidelines for us to work within. We were encouraged to sign up for health care directives, pen medical power of attorneys, and make our own end-of-life decisions, so that family and the system did not have to. Assisted suicide was obviously out; while specifics about under what circumstances/diagnosis, one did not want to prolong their own life was in. Now, assisted suicide is back and enshrined in the laws of some States.

The death penalty has long been the choice of even advanced societies to deal with habitual criminals. Unfortunately, it too violates the dignity of human life. It has not been proven to be a deterrent nor a very satisfying revenge. Many of us in the pro-life movement, with the Catholic Church’s endorsement, protested against its use. The Church told us it was not justifiable in a society where dangerous criminals can be successfully kept from society via prison terms. For a while, many States had moratoriums due to the inhumane methods used, or the potential for innocent victims of this form of State sponsored murder. However, once again, utility: the expense of lifetime prison terms and the cost of appeals soon outweighed compassion and knowledge. The utilitarian, culture of death marches on.

Pacifists of all generations had already determined that war is not the answer to any of our political problems. It was, however, a knee jerk reaction to any perceived international injustice. Again, the Catholic Church helped those of us in the pro-life movement to discuss, debate and form guidelines for Just War. Any war that did not comply with Just War Theory, was easy to identify as unjust and worthy of our protest. Our political leaders rarely listened to us right away, but eventually, public opinion would sway these leaders to abandon unjust wars. Unfortunately, many times they did not heed our calls until much damage had been done and more hatred engendered—leading to a less stable and more dangerous world.

Then, when I was in high school, along came legalized abortion. This “choice” was another utilitarian method of dealing with an unwanted or unintended pregnancy. Why the pregnancy was unwanted or unexpected is part of the justification for the “choice” of procuring an abortion. Economic desperation, stigma, financial and relational justifications abound. Legalized abortion on demand has engendered one of the greatest debates of my lifetime. Interestingly, the debate not only rages between anti-abortion and pro-choice camps, it also rages within the broader pro-life camp itself and threatens to derail the entire premise of the pro-life movement: the declaration that all human life is sacred. Not just the innocent (babies) but also the lives of those convicted of crimes, or caught up in wars, or considered too old or lacking in quality of life.

This lack of consistent right-to-life ethic began the stress fracturing of the pro-life movement which I believe began with the inclusion of Protestant Evangelical Christians as partners in the fight against abortion. This initial hairline with the additional pressure from the “new pro-lifers’ from the Protestant, Evangelical churches to include such topics as gay rights as additional pro-life agenda items and to jettison other traditional pro-life issues such as opposition to the death penalty and unjust wars and the fracture is complete. The rationale for excluding these issues is: death penalty victims are not innocent (or are they in some cases?) and war is necessary to protect our national interests even when the Catholic Church is against it. The once unified pro-life coalition has been effectively silenced.

In the next installment I will discuss the strategies and compromises that led to the division and demise of the movement.

Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion (pro-birth)? A 3-part series.

Part III

How do we take back the pro-life movement?

Those who were/are passionate about being anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-stem cell and anti-euthanasia (assisted suicide) and those who held to other pro-life issues just as passionately, began to look at each other as political and ideological enemies. Each side began to resent and attack the other for their narrow view. Since the Church declared that the fight to end abortion is the preeminent right to life issue, church funding for most other right to life issues was diverted to that one cause and began to include political campaigning for a single party over a single issue cause. Some church leaders went so far as to endorse a political party or politician outright, risking their preferred tax status. Those of us who could not endorse the other goals of that political party found ourselves outside of the system. Some of us "put our souls at risk" and actually voted for candidates in the "opposition party". Others caved to the pressure to vote based on a single issue and voted for the approved political candidate in the approved political party. Those who hoped to break the unbreakable unity of the pro-life message had succeeded. Is the damage permanent?

Re-unifying the pro-life movement will begin with respect. respect for life and for each others' opinions. As I have discussed the problem of a fragmented pro-life movement, I pray daily for unity to prevail. With our voices fragmented through suspicion and talking past each other, our causes falter. We find odd bed-fellows in our struggles.

If we begin by respecting each other, much can be accomplished. To have a meaningful discussion we must listen to each other respectfully. It is not hard to demonstrate to those who have put most of their voice and strength and political will into championing pro-life causes other than abortion, to take another look. Much more difficult is the entrenched anti-abortion pro-life constituency. I have conversations regularly with those who are opposed to unjust war, capital punishment, euthanasia, and are for more and better education, support for the poor and the disenfranchised. Many of these folks are anti-abortion as well as they can extrapolate from the most fundamental right to life of the unborn to the preservation of and dignity of life until natural death. However, many who are strictly against unjust war, capital punishment, have not been willing to look back at the issue of abortion because they feel left out of that movement. With respectful dialog many have been persuaded to join the fight against abortion by seeing it an extension of their own pro-life ideology. The fundamental right to be born and not be assaulted in the womb becomes obvious. As has been stated by many church leaders, all other human rights and in particular pro-life rights stem from the right to be born.

