#but one could make the argument that those were definitely willful abortions (as opposed to miscarriages)

[queerbauten]

There's this single-issue anti-abortion party in my province that's been putting up billboards recently about their website, which does feature images of "aborted" fetuses, and the worst part, to me, is knowing that at least some of those "abortions"—you know, the 20+ weeks ones—were probably stillbirths (or even live preemies) that the parent(s) didn't want to lose, and that these people are just... lying. They're lying about this horrible, horrible thing in order to advance their cause. It makes me sick.

[remazdo]

The Golden Sprial

As always I am never quite sure where one of these posts is going to lead me, whether into the waiting jaws of trolls and critics, or into a place where I am heard by peers and my words carry some weight. Lately I have found myself pulled in many directions as many different injustices are committed within my own country, let alone the world as a whole. And being the kind of person that I am, I have no tolerance for such things, but my words are so small in comparison to those that hold power that I feel they are drowned out at times. Nevertheless, I find myself sitting here at three in the morning, writing, hoping that something I say may bring some change in someone somewhere.

I recently read an article I would like to share with anyone willing to read it. My finding this article was due to yet another facebook argument. Something I detest. I still have an aversion to them, but I am no longer able to just keep my mouth shut. Someone had shared a news post that read that President Trump was going to change the definitions of mental illness and he believed that those with a mental illness should be forcibly contained to protect the public due to the recent mass shootings that took place here in the states. My response was simply..

“Okay, can I just ask, how much more dystopian does the world need to get before we recognize it as a dystopia?”

Again, I felt this to be harmless, just a question, however I had someone who said that this was needed to get “help” for the homeless and it was the right move to make. My response was that in essence what was being said here was that if the definition of mental illness was changed to include anxiety, depression, homosexuality, and even disagreeing with the words of those in power, that they could forcibly contain anyone at any time. This seemed dystopian, and while probably not how it would be intended to be used, it is still a huge policy shift, just as the shift to make abortions illegal, or the shift in immigration policy, or the shift when it came to the pipeline that went through Native American lands, or the shift to stop trying to find green energy to stop climate change. So many little shifts have happened, and I decided it was time to do some research, as I do. The following quote is from an article by a David Tollerton of the University of Exeter, the link to the article will be below.

“When it comes to an event as ultimately extreme and emotive as the Holocaust, we should of course be wary of blunt and counterproductive comparisons. In this regard Lipstadt’s article offers a powerful corrective. But this is not the end of our task.

It is the task of historians to draw parallels, however uncomfortable. Nazism didn’t immediately descend into fully fledged terror in the Germany of the 1930s, it came in a series of legal and policy shifts. There were those, in Germany as well as in the rest of the watching world – who strongly objected from the start to the laws that took away Jewish rights and protections and continued to oppose Hitler and his supporters as the nightmare unfolded. But there were also many people in whom Nazi rhetoric found all-too fertile ground.

A similar dynamic is in operation today. The gradual “othering” of migrants to the US – and, indeed, of refugees in Europe and elsewhere – has the same feeling of an incremental downward spiral in the public’s humanity, and it is here that historians have a duty to draw comparisons rather than simply seeking to police the border between historical events.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/comparisons-between-us-immigration-policy-and-the-nazi-period-may-not-be-helpful-but-they-are-hard-to-avoid-98879

This caught me off guard. I was doing my best to not correlate the events of today with nazi Germany, and while the events themselves are not the same, the fact that the parallels are there is terrifying. So what do we do when the world is falling down around us? Is this not something that could be seen in a dystopian novel by a notable author such as Phillip K. Dick? And if we are already in dystopia, what do we do next?

A wise woman said to me recently that the revolution must start within us. I do believe that is a great start, that the individual can make the difference. And so I try to start a revolution here and now, not by writing something saying that we should stand up. When you hear the words “gun violence” your mind immediately goes to the word “gun”, and then we decide without them the shootings would stop. But what if the word we should be looking at is “violence”? What if every single person planted something helpful to the planet once a month? What if we simply said we weren’t going to go to work until women had complete rights to their bodies? What if every time you saw a person being harassed because of the color of their skin you walked over and put yourself between the attacker and the victim?

I have decided that I will make changes where I can, I have decided that the revolution is already upon us, and I have decided not to sit down anymore, to ignore a comment on facebook from someone who doesn’t agree with my morals just because it is uncomfortable, to not post something just because it may upset someone. If I want change in the world, I need to be that change. It’s the Fibonacci sequence, if I can inspire one other person, and then another, and then two more, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, and so on. In this endeavor I have decided to try to post some videos in the near future of things I have done or will be doing. They may not be often, they may not be long, but they will be there. And the first of which will include this…

This is my first attempt at a hydroponics system. The plant I have chosen is the peace lily because of its ability to scrub the air around me, and I will be expanding this system as time and finances allow. I will document how I did it, and what I will be doing to it as time goes on, and I hope it might allow some revolutionaries or young activists to feel that they can do something for this planet, even if it is small.

Thank you for reading this rather long post yet again my valued readers. I know I can get long winded and even ramble, but I am tired of waiting for the hat to drop, and I don’t want to be standing on the sidelines when it does. Let us be proactive rather than reactive, and let us be the golden spiral and watch us all grow.

[wingletblackbird]

I appreciate your nuanced and respectful anti-abortion post, and I want to raise a question that you didn't address. How do you regard medication abortions, which account for about 30% of abortions and can be performed extremely early? Your argument about fetal life wouldn't seem to apply as well at three or four weeks gestation. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just genuinely curious.

Don’t worry I don’t think you’re trying to pick a fight. I can dialogue with anyone on any subject really, so long as we’re both willing to listen and be respectful, even be willing to change our minds if we are exposed to something we hadn’t considered. I actually, generally, quite enjoy a good discussion. ;) I also am a firm believer that as long as you’re sincere, there is no such things as a bad question. I appreciate the ask, and I’m glad you felt my original post was respectful. I was worried about setting the wrong tone.

