The Problem with Personhood

"Personhood" is not an uncommonly heard word when engaged in discussion about abortion rights.  I am not exactly certain what this phrase means, and I do not believe the people who use it know what it means either, as debates involving this word typically sound like a quarrel between Webster and Wikipedia.  One thing only is certain--that whatever the word may actually be defined as, it is used for only one purpose: to determine who matters and who does not.  

I once pointed out that abortion is a conflict between two human individuals with rights that are at odds, hoping that a discussion would ensue revolving around which right supersedes the other (as it goes in any other situation, like self-defense, war, child-support, etc.).  I received, however, not a discussion on rights, but a denial of the situation itself.  

"The fetus can't have rights."

"Why not?"

"Because it isn't a person."

One of the human individuals in the situation didn't matter enough to affect any decision made--and it did not matter because it was not a person.

I never mentioned the word person, so I inquired of him what a person is, and received this response:

"A person is a human who is sentient and conscious, can feel and think."

According to this abortion-on-demand advocate (and many others of his position) it is not enough to be a human individual.  To have rights, to be considered a relevant party in a life or death situation, one must have some additional characteristic.

 

I call this the "Human Individual Plus" mentality.

I refuse to discuss the particulars of this additional characteristic.  What characteristic is needed, exactly, will change slightly from debater to debater.  Some will say consciousness, others the ability to feel pain, others free will, and still others skin color.  I myself rebel against the insinuation that ANY additional characteristic is necessary for a human individual to matter, to have basic human rights.  

Abortion advocates and others would have us believe that while every "person" is a human individual, not every human individual is a person--and only persons can have rights.  In effect, they say some human individuals do not have basic human rights.   I assert that all one need be to have human rights, is a human individual.  I maintain that if one need use the word "person" at all, he can only mean by it "human individual".  Any other definition of this term is arbitrary and relative, for two reasons.

The first is that the addition of a characteristic to the life line of a fetus...that point of personhood at which we say "You have basic human rights now; congratulations, you matter!"...breaks a fluid process.  From the moment of fertilization to death, the conceptus-zygote-embryo-fetus-infant-adolescent-adult is the same single entity.  It is a human (as opposed to a canine) organism.  And because it is an organism, it is individual.  It not only has its own unique DNA, but grows toward its own end, on its own genetic pattern, unique to its own compilation of cells; its eight life signs are separate from any other organism.  Some have claimed that because it appears to be a parasitic life it is thus not an individual life, but no one has ever argued that a parasite is part of its host and not an individual organism.  Thus, it is a scientific, biological fact that the unborn is a human individual; and to choose a single point in this line for the human individual to suddenly be more than a human individual is arbitrary unless that point is relevantly significant.

Yet I have yet to hear a Point of Significance that is truly relevant.  Most commonly, this Point is named as consciousness.  "One must be conscious to have rights!" I hear all the time.  But this begs the question: what does consciousness have to do with rights?  Really?  And the same may be asked of any other stated Point of Significance.  Why is this additional characteristic relevant?  I have never found a satisfactory answer, and I therefore maintain that *if one can exercise the right without having this additional characteristic, one does not need this characteristic to have the right.* 

To maintain otherwise would be sort of like arguing that one must own a television to have Netflix.  While Netflix and television, admittedly, often are found together, in practical reality, television has nothing to do with Netflix.  It certainly is not a necessary part of owning an account and watching Sherlock.  If one need not be conscious, feel pain, be viable, or have free will to live, then one need not have it to claim living as a right.  If one need not have a television to watch Netflix, then one need not have a television to watch Netflix.  The two are superficially, but certainly not really or relevantly, connected.  Naming a Point of Significance for "rights-owning" that has nothing to do with exercising rights, is arbitrary. 

 Choosing any moment when a human individual begins to matter is relative.  These Points are chosen with little regard for the actuality and substance of the human individual in question, but instead are influenced by the mentality and situation of the one doing the choosing.  To say that one doesn't matter, is always to say that the speaker doesn't care.  

As long as Personhood asks "when does a human individual begin to matter?" and not "when does a human individual begin?" it will be an arbitrary and relative discussion, a poor base for opinions that determine the life or death of a human individual, and no base for politics.  The only way to avoid this flimsy foundation is to say that all human individuals, nothing more and nothing less, possess basic human rights.  

The Problem with Personhood is that it is meant to exclude those who would otherwise be considered persons.  

 

Teach the Lesson You Want Learned

When I heard about the shooting in Connecticut, and about the shooter, I thought, “That young man is a genius, and he learned well.”

For the past year, we have screamed, “Birth control! Birth control!” as though preventing the existence of children is the single most important concern of our lives. Oh, the assertion that contraceptives must be had or else women will be completely and utterly useless has been around for quite some time—about eighty years now. However, people have been particularly vocal about it recently. It does not matter why the discussion began anew or who began it. The assertion is clearly there, and it always has been: that preventing the existence of children is a wonderful thing and we are proud to be able to do it.

