In the 19th century owning African Americans as slaves was legal — it was the law, but it was not right! At the beginning of the 20th century, there was a law in this land that women could not vote — it was the law, but it was not right! In the 21st century, there is a law in this land that abortion is legal — it is the law, but it is not right!
Throughout history there have been groups of people crying out for liberty, justice, and freedom. In this country we need to assure that there is liberty and justice for all. In particular, we should continue to work for a sense of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As we mark the 39th anniversary of the decision in the landmark case, Roe v Wade, which legalized abortion in this country, I believe that it is important to speak up and defend the sacredness of life. Life begins at the moment of conception.
Unfortunately, the argument for keeping abortion legal in this country is the same argument that was used for slavery: that certain people are property and that others have the power of life or death over them. What was once thought to be the safest place for a child — the mother’s womb — is no longer the case.
When Roe v Wade became a part of our nation’s history in January 1973, it removed every legal protection from human beings prior to birth. The effects of Roe v Wade is virtually incalculable. Many lives have been destroyed before birth and even during the very process of being born. Countless women have been traumatized by abortion but now spend years struggling to find peace and healing. Many men have grieved because they could not “choose” to protect the child they helped bring into existence. And many in our society tolerate abortion in order to be politically correct which only results in becoming callus to the destruction of human life.
The Declaration of Independence, written more than 200 years ago, speaks for the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” before making this historic assertion: “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Today we see the tensions increasing between these founding principles and political reality.
Since 1973 the natural and divine right to life in our society has been continually undermined by the law itself. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in a continuing violation of the right to life of unborn children, as well as in efforts to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.
In the cruel calculus of choice, the destruction of unborn children who are considered undesirable – because they are the wrong sex, have genetic defects such as Downs Syndrome or are considered an economic, social or personal liability -- has become routine. This tragic failure of our society to protect the unborn is a disturbing reminder of another collapse of social solidarity: Germany in the 1930’s, when entire classes of people were declared to be unworthy of life and outside of the protection of the law.
In the 19th century those in favor of slavery argued that their right to property (including property in slaves) was absolute. African-American slaves and their white allies in the long struggle to abolish slavery countered by saying that while the right to property was important and legitimate (even for slaveholders), slave owners had no right to property in slaves, because slaves were human beings with a natural right to liberty.
One hundred and fifty years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the idea that human beings were routinely held in bondage and bought and sold like cattle is unimaginable. Yet many Americans before the Civil War accepted slaves and slavery as a normal part of the political, economic, social and moral landscape. We wonder how it was possible that otherwise good and well-meaning people could be so blind to such a moral evil.
From my perspective, I wonder if future generations will look back on our time and wonder how people of our age could be so indifferent to the fate of so many of our unborn children and so accepting of legalized abortion.
• Burns is the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Juneau and Southeast Alaska.
Comments (68)
Add commentTo the Dem's, unborn baby's
To the Dem's, unborn baby's are just 3/5 human. Well at least they are consistent.
Oppose abortion? Then don't have one!
I wish to correct the Bishop's first paragraph:
"In the early 20th century, women could not vote nor could they have an abortion. It was the law, but it was not right."
Thank God things have changed.
Thank God for the U.S. Constitution and the protections it affords its peoples. Thank God for the right to privacy and the rights of women to their own bodies and reproductive systems.
I find it ironic that the Bishop once again points fingers at "[C]ountless women have been traumatized by abortion but now spend years struggling to find peace and healing. Many men have grieved because they could not choose to protect the child they helped bring into existence..." but then the Bishop ignores (and never mentions) the countless lives destroyed by his church causing equally grave trauma to its members. These people are also struggle to find the peace and healing the Bishop speaks of.
To see examples right here in Alaska of ruined Alaska Native lives at the hands of the Bishop's employer, click here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-silence/
This is not an attack on religion or the Bishop. It is simply pointing out how a representative of an institution known for destroying lives and preying on children is not above scrutiny or criticism.