(On that note, before I get into this, I really want to make sure I make it clear I don’t think women who have abortions are any better or worse than anybody else. I don’t think most people who are pro-choice are bad people either–No more than the rest of us anyway. 1 in 4 people or so in the States, iirc, will have an abortion. It’s ludicrous to suppose they are all horrible people, or that their supporters are. I cannot know what women feel like going into those clinics, but I am given to understand that helpless, panicked, and desperate are common emotions, and if you are not given the proper support, or information, it is hard to make good decisions like that. Beyond even that, people make mistakes. I am not here to judge them, and if any woman is struggling post-abortion, I would say there is forgiveness, and redemption, and support out there for you.) 

You’re right; I barely touched on the issue of medication abortions. I felt the post was already longer than most people would care for anyway. Before I get into why I oppose those too, I should stress first that by the time most people know they’re pregnant there will already be a heartbeat, and likely discernible brain waves. Ergo, I think it would be rare that it wouldn’t be blindingly obvious you were dealing with a young child, even without the further evidence I am about to offer that life begins at feritilistaion. To offer a personal example, when my parents were trying to conceive my brother and I, my mom was very in tune with her natural cycles. She always knew when she was ovulating from the left side because she could feel a twinge in her lower  back, so she and my dad were able to conceive by brother and I on just the one attempt. Likewise, within a couple weeks after my conception, my mom knew she was pregnant even when it was too early for it to even be detectable by a pregnancy test, so she went to the hospital and asked for a blood test which confirmed she was pregnant. Then she and my dad went to get an ultrasound, and discovered my heart was already beating. That was when my dad went from pro-choice to pro-life, because he realised even at such an early stage, before it could easily be detected, I was alive!

But, of course, what if you have unprotected sex, or for whatever reason you have cause to believe that you could be pregnant really, really early? You’ve pretty much asked for an abortion from the first moment you could possible be considered pregnant. Even then I would say that this is wrong. The child is still a legitimate human being. There is overwhelming scientific consensus on this: Life begins at conception. 

First of all, we know that from the moment of conception the individual is alive. They have all the characteristics of a living entity. Cells are the smallest form of life. That is one of the basics of cell theory and biology. Moreover, once fertilization occurs they are the offspring of two humans, and they are humans genetically. Perhaps most importantly they are human organisms. They are not merely masses of tissue, or clumps of cells, because body cells do not have the capacity to grow, and change, and develop the way that an organism does. This is why sperm cells, egg cells, muscle tissue etc. do not have rights, while the human organism does. The zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, pre-teen, teenager, and adult are all humans in different stages of development, and each is as valid as the other. Furthermore, it is expected in our society to protect the most vulnerable of us such as children. To not do so is considered terrible, even monstrous, except when it comes to those who are developing in-utero. This makes no sense to me. Life begins at fertilisation, and if allowed to grow over the course of a couple decades, results into a fully mature adult of our species. This is the scientific evidence. To terminate that development is to kill the youngest of our kind, to deny them to right to continue to grow and learn and change. You would think every stage of human life from the zygote to the senior citizen would be equally as valuable. However, in the interests of profit and convenience, they are not. (Frankly, this applies to many seniors who are mistreated as well, and aren’t granted the respect and dignity they deserve.)

If you look at embryology textbooks you’ll see quotes like this:

Although human life is a continuous process, fertilisation is a critical landmark, because, under ordinary circumstances a new, genetically distinct human organism, is thereby formed. –Human Embryology and Teratology

Human life begins at fertilization.—The Developing Human 

Development begins with fertilisation—Langman’s Medical Embryology

Even amongst the pro-choice side we get:

There is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence, an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.—Peter Singer, Practical Ethics

Hence, the moment you terminate a pregnancy, whatever the stage, you deny a life the right to exist. You will never get it back. You will never know what that child could have been. 

Other issues that have to be considered with the understanding that life begins at conception is the issue of hormonal birth control, (since I’m on the subject and don’t really get into it in the first post...). I recently read an outraged News article talking about how some politician said that the Pill caused abortion. The man in question was called a religious nut, ignorant, and uninformed, but I rather thought the journalist was. Few people seem to realise that the Pill does not always stop ovulation, and hence, fertilization. While it makes it very difficult for fertilization to occur, it can still occur. If that happens, the Pill will usually result in a lost life, because the Pill also prevents implantation of the fertilised egg by altering the endometrium. This is why many claim that the Pill has the potential to be abortifacient. If you believe that life starts at conception, as I do, hormonal contraception is out. The morning after pill is really just a higher dosage of the regular pill anyway, so really this shouldn’t be surprising. 

Taking the next leap from the understanding that fertilization is the earliest stage of human development is the nature of IVF. To promote greater levels of success, multiple embryos are nurtured. They are screened for “undesirable” qualities whether it be for disabilities, or gender. (I’ve already talked about why that’s awful in my original post.) After successful implantation, the other embryos, the siblings of the lucky implanted ones, are terminated or frozen. Moreover, if the pregnancy results in multiples, because all embryos implant, there is often an abortion to reduce the pregnancy to something safer. Some mothers refuse to do this and you get “Octomom.” I respect them for not terminating their children, but it definitely made for some very high-risk pregnancies. The fact is if you are going to say that you believe something, you cannot pick and choose what it applies to. The evidence points to life begins at conception which means artificial methods of conception need to be looked at as well. I touched on this in my viability argument and I’ll just post that again here:

What about embryo adoption though? Did you know that that is possible? That that is even being done? It has already happened that parents who use IVF, and have no further need for the other embryos they have frozen allow other couples who cannot conceive naturally to adopt them. It has been called the earliest form of adoption. Well, how does this fit into the viability idea? If you can take an embryo and implant it into someone else’s womb? What if you can develop artificial wombs? What if you can remove a fetus in the first trimester and still keep it alive? The whole viability argument makes me feel a bit uncomfortable to be honest, because it is so inherently subjective.