For the past fifty years, we have been saying that if we fail to prevent the existence of new human life, we should kill it; with certain restrictions, of course—the main one being that we can only do it if we have no sense of emotional attachment to aforementioned human life. We go so far as to call an unborn child a child when we want it and a “blob of tissue” when we don’t.

And if these new human individuals, these blobs of cells, happen to defy this attempt to make certain they are never born, we give them comfort rooms. We are proud of the fact that we helped them die among blankets and flowers, and conveniently ignore the fact that we did nothing to help them live. Some say that this doesn’t happen and no one wants that. Yet I have had long discussions with more than one individual who said that we should not put forth any effort to save infants who have survived abortions, even if they are viable. “Imagine the emotional trauma that would put a woman through, knowing that she wanted an abortion and it failed and the child is out there living in the world!” one woman said. Another man stated that it would be “too expensive” to try to save the infants “no one wants anyway”.

We told this mother that she should have killed her son before he was born, simply because he was born blind. We tell something similar to mothers whose children have Down Syndrome, and boast of the fact that about 80-95% of human individuals with Down Syndrome never see the light of day. I guess caring for them would be “too expensive”.

When we saw that two disabled adults had been in homes since they were ten, when we heard their mother say that they had no joy, we did not have the bright idea of trying to bring them some joy. Instead, 90% of us cried, “Yes! Kill them!” Many of us are advocating that we make it happen, legally and frequently. Why keep a human individual alive through “extraordinary measures” when it is cheaper to let them starve? Why put forth effort to bring them joy when we can prevent their suffering by killing them?

We are good at finding reasons not to want human individuals. We are equally good at doing mental gymnastics to prove that these reasons justify getting rid of these human individuals, or that they make it impossible for such human individuals to, in fact, be human individuals.

For a good half-century and longer, we have done just about everything in our power to prove—in word and deed—that we do not value the lives of human individuals…unless we happen to want them. And then we have the audacity to act surprised and horrified when one of our children comes along and actually puts that philosophy into practice.

That young man was a genius, and he learned well. He learned the lesson that we as a society have been preaching for so very long, and we are hypocrites if we condemn him for it. We are hypocrites and idiots if we tell a young man with a disorder that inhibits him from connecting to other human beings that it is wrong to kill them, and then turn around and argue we can kill other human beings because it is impossible to establish a connection with them*.

From Here

People are looking at the tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook, and asking, “How could this happen? Why did this happen?” Some assert that it is the fault of guns. Others postulate that it happened because of violent video games. Still others accuse mental illness. I say that it is our fault. Your fault. My fault.

We did it.

It happened because we teach our children that the lives of human individuals do not matter and have no value, and we have proven via our actions that we stand by this belief.

It happened because we made it happen. Because we taught that it should.

And the only way to prevent it from happening again, is to change. Change the way we think about our fellow human beings. Begin valuing lives; not just the ones we naturally are inclined to want, but every human life. Every single one. Everywhere.

That young man was a genius, and he learned well. We have a great power to teach. Now, let’s change the lesson.

*I am NOT saying that those with Asberger's are naturally violent, or that it was autism that caused the shooter to do what he did. I am merely pointing out that he validly had the same excuse we use to defend ourselves: lack of empathy with those human individuals we want to kill.

Mothers and Motherhood

I'm not good at keeping track of holidays, much less blogging about them, but since I know it is Mother's Day and can't pretend that I don't...here is a post about being a mother.

...I know nothing about being a mother.  That noun is as foreign to my vocabulary as...well...the word I don't know that should be inserted [here].  I am not a mom, and won't be for a very long time, if ever.  But the idea of motherhood and being a mom has been on my mind quite a bit over the years.  It is a topic that surfaces frequently when one is discerning the religious life.

"Oh, I love kids and want to be a mom; I could never be a nun," people would say when they discovered I was discerning a life of celibacy.  This was rather unsettling for me.  It implied that I do not love kids and, needless to say, I do.  I used to be absolutely certain that I was going to get married, live in a plantation home, and have twelve children.  Yet, even more so, comments like these showed a very skewed understanding of what it means to be a Sister and--by extension--what it means to be a mother.  

"Mother" is a noun, denoting a woman who has had the exquisite gift of cooperating in God's creative act.  It is one of the only privileges that the angels do not possess.  She carries within herself another human individual, and this unique and special little person has been specifically entrusted to her care by God.  She is given the great responsibility--and joy--of loving and caring for this child.

How could one not desire such a beautiful thing?  I know that many young women, thinking that they might have a religious vocation, struggle to give up the desire of being "mother".  I will be very honest: I never had this problem, and it makes me very sad when young women think they must give up the desire for motherhood to be a Sister or a nun.  They do not, nor should they.

