With the advent of Obamacare and its full
implementation, the greatest misunderstanding being perpetuated by this
administration's Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) involves
so-called "reproductive rights", a term that is so twisted that I am
frankly shocked it has not been more seriously challenged beyond sound bites
and bumper-sticker slogans; a term that simply transcends "basic health
care". A turn of a simple phrase or
a play on words is how we have been able to successfully de-humanize an unborn
child by calling "it" a fetus, teaching the scientific term to
school-age children who are thus taught to separate or remove altogether the
utter miracle of life from pregnancy, reducing it to mere biology.
"Reproductive rights" insinuates a right
to reproduce or not. Whether such a
right exists may be debatable at least in the way we've come to understand
"rights" as entitlement. That
we have the capacity to reproduce is without question. It must be said, however, that much like any
other "rights" also comes with them enormous responsibilities we
cannot avoid, though we apparently do try.
That we can reproduce does not necessarily mean we should. Make no mistake, however; this statement is
not about advocating for birth control. It
is rather about self-control which is not only a right without question but is,
more importantly, a duty in all aspects of our being; a personal, social,
moral, and doctrinal duty to ourselves, to our families, and to our society.
How has it come to be, then, that arguments for reproductive
rights are more closely associated with terminating a pregnancy or using birth
control as a means to avoid pregnancy than it is about the act itself (of
reproducing)? Even if it could be argued
that we possess an inherent "right" to reproduce (and I think such an
argument can be made), there is within that same argument a right not to
reproduce; that is, a right not to participate in that one act that causes
parenthood if we are not seeking to become parents.
If we dare, we may be getting closer to what the whole
argument is about; whether or not we possess a "right" to have sex,
married or not, without consequences. If
we can at least be honest on this one point, we may come closer to
understanding what "rights" we truly possess, what "rights"
we think we are demanding, and how we must exercise responsibly any
"rights" in our society while simultaneously understanding what is truly
innate within us as human beings.
Pope Paul VI observed in his encyclical, Humanae Vitae, that "with regard to
man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man's
reason and will must exert control over [his drives and emotions]",
meaning we must never surrender to pure impulse in our "drives and
emotions" but are rather challenged and called upon to act responsibly as
humans with the capacity to not only reproduce but also with the capacity to
reason, to think things through (like counting to ten when we're angry). That we are born with an innate sexuality
does not necessarily mean we are compelled to express this sexuality by whatever
means whenever possible.
As we must necessarily consider the significant
number of those who not only reject the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church
but also the teachings of the Holy Scriptures in part or in whole, there is
still a common thread upon which we must all surely agree: humans have a social
duty and moral obligation to one another to refrain from acting as mindless
animals strictly subject to physiological impulses. We are born with the capacity to rule over
these impulses, this capacity as innate as our sexuality; and whether by divine
decree or social responsibility, we are compelled to exercise our innate
ability to reason.
All this boils down to a concept (or, rather, a misconception)
of what truly constitutes freedom. Are
we really free to do as we please when we please, or is freedom best expressed in
doing as we should when we should, including not engaging in sexual intercourse? Some suggest it is the tyranny of the Roman
Catholic Church which compels (commands?) us to act as the Church thinks we
should when the Church thinks we must, but I suggest it is anarchy that allows
us to do as we please when we please - with no moral or social restraints. That kind of society truly becomes one ruled
by the "fittest" with the weakest among us subject to the whims of what
would soon become the "fit" majority in which only the strong can possibly
survive and flourish. Aside from
biblical principles which prohibit such a concept, it makes no sense in a
civilized society that one can act as one chooses when one chooses regardless
of how it will affect others.
That birth control and abortion exist is,
unfortunately, without question. That we
have the capacity and free will to choose participation in these and other
destructive acts is also without question. That we have come to expect and demand this things,
that we are somehow entitled to these
by legislative or judicial fiat by means compelled of others (taxes and other
fees, such as insurance premiums) is morally and ethically questionable at best,
which renders the HHS contraceptive mandate (and underlying motive to soon
mandate unrestricted access to abortion services) morally and ethically
questionable - especially when others will be compelled by tax legislation to
finance them in spite of our religious and moral objections. And isn't it the height of irony that "family
planning" involves the intentional destruction of an unborn child??
I dare say this is but the type of the iceberg in
what we can soon come to expect from this behemoth legislation that even our own
legislators and president cannot pretend to understand. Let us pray, however, that we may soon come
to our senses before we find ourselves in deeper than even our most liberal
friends envisioned - because whatever "rights" we believe are granted
to us by any entity can soon be taken from us by that same entity, including
the right to protest - if we ever do come to our senses before we self-destruct.
No comments:
Post a Comment