On the other hand, you have those who came into the pro-life movement who became entrenched in the single issue of abortion. I understand it is the fundamental right, but not the only right. Many in that camp, will not even give respect to a person fighting for the life of the already born, unless they first demonstrate their total allegiance to the plight of the unborn. Many go so far as to fight against these other rights to life in their effort to keep abortion on the front burner. In addition, some within the struggle against abortion have coupled their struggle with other issues which were not traditionally part of the pro-life agenda such as gay marriage and other gay rights. It makes those in the other camp wonder if they are consistent in their pro-life campaign or just single issue. When those who oppose abortion also openly endorse unjust and unending wars and capital punishment, not to mention holding disdain for those fighting systemic poverty, malnutrition, AIDS and other health crisis, their arguments for the preeminence of the right to be born fall on deaf ears. They are seen as at best inconsistent and at worst at war against other pro-life issues.

It is up to those of us who consider ourselves to be unconditionally pro-life to convince these two camps to dialog and work together. Too many rights have been eroded. Too many peoples lives have been exploited. Too many people have died. While we remain divided. In our dialogues we must find our common ground and educate each other about the fundamental right to life, not just to be born, but to live. I tell you, I find it pretty easy to convince those who have advocated against the death penalty to also see the light about abortion. Unjust war protesters often say to the anti-abortionists: "what about the babies of our enemies? Aren't you willing to defend their right to life?" Thus exposing the fact that they recognize the underlying and fundamental right to be born. If those who are devote most of their time and other resources to the fight against abortion were at least willing to give lip-service to the other traditional pro-life issues, they would quickly win friends for their struggle. Likewise, those who are devoted to other pro-life issues need to first find the fundamental right to life of the unborn and give support to that cause as they are able. We will once again have a unified voice and be able to affect changes within the body politic winning friends and influencing enemies. But, we must not stop there, lest these parties try to divide us again and play us for their gain.

We must begin together to think outside the box. I will explain that further in the next post. For instance I would say that those who oppose abortion might consider asking the government to end unjust wars and use the savings to support children in the womb who are at risk of abortion.

Is Hate Speech Free Speech?

The kids in my neighborhood remind me: Don't be a hater. I remind them: Be sweet, be kind. But do we occasionally cross the line between poking fun, satirizing, being sarcastic or ironic, into the realm of hating? sometimes we do it without noticing, other times we feel a dull regret after speaking or writing or sending that email or text about another person. How can we stop ourselves before we cross that line?

During the most recent general election in the U. S., I was bombarded by emails that I found to be exceptionally ugly, defaming, and in some cases dangerous hate speech. I took the time to respond to some of them. Others, I ignored. I am sure most of you have had similar experiences with email. I have been personally attacked by "friends" for having a different opinion. I have laughed and cried at the ignorance of intolerance. I have used the delete button more in the past year than ever before. But nothing tops what happened recently due to my response to an email.

A family member recently sent me an email forward. The title was: AND IT CAME TO PASS....the end of a great country. A pastor's wife's letter. It was sent to me without cleaning up the line break codes, nor was it sent to "undisclosed recipients". It was in fact, sent to the usual suspects: friends and family. The introduction attempted to give more credence to its importance and relevance by stating:

?This is written in apocalyptic literature.??It is being written by a>
pastor's wife, in biblical prose as a commentary of current events.??
>
?This is written in apocalyptic literature.??It is being written by a
>
pastor's wife, in biblical prose as a commentary of current events.??
> It
is extremely truthful.
>
> The year is 2009

Followed by yada yada I hate Obama, Obama is ruining our country, Obama has nothing but empty statements and promises etc. It became more hateful and more absurd by the line. Eventually the author called for us to vote out anyone who supports the President's plans and then some:

> And the people cried out, "Alas, alas!! What have we done?" ?But
>
yea verily, it was too late. The people set upon "The One" and spat
> upon
him and stoned him, and his name was dung. And the once mighty
> nation
was no more; and the once proud people were without sustenance
> or
shelter or hope. And the CHANGE "The One" had given them
> was as like
unto a poison that had destroyed
> them and like a whirlwind that consumed
all that they had built.
> And the people beat their chests in despair and
cried out in anguish,
> "Give us back our Nation and our Pride and our
Hope!!" ?But it was too
> late, and their HOMELAND was no
more.
>
> You may think this is a fairy tale, but it's not.
WAKE UP!!!
>
> It's happening RIGHT
NOW!!!
>
>
>
>
> DO PASS
IT ON, WE NEED TO STOP THIS NOW, OR FOREVER LIVE WITH ITS
> RESULTS,
BECAUSE WE DID NOTHING. VOTE OUT THE ONES THAT VOTE WITH
> OBAMA, FROM THE
TOP TO THE BOTTOM OF THE OFFICE THEY HOLD. THEN LETS
> BEGIN THE
"IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS" AND GET RID OF THIS "NUT CASE",
> THAT WAS VOTED
INTO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BEFORE IT TRULY IS
> TOO LATE!!!