As a side note, I wonder how those embryos who were adopted feel when they grow up. They know that they weren’t the lucky embryo chosen by their biological parents. They were the one frozen, unwanted, and then lucky enough to be granted a chance to truly live when they were given up for adoption. How do they feel knowing they have a biological sibling living with a different set of parents? That maybe they have more still frozen? When an infant is given up for adoption, it is usually a loving decision based upon the mother’s, and possibly even the father’s, recognition that they cannot care for the child. Frozen embryos though…they’re just children, or potential children if you don’t recognise them as being alive, stuck in a freezer. Their parents just have no need for them.

Since I’m on the subject I’ll just go all out and talk about that last point too: The family. 

I remember reading an article years and years ago about how in a family one child was given away, and one was allowed to stay. It was years ago, so I remember few of the details, but I do remember the parent was confused that the child who stayed kept acting out. Surely since she was the one who was kept, she would have felt more safe? In truth though, the child felt worse because she never felt “safe” in a family where people left. She learned that being loved seemed to be conditional. She wanted to know what the limits were for her. When would she be sent away? 

I was conceived right after my mother miscarried my elder brother. He was miscarried so late, he was almost born stillborn, but if he had been born, I would never have been conceived. It’s a crazy thought to me, because I was almost miscarried too. (My mom really struggled to carry a pregnancy to term.) I think sometimes about how it could have been James that was born, and me that was lost. As a consequence, I view my life as even more of a miracle then it already is. My brother died and I was able to live. It’s a humbling thought, and I can’t take it lightly. James is a part of my life, and while my family and I don’t speak of him often, when we do it is with love and grief and respect. My mother even cried once saying she could never have chosen between us, and she wishes she could have raised us both. I often find I want to live a good life, for his sake, as well as my own, and my family’s, and others. James is as important to me. I don’t want to waste the gift I was granted. I wonder though how it would feel if James had been aborted instead. There are, of course, few studies done on the siblings of aborted children, but what I have found indicates grief, anger, and survivor’s guilt–especially those who were once part of multiples that were “selectively reduced”. There have even been developed support groups for the siblings of aborted children who are struggling with it. Abortion rocks the entire family.

One woman who works at a Pregnancy Counselling Centre stated:

“Abortion teaches children that they have worth because they were conceived in the right conditions and at the right time; that they have value because their parents want them. Up to 50% of all American children have lost a brother or a sister to abortion, making it much more likely that they live with a performance view of love: I was born because I was wanted therefore I better perform so they will continue to love me.”

I imagine this is particularly understandable for those who were kept because they were a girl or a boy, and the parents wanted a girl or a boy rather than the opposite sex. Do you only love me because I’m the right gender? 

The above woman also said:

“I think one of the most difficult things for me to face is a woman who is attempting to justify an abortion for the sake of her other children. I always want to tell them…the best thing for her little ones is to have a brother or a sister. In fact, explaining to sons and daughters a few years in the future as to why they aborted their sibling will probably be the most difficult thing they will ever do[.]”

One sibling described how her mother felt unequal to raising a fourth child so aborted the baby. She was left wondering if she’d been that fourth child, would she have been aborted? It’s an uncomfortable question. Love is unconditional, and that should never be in question, and neither should someone’s right to live. These concepts go hand in hand. The value of a life does not rest on it’s convenience, gender, or health.  

This is the heart of the pro-life movement. It is about the inherent dignity of all human life from conception to natural death. It means to be so respectful of the dignity of the human person, you could not fathom supporting anything that would harm them. It means such a fundamental respect for human life that you do not terminate it, rather you do everything you can to support it. It means a respect for life so deep that you do not take the risks of having sex if you aren’t willing to carry a pregnancy, however unlikely it is to occur, to term. It means looking at children as blessing not burdens. It means loving the people you have in your life, young, old, or middle-aged whatever their physical or mental state. It means asking yourself the difficult question: Are people an inconvenience to you? It means pushing for better maternity leave, paternity leave, social services, health care, foster care, adoption services, palliative care, and so on and so forth. More than that, it means being willing to pitch-in and help out yourself. It’s not just about what happens in the abortion clinic. To truly believe in life and love means making a commitment. It will not always be easy, but it is worth it. Abortion may be the “easy” option, but it is not the best one. It shouldn’t even be option at all, and it is devastating in basically every way. 

[nothingman]

AP/Evan Agostin/Jae C. Hong

Sex workers learned Senator Bernie Sanders voted in favor of FOSTA-SESTA, two laws signed by President Trump last week to curb sex trafficking — and then praised Cardi B, a rapper who first attracted attention for being open about her career as a stripper on social media — and now they are upset.

Both bills — the House version known as FOSTA, which stands for Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, and its Senate companion, Stop Enabling Sex-Trafficking Act (SESTA) — were met with bipartisan support in Congress. On February 27, the House passed FOSTA with a final vote of 388-25. The Senate followed by passing SESTA by an overwhelming 97-2 margin.

In spite of the bipartisan support, the anti-trafficking legislation has received strong pushback from sex workers, whom advocates of the bill purport to be protecting, for its destabilizing and demoralizing effect.

Most recently, Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders has borne the brunt of that criticism, after he voted in favor of the measure.

Ginger Banks, a 27-year-old sex worker, decided to make a video to alert Sanders to the dangers the anti-trafficking bills are creating for the sex work industry.

