Saturday, January 24, 2009

The Churches may need Redefining

Today John Aravosis is reporting that Archbishop Rino Fisichella is commenting on the arrogance of newly elected President Obama as someone who is opening the door to abortion and thus the destruction of human life. Abortion does not take long to rear its ugly head from this absolute Papal moral authority.
I say to you this sir preach to your congregation that abortion is wrong, that way you will be heard by those that want to hear you. You do not have the right to make demands or assertions on the population at large. Yours is just a view point from your particular brand of theology, it does not represent mine. And you point of view does not give you liberty to anoint Americas new leader as arrogant. In fact Mr. Archbishop in order to serve your flock you should totally curtail all criticism of state affairs and stay with the
God that you know so well. This is the message that you should be giving you know the one about tollerance and respect for others.
If the Church wishes to have a say in governance it could become so. It need only to give up its tax exemption and then it could have the status of any other multinational. It could lobby legally. Pay its taxes like all of us. The entire Christian right if it paid taxes could probably make America solvent.


marain said...

I am a woman and a liberal and I think abortion should be allowed only within about the first 12 weeks. I think much after that, abortion really is like murder. Most miscarriages occur within the first 12 weeks, so until you pass that deadline, going to term with a healthy baby is just a potential.

A woman should know, by the 12th week (which is actually 10 weeks since conception, because the weeks are counted from the time of first day of the last period, with ovulation occuring two weeks after) if she wants to go to term or not and should decide, within this time, to abort or not, and if she misses this deadline, then society should provide her with before and after health care, living facilities if necessary, and with adoption possibilities if that's what the woman wants, or with child care, job training, and social services including child care if the woman chooses to be a single mom and to work.

Of course there could be very exceptional circumstances, like the woman develops a case of toxoplasmosis or German measles and doesn't want to bring a physically challenged child into the world. There should be some kind of provisions for abortion in the case of very exceptional circumstances having to do with the health of the mother or the viability of the child-to-be.

One of the problems with the dialogues that go on about this subject is that it's usually either/or, black and white, with the conservatives "against" and the liberals "for". I think what is needed is some kind of an in-between place , but I guess most of those against would never see this, which is part of the problem.

What really gets me going is that most of the people I have ever spoken with who are so against abortion are also rabidly against the social programs and services that would be truly needed if abortion were to be banned again AND they are also against programs about safe sex and birth control! They don't want any of their tax dollars going to people who are stupid enough to get pregnant out of wedlock (their words, not mine!). Also, they don't seem to realize that banning abortion is not going to stop women from the former back alleys and coat hangers - women will still try to have abortions, regardless of whether or not they are banned, so they will seek it in ways that are not safe and more women will die, along with their unborn fetuses. I think safe abortion is preferable to banned abortion and resultant back alley abortions.

Many of the people I have spoken with about this issue also supported the invasion of Iraq that has resulted in the deaths not only of more than 4000 US soldiers, but of an estimated more than 1.3 million Iraqis whose country will never be the same again - who will not be able to go anywhere without reminders of pain and sorrow - so many lives and loved ones lost in this ill-conceived misadventure. So, conservatives who support war, how is war okay and abortion not okay? That's at least one of the questions that I've never been able to get a satisfactory answer to.

I think a woman should have a right to choose to a limited extent, and that society should be prepared to assist women who choose to bring a new life into the world. Maybe more women would make that choice if they were assured of a social safety net.

marain said...

I guess I kind of went off in an entirely different direction from your post, Tango, and in the process forgot to say that I agree with you completely about taxing churches that are getting involved in politics, which so many of the right-wing churches have done. It's a fine line, though, I guess. During the GWB years, if I had been a minister in any church, I would have felt obliged to speak out against war as a solution, for example. These pro-lifers really believe that their position is the correct one and do not see the incompatibility/inconsistency of their anit-abortion position vis a vis their support of war. I don't know if they can be shifted, so maybe making them pay taxes would be an incentive for them to at least keep a little more quiet about it.

Tango daddy said...

marain I believe that comment on abortion should be copoied pasted and posted on your own blog site. That is an outstandingly well spoken viewpoint my sincere compliments on your linear understanding Now be happy you havent given up writeing?