Even the Pope himself acknowledges a worldwide scandal and cover up of how the church abuses children, and offers an apology (but no punishment):
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/world/europe/21pope.html
As for Roe v. Wade, there's a reason it has stood the test of time. It's because it is the right decision.
Don't agree with me? Then don't have an abortion. But please keep your religious dogma out of other people's uteruses.
I'll answer to my maker
I own no man an explaination and you are not my judge. At least that's what the Bible I read says.
The harm from religious garbage has destroyed more lives than you can count and in my opinion threatens the American way of life
I support choice and I oppose the imposition of you religious beliefs on me. I'll interpert the Bible in my own way thank you very much.
Now lets talk about the lives you destroy every time you buy cheap cr@p at wall mart........
To the dims...
It's not your God's choice to make for someone else.
True faith is of borne of free will.
Further comments
I suspect that the good Bishop's article may get further comments on two topics.
1. When does an embryo become a "human?" The bishop says "Life begins at the moment of conception" and that is true - it is the start of what may or even usually develop at some point to be a human. The question of when does an embryo become a human has been, and will be debated for a long time.
2. To avoid unwanted pregnancies, one proposal for a long time has been to provide more information and access to family planning and birth control - which at the present time the Catholic Church does not approve.
When I see the church...
...handing out free condoms in the high schools, funding sex education classes in the junior highs, paying for contraception for young women, and actively campaigning for state-funded prenatal care, delivery expenses, free day care... then I'll start to pay serious attention to its demands on abortion.
Standing on street corners and dragging wooden crosses around does nothing to solve the problem.
Human life is sacred...
Human life is sacred, the death penalty is wrong.
Human life is sacred, war is wrong.
Human life is sacred, not providing universal health care is wrong.
You could have gone a whole bunch of different directions after "human life is sacred".
Prof. Olson, I'm going to disagree with your comment
that life begins at conception. This phrase is not helpful in constructing a public policy about reproductive rights in a society where a government is by law to remain religiously neutral.
First, simply saying life begins at conception is demonstrably false. It could also be said that life was there before conception: the sperm and ovum are alive are they not? In fact, there has been a continuum of life in all current living organisms, humans included, reaching back for billions of years. In other words, there never was "not life" before the process of conception begin.
And let's talk about conception. It is a fallacy to state there is a moment of conception. The actual biology of conception is a complicated and drawn out event. No scientist can tell us exactly when conception occurs in the human. And no reputable scientist does.
But theologians can tell us with 100% certainty. Just think about that for a little while. I am reminded of the poet Czeslaw Milosz who once said, (paraphrase), anyone who knows something 60% well that is a great thing and let him thank God. But what are we to say of people who say they know something 80%? 90%? 100%? They are the worst kind of rascal.
I used to be 100% pro-birth (that's a more accurate term than pro-life in my opinion considering we have individuals for life, but also for death). I no longer am 100% pro-birth. The scientific facts on the matter have knocked out many of the unlettered religious objections. The god called Yahweh is not as intelligent nor as compassionate as the real men and women dealing with this complicated subject day in and day out.
And so, as I mentioned, let us continue to construct public policy, policy that must govern a multicultural society, on the merits of the scientific facts with the support of the same secular morality that abolished slavery, animal cruelty, homophobia, and the subjugation of women to name just a few. Theologians of dubious religions need not apply.
Mike
Censored. I love it.
Mike
All life is sacred - not just
All life is sacred - not just the human life form
If this movement worked to protect all life forms on our planet and "our planet" from the destructive practices of humans then I would support their efforts. But they dont.
So I dont buy into their argument that its just the "Human Life that is Sacred", because humans are the destructive beings on this planet, humans are the ones out destroying all other life forms on this planet. Now thats truly wrong.
We have no right to destroy other life forms; it is not our right to drive other species to their extinction. It is not our right to pollute ecosystems, homes, of other species. Our species is disgusting and destructive. Our earth is 4+ billions years years in the making and our species has nearly destroyed it in less than 1 hundred years.
We need less destructive species on this planet so abortion is right.
@snowowl - good one! Your
@snowowl - good one! Your dog is right up there with a human baby as far as rights are concerned.