Making a video for @SenSanders asking him to think about the dangers SESTA/FOSTA are creating for the sex work industry. If you would like to contribute a message to him record something and send it to gingerbanks3@gmail.com 💕 — Ginger Banks (@gingerbanks1) April 18, 2018

Banks, who told Salon that she was a "huge" Sanders supporter, and even canvassed for his 2016 presidential campaign, said she was surprised to learn that he voted in favor of FOSTA-SESTA. Speaking over the phone, Banks said she hopes the video will "reach [Sanders] and ask him to possibly add the rights of sex workers to the list of things that he's willing to fight for."

Despite her upset, Banks said the Vermont senator is "someone that I still believe in." She said that she was inspired to create the video after Sanders tweeted Cardi B this week. On Wednesday, Sanders invoked the rapper in a tweet, writing, "Cardi B is right. If we are really going to make America great we need to strengthen Social Security so that seniors are able to retire with the dignity they deserve."

Cardi B is right. If we are really going to make America great we need to strengthen Social Security so that seniors are able to retire with the dignity they deserve. https://t.co/B8cOkoOdLc

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) April 18, 2018

The Senator's tweet was met with criticism from sex workers, who wondered why he couldn't come to their defense and oppose the draconian legislation.

Sydney Leathers, a 25-year-old adult film actress and Anthony Weiner's former sexting partner, tweeted, "Hey Bernie: Cardi is a former stripper. You voted for SESTA which endangers sex workers. Please don't try to use her for clout. We know how you really feel."

Hey Bernie: Cardi is a former stripper. You voted for SESTA which endangers sex workers. Please don’t try to use her for clout. We know how you really feel. https://t.co/9xRkJ6fCRs

— Sydney Leathers (@sydneyelainexo) April 18, 2018

Leathers point was amplified as other sex workers blasted the senator's interaction with Cardi B.

"I love when Bernie tries to make relevant tie ins with his campaign but forgets he's quoting a former sex worker who would have definitely been harmed by his decision to vote yes on SESTA/FOSTA," a sex worker named Brooke tweeted.

Other women in the sex work also expressed their disapproval.

Why did you vote in favor of #FOSTA #SESTA? This bill will lead to the deaths of consensual sex workers like me. I did everything I could to support you in the primaries and I feel like you have thrown me under the bus. Did you even read the bill? #LetUsSurvive

— ☠ Goddess Lysistrata ☠ (@MissLysiNyc) April 3, 2018

  With FOSTA-SESTA, many sex workers fear for their future and are worried they'll be forced to go back on the street.

The bill, which was introduced by Missouri Republican Rep. Ann Wagner, makes it a federal crime — punishable by up to 10 years in prison — to operate “an interactive computer service” with “the intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person.” That means online publishers, like the recently shuttered Backpage.com, would be responsible if third parties are found to be posting ads for sex work — including consensual sex work — on their platforms.

Banks, who has been a sex worker for nine years, condemned the legislation's failure to differentiate between illegal and consensual sex work, calling it dangerous. Banks said it has made her reconsider some of the services she offers out of fear. She plans to address this problem in her video to Bernie Sanders.

"Conflating sex trafficking with consensual adult sex work does so much more harm than good," she explained. "Decriminalizing sex work is what I believe is the answer to protecting not only people who choose to do sex work but those who are forced into it."

Banks says the bills' failure to differentiate between trafficking and consensual work further highlights the stigma surrounding sex work. In addition to calling out Sanders for his support of the legislation, Banks wants her video "to focus on the social acceptance of sex work."

"One of the basis of our argument is bodily autonomy and our right to choose what we want to do with our body," she explained. "And when we want to choose as adults to do legal sex work then we should have that right. Making that illegal is immoral because it tells me what I can't do with my body."

"Sex work is just like like any other work," Banks continued. "Sex work has given me the ability to see clearly what I want to do with my body. And it's given me an extra sense of value. ... I have met some of the most open-minded, strong-willed and independent people in the sex work industry."

The legislation has already begun to chill free speech online.

Survivors Against SESTA has been tracking the dozens of websites that have shut down or updated their services while the law was being written, preemptively self-censoring in preparation of the bills' enactment.

In response to the bills, Assembly Four, the organization that developed Switter  — a website with more than 49,000 members and is considered one of the last online spaces friendly to sex workers — announced that its website, hosted by Cloudflare, had been removed and blocked. As of Thursday afternoon, Switter was back up and running.

You guys, the Cloudflare thing is BAD and worth noting, but https://t.co/C0sbA3EViJ is NOT completely doomed nor down right now. I'd say keep using it. They went back up quickly, I see them being up for the foreseeable future. Cloudflare was a US company, there are others.

— Liara Roux (@LiaraRoux) April 19, 2018

Geezus — @Cloudflare bans Mastadon’s new “Switter” platform for sex workers just as it was getting off the ground https://t.co/UW3f06nGZD

— Elizabeth Nolan Brown (@ENBrown) April 19, 2018

The brief removal of Switter follows Craigslist's axe of its personal ads section, which has been around since 1995. The site's personal ads had garnered a negative reputation for stories of murders, rape, and most recently, fathers trying to sell their children for sex. In 2010, the site shut down the section of its sites that carried sex-related advertising after it faced pressure from state attorneys general and groups fighting sex crimes.

Despite the lasting stigma, Banks is hopeful for change. She pointed to the LGBTQ movement as model sex workers could emulate. "I look back at how the view of homosexuality has changed in this country. And I try to learn a lot from that movement and do as much as I can to help sex work become more socially accepted," she said.

Banks pointed to Sanders' 50-year-history of standing up for civil and minority rights, explaining that to be one reason why many sex workers like her rallied behind the Democratic presidential candidate in 2016.

"A lot of us realize and see the stigma and other areas of society and inequality and because of that we want to help change the world in the most positive way possible," Banks said. "I know a lot of us saw that in Bernie Sanders."

This is not the first time Sanders has come under fire for not doing enough to protect women. Last April, the Senator defended campaigning for Omaha, Neb., mayoral candidate Heath Mello, an anti-abortion rights Democrat, in an interview with NPR.

