No Discussion, Please. We Want Diversity.

Oh that ignorant Catholic Church. Once again, it has a different view from those who preach “diversity.”  110832

The Catholic Church in Poland has come under attack for apparently challenging “gender workshops,” a type of sex-ed class in the schools that present children with “alternatives” to permanent monogamous heterosexual relations. According to an article in Our Sunday Visitor, the circumstances are not quite clear. Nevertheless, in a column for the theguardian.com, Agata Pyzik attacks the Church in a way that makes it seem that she, the Church, and other critics of the Church are at least agreed upon the subject of the dispute, namely the “gender workshops” and accompanying topics like abortion and contraception.

Think about it. The gender agenda, inclusive of same-sex marriage, is probably the largest social experiment in the history of humanity. And it’s being driven by anything but science. Gender is a fluid notion despite the scientific fact that the human person’s sex is determined at conception.

It’s interesting that at the same time that most European countries won’t stand for altering the integrity of food produce with genetically modified organisms [GMOs], the integrity of the human person is discounted insofar as one’s sex is considered to be arbitrary, changeable, even mistaken, not an integral and essential part of who we are even though…again…it’s determined at conception. That’s pure science. Not religion, not the Bishops, not the Pope. There is no human being created who is not male or female and yet the significance of that seems to count for very little in some circles.

Obviously people are going to have different thoughts and feelings about policies impacting society in such a profound way. At the very least, differing view points ought to be discussed, pondered, and explored. Instead, any suggestion that perhaps this experiment needs some rethinking or perhaps children  should not be the guinea pigs of a vast social experiment (an EXPERIMENT!), results in an attempt to shut down the dissenting voice[s]. Then again, this is Poland we’re talking about. Perhaps the decades of Communism have left a deeper impact than we thought, namely that a voice that challenges a questionable and potentially harmful idea should be shut down, especially if it’s the Catholic Church. After all, a 2,000 year-old institution has no experience to draw upon…

Pyzik discusses the issue assaults the Church for its actions to stop the “gender workshops.”[A quick internet search turned up this bio which describes her as a writer whose primary interest is "(post) Communist Eastern Europe."] She refers to a recent comment by actress Meryl Streep to Polish politicians:

“I thought that after years of communism you’d caught up with the west in a social-cultural sense.”

Pyzik notes, however,

“… it was during the People’s Republic when women in Poland enjoyed civil and reproductive rights.

“Enjoyed”? Last I checked, the flow of traffic, had the borders been open, would have been out of Communist countries, not into them, precisely because human rights were not acknowledged and supported by law. The rates of abortion in Communist countries have been notoriously high, due to factors like population control, economic conditions, and a basic lack of hope for the future.

Let’s talk about contraception for a moment. Back in 2005, the World Health Organization repeated its 1999 finding that hormonal contraception is a Group 1 carcinogen for humans, in other words hormonal contraception creates a serious cancer risk for women who use it. Yet, Pyzik is not alone in mistakenly seeing it as a part of women’s “rights” or “health.” The current HHS mandate in the U.S. makes the same assertion, apparently without any thought to women’s health.

Given that we’re talking about a very serious drug with dangerous side effects, shouldn’t doctors and pharmacists be able to make the decision to refuse to expose a patient to the danger of a particular treatment? It’s not as if a patient has a right to any medication that she deems necessary. That’s left to the doctor’s discretion. Ethical doctors don’t automatically write prescriptions without first diagnosing the patient and then considering the effects (good and bad) of the treatment. Doctors who are driven by an agenda rather than the health of the patient, well they’re unethical.

But this abortion+contraception = women’s rights formula is all part of a tired, albeit all too successful trope. If something is repeated often enough, it seems true no matter how dubious it might actually be.

I’ve listened to women who have had abortions. Many women. I’ve only had one tell me years after that it was a good choice for her. I’ve met with and researched doctors who work in the developing countries who would like to provide safe maternal care. Instead they are provided with contraceptives…even though their patients want safe deliveries and healthy babies.

With regard to the gender issues, Pyzik complains:

Even scientists speak in one voice with the church: the Polish Academy of Sciences published a letter in which they called the gender workshops an attempt at “unseating children from their own sex”.

I dunno. When I question a scientist, it’s about methodology, not whether or not the scientist agrees with the Catholic Church.

How about measuring progress in terms other than abortion, contraception, and how one chooses to use one’s genitalia? And while we’re at it, it wouldn’t hurt to have an open discussion about a major, major, major social EXPERIMENT.

 

48,154 views

Categories:Abortion Family Marriage Politics

39 thoughts on “No Discussion, Please. We Want Diversity.

  1. Bridget says:

    It seems like you don’t want a discussion either, you want the Catholic Church to not be criticized or even publicly disagreed with.

  2. TeaPot562 says:

    So far, no biologist or geneticist has discovered a”gay gene”, or a combination of genes comprising a “gay chromosome. Occasional situations do exist, as noted by B. Ruskin, of multiple organ tissues in a single individual. In ancient Greek mythology is mentioned a Tiresias, who had both male and female characteristics.
    However, these historically have been rare, probably less than 1 percent of all births.
    My understanding is that Gays and Lesbians claim that their behavior is innate, determined by their physiologies, not “a choice or a preference”.
    Note in history that noted males who were punished for homosexual behavior – Edward II of England and Oscar Wilde e.g. – were quite capable of siring children before discovering their preference for other males. That fact implies that for those persons at least, the same sex behavior was a choice, not an innate requirement.
    If it is a “choice”, then it is subject to moral structures about being right or wrong, i.e., being virtuous or sinful.
    TeaPot562

  3. Xavier says:

    Abortion in communist countries had a mixed history. China has the highest rate of abortion in the world. Joseph Stalin made abortion illegal in Soviet Union, as part of Stalin’s initiative to encourage population growth, as well as place a stronger emphasis on the importance of the family unit to communism. Post-communist Russia saw a decimation in their population, largely due to abortions. Rightly, Putin is trying to put curbs on abortions once again.

    http://rt.com/politics/russia-abortion-advertising-ban-266/

  4. Bertrand Ruskin says:

    It is right what is written here. The EU has become a bastion for intolerance. It only permits one line of political dialogue through all the media, the education systems, national institutions and of legal definitions. It is in reality communism but it has renamed itself liberalism. It is possible in years to