When a woman finds that the fetus she is carrying has anomalies incompatible with life, that it will not live and that she requires an abortion – often a late-term abortion – to protect her life, her health, or her fertility, it is the shattering of her hopes and dreams for that pregnancy that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.The comments in her own blog, if they're not deleted, are illuminating. Of course she has been called out for her evil, wicked prayer. Abortion is her sacrament. But doing a little more digging has shown me several things.
When a woman wants a child but can’t afford one because she hasn’t the education necessary for a sustainable job, or access to health care, or day care, or adequate food, it is the abysmal priorities of our nation, the lack of social supports, the absence of justice that are the tragedies; the abortion is a blessing.
And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight -- only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.
These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
First, take a look at her bio. Here's her wikipedia page. What has she been doing?
Ragsdale has served for 17 years on the national board of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. She is also on the board of NARAL Pro-Choice America, The White House Project, the Progressive Religious Partnership, as well as the bi-national advisory board of The Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence. She presented to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in 2004.[3]Aside from being a "priest", her entire life has been devoted to abortion. She's on the board of the National Abortion Rights Action League (now called NARAL). She worked for nearly 20 years for the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion (now called Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice). Her entire purpose and meaning in life revolves around abortion (ever notice how those groups got rid of the word ABORTION from their names?).
This woman puts the lie to the theory that people who are "pro-choice" are not pro-abortion. Of course they are pro-abortion. Because to them, abortion is a blessing. "Pro-choice" fundamentally means pro-abortion. It is ridiculous to be in favor of a choice if one of those choices is inherently evil. You'd might as well say you're pro-choice if the choices were eating applesause or drowning your mother.
But notice anything else?
She's glad that: "The Democrats have removed "safe, legal, and rare" language about abortion from the platform. About time!"
A little digging in her other blogs found me this other sermon, where she said (in 1996):
So, the first question – addressed to us all – is: what are we doing to reduce the need for abortions? None of us, regardless of our position on choice, approves of a world where pregnant women are faced with despair and see no viable options but to abort. But what are we doing, as God’s agents in the world, to change that situation?... No, we cannot eliminate the need for abortion. But we could dramatically reduce it. What are we doing to make our society more supportive of children and families? What are we doing to reduce the need for abortion?How to square her desire to reduce the need for abortion in 1996, with her sermon in 2007 saying that she's glad the Democrats dropped the "rare" crap from their platform and that abortion is a blessing?
It's because she was lying in 1996. She doesn't want to reduce abortions at all. They do not want abortion to be rare - and not only because NARAL and people like Ragsdale are funded by the abortion mills. The other reason? Ragsdale says: "The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing." Yes, abortion is all about me me ME! She doesn't want people to be "compromised." Just like Obama doesn't want his daughters to be punished with a baby.
So whenever you hear someone say that they're not pro-abortion and they're really pro-choice, know that they're lying, both to you and possibly to themselves. And whenever you hear someone say that they want abortion to be rare, they're probably lying as well. Abortion-lovers don't want abortion to be rare.
(Hat tip to Hot Air's headlines, which brought them to Amy Wellborn's beliefnet post, which devolved into another religious fight, so much that she closed the comment thread.)
UPDATE: Ragsdale deleted her post. Here's a cached version, scroll down to find the sermon. Unfortunately, the comments were lost.
9 comments:
So whenever you hear someone say that they're not pro-abortion and they're really pro-choice, know that they're lying, both to you and possibly to themselves.
How would you know what's in someone else's head? Seems to me that your comment is just as bigoted as the ones you're complaining about on Hot Air, Sydney.
Remember that much of what used to be called Mainstream Protestantism and much of Judiaism disagrees with the Catholic interpretation of the Bible. For valid reasons, IMHO.
jim, one can only be in favor of a choice if the selections are legitimite. So everyone who is pro-choice thinks abortion is a legitimite choice, according to whatever circumstances they think (however limited or open). Hence, it is ridiculous to say that someone is pro-choice but anti-abortion.
This is mere logic, and has nothing to do with the Bible or Catholic teaching. Read Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, and you'll see that choice in of itself cannot be celebrated unless the selections themselves are valid. The freedom to choose selections from a cafeteria is something that can be celebrated because any selection would be valid. The freedom to choose between a bullet in your brain or your signature on a contract is not a valid choice and should not be celebrated. Get it? This is logic, not theology.