Mello has co-sponsored several bills in Nebraska's unicameral legislature that would restrict abortion rights, including a 2009 bill that would offer or require women seeking abortions to get an ultrasound.

Though Sanders came under scrutiny for supporting Mello, he pushed back on NPR, saying, "The truth is that in some conservative states there will be candidates that are popular candidates who may not agree with me on every issue. I understand it. That's what politics is about."

"If we are going to protect a woman's right to choose, at the end of the day we're going to need Democratic control over the House and the Senate, and state governments all over this nation," Sanders continued. "And we have got to appreciate where people come from, and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda. But I think you just can't exclude people who disagree with us on one issue."

Sen. Sanders did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

via Salon

[catholiccom-blog]

Should Catholics Stop Opposing Homosexual Behavior?

If the Catholic Church is casting a negative light on itself by opposing something that the culture has accepted as a norm, then should the Catholic Church give up its efforts in opposing the homosexual lifestyle?

This is a question that a caller posed to me the other day on Catholic Answers Live, but we should think it through with further reflection.

To the questions above, I say “No!” But unfortunately there are some Catholics who would answer yes. For example, Catholic author Joseph Bottum wrote in a 2013 article for Commonweal magazine:

Campaigns against same-sex marriage are hurting the church, offering the opportunity to make Catholicism a byword for repression in a generation that, even among young Catholics, just doesn’t think that same-sex activity is worth fighting about.

A more recent example is Fr. James Martin, who in his recent book Building A Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity seems to suggest this approach.

There are many things that we could say in response, but I offer four reasons why I think this way of thinking is wrongheaded.

Staying true

Let’s suppose that we embrace Bottum’s view for argument’s sake. What are we to do when the culture vehemently opposes other Christian beliefs? Are we to give up the fight in defense of those beliefs as well?

For example, the culture opposes the Church’s position on abortion with great fervor, and sees the Church’s teaching as oppressing the freedom of women. Should Catholics give up the fight for life lest we be viewed as repressive?

Suppose the culture adopts Norse mythology and seeks to bring into vogue the pagan deities of Odin, Thor, and Loki. Such deities may become so favored that the culture sees the Christian belief in Jesus’s divinity as a grave threat, and mocks anyone who publicly voices such belief.

Perhaps denial of these pagan deities would even result in death. Should the Catholic Church cease to preach the reality of the one true God made flesh in Jesus lest it be seen as fanatical? I don’t think so.

No Catholic can reasonably embrace the logic embedded in Bottum’s argument because it ultimately undermines the identity of the Church. As Pope Paul VI writes in Evangelii Nuntiandi, “Evangelizing is in fact the grace and vocation proper to the Church, her deepest identity. She exists in order to evangelize” (14).

If the Church must be silent in the face of the culture’s opposition to its beliefs about human sexuality, then the Church would also have to be silent in the face of the culture’s opposition to any of its beliefs if pressured enough. No Catholic should be willing to cross such boundaries of cowardice.

Failure in love

Another reason why the Church should not back off in its opposition to homosexual behavior is because doing so would be to give up on its love for those who struggle with homoerotic desires. As Paul Gondreau, professor at Providence College in Rhode Island, likes to say, “To teach the truth of the human condition and of human happiness is the most loving thing the Church can do.”

The Church’s opposition to sexual activity among members of the same sex is due to the intrinsic evil of such behavior, which cannot possibly contribute to authentic human happiness. Our good as human beings is tied to the general ends that our nature directs us toward (e.g., self-preservation, propagation of the human species, knowledge of the truth), and in particular to the ends of our capacities inherent in human nature, including our sexual desires. To use our sexuality in ways that actively frustrate the achievement of its natural end (procreation and unitive love) cannot possibly be good for us, even if it involves pleasure and emotion.

Now, in the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, “We love someone so as to wish good to him” (Summa Theologiae II-II:23:1). But not only does love involve willing the good, it also involves actions to help those whom we love achieve those goods and to protect such goods from profanation.

For example, I must not only desire my wife and children’s good, but I must also do what I can to help them achieve it (e.g., educate them in the truth, write this article so as to financially support them, and provide them the emotional support they need).  

Love also demands that I protect my family from that which threatens their good.  It would be contrary to love if I remained silent and passive in the face of an aggressor threatening the well being of my family.  

Similarly, if the Church is to properly love those with homoerotic desires in imitation of Christ, then it must work to help these people achieve their good in the sexual arena, which necessarily involves protecting such goods from profanation. And since homosexual behavior is a profanation of the good of human sexuality, the Church can do nothing but denounce it and call those participating in it to conversion. To fail to do so would leave many in their misery.

Bigotry need not apply

Third, we can deny the premise of the argument, namely, that opposing the homosexual lifestyle will cast an unnecessary negative light on the Church. Sure, it will not work in our favor if Catholics oppose homosexual behavior with mere emotion and lack charity in their approach.

But a calm and reasoned approach that shows the inseparable connection of the procreative and unitive dimensions of human sexuality can show that the Church is not guilty of what the culture often accuses it of: bigotry. The Church has a robust metaphysics of human sexuality, and I am convinced that if shared it can at least gain respect from those who strongly disagree.

I witnessed it firsthand when I presented the Church’s philosophical approach to human sexuality to a group of students at the University of San Diego. The professor who coordinated the event, one whom vocally supports the homosexual lifestyle, stated in correspondence that our “love and care for the students, as well as the logic of our arguments, were unequivocally apparent,” and that our presentations were “clear, engaging, and raised many questions for the students.” This is definitely a step in the right direction and a far cry from bigotry.

The two edged sword of truth

Finally, it belongs to the nature of truth to affirm and to deny. To say belief X is true, it necessarily implies that its denial is false. There is no way of getting around the negative aspect of truth.

