between the bookends: pro-life on porn

My newest article on Ethika Politika:

Vita Pro Omni!

Between the Bookends: Pro-Life on Porn

I’ve been thinking for some time now that pornography is an issue that ought to be addressed within the pro-life community. But I wasn’t sure why. On the surface, it appears that beginning and end of life issues (since they involve human beings at their most vulnerable and dependent stages) are what we need to be talking about; and, certainly, they are. But if being comprehensively pro-life means supporting life at every stage — from conception to natural death — it seems there’s an awful lot of life between those two bookends that we need to be concerned about. How are we defending the equally massive dignity of people who are 4, or 12, or 31, or 67?

Undoubtedly, one of the greatest predators of the middle-aged person’s dignity is the porn industry. Pornography, though a seemingly “private” issue, actually has tremendous public ramifications. It contributes exceptionally to the overall diminishing of human dignity that we see reflected in our movies, our books, our TV shows, our radio stations, and even our laws. It is poisonous to marriages, toxic to families, and detrimental to society. And it is becoming more rampant and widespread every year.

Senator Sam Brownback gathered some staggering statistics on the issue. He found that 72 million people visit Internet porn sites each year. One in five children, ages 10 to 17, has received a sexual solicitation online. Nine out of ten children, ages 8 to 16 with Internet access, have visited porn sites, usually while doing research for homework. The founder of the Center for Online Addiction reports that 65% of people who visit their site do so due to marital problems caused by cyber pornography[1]. And 2.5 billion emails every day are pornographic in nature[2].

The person who doubts that porn’s ramifications seep into all aspects of society should perhaps consider a study by Dr. Mary Anne Layden, Co-director of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program at the University of Pennsylvania. Layden reports:

"70% of hits on Internet sex sites occur between 9 and 5 on business computers. Research also indicates, and my clinical experience supports, that 40% of sex addicts will lose their spouse, 58% will suffer financial losses, and 27% to 40% will lose their job or profession."[3]

If we really think porn has no adverse influence on our lives, we are sorely kidding ourselves.

But Layden’s statistics, in particular, struck me for another reason. Remember, she found that the vast majority of all porn viewing happens between 9 and 5 on business computers. This immediately confirmed what I — and likely most of us — would imagine to be true: namely, that people seek to ogle porn in private.

But why the secrecy? Aren’t 72 million other people looking at it, too? Is there really a need for the shame and embarrassment?

No woman ever stepped off a Planned Parenthood table excited to proclaim to the world that she just aborted her pre-born child. And no pornography user ever comes home to his wife and kids eager to share the news that he spent the last two hours looking at airbrushed pictures of naked women.

Why?

Because we have a natural human capacity — call it a conscience — to know the difference between right and wrong. And try as we might to convince ourselves otherwise, we know that like the decision to procure an abortion, the decision to use pornography is hardly one to be proud of.

So we begin to try to make ourselves feel better. More specifically, we begin to justify. In the same way that a mother dehumanizes the fetus to justify killing him, the porn user dehumanizes the model to justify lusting after her (or him).

The mere concept of dehumanization ought to be enough to make us shudder, as this has been the radically prejudiced idea responsible for the tragedies of Nazi Germany, for lynching in the South, and for the Rwandan Genocide.

Whenever a certain group of people is dubbed with a less-than-human status, they are made vulnerable to attack and destruction. This is as true in 2010 for the porn star and the fetus in America as it was in 1935 for the Jew in Germany or in 1955 for the Black in Tennessee. At their core, these issues — all human rights abuses — are intrinsically and intricately linked to the dignity of the human person, and for that reason ought to be the pro-lifer’s business.

If we do not make efforts to purge America of pornography, more than our jobs, our finances, and even our marriages will be at risk; our very dignity will be threatened.

Dehumanization anywhere is a peril to human dignity everywhere. As feminist Catharine MacKinnon put it:

"When pornography is […] normal, a whole population of men is primed to dehumanize women and to enjoy inflicting assault sexually […] Pornography is the perfect preparation — motivator and instruction manual in one — for […] sexual atrocities."

I’m afraid sexual atrocities — momentous as they are on their own — are not all we have to worry about if pornography continues to batter the people between the bookends.