Sydney, who said anything about all choices needing to be "celebrated"? And what about someone who believes the law should permit abortion but hopes people don't use it in most circumstances?
Lying is a strong word, Syndey. You haven't supported your use of it in this instance.
I did read the old guys in College. Interesting, but not much of real use in the real world IMHO.
And let's take your argument further:
If I am not in favor of criminalizing disrespect to parents, does that mean I'm pro-disrespect to elders?
If I am not in favor of requiring chasity belts for teenagers, does that mean I'm pro-teenage sexuality?
If I'm not in favor of requiring everyone to attend Catholic church by law or requiring all not Catholic churches to be closed, does that mean I'm anti-Catholic?
I think you need to make distinctions that you're not making.
Sydney, who said anything about all choices needing to be "celebrated"? And what about someone who believes the law should permit abortion but hopes people don't use it in most circumstances?
The use of the term pro-choice is done to convey the respect of the idea of choice. But that's a distortion, because what they respect is abortion (however limited or widespread). People who don't want abortion used in most circumstances merely have a more limited set of circumstances in which they would deem it to be a valid selection. However, at some fundamental level, it is still a valid selection to them.
That is the error. Abortion is not a valid selection. It's no more valid than a selection to choose to be shot in the head instead of putting your signature on a contract.
Disapproval of something while allowing others to choose it cannot be scaled to something that is intrinsicly evil. It's fine to disapprove of disrespect to parents while permitting it, because that is not intrinsicly evil. But abortion is intrinsicly evil and so it is invalid to claim to be in favor of a choice that would permit an intrinsicly evil thing while disapproving of that thing. It is nonsense on stilts.
Everyone who is pro-choice at some level favors abortion.
Sorry, Sydney. You're not persuading me. You are saying that abortion is different from these other situations because it is in a separate clause of "intrinsically evil" items to which logic doesn't apply. Didn't you first state that logic requires this result? Don't the Ten Commandments specifically prohibit disrespect to elders, so how can that not be intrinsically evil by your definition? And how can you convince me, as a non-Catholic, that abortion is intrinsically evil?
Ragsdale says abortion is a blessing. It is a pure statement in favor, not of a choice or selection process, but abortion. He statement is a mirror into the mindset of modern supporters of abortion, who use a euphemism "pro-choice" to cloud their true loyalties. That's also why every organization that she was on has deleted the word "Abortion" from its name. They want to hide their true allegiance to abortion, and pretend that they really respect the idea of choice.
It's such a blatant lie. Their actions alone give credible evidence of their guilty consciences, otherwise they'd never have removed abortion from the names of those organizations.
I never said that logic doesn't apply to intrinsicly evil objects. In fact, logic specifically applies to them, because intrinsicly evil objects are first known through reason. What I was saying is that a choice can only be valid if the OBJECT of that choice is ordered toward something good. A choice involving an intrinsicly object, such as murder, is not a valid choice. And a person claiming to be respect freedom of choice when one selection is murder accepts murder as a vaild choice in contradiction to human reason. That is the lie behind the termonology of pro-choice, and that's why Ragdsdale calls it a "blessing."
The respect of feedom in other bad acts which are not intrinsicly evil exists because of the difference of the object involved. Unlike an intinsicly evil object, like murder, disrespect to elders while bad is not always wrong in all circumstances according to human reasoning.
Sydney, reason doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that abortion is intrinsically evil. Remember Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous vionilist argument.
And changing the name of an organization doesn't give credible evidence of a guilty conscience. Should "Swift Vets and POWs for Truth" have called themselves instead "Some of the Vets who served with Kerry Wanting to Derail (with the help of outside funding) Kerry's Presidential Bid"?
Thirdly, you first say "What I was saying is that a choice can only be valid if the OBJECT of that choice is ordered toward something good" but you then say "Unlike an intinsicly evil object, like murder, disrespect to elders while bad is not always wrong in all circumstances according to human reasoning". So which is it? Does the object have to be ordered to something good or just not something that's always wrong?
By the way, the story was about an Episcopal priest being appointed as Dean of an Episcopal Divinity School. You'll notice it did not involve any Catholic organizations.
Perhaps you shouldn't complain so loudly when non-Catholics question some of the things going on in the Catholic church and related organizations, since you seem to believe that you have the same rights with respect to non-Catholic organizations.
Post a Comment