"We are not ignoring the critical issue of the protection of life. On the contrary, we invited him because we care so much about those issues, and we hope for this to be the basis of an engagement with him," Jenkins said. "You cannot change the world if you shun the people you want to persuade, and if you cannot persuade them show respect for them and listen to them."
The President of Notre Dame. Who is a Priest. (note to file; you are not.)
The news from those who think that their vision of "life" policy is the only correct one are mounting a smoke and mirrors PR campaign to make the criticism appear "mounting" "hysterical" even. They quote and requote an esteemed alumn- a guy Newton, who lives in an apartment in Georgetown and works for one of the personal injury law firms that are advertised regularly on midnight TV as an associate. Legal Giant. Anyone with a laptop can be a blogger. It takes no skill. You need no budget. Blogspot is free. If you can type you too can be a blogger.
These are the same people who called Obama an "infanticide" baby killing monster before the election. They have not noticed that they lost the election apparently. This sort of inflamed hyperbole is really offensive. These are mostly childless people- single self annointed screaming moralists who have never been pregnant, never supported anyone who was and mostly have never read Roe v. Wade or the follow up companion cases.
They have not noticed that even "Pro Life" people who are trying to responsibly radically reduce abortions find them outrageously offensive. they have not apparently been told how they turn people off so badly they hurt their own movement. They hurt the Pro Life movement because they are supremely obnoxious.
Women have the ability to self abort and will whether or not laws constrain them. They will self mutilate, they will shove chemical solvents and hangers up themselves by themselves if a pregnancy tortures them psychologically if born of abuse. They will take a bottle of 407 from under the sink and shoot themselves up with it, and if that doesn't work try something scarier. This is why it is critical to respect a woman's "mental health" in a pregnancy against the backdrop of radical hormonal alterations. This is why providing all the reasons why the choice for life is a rational choice, a better choice and one that people make out of free will is a positive rational way to eliminate abortion and as a practical matter just works better empirically than mandated criminalizations and prohibitions.
This is why the "health exception" isn't just blistering feminism for no reason-- because if a woman kills herself she kills also the child and you have lost two people. This isn't a myth. This happened before 1973.
A lot of the people ranting and raging were born after or came into adolescence after 1973. They don't know what it was like. They think they are fighting for the moral high ground when they have no concept of what moral high ground those fighting to respect women's mental health think that they were fighting for. Women died. Women killed themselves. Women too depressed to dress drugged themselves into overdoses.
It is shocking how misguided people can be so vitriolically verbally violent. It is shocking.
from lifesite news:
Ethicist and moral theologian Pia de Solenni suggested that the invitation "could be an excellent opportunity for Notre Dame gently and publicly to remind the nation of the university's Catholic identity and the incompatibility of the president's hostile actions with this identity.
"At the same time, the university could extend an invitation to dialogue in hopes that the president could come to respect these beliefs even if he does not agree with them," wrote Solenni, who emphasized that "it would have to be eminently clear to all on the part of the university that a tension exists between its professed values and the president's actions."
Well, Duh. And Good For Pia.
Note to the the Neuman folks: Were you asleep for all of 2008 during the campaign? Everyone knows the tension exists. Everyone knows there is a serious need for serious dialogue and respect.
Perhaps Notre Dame is angling for funding for a Center for Dialogue- responsible dialogue, respectful dialogue. A mediative conflict resolution approach rather than a conflict generating approach.
Do people like the five-foot nothing Dawn Eden think that she has any persuasive power by lobbing verbal fireballs at the Commander in Chief?
Ever hear that delightful phrase first echoed by a Saint (google it) that one gets more flies with honey than vinegar? Do you think demonstrating utter rude disrespect to someone causes them to listen to you for five seconds? Because as an evangelism strategy this strikes me as flatly boldly disasterous.
But it gets worse. It's out of control.
In 2004 I remember campaigning for a democrat with signs on the road in Texas- a Pro Life democrat. In this small Texan town guys driving pick up trucks would roll down the windows and yell at us "Baby Killer!!" simply because we had signs for a democrat by the side of the road- a Pro Life Democrat. This was so ignorant it was laughable. We looked at each other- Have you ever killed a baby? No. Had an abortion? No. Written or supported any pro-abortion legislation? No. Yet texan pick up driving yahoos were rolling down their windows to shout at us "Baby Killers!!"
Can anyone say that this is anything other than the purest rankest ignorance? What comes out of Washington is just a higher paid lobby variety of the texan pick up truck.
postscript; after this was written it was reported in lifesitenews that the latest to chime in about why a sitting President, who is also a Constitutional Law Professor, and an alum of one of the nation's finest law schools should not be given an invitation to speak from a catholic law school or given an honorary award is the head of some Right to Life organization who expresses outrage. At least he heads an organization and is a parent. Still- a Center for Responsible Dialogue would be a good start at Notre Dame.
Should we shun everyone we disagree with? Like Iranians?
The view that you cannot be respectful to people with differing views isn't very diplomatic.
It is the anti-thesis of diplomany actually. The notion that people should be judged and condemned on public policy approaches to achieve the same goal (in this case elimination of abortions)- even when they share the same values- is odd.
No comments:
Post a Comment