[1] Gustafson, Rod. Online Pornography is Addictive.

[2] Family Safe Media. Pornography Statistics 2003.

[3] Gustafon.

attention, columbus

Just wanted to send a quick announcement out to my friends in the Columbus area. The Arena Grand Movie Theater (downtown) will be showing Blood Money, a new documentary about the abortion industry in America, this coming Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday (Aug. 2-4) at 6:30 pm. Whether you are pro-life, pro-choice, or on the fence, I really recommend that you come out. You will learn something new. And a discussion will follow each night.

You can watch the trailer, pre-register, and learn more about the movie here.

Vita Pro Omni!

disrobing pro-choice euphemisms

My inaugural article on Ethika Politika, here on Vita Pro Omni for the first time:

Vita Pro Omni!

Disrobing Pro-Choice Euphemisms

There are those ideas which serve the fulfillment of the human person and there are those ideas which diametrically oppose this purpose. Of course, there are also those which are somewhere in-between— but such ideas are less noteworthy and unrelated to our discussion today. For the time-being, I would like to focus on a string of modern thought which has abused humanity and poisoned minds over the last 50 years in particular.

Throughout the course of a few decades, this mentality has essentially seeped into every corner of our society. When considered at its face value, this seems an almost shocking phenomenon: how could an ideology so dangerous, so depraved, get past millions of American’s consciences? But when we realize that this philosophy is a great masquerader, concealing its true colors behind the guises of “women’s liberation” and “population control”, it all begins to make a bit of sense.

The ideology to which I am referring is, broadly speaking, the pro-choice ideology. This doctrine insists, sans sound premise, that certain human beings ought to be labeled non-persons and thus have no rights. It insists further that the choice to destroy a living human fetus is fundamental to a woman’s freedom and equal place in society. According to this mindset, abortion is a Constitutional right and ought to be protected as such.

The ramifications of this mentality are unspeakable, but not unprecedented. Anytime unpopular human beings are reduced to something disposable, we see horrific effects. We saw it in our segregated nation under Jim Crow laws in the 1950’s, when African-Americans were lynched by the thousands because they were dark-skinned; and we see it in America today with abortion-on-demand, where the unborn are dismembered, burned, and suffocated because they are inconvenient. But I would like to think (and generally do think) that the propagators of these killings would never commit them were they to see them for what they really are.

As far as I understand, segregationists genuinely believed in their racial ideology and pro-choicers (by and large) truly believe in abortion as a just societal policy. But popular ideologies may or may not be at the service of truth. And there is good evidence that neither the segregationist nor the abortionist has his story straight.

By drawing an analogy to segregated America I do not intend to offend pro-choice readers but rather to illuminate a historical moral evil that is perhaps more clearly a moral evil due to the boon of retrospect. Masquerading ideologies are characteristically deceiving in their own time, but become transparent in following years.

This transparency comes about in several ways, but two in particular. Perhaps one could classify them as a single means involving paired steps. In any case, it seems there are several initiatives we must undertake to try to disrobe the costumed pro-choice ideology, leaving it naked and stripped of its charm.

The first initiative is educational in nature. In short, we have a responsibility to learn the facts about the unborn. The abortion question ultimately comes down to their moral status, so knowing 1) what they are and, 2) how to articulate what they are, is crucial. Embryology, biology, philosophy, sociology… all are at our service in correcting the inimical pro-choice mindset. Where there is intellectual confusion, we must submit ourselves to the service of truth and aim to correct it.

The second initiative is active in nature. Armed with proper knowledge, we can enter the realms of higher education and politics to make a legitimate case for life. This is what groups like ALL (American Life League), AUL (Americans United for Life), and the Susan B. Anthony List do, to name a few pro-life powerhouses. Without resorting to extremist tactics, never considering violence, these organizations nonetheless make measurable strides toward pro-life philosophy and policy.

Utilizing history as our teacher, we see that the Civil Rights Movement required authors and activists, professors and preachers, to bare segregation for the world to see. The Pro-Life Movement will likely prove no different.

