FX “AKA Jane Roe”

In a recent article, a Ms. Valenti - referencing the FX program “AKA Jane Roe”- chastised the pro-life community for manipulating Ms. McCorvey, the “Roe” in Roe v. Wade.  Here is an excerpt from my reply:

I’m going to suggest that such abusive behavior, use of lies and deception (at least be honest Ms. Valenti, the pro-choice side is in no way innocent here) is the result of wanting too much for “your team” to win.  It does not arise from a desire that “the truth will out.”  Consequently, I disagree with those on my team who want to cry “fake news” or personally disparage pro-choice activist’s use of Ms. McCorvey.  In the final analysis it does not matter what position any one or several persons espouse on this matter as they “cross the finish line.”  In fact, even popular opinion is not what matters. What matters is what is the unborn?  If it is not a human being, then abortion is of no concern.  If it is – as science tells us – a human being from the moment of conception, then I am obligated to lobby that the right to life, which inherently belongs to human beings, be returned to those who have had it taken away. As implied in your article, Ms. McCorvey – as a human being – deserved far better treatment than being seen merely as a “trophy,” so to do the unborn in untold numbers deserve far better treatment than to be seen merely as a non-entity to be destroyed at whim.  Both sides of this issue would do well to repent of and forgo the ethical infractions your article brings to the fore and engage in discussion of the core issue. Simply saying “Yay, for our side!”  and calling each other “Liar!” is unlikely to make any meaningful contribution of any sort.

In Christ, Ken.

The Unborn are Human Beings:

First, the unborn are human beings. Somewhat ironically, it is science that tells us that the unborn are human beings.  From the moment it exists an entity has being.  And from the moment of conception an embryo has human DNA, he or she is the product of two human beings and thus is a human being. 

Some will object that it is “just an embryo” or “just a fetus.” However, look up the terms in most medical dictionaries and you will learn that among humans an embryo is a “human being from conception until the seventh week of life.” While fetus - derived from Latin for little one - refers to a human being from the eighth week of life until birth.  Therefore, referring to the unborn as a fetus only describes the stage of development of a human being. To deny that the unborn is a human being is to deny biology.

Another objection is that sperm and eggs have human DNA but we don’t consider them “human beings.” Author and apologist, Trent Horn addresses this: “Sperm, egg, fetuses, and toddlers are all human in the adjective sense of the word, since they possess human DNA. Unlike sperm and egg, however, fetuses and toddlers are also human in the noun sense of the word. A fetus is a human and a toddler is a human, while an individual sperm cell or egg cell is not a human. This is similar to how we might say apple pie and the president are both American, while the president of the United States is an American, and the apple pie is not.” ¹

In Christ, Ken.

1 Persuasive Pro Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue. Catholic Answers Press.

The Right to Life

To reach one who subscribes to being “pro-choice,” one must start from where they are and not from where we may be.  That is, it will be of no use to talk of God’s law, or Church teaching in the likely case that they do not have regard for either. In this situation, experience has taught me (having been inspired by Trent Horn of Catholic Answers) to guide a discussion of the matter away from abortion per se as in: “I am not focused on outlawing abortion.  Rather I am lobbying for returning the right-to-life to the unborn who had this right stripped from them.”

This keeps the discussion secular which keeps the other from immediately dismissing you as trying to” impose your religion” on others. It also moves the discussion to the central question: what is the unborn? As Trent puts it: “If pro-choice people are right and an abortion is harmless surgery, then restrictions on abortion would hurt women and make them second-class citizens. If pro-life people are right and abortion kills a valuable human being, then keeping abortion legal would be the continuation of a tremendous evil that has taken tens of millions of innocent lives.” [Trent Horn, “20 Answers Abortion.”]

In Christ, Ken.

The Trinity (18)

To conclude this series on the Trinity, the Father possesses the whole nature of God as His Own, the Son possesses the whole nature of God as His Own, the Holy Spirit possesses the whole nature of God as His Own. And since the nature of any being decides what the being is, each person is God, wholly and therefore equally with the others. Further, the nature decides what the person can do: therefore, each of the three persons who thus totally possess the Divine Nature can do all the things that go with being God.

CCC 2205 states:

The Christian family is a communion of persons, a sign and image of the communion of the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit.

When we think of a family, we can see how a father, mother, and child can be distinct persons and yet possess the same nature (human), just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons who each possess the same nature (divine). The weakness, of course, is that in God each person possesses the one infinite and immutable divine nature, and is therefore, one being. Our analogous family consists of three beings. Again, no analogy is perfect. But in the end, if we combine our two analogies, we can at least see both how there can be three relationally distinct realities subsisting within one being in the anthropological analogy, and how there can be three relationally distinct persons who share the same nature in the analogy of the family.

In Christ, Ken.

The Trinity (17)

From last time - By our nature, then, we are what we are. It follows that by our nature we do what we do: for every being acts according to what it is; according to its nature. 

Applying this to ourselves we come upon another distinction between person and nature. We find that there are many things, countless things, we can do. We can laugh and cry and walk and talk and sleep and think and love. All these and other things we can do because as human beings we have a nature that makes them possible. 

A snake could do only one of them—sleep. A stone could do none of them. Nature, then, is to be seen not only as what we are, but as the source of what we do. But although my nature is the source of all my actions, although my nature decides what kind of operations are possible for me, it is not my nature that does them: I do them, I—the person. 

The person is that which does the actions, the nature is that from which the actions are drawn; It is our nature to do certain things, but we do them. we operate according to our nature.

In Christ, Ken.