The United Catholic States of America? Their abortion stance and freedom

September 11, 3:27 PMDC Ethical Issues ExaminerLaura Harrison McBride

Previous Next

4 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the DC Ethical Issues Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

The U.S. President and his cabinet? (Wiki Commons)

What makes American Catholics think they have the right to decide where the nation’s healthcare dollars are spent?

In an article about President Obama’s healthcare speech to Congress and the nation, a Roman Catholic examiner on this site suggested, regarding payment for abortion: “If it is not explicitly forbidden in the plan, then it might as well be explicitly included.”

That’s certainly taking things to an illogical conclusion. But worse, it exhibits amazing hubris that a proselytizer for a single religion should think that religion’s beliefs should not only be recognized passively, but actually enforced via agencies of the federal government.

It is unthinkable in a free society to assume a secular government should interfere with the rights of all citizens in order to cater to the beliefs of some. It is unethical in the extreme for adherents of that religion to demand it from any government. Perhaps some illustrations will show American Catholics where they go wrong with this.

For example, why should observant Jews not demand that the government refuse to pay for pork products or shellfish when they purchase agricultural excesses from farmers, or when they feed the armed forces, or prepare school lunches? Why should Jews not demand that each kitchen that receives federal funding be kept kosher?

Why should Buddhists not demand the government refuse to buy all animal products ?  milk, eggs, meat or poultry ? for school lunches and feeding the armed forces?

Why should Seventh Day Adventists not demand that the rest of the nation operate on a Saturday Sabbath schedule (which the Jews could also do), rather than Sunday?

Why should the nation not be forced to recognize a right for a man to have multiple wives at the same time as some Mormon sects do (as is also part of Utah law, I understand)?

Demanding that the government specifically exclude payment for abortions, a matter of personal conscience and personal religious beliefs every bit as much as eating or not eating pork, is a stunningly arrogant stance anywhere except Vatican City, where they may do as they please about abortion. It is a religious government, not a secular one. Ours is a secular one.

Yes, but we are talking about human life, the anti-choice cadre might say.

No, we are not. We are talking about several things, but not about human life. As far as I know, there has been no definitive, factual, unequivocal answer to the question of when human life begins, only beliefs about when human life begins. “Biologist Scott Gilbert, an expert in human development, tells us that there are at least four distinct moments that can be thought of as the beginning of human life. Each can be said to be biologically accurate.” And, “Proponents of the neurological view adhere to brainwave criteria; life begins when a distinct EEG pattern can be detected, about 24 to 27 weeks. (Some Protestant churches affirm this). Interestingly, life is also thought to end when the EEG pattern is no longer present.”

That being the case, we are talking about:

• A woman’s right to operate her own body as she sees fit
• A woman’s personal beliefs about when life starts, many of which are wildly different from the views of the Catholic Church
• The responsibility of a secular government to avoid, assiduously, favoring the religious beliefs of one sect or another in the conduct of the nation’s business. The WHOLE nation’s business.

There is a simple solution to all this that I’d like to suggest to Catholics as a means to keep their beliefs to themselves and let the rest of us have ours:

• If a person accepting any sort of government monies for birth control or for terminating a pregnancy believes it is ethically acceptable to engage in either or both of those practices, then there should be no problem in accepting help for either or both of those practices if help is needed.
• If a person accepting any sort of government monies for birth control or for terminating a pregnancy believes it is ethically unacceptable to engage in either or both of those practices, then there should be no problem in that person turning down help for either or both of those practices.

And that should hold true under any sort of health insurance reform, and should hold true now, in terms of Medicaid and state health subsidy programs, but it doesn’t. Somewhere along the line, American Catholics got a foot in that door, which is a shame for poor women and families who don’t happen to be Catholic but were whacked with Catholic beliefs nonetheless.

It is unethical in the extreme, not to mention inimical to personal freedom, to attempt to force a secular government to enforce a particular religion’s beliefs via funding of government programs or any other means. I suggest that anyone who doubts this take a look at any number of nations in which one sect has forced the others to do their bidding. Iraq comes immediately to mind. Afghanistan. Iran. Libya. Indonesia.

Need I continue?