Surely, inhuman ideas parading in dress-up clothes and pretending to be human are among the most dangerous sort— and C.S. Lewis understood this ably: “But in general, take my advice, when you meet anything that’s going to be human and isn’t yet, or used to be human once and isn’t now, or ought to be human and isn’t, keep your eyes on it and feel for your hatchet.” Pro-choice euphemisms, be gone!

her own worst enemy

Yesterday on Ethika Politika I discussed current feminists' ironic slams against women. You can read the article in its entirety both there and below.

Vita Pro Omni!

Her Own Worst Enemy

It is one thing when a person attempts to fortify abortion using personhood rhetoric. After all, if it is true that the fetus is not a person like us, perhaps it is permissible to take his or her life in order to serve the supposed benefit of someone else— a someone who is a person like us. Of course, this kind of abortion defense does fail on several significant scientific and philosophical accounts, but at least it’s a decent attempt; the abortion advocate is addressing the heart of the issue: namely, the moral status of the fetus.

It is another thing— quite entirely— when one defends abortion from “women’s rights” arguments. The modern feminist who often commits this perplexity is, in actuality, defending the antithesis of any kind of female liberation. To say that abortion is fundamental to a woman’s equal place in society is one of the lowest blows against my gender; for to say this is to propagate one among several discriminatory, anti-woman beliefs inherent in the pro-choice mentality.

The belief to which I am referring suggests that there is something regrettable about a woman’s natural capacity to conceive and bear children. The abortion advocate attacks the unique sexuality of a woman and squashes the sense of pride she experiences in being able to bring life into the world— a miracle no man can replicate[1]. Attempts to artificially sterilize and de-sex women by stripping their wombs of life are degrading and offensive. No woman should be made to feel by society— and have confirmed by pro-choice legislation— that something is intrinsically wrong with her body.

Yet isn’t this precisely the case for American women today? The responsible modern-day woman will go on the Pill so that her fertility does not become an undesired burden to society. Her biology is consistently high-maintenance and potentially expensive, so artificial birth control and abortion are necessary means of mastering her reproductive ability. On its own, a woman’s body just isn’t good enough.

To strip women of their distinct sexuality in the name of feminism is senseless. It suggests an underlying belief that only those qualities which are male are valuable, or worth celebrating, or deserving of respect. It propagates the lie that pregnancy is a problem up to women to prevent at any and all costs— even the cost of their own dignity.

As long as the modern feminist continues to voluntarily reduce herself by means of artificial birth control and abortion, she will be her own worst enemy.

---

[1] David C. Reardon, Aborted Women, Silent No More

blast from the past

When sorting through folders on my lap top yesterday, I stumbled across this email. I sent it out in February 2009- a few days before my 19th birthday. Sitting in my dorm room in Williamsburg, Virginia during the winter of my freshman year, I remember feeling compelled to do something about abortion. The combination of discouragement due to Obama's recent inauguration, the 9 hours that separated me from home, and the simple fact that I didn't know what else to do compelled me to sit down at my computer and begin to write. Perhaps what I wrote then will serve as some sort of stimulus for a friend or family member now.

Vita Pro Omni!

Note: The image shows a friend and myself at the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. about a week before I wrote this email.

February 2009

Hi, my sweet family and friends,

I hope this email finds each of you well. :) I miss you all very much.

As Christians, we are both collectively and individually called by Jesus Christ, the Author of Life Himself, to defend what is holy and good and true. We are to revere all of God's blessings and gifts; the greatest of which is life itself.

Since 1973, our country has been deep in the midst of a silent holocaust. 4000 innocent children are being crushed, lacerated, and ripped apart limb by limb behind the white, sterile walls of 900+ abortion clinics across the United States. As we go about our days- working, laughing, putting gas in our cars, buying groceries, eating a turkey sandwich at lunch time... whatever- doctors in our very own neighborhoods are helping women murder their sons and daughters. These young children are the most innocent, helpless, and vulnerable members of the human family. We must be their voice.

My dear family and friends, we are not just to be anti-abortion, but actively, comprehensively, and uncompromisingly pro-life. We, right now, are living in one of the most crucial and decisive moments in our country's history. In his inaugural address last month, our president, Barack Obama, proclaimed: "We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness." It all sounds very noble, doesn't it? But I ask: in what ways has Mr. Obama chosen to redefine "all"? Are "all" equal as long as they are healthy and strong? Do "all" deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness as long as they are more than 9 months old? Do "all" deserve to live as long as they are not weak, small, helpless, or "inconvenient"?