See, while the above definition is not untrue, it is not wholly complete.  "Mother" is not merely a noun.  It is a verb.  It is not just having responsibility for another human individual--it is carrying that responsibility out.  It is caring for another person even when caring for them involves an extreme and unthinkable amount of self-sacrifice.  It is loving them unconditionally, even when one is not feeling very 'loving'.  It is loving them with Christ's Love; the noun side without the verb side is a shadow of what a mother is, of what she is supposed to be.

I realized this at a very young age.  I knew that it was possible to be a mother (noun)  without mothering (verb), largely due to my discovery of partial birth abortion at age nine.  And, having friends and family who were adopted and wanting to adopt myself, I knew that mothering was possible without being a mother.  Of the two, I deemed the verb the most important, and I realized I would never have to give it up.

"Love one another as I have loved you." We are called to love all children--all people--with the self-sacrificing love of a mother.  We are all called to mother.  The verb is the most important part, and we are called to fulfill it, not only with "our" children, but with *every* Child of God.  I never struggled with the "I'll-never-be-a-mother" aspect of the religious life, because I am perfectly capable of mothering no matter what my state.  Mothering is the most important, beautiful, and obligatory aspect of motherhood, and it was one I did not have to give up even were I to become a Sister.

Today, I would like to thank everyone who has ever fulfilled the most important aspect of motherhood: mothering. I would like to thank the mothers who loved their children enough to go through with their pregnancy, and who cared for them enough to put them up for adoption, or who cared for them enough to struggle through sacrifice and keep them.  I would like to thank the mothers--especially mine--who sacrificed years caring for and loving their children.  I would like to thank the godmothers, friends, and sisters who loved with a mother's charitable Love.  Most of all, I would like to thank the Sisters and nuns who devote their entire lives to mothering poor lost sinners in this valley of tears. Here's to you all, you who understand most what the word "mother" means.  May Mary--the perfect mother in both senses--forever guide and pray for you, and may God bless you on this special day!

Saint Gianna Molla

Today, April 28th, is the feast day of my patron saint, Gianna Beretta Molla. 
I chose her as my Confirmation saint because, at the time of my Confirmation, I was very heavily and actively involved in Pro-Life work (I still am involved, though my ministry has taken the form of prayer more than anything else, lately).  And who is a better example for a Pro-Lifer than Gianna Molla?

I am sure most of you already know the main focus of her story; how she was a doctor, wife, and mother who was diagnosed whith a uterine tumor when she was pregnant with her fourth child.  How she refused proper treatment because she refused to harm her baby.  How she died when that baby was only one week old...

Therefore, I am going to speak of something less often mentioned about Gianna: her interaction, as a doctor, with patients who had had or who intended to have, an abortion. 

Gianna's stance on abortion was very firm.  She viewed all human life as ineffably precious, and illustrated her views where words could not express them by being unfailingly charitable, caring and loving to everyone, and by never failing to do what it took to save her patients.  Her sacrifice is a testament to her reverence of life.  Gianna was well aware of the fact that abortion involves the ending of a new yet equally important human life, and so her views on the subject are rather obvious.  She was greatly grieved when one of her patients considered abortion, and would talk to them about their decision, discussing with them the value of life and encouraging them to rethink their options.  Nevertheless, no woman ever met any sort of condemnation or intolerance from her.  She was motherly toward them, and treated them with the utmost compassion no matter her strict stance. 

"Once, a young woman asked Gianna to come to her home because of some "mysterious" hemorrhaging, which was actually the result of an attempted abortion.  Gianna treated her compassionately, but firmly, urging her to seriously consider what she had done.  ...On another occasion, Gianna treated a young woman who had had an abortion.  With particular kindness, Gianna offered the young woman some words on the sacredness of human life, which the patient listened to attentively.  Gianan gently encouraged the woman to face the seriousness of her act and to realize that what she had done was not only an act of offense against her child, but also against God.  Gianna invited her patient to be reconciled with the Lord, and she encouraged her to embrace God's infinite mercy." [A Woman's Life, by Guiliana Pelucchi, p. 59-60]

I hear often from Pro-"Choicers" that those who are against abortion are also against women.  That they just wish to make women's lives more difficult, that they only hurt women by making them feel guilty.  That they don't care for women, even hate and kill them, etc. etc.  Gianna is proof that that is not what being Pro-Life is about.  Being Pro-Life is being Pro-LIFE.  She talked of God's mercy as much as she did the wrongness of abortion and the value of human life.  She supported women during and after their pregnancy, caring for them and their children often without accepting payment.  Gianna cared no less for the lives of the mothers in her care than for the lives of their children; of that her actions left no room for doubt.   Everyone who knew her liked her, and cries for her Cause arose soon after her untimely death.  Her example is a brilliant one, one which I strive always to follow.  Gianna was Pro-Life.  For that cause she gave her entire life and even her death.  Even those who had had an abortion acknowledged and appreciated her.  What better saint could I have chosen for this day and age?

Saint Gianna, pray for us!

Been Fishing

A friend fished up THIS VIDEO for me. Please watch it while I finish the Third Purpose of Pain.