This is the thinking we're up against, people...
I can only echo the comments of earlier posters:
When those who now advocate criminalizing the reproductive rights of women take a stand against war and the death penalty, begin advocating for universal health care and equal access to the best education, including sex education, and move to make reproductive counselling and contraception readily available to all, I'll begin to take their commitment to the sacredness of human life seriously---And I'll still vote every time to leave this important decision to the women involved.
For all of you that advocate
For all of you that advocate for government funded schools to do the teaching on reproduction, I would say that's one reason why this is such a hot topic.
It's not government's job. And look how they've approached the subject - kids have been told, 'if it feels good, do it.'
Teenage pregnancies have increased along with all the disgusting diseases that accompany that type of errant lifestyle.
Once again government has failed, on all levels.
Factually wrong again, Frenchie
"Teenage pregnancies have increased..."
Actually, teen pregnancies in the U.S. are at historic lows, continuing a downward trend that started in the 60's.
Education and contraception work. Double down on what's working.
to oneofwe
You bring up some issues that have been debated in medical ethics for many years now. The debates and discussions in medical ethics can be quite complicated at times.
Some of us who are "up in years," knowing we will not live forever, have drawn up a "living will". Some, like myself, have discussed with my physician,possible scenarios and we have agreed that if I am no longer able to make decisions, and I am not improving on life support, that the artificial life support system will be removed. It is not a question of being over 65 years of age, or any specific age, it is an individual matter of when a body can no longer support life on its own.
So there is the question of when a zygote becomes a "human" and when an organism can no longer support life. I haven't found any easy or simple answers myself.
Prof Olson, regarding life at conception
I read your post and I'd like to run something past you for your thoughts. You said life begins at conception. Personally, I find the phrase unhelpful and even misleading when framing the discussion of abortion from a scientifically based view.
Prof Olson, isn't it demonstrably true that life precedes conception? Sperm and ova are alive, are they not? In fact, there is a continuum of life in all living organisms that stretches back billions of years.
In short, there isn't "not life" before life. Thoughts?
Mike
@Mike
Isn't it also true that sperm and ova have a limited shelf life, and die naturally, unless there is a union formed.
Mike - you are right on
To be correct, I guess one should say "a new life" begins at conception and the zygote has the potential of becoming a living, independent human being. Yes, both the sperm and egg are "living" but with only half the chromosomal material needed to develop a new organism. Yes, life comes from living matter.
The core question is at what time does the united egg and sperm become a human? Does it occur the instant they unite? or hours or days later? Or when the embryo is embedded in the uterus? I don't have the answers to those questions. And so the question of a "morning after "pill as "abortion," arises.
Also, in the genetic development of an embryo due to mutations or other causes the embryo may be rejected and a woman has a miscarriage. One of my friends asked, "Does that make God an abortionist?"
We all like simple, easy to understand answers to all questions, in many cases there are no easy simple answers.
calypso? Your "rights", my
calypso? Your "rights", my "rights" these are just words made up by our species. There are other species that live here to.
This planet is not just a home for human life, this planet is the home for all life that is on this planet. The planet Earth is not "ours", we just walk all over everything on it and say it ours.
All the life forms that are here on this planet Earth are just as sacred as any humans life and yes even my dogs life.
a life, is a life - there is no distinction, to do so is to act like a god
and man is as far from "god like" than anything, I have ever, seen
Allow me one more comment
When it comes to opposition to family planning and birth control, one has to remember that for most of human history every group, clan, tribe or even empire wanted as many new members as possible to increase their strength in number and dominance. Anyone who was capable to producing new members and did not do so was shirking their duty to society.
Times have changed, world and local populations have expanded greatly, and perhaps family planning and contraceptives are now necessary.
I suspect, but have absolutely no way to support this suspicion, that if the clergy of the Catholic Church were married, had children or even a large number of children to support, care for and educate, they may take a new look at the prohibitions against contraception, birth control and family planning
Prof Olson, core questions
Yes, there are core questions. Another unhelpful phrase in framing the abortion discussion is moment of conception. That phrase is a fallacy. No reputable biologist supports the notion that science can tell us exactly the point in time when conception occurs. Conception is, as you point out, a drawn out process, not a moment.
