Wednesday, April 27, 2005

THE AGONY
Betty Cuniberti describes the arduous process a woman had to got through when one pharmacy did not stock morning after contraception.

Here's a map which will show you the tremendous journey she had to make. The Schnucks that did not carry the perscription is #6; the Walgreens that filled it is #3. (This is a temporary location; it will soon be in #7, which would have somewhat alleviated the journey). As you can see if Walgreens refused her, she might have had to travel even further...

There's a couple other beauts here as well...


Last year, a condom broke while Jennifer and her boyfriend were having sex.


Wait -- I thought condoms where the answer to every problem! That Pope Benedict XVI will be personally responsible for all AIDS deaths in Africa if he doesn't change the Vatican's policy of opposing condoms. But now they break...


For those who believe life begins and becomes equal to the woman and every other human being at conception, the difference between conception and pregnancy is moral hair-splitting. There was a time when they were entitled to their moral code, and Jennifer was entitled to hers. But as the country shifts toward theocracy, those days are dwindling.


In other words, when her side was winning, "choice" was great. Now that the other side is asserting their choices, maybe "choice" wasn't such a great idea.


Decreasing the number of abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies is an area in which pro-choice and pro-life advocates should be striving to find a meager patch of critical common ground.


This is the line that really ticks me off. Here's some other common ground -- give pregnant women free access to ultrasounds so they can make an informed choice. Someting tells me Cuniberti would eschew that common gorund as well.

Monday, April 25, 2005

WELCOME READERS
Having received the Cathoic equivalent of an InstaLanche (maybe I should try to come up with a clever term for that as well), I see I'm getting some additional readers, so I thought I'd clarify what this blog about.

Generally, this blog as a few quick bursts of activity when I get passionate about something, surrounded by weeks of little or no activity. I have two daughters under 2 years old, so I usually don't have time to formulate and put down my thoughts on atopic while it's still hot. Thus, the lack of posts on the death of John Paul II and the election of Pope Benedict XVI. I didn't have much to say that wasn't being said elsewhere.

As to how I feel about Ratzenfreude, I think it's an understandable reaction, but one that we shouldn't dwell in.

I think Andrew Sullivan's reaction is revealing in that it exposes his rehotrical "style" -- pick someone on the other side, label him and "extremist", then try to associate all other adversaries with this "extremist." The problem comes when you actually have to work with the person that you've made into a bogeyman. Then you have to deal with the flesh and blood human person, and not the caricature you've been presenting.

In any instance, I think it's good that people won't be able to pretend anymore that the Catholic teachings weren't some idisyncratic whim of John Paul II, but the teaching of the whole Church. I won't be happy if people decide to leave, and I pray that we won't, and I will also pray and work that the Church teaching be presented to the world in a way they can hear it.

Thursday, April 21, 2005

COINING A TERM
Ratzenfreude -- The expression of joy about others's dismay about the election of Pope Benedict XVI

UPDATE: Welcome NYT/Amy Welborn readers (and thanks for the link). I've moved to here now.

Friday, April 08, 2005

WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM
It's a very sad thing that many people's reaction to something like this is not outrage at the situation, but skepticism because this is being brought up by that "pro-life" crowd.

We've got a credibility problem. And I'm not sure it can all be laid at the feet of the biased media. But it's hindering our ability to effectively witness.

This poses a problem for me in how to react to stories like this. I want to say "Screw Federalism! Screw the separation of powers! Screw the Constitution! Screw the law! If these are the results, then why should I respect them?"

But then I remember that this is perfect fodder for those inclined to dismiss the witness of pro-lifers as the ravings of extremists.

So, I'm in a bind. Is the current system salvagable? Do we need to be more extreme, since the current culture is so depraved, or less so we can be more effective at working within it?