For the Church to proclaim the truth about human sexuality, namely its intrinsic ordering to heterosexual marriage, it necessarily involves the denial of certain behaviors that violate this truth, including sexual activity among members of the same sex.

But just because those who engage in such behavior view this teaching in a negative light, which is not surprising, the Church should not back off in its proclamation of the truth. If it were to do so we would lose sight of the good of human sexuality, which is too high of a price to pay.

What the Church can do to check herself is ask, “Is this negative light due to the truth itself, or due to the manner of presenting the truth?” We must always proclaim the truth, but we must do so in a way that helps others calmly think through the rationale step by step.

[jillmckenzie1]

Tales of a Solo Traveler

I summited Half Dome last week. And, while I want to sit here and boast about my pride in reflection of that accomplishment, the truth is that it’s been bittersweet. Yosemite National Park had been the number one spot on my bucket list since I started climbing just over a year ago. Unfortunately, traveling solo leaves this rock climber without a perma-belayer, so I chose to enter the daily lottery for the Half Dome hike, a rather stringent process that allows only a select few applicants access to the summit by way of cables. And, well, I won. Stoke was too high.

Really, I was itching to get on the road. I had spent the prior three weeks in Newport Beach waiting on news about my car engine, and while I thoroughly enjoyed soaking in some extra California sun, my bones were aching to be behind the wheel. The five-hour drive from Southern California to Yosemite is, by my standards, a quick jaunt. One that I accepted with open arms.

Devils Bridge (Sedona, AZ)

I found an RV spot about 40 minutes outside of the Park (little did I know that the Half Dome trailhead is another 40 minutes into the Park when traveling up from the south), and I set my alarm for 3:43am (that’s not a typo, I actually only set my alarms on random increments). I woke up, brushed my teeth, flossed (yes, this is important), walked Nugget, grabbed my snacks and hopped in the car by 4:30am. As planned, I hit the trailhead just after 6:00am with my headlamp properly fashioned under my messy bun.

The moral of this story has nothing to do with these minor details, however. I could describe how the granite looked in the sprawl of that September sunrise (like hand-drawn ice cream sundaes, the black ink pooling over their edges), but those would only be my words. And, I could most certainly offer up hundreds of photos and videos, but I wouldn’t be able to transmit the smell of the Redwoods or let you touch the beating of my chest after climbing up Half Dome’s aggressively vertical rock face. I would do my best. But, it wouldn’t be enough.

No, the real moral of this story is the loneliness. It’s the juxtaposition of a solo traveler’s joy to see the unimaginable and the sorrow to be on the end of an unmet high five. Because, I can’t take a good enough picture to import anyone into this memory.

A couple months ago I wrote a blog post about traveling alone (which you can read here). I encouraged readers to not fear facing an adventure as a solo person. I am still a firm believer in my words. I am proof that there is an unparalleled confidence that comes from making a choice to simply go without having the ability to lean on another individual to decide where to stay, or what to eat, or when to wake up and where to explore.

So, yes, do not be afraid to travel alone. But (there is always a but), don’t become so comfortable in your independence that you are then alienated from, or opposed to, or afraid of traveling together.

Let me explain.

When I was leaving Newport Beach, my dad watched me hitch up my Airstream to my car, a task that I have done so many times at this point that I could quite literally do it with my eyes closed. I didn’t even think twice about my process in that moment, and as much as he wanted to help, he knew that it would hinder my efficiency to have a set of untrained hands involved in the minutiae. So, he watched from afar. And, as he watched, I fixated on the idea of not having to do it alone anymore. I imagined the ease that would exist alongside another set of trained hands (even if that training was gleaned over time) in tandem with a lifetime supply of steady jokes (yes, witty banter required).

My thoughts then shifted to how many people in relationship with one another struggle to take on such tasks without erupting into full blown fight mode. Like, so many. And, for a brief second, I felt a sense of relief that the only person to whom I had to answer was myself. I was thrilled to exist inside my own solitude where no one could tell me I was doing something wrong and then get mad because I’ve vocalized that I believed there was another way.

Uh-oh, I thought to myself. I am becoming dependent on my independence. Abort. ABORT.

Because, I don’t want to do any of this, or that, or the other alone. And, I haven’t given up hope that fighting (and, therefore, not fighting) is a choice. I’m not willing to ascribe to arguments as being normal. I am not so naïve to think that disagreements don’t exist inside of romance (I’m quite opinionated and not afraid to share it), but I’m not playing on a team that believes that nagging and belittling and disrespecting are acceptable verbs to describe communication between two people who also use words like “love” to define their connection.

At this point in the story, let’s return to Yosemite.

Half Dome Summit (Yosemite National Park)

Half Dome is approximately an 18 mile hike out and back. It is normal to leap frog other hikers as people stop to get water, eat, and rest. I found myself going back and forth with a couple who clearly had experience in the adventure category. When we got to the cables to summit the final portion of the hike, they immediately started to put on their harnesses (not a requirement, by the way). I quickly learned why. She was terrified of heights. I could see the fear glazing over her pupils. As we steadily embarked on this voyage up, what feels like, a ninety-degree angle rock face, I expected him to quickly lose his patience as she constantly asked to stop so that she could gather herself. He never did. Not once. I have truly never heard an individual ask someone if he or she is okay more times than I did on that ten-minute uphill heave. The care he exhibited towards her was, at the core of its being, simply beautiful.

Meanwhile, I’m throwing myself up the side of this mountain and constantly checking in with my own being to ensure that I, too, am okay. I’m tired. My feet are incredibly sore. And, I’m most certainly hungry. But, yes, I am okay by standard definition of the word.

What I’m reminded of in this moment is that I need both. I cannot give to others if I am not okay, if I do not know how to make myself whole. But, I am doing a disservice to this world if I am not also giving to others. I become more whole as an individual in my pursuit of, or filling up of, other people’s cups.