Please pray for our president, as well as all those in our country- and the world- who do not uphold the dignity of every last human being on this earth- weak or strong, young or old, male or female, educated or not, healthy or sick, black or white, red or yellow. Prayer is the shield of the soul, the ammo of the Church, and the foundation of our very lives. If you do nothing else for the Pro-Life Movement today, say a prayer for even just one of the 51 million children who will never get to meet their mother and father face to face, never get to make a friend, never get to laugh or cry or grow, never get to learn to ride a bike, read a book, or fall in love… never even get to smile. Abortion stops a beating heart.

Here you can find some wonderful pro-life statements and quotes to read and pray. I encourage you to meditate on even just one of them each day as fuel for our fight. Be a warrior for life. Do not just defend life; be on the offensive. What does that mean or look like? First and foremost, pray, lest we fight in vain. We can no more easily live without breathing than fight for justice without praying. Next, take it to the law. You might not be sure where to begin in this arena; lots of people aren't, myself included. So, do 7 minutes of research on Google and find out how you can contact your local representatives to object to pro-abortion legislation like FOCA. There are few better ways to spend a couple of minutes of your day. We are talking about the difference between death and life. We are talking about human beings' lives.

Finally, nurture a culture of life; and do not lose hope! The Pro-Life Movement is strong and getting stronger. Don't think for a single second that this is a settled issue or a lost cause. Less than two weeks ago, hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers filed into Washington, D.C. for the annual March for Life. Many passionate, intelligent, and effective people in the courthouses, media, and public arena have devoted their entire lives to fighting the good fight. Evil can only temporarily appear to conquer Truth; it can't really win in the end.

Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey stated, "Abortion is destined for the scrap heap of history. Abortion is being held aloft by the hot air of a small well-heeled elite. It's on the artificial life support system of foundation money, politically correct elite opinion, special interests, media bias, and widespread ignorance of the facts. Legal abortion will never rest easy on this nation's conscience. It will continue to haunt the consciences of men and women everywhere." We're not done talking about this. We're not okay or content or complacent. And we refuse to be silent until every last human life is welcomed into this world.

Thank you all for your courage. Thank you for being fighters. I will conclude with the beautifully simple words of sweet Mother Teresa: "We want to create hope for the person... we must give hope, always hope."

Yours for Life,

Catherine

physician-euthanizer as healer-destroyer

No one should be able to stoop to the level of calling another human being a "life unworthy of life" and get away with it. I was inspired to write this article, which originally appeared on Ethika Politika, after being deeply offended by that discriminatory phrase by Dr. Alfred Hoche. You can read the full text there, or below.

Vita Pro Omni!

Physician-Euthanizer as Healer-Destroyer

In 1920, a prominent German jurist, Professor Karl Binding, alongside a well-known German psychiatrist, Dr. Alfred Hoche, advanced the destruction of what they dubbed “life unworthy of life.” They explained each killing as “purely a healing treatment” and as a “healing work”[1].

Less than a century later, Dr. Else Borst-Eilers, former politician in the Netherlands and chair of the Dutch Health Council, has declared that “there are situations in which the best way to heal the patient is to help him die peacefully and the doctor who in such a situation grants the patient’s request acts as the healer par excellence”[2].

The eerie similarity of such a statement to the kinds of statements put forth by Binding and Hoche in Nazi Germany should be enough to send chills down one’s spine. Argue, if you must, in favor of killing terminally ill persons; but at least have the decency not to pretend that it is some kind of praiseworthy “healing”[3].

I have previously discussed the question of physician-assisted suicide in relation to its discrimination against the elderly, but here I would like to discuss it as it relates (or does not relate, as the case seems to be) to the role of medicine. In order to determine the rightness or wrongness of a physician committing a certain action (namely, helping someone take his own life), it seems we first have to ask something like, “What is it that a physician is supposed to do?”

