I'm always looking for ways to combine social justice and pro-life.
This piece makes the point in a way I haven't seen before- linking abortion and usury, especially borrowing against the next generation's future, as a failure of generosity.
I've often been criticized for my critique of the baby boomer generation, which brought us both the sexual revolution and the trade of debt instruments, but this is the first thing I've seen from the Church that would agree with that assessment.
I'm Outside the Autistic Asylum!
RSS Feed link
The crazy stuff I can't post anyplace else
Introduction to Wonko the Sane and Outside the Asylum, which this blog is named after.
22 comments:
‘There’s something in you that I love, but there’s something in you that I hate, and I hate the fact that you can be a mother. So I require that this will be poisoned.’
Who can listen to this kind of talk? Are we really expected to take statements like that seriously?
This kind of talk is right up your alley.
"Who can listen to this kind of talk? Are we really expected to take statements like that seriously? "
You've said the equivalent often enough when you've insisted that some women shouldn't be mothers because they "can't afford more children". I take you quite seriously when you say that.
It's always been my contention that women who determine for themselves that they cannot afford to have a child have the inalienable right to avoid having one through abstinence, NFP, contraception or abortion. No one has any right to deny her those options. It is people like you who are all to willing to take the last two options away from her. It's not your call.
It is the "they cannot afford to have a child" part that shows your utter hatred for the poor.
If they cannot afford to have a child- take some of the fat off your own table and give it to them so that they *can* afford to have a child.
"It is the "they cannot afford to have a child" part that shows your utter hatred for the poor."
I hate the poor because I think they should have control over their family size and only have children if they want them? No. You are the hater. You want to keep them poor by not letting women stop having children and work instead. You are living in the dark ages.
"letting women work" is misogynistic and shows hatred for motherhood.
Insisting that women go from one pregnancy to the next having too many mouths to feed and not being able to work her way out of poverty is misogynistic. You just can't see it that way because you have to defend Catholic opposition to birth control no matter what. You are not really free to think rationally.
What I'm insisting is that we allow women to be *MOTHERS*, the way they were designed, instead of trying to make them into men.
The way they were designed???
Somehow, you are not coming across as an advocate for women. Women have a right to work for a living. Your ideas on what women should be and do fall under the term: male chauvinism. You need to build a time machine and go back, way back.
A uterus has one purpose- nurturing a new life.
Ignoring that is being against women, against the very purpose of the gender.
Anybody who is against motherhood, is against women. Including women who are anti-motherhood.
MEN have to step up and be fathers, and should be providing for the mothers of their children. Yes, women have the "right" to earn a living, but men have the responsibility to provide that living without the woman earning it.
And nothing I've seen shows me that YOUR modern way of thinking is actually better; in fact, from what I've seen, it's actually quite a bit worse.
You desperately need someone who can tell you when you are right and when you are wrong. And I don't just mean when you are in accord with Church teaching and when you are not. I mean a guide to reality.
When you say something like "A uterus has one purpose- nurturing a new life", you need someone to tell you what a sick, sexist remark that is. You lack that guidance. You are in the world according to Ted and it is a bizarre world indeed.
Church teaching is the reality- the only reality that there is.
It is far more sexist to deny that there is a purpose to the uterus, thus saying that women should not exist as mothers, than to accept it and give women the room to *be mothers*. It is your feminism that makes you a sexist and causes you to be a sissy.
The problem is you can't refute it. Nostra Aetate defines Catholicism as everything that is true.
If it is true, it's in Catholicism. If it is not true, it isn't. Took me a long time to realize the wisdom of that.
"Took me a long time to realize the wisdom of that."
The wisdom of what? You act as if you have found enlightenment in Catholicism. Your prejudices, scruples, taboos, bigotries, phobias, etc. make you one of the least enlightened people I have ever conversed with. Catholicism is one thing and reality is another. There is hardly any overlap.
I don't mean to imply that your faith isn't working for you. It probably is. Faith doesn't have to be in something real in order to work. The mere decision to believe and follow a set of rules that have worked for others for almost 2,000 years is enough for most people. It just doesn't work for me because I can tell the difference between the real and unreal. Its all about material naturalism.
Maybe that's because I *have* found enlightenment in Catholicism. After a side trip through the myths of the Kwakwala Chinnok Nation, Atheism, the Occult, and the Platform Sutra. Been a long strange path back to the beginning, and realizing that sometimes, taboos and bigotry actually are rational and exist for a reason, and that we ignore that reason at our peril.
But I've found a new taboo to obsess over, and I'm going to take my vacation starting today to start learning it. A little Koan of Mother Theresa, that I posted in an article about euthanasia I just put up this morning.
I tried Material Naturalism at one point in my journey. It failed to deal with the paradoxes that are at the center of the universe. The Platform Sutra proved to me that Material Naturalism is worthless.
"Maybe that's because I *have* found enlightenment in Catholicism."
Sorry. To me, the Enlightenment with a capital E is the opposite of Catholicism and enlightenment with a small e is also antithetical to Catholicism. I am puzzled by people who tried other worldviews and finally settled for Catholicism. I don't understand the thought process. I think some people just get desperate and Catholicism seems to thrive on desperation.
Material Naturalism doesn't address the Big Bang, fine tuning of the physical laws and constants, the origin of life, genetic coding of DNA, the Cambrian Explosion, irreducible complexity, etc. These are mysteries that suggest the existence of an intelligent designer that some people call "God". So, maybe Material Naturalism isn't the answer. But I would rather err on that side than on the side of religion, which is riddled with erroneous beliefs.
Material Naturalism and the so-called "Enlightenment" of the Renaissance was darkness. In comparison, the most primitive tribe in the darkest part of the Amazon is more enlightened than any modernist.
"the most primitive tribe in the darkest part of the Amazon is more enlightened than any modernist."
Again, you succumb to hyperbole. You always go overboard. Modernists are by no means the least enlightened.
You're right, not the least enlightened. Some types of modernists are less enlightened than others. Malthusian material naturalists are at the bottom for me. They're too stupid to understand the implications of their own philosophy.
Post a Comment