If I had a dollar for every person who asked me if I was actually alone on my recent adventures, I’d be able to support my Whole Foods habit for the next week. The question comes out of a state of being impressed, and yes, that gives me a sense of pride. But, it paradoxically intimidates some people and makes them utter things like, “Well, you’re Stephanie fucking Kemp” when I make a single solitary comment about having a bad day. Right. Because my independence makes me immune to feeling. Because my independence makes me invincible. Because my independence makes me completely satiated on my own accord. Please read my sarcasm here.

I didn’t choose independence. I adopted independence out of circumstance. I embraced it when I needed it to survive. What I am now learning is that if you do things alone, the things that set your soul on fire, you are sacrificing the opportunity to share them with someone else in that we-are-both-seeing-this-for-the-first-time excitement. You are simultaneously creating a reputation for yourself that you don’t “need” anyone else in order to explore your heart’s desires. If you choose the latter. If you wait to do everything with someone by your side, then you sacrifice your passions. You become a by-stander to your being. You become victim to waiting, and the truth is that you may never get to do those things that capsize your essence.

So. You are damned if you do. You are damned if you don’t.

Because, it may impress people that I summited Half Dome solo. Hell, yes, I am impressed with myself. But, it’s very bittersweet to accomplish such a feat without someone to ask if I’m okay as we voyage to the top. Solo high-fives are rather anticlimactic, and gigantic hugs, which require two bodies, are necessary at the end of long days filled with adventure. My innate being yearns for that camaraderie.

Upon leaving Yosemite, I head towards the desert of Arizona. I hike the tallest peak in Flagstaff (with Nugget), and I

Airport Mesa (Sedona, AZ)

explore the vortexes in Sedona. On my first night atop Airport Mesa, I am completely taken aback by the grandeur of the setting sun. I’m also reminded that there’s no one to hold my hand in awe of such beauty, to squeeze the spaces in between my fingers as my jaw softens to a point where there is just the slightest space between my lips. So, I pull out my phone to send an Instagram video to my best friend, and to answer a guy’s text who is more than likely stringing me along, and to send another photo to my mom. That is what I’m doing. I’m here, present, in one of the most beautiful places in this world, and I’m pulling out my phone in an attempt to implant the most important people of my life into these memories. Then, I wonder if this makes me not present at all.

Maybe the point is that I should verbally share this beauty with the stranger standing next to me. But, maybe it is not. Maybe I am me because I yearn for the loyalty of one hand, one voice, one life. Because, I know people who travel well alone. People who become best friends with every random person at a bar. This is not my wiring, which is not to say that I can’t or I won’t engage in conversation with my random passers-by (I mean, these are the people who kindly take my photos so I don’t have to settle for never-ending selfies) or an occasional bartender. But, my soul does not yearn for those connections.

So, maybe I’m doing this whole thing all wrong. And, maybe I’m doing it right.

Because, I believe that we can exist inside of this yearning without it paralyzing our action. We can be both aware of those spaces within us that feel empty and also content despite their empty existence.

I know that my learning here is to find the peace in the awareness. Whether or not I continue to knock off every major bucket list item as a solo traveler is still up for further exploration. But what I do know is that, right now, it’s 1:22am and my back itches. Badly. In one of those places that I can’t reach and no matter what I do, nothing seems to work. Even if I am “Stephanie fucking Kemp.”

from Blog https://ondenver.com/tales-of-a-solo-traveler/

[helizabethprolife]

The Case for Abortion

           Abortion has and always will be a controversial topic since it’s legalization during the infamous court case Roe vs. Wade. Doctors, scientists, philosophers, religious officials, writers, and psychologists alike have all had something to say pertaining to the topic. Whether or not they make a convincing argument in regards to their position is discussed here.

           The article, “Authorization of Abortion for a ‘Serious Danger to Mental Health’: Would the Practice Stand up to the Judicial Test?” by Amy Dixon, makes a convincing argument in favor of their points (Dixon, 2012). The thirty-three page long article speaks heavily on the issue of mental illness and the moral compass of New Zealand when it comes to the country’s beliefs regarding abortion. The argument of whether or not mental health would be impacted is debated. It states:

The continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger (not being danger normally attendant upon childbirth) to the life, or to the physical or mental health of the mother (this is the ground which includes the mental health exception); or there is a substantial risk of severe fetal abnormality; or the pregnancy is a result of incest or unlawful sex with a guardian; or the mother is severely mentally subnormal (Dixon, 2012, p. 292, pp. 2).

           The main focus of the article is to try and legalize abortion in New Zealand. The author also wants to see if the argument that abortion affects mental health could hold up in court. With the rise of mental illness daily, the author proves that abortion affects all aspects of health.

           Next, “The Burden of Abortion and the Preterm Birth Crisis” by M.J. McCaffrey makes good arguments against abortion and about the issues that lead to a baby being born premature (McCaffrey, 2017). Specifically, he connects the ideas that if a woman has had a previous abortion, her future pregnancies will all be high-risk because of the damage done to her uterus. A strong point made is the issue of smoking during pregnancy. It is highly discouraged, yet many women do it:

Cigarette smoking is generally recognized to be among the most prevalent, preventable causes of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Smoking is strongly related to placental abruption, reduced birth weight, and infant mortality (McCaffrey, 2017, p. 75, pp. 4)

This article perhaps has one of the strongest central arguments with great facts. It makes sense and provides great insight on why abortion is unhealthy and what (including abortion) can lead to preterm birth.

           In “Healthcare and Planned Parenthood: The Significance for Pro-Life OB/GYNs” by Jeffrey J. Pauls and Carl Landwehr, the lead focus is discussing Planned Parenthood and if it really does what it says it does for women’s health (Pauls & Landwehr, 2017). A study on this was done on 70 women from across the country who went to Planned Parenthood for services (Pauls & Landwehr, 2017). Birth control is a main concept used and highly promoted by Planned Parenthood, especially to adolescent females (Pauls & Landwehr, 2017). Studies show that the oral contraceptive failure rate in adolescents is 15-26%, as opposed to the 5-8% in adult women (Pauls & Landwehr, 2017).