This question is weighty, but not complex. Put simply, a physician is supposed to heal. Of course, there may be situations when he is unable to do so, but his singular and noble goal remains to heal the sick. He does this by serving them and caring for them, largely in their physical needs, but often in their mental and emotional needs as well. In the words of Leon R. Kass, “The physician as physician serves only the sick. [He] does not serve the relatives or the hospital or the national debt inflated due to Medicare costs. Thus the true physician will never sacrifice the well-being of the sick to the convenience or pocketbook or feelings of the relatives or society”[4]. In this light, the “physician-euthanizer” clearly becomes a paradox as absurd as “healer-destroyer”. The physician’s aim is to heal; our focus should remain on this aim, not his potential power over life and death.

It is not only unjust, but also illogical, to eliminate suffering by eliminating the sufferer. The logic fails in this way: “it is in fact impossible to compare the goodness or badness of one’s existence with the goodness or badness of one’s ‘nonexistence’, because it nonsensically requires treating ‘nonexistence’ as a condition one is able to experience and enjoy”[5]. In other words, the intent to relieve the suffering of a living patient only makes sense insofar as there is a living patient left to be relieved. As Kass puts it, “[There can be] no benefit without a beneficiary”[6].

I feel at this point that a crucial distinction should be made. I am not suggesting that one ought not cease painful treatment (like intensive chemotherapy) or withhold additional doses of life-sustaining medication if such therapies are not serving the comfort and happiness of the suffering patient in his last days. Indeed, we are finite beings and eventually each of us must embrace our own death. But allowing death is far different from causing death. While a doctor may be perfectly right in letting his patient pass free from tubes and contraptions, he is never right in killing her through any means, however seemingly peaceful. The first and most steadfast promise a physician swears to in the Hippocratic Oath remains medicine’s basic proscription: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect… In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.” In foreswearing to never administer poison, a doctor relinquishes any trace of godlike power that he might contribute to himself in governing life and death, recognizing that “drugs can both cure and kill”[7] and understanding the mass of his responsibility.

Should doctors throw in the towel, should U.S. legislation permit them to stoop to killer rather than healer, Americans will be abandoning their loved ones in their hour of need, rejecting their duty to care for them, and subjecting them to poison by a stranger. The last days of a person’s life ought to be filled with love and encouragement; for reasons perhaps beyond our understanding, they are sometimes also filled with pain and suffering. Nonetheless, the doctor’s task remains to heal and comfort his patient as much as possible and then allow nature to take its course—whatever that course may be. For surely, “physicians cannot be serving their art or helping their patients… by making them disappear”[8].

[1] R. J. Lifton, “The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide” (32-48).

[2] Quoted in A.M. Capron, “Euthanasia in the Netherlands: American Observations” (30-33).

[3] Leon R. Kass, “’I Will Give No Deadly Drug’: Why Doctors Must Not Kill.”

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

self-evident truth

Dr. Gerard Nadal is a highly talented scholar who has taught in the areas of Microbiology, Immunology, Genetics, Anatomy and Physiology, Biochemistry, and Molecular Biology for sixteen years. He uses his scientific knowledge, as well as his degree in Psychology and minor in Philosophy from St. John's University (where he also received his Ph.D. in Molecular Microbiology), for the noble purpose of protecting and promoting respect for human life from conception to natural death.

Dr. Nadal is an editor and columnist for the Center for Morality in Public Life, as well as an editor for Headline Bistro. He also keeps his own extensive blog, Coming Home.

A personal pro-life hero of my own, Dr. Nadal has become nothing less than a dear friend. Below, he offers timely and truthful reminders about the self-evident truths upon which our nation was founded. This text is re-printed from Coming Home with Dr. Nadal's permission.

Vita Pro Omni!

Self-Evident Truth

by Gerard Nadal, Ph.D.

“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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

In two sentences, Thomas Jefferson distilled two centuries of Enlightenment Philosophy.

The truths of which he speaks are, according to Jefferson, so fundamental and not needing explanation as to be self-evident.

It is self-evident that there is a “Creator”.

It is self-evident that humans are endowed by that Creator with unalienable rights, meaning that man cannot take them away, as they come from God.

It is self-evident that these rights begin with the most fundamental of all: Life.

It is self-evident that the next two follow in logical sequence: Liberty, and then the Pursuit of Happiness.

It is self-evident that the role of government is to protect those three greatest rights.

It is self-evident that the people reserve the right to alter or abolish that government if it becomes destructive of those rights.

We have seriously lost our way.

November is coming.