Social Mode

Kathleen Parker: The abortion gospel according to Pelosi is just wrong

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080828/OPINION/808280310/

…and various newspapers around the country on 8/29/08

So there are several questions to be considered and answered, if possible, initiated by your swirl around issues of abortion, law and woman’s rights, not the least of which is free speech. Consideration of these type questions will hopefully allow some level of resolution, if not provide relief from the passionate but bullying finality you express in this referenced piece that has come to be the hallmark of the sound-bite society.

For starters, your writing behavior is an example that one can’t separate religious views from science and news interpretation – alluding to ‘science and religion in agreement’ comment at the end of your article. That is very myopic statement in that you appear to be referring to Catholicism and not Jainism or Shinto or Mormonism as ‘religion’.

There is no such thing as the instant when life begins. There is no immaculate spark or divine initiation. Fertilization takes hours and is the product of two or more living cells, and, like any cellular division, it is not created in any sense other than a religious sense of the term.

Human development begins with the process of the zygote, which is a single cell like the brain is a single organ. However, if there is no nidation and the fertilized cell is sloughed off, it is as if the conception and fertilization never occurred.

Brought to light that the fertilized entity represents never-to-be realized potential, would there be some nuts out there that want to bury menstrual products in some deification of lost human potential? Is the fertilized cell prayed for or is the women singled out as the guilty party due to lack of nidation? Is this type loss of potential members to the faith one of the reasons that some religions scorn women and treat them as secondary communicants?

How does the Catholic church reflect on this by-product of unrequited union? Menstrual products can’t be glorified (given the last rights because it wasn’t a cognizant being or baptized) because without some blood analysis, one can’t determine if it carried a fertilized cell or not.

New additions to your literary skills are duly noted in your review of the cogent legal issue references of Roe v. Wade as the rule of the land. You write as if people including Justice Blackmun conspired in some way to make you and your dogma look bad. I posit that what the justices saw and acknowledged was a convergence of difficult issues due to the lack of monocausality. You had no such inhibition and that appears to be a great comfort to you. However, your general foggy understanding of law, constitutional prevalence and neuroendocrinology based on two books you obviously didn’t read does stand out.

Heaven forbid (like that phrase?) that Pelosi has a right to speak her views as she did, while you, stand tall as a writer and courier of social banality, state rightness and wrongness while discounting her right to do what you are doing.

Please rise above absolutists and do some reflection before you write about non-dogmatic material. I have no problem with how you came to have your beliefs. I am contemptuous of pretenders to the thrown who pawn their beliefs off on others as substantiated facts.