           Studies show that although women’s short term futures were helped by having abortions, their long-term futures were not:

Abortion, according to many respondents in the Saving Grace study, did protect their material future selves (education, career, lifestyle) but the many instances and examples of compartmentalization, justification, rationalization and minimization demonstrated that most of the women were still dealing with a lasting negative impact on their joyful (happy, healthy, holistic) selves many years or decades after their abortion(s) (Pauls & Landwehr, 2017, p. 318, pp. 4)

There was ample information that was included from various studies and information about those studies to prove that the authors did know what they were talking about and provided information about the studies they conducted.

           The article, “Local Access to a Planned Parenthood Clinic Link To Reduced Dropout Rates” provides a polar opposite viewpoint on Planned Parenthood. The article states that in a study from the 2012-2013 American Community Service, that young women who had access to a Planned Parenthood were less likely to drop out of school. The article was incredibly limited in data that it provided, which the article knew and addressed:

The investigators acknowledge several limitations of their study. They note that their findings may not reflect causal relationships and that their models may not have accounted for all of the relevant characteristics that may distinguish geographic areas (Local Access to a Planned Parenthood Clinic Link To Reduce Dropout Rates, 2016, p. 155, pp. 6).

There wasn’t enough information provided to make a knowledgeable assessment on whether or not Planned Parenthood actually helped these young mothers. It was a short article, and it didn’t give much information on what types of services they provided to them. In comparison to the last article, which had information about the women and the studies that were performed, this article did not.

           Another article titled, “Pro-Choice Versus Pro-Life: The Relationship Between State Policy and Child Well-Being in the United States” by Marshall Medoff talks about the importance of pro-choice laws and how only 2% of women each year get an abortion (Medoff, 2016). The article provides a strong central argument against pro-life individuals and their views:

Pro-choice supporters maintain that pro-life supporters have a selective   commitment to the sanctity of life. They argue that if state restrictive abortion laws reflect this respect and regard for human life, then one would expect such states to provide a significant range of services for the well-being of infants and children. Pro-choice supporters contend that a paradox of life exists because the states with the most restrictive abortion laws are the same states that ignore the needs and welfare of children (Medoff, 2016, p. 159, pp. 3)

There is very much truth in this argument. Many times, pro-choice people often call pro-life people “pro-birth”, meaning that they only say the child has value while in utero and once born, they don’t care anymore about the sanctity of the child’s life. The study used information from viable sources and detailed its use of the sources very thoroughly. Examples of sources include NARAL ProChoice America, Centers for Disease Control’s (2005) Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, National Committee for Adoption’s (2006) Adoption Factbook, Finer and Kost, U.S. Bureau of the Census’ (2011) Statistical Abstract of the United States, and the National Center for Health Statistics available on the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s website (Medoff, 2016).

           In the article, “Abortion and Breast Cancer: Recent Evidence Confirms a Robust Link” by Joel Brind, a study was shown that among women who have had induced abortions are 50% more likely to develop breast cancer in the future (Brind, 2015). This study was criticized by Lynn Rosenberg on the basis of response bias (Brind, 2015).

           Rosenberg then cited the 1991 study by Lindefors-Harris, who claimed that women with breast cancer lied or “overreported” and said that they had had abortions that were not on record (Brind, 2015). Another study was eventually done and concluded:

Within 3 months of the publication of our meta-analysis, a huge prospective study by Mads Melbye et al. on women in Denmark (using US tax dollars) was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.7 Melbye’s conclusions: “Induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer (Brind, 2015, p. 154, pp. 5)

This article definitely proves that there are people out there who are willing to make up false information in order to gain a certain response, hence the use of response bias. There are most likely links to other informative and scholarly sources that could provide more information in regards to linking abortion with breast cancer. This source was a critique within itself, discussing certain studies being done and having those studies be criticized by others and more studies being done to disprove or better answer the questions that the prior studies couldn’t do to lack of information and bias.

           Abortion is such a controversial topic that needs to constantly be discussed. Whether it be trying to legalize abortion, raising awareness for women who could potentially have a preterm baby due to prior abortion(s), discussing the importance of Planned Parenthood, and whether or not abortion leads to breast cancer, the sources chosen reflect my views as a pro-life person. I do believe that Planned Parenthood isn’t vital for women’s health, only for abortion. There are several other places that a woman can go to if she needs something like birth control or an ultrasound that doesn’t provide abortion. Although many don’t want to discuss abortion and its risks, there are many of them.

References

Brind, J. (2015). Abortion and Breast Cancer: Recent Evidence Confirms a Robust Link. Issues In Law & Medicine, 30(2), 153-157.

Dixon, A. (2012). Authorisation of abortion for a 'serious danger to mental health': Would the practice stand up to the judicial test?. Victoria University Of Wellington Law Review, (2), 289.

 Local Access to a Planned Parenthood Clinic Linked To Reduced Dropout Rates. (2016). Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health, 48(3), 154-155. doi:10.1363/48e10816

 McCaffrey, M. J. (2017). The Burden of Abortion and the Preterm Birth Crisis. Issues In Law & Medicine, 32(1), 73.

 Medoff, M. (2016). Pro-Choice Versus Pro-Life: The Relationship Between State Abortion Policy and Child Well-Being in the United States. Health Care For Women International, 37(2), 158-169. doi:10.1080/07399332.2013.841699

 Pauls, J. J., & Landwehr, C. (2017). Healthcare and Planned Parenthood: The Significance for Pro-Life OB/GYNs. Issues In Law & Medicine, 32(2), 315-324