I sent a response to the entire email list of recipients objecting to the content of the email on the grounds that it was hateful, deceptive and un-Christian. I heard back immediately from two of my fellow recipients, one who accused me of being un-Christian, judgemental and on and on, and one who said he agreed with me that the email was over the top. Then I heard from the original sender under the subject line of: FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I was surprised to learn that in her world, Freedom of Speech only applied to those who agreed with the post and agreed to send it on. If you disagreed, you should just delete it. And as she said: "on this we will have to agree to disagree". Further, my email response was to blame, according to her, for the break up of a family. "The [woman in the relationship], was out looking for her own apartment." After a few more email chastisements, from the original sender and others on the list, I decided to pick up the phone and talk it out.

That was a mistake. I was told that it was inappropriate to respond to the whole email list of friends and family. If I disagreed, I should only notify the sender. I explained that in some cases I would do that, but that in this case, it was a list of friends and family who regularly receive and forward this type of uber conservatism in the guise of patriotism and nationalism and that even hateful lies are protected free speech to be disseminated at will, and most of it goes unchallenged. These same recipients have regularly harvested my name from the email list and forwarded more and more of this type of stuff to me in the past. It was OK for them to do this since the message was always the same: you are not a patriot, you do not love our country, you are not a Christian if you disagree with what the sender says or forwards. And besides that, if you don't like it, hit delete and don't forward--thus proving you are an anti-American, tax the rich, commie, fascist, undocumented-immigrant-loving, satanist. I was further told that people who do not hold her similar values, were in effect, "spitting on the graves of the brave men and women who have given their lives in all the wars since WWII, who have protected our freedoms." Including the Freedom of Speech.

What do you do when you get an email that is either patently false or full of gross exaggeration or hate? Do you simply hit delete, or do you respond? Do you keep it between yourself and the sender or do you include others? What if you were in person in a group and one person was bullying, or telling lies or being a "hater"? Do you speak up public, while in that group or do you take the person aside and tell them how you feel? What are some of your experiences?

Farewell Uncle Marvin

"Uncle" Marvin is not my uncle. He is the uncle of a good friend. I have had the honor of referring to him as uncle these past few years that he has lived in Saint Louis.

Uncle Marvin, has had a long and interesting life. He is the age my father would be were my father still alive. He served in the Merchant Marines during WWII. He has old-school values and old-school racism. It is the type of racism that "tolerates" other races as long as they are in their places. Places like serving, sports, and in their own countries of origin. He does not shy away from using racial epitaphs such as wop, dago, wetback, the n word, and colored. Despite this fact, he has many friends of color and of foreign national origin. Those friends seem to be of the same vintage, and thus, understand him.

I have also had the privilege of checking in on Marvin from time to time when his nephew has been traveling. The way we check on him, without him knowing we are checking on him is to bring him dinner, or stop by to fix his dinner. We chat, check his pill box and refill as needed. He usually has us reheat some past days' dinner that was delivered by a meal delivery service. He gripes that it costs too much and that they put in stuff he would never eat--if he weren't paying for it. He loves a bargain. So, when I go to check on Marvin, he lets me know about a 79 cent bargain burrito at Taco Bell, or a 99 cent meal from the Colonel or some other fast food joint. Dessert is always the same: some soft ice cream in a cup with a dash of Gatorade.

Marvin is a curmudgeon. He is my hero. There is not a bit of good news he can't dismiss with a shrug and a a "we'll see how that turns out". He loves to tell stories about his family members which I would never repeat where they could hear them. He loves the women, but only married once and divorced during the War. Believe it or not, he married a Mexican. He has led a full life, but his last few years here, in Saint Louis, probably were meant to enhance our lives, not his.

I know many of my friends were influenced by a book entitled: Tuesdays with Morrie. Time spent with Marvin was just as splendid. Marvin was discovered a few days ago in his apartment, suffering the effects of a stroke, by his great nephew, David. David could not get Marvin to respond to the door bell to buzz him in. Once he gained entrance by someone leaving the building, David found Uncle Marvin was in bed and unable to speak or move. He had had a stroke.

This wasn't Marvin's first stroke. Indeed he regaled me with the awfulness of growing old with each visit. When he heard I had a heart attack, he told me: "First comes the heart attack, than the stroke, say good-bye to your sex life, you end up with cataracts and deaf, your memory wains and eventually someone has to help you take a ________!" "Getting old is awful" he would say "but then it beats the alternative."

Uncle Marvin was part of that "Greatest Generation". So few from that generation remain, I am glad to have shared some moments with one of them. Uncle Marvin is being cared for by hospice and his family. They expect him to meet his maker in a matter of days. If you think of it, say a little prayer for Marvin. If you get the chance, find a Marvin or Morrie or Martha or Margaret from that Greatest Generation to share a little time with. You won't regret it.

Goodbye Uncle Marvin. I'll miss you.