Theologies of the world, however, know this answer with certainty; of course their beliefs are typically mutually exclusive! Just think about that. I am with Czeslaw Milosz on this point in being highly suspicious of anyone claiming one hundred percent knowledge on any given subject, let alone the subject of conception.
The core question here that is being danced around is the concept of a soul. That is a scientific question and to date, there is no evidence of such a thing nor are there compelling reasons to think there will be evidence.
I agree that many people want easy answers. Unfortunately, reproductive rights are complex subjects when trying to create honest public policy that reflects a multi cultural society with a government that is by law supposed to be religiously neutral.
Mike
Elightenment
I am wondering if the right reverend Burns cares to enlighten us with the churches views on all the sacred human lives lost in our current war?
So its wrong to own a slave
So its wrong to own a slave and a woman’s body should be a slave to fetus.
one of we
I don't quite understand your suggestion "Isn't it time to hang up the cleats and pass the mantle?"
Please explain in a way that is clear
I don't see any logic at all in your comment - maybe i'm missing something
One of we
I think Mike is right when he says conception and becoming a human being is a process, not something that can be determined at a specific time for every embryo. There is also a process in growing old, when one's body can no longer support life. Each of us is different.
Do you think that you, or the government should decide when an individual's life should end. I think that is the individual's decision to make.
@85 - not that I think you
@85 - not that I think you care but -
"From a level of 50 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 in 1986, the rate rose rapidly to 62 per 1,000 in 1991, an increase of 24%. The next five years saw a turnaround, and in 1996, 54 births occurred per 1,000 teenage women--a rate still higher than that in 1986, but 12% lower than the peak reached in 1991."
So I guess it's all in how the numbers are spun?
An old timer
I can't recall the exact age or date, but years ago a "nobody" called Col. Sanders, as an old person came up with an idea called "Kentucky Fried Chicken." Maybe he should have been removed "from the team" earlier.
Stephen Hawking is physically in terrible shape, but his ability to think, question and come up with ideas makes him a great contributor to modern science. Maybe he should "give up" and let younger folks replace him. Are you up to doing that?
Again, each human being is unique and football analogies are perhaps not the best way to try and understand the ultimate questions of life, ethics, values and human existence.
Prof Olson, life decisions
I am what you might call pro-death. Afterall, I support terminal patients who want to travel to Oregon or Switzerland and end their suffering. I also support killing in self defense and a few other scenarios on a case by case basis.
I say this because in my opinion the term pro-life can also be an unhelpful term when framing any abortion discussion that has the goal of reasonable public policy with a secular government.
I think pro-life is better coined pro-birth. And I don't support the notion that a government should construct policy that forces citizens to be pro-birth one hundred percent of the time.
Mike
Attention, Attention - Come
Attention, Attention - Come one, Come all. At 3pm today snowowl will be leading us through a rendition of kumbaya and then we'll have a drum circle as the sun sets. Dogs are welcome.
Who here agrees that man is equal to the animals and mountains and streams?
So Mike, when we, as mortal humans, don't know when life begins, why not eer on the side of caution?
@onofwe - oh, don't worry about when it's time to shove granny down the hospice chute. BOCare has that all figured out. You'll find that directive on page 2699 of the law.
Calypso, caution
A couple of things. First, science cannot tell us the exact moment when conception occurs. The problem here is that people of theology say they know with certainty. Some religions claim the first breath means the unborn is a person. Others claim a soul is infused at conception and only then is it a person. Others claim the unborn existed before being conceived.
What this illustrates to me is that theology cannot provide any meaningful contributions in the 21st century regarding scientific questions.
You speak of caution. I might counter by saying carrying a pregnancy to tfull erm is the least cautious action one can take on a number of medical fronts.
So, when you say err on the side of caution, what do you mean? Err on the side that the product of conception might have a soul? I'd like you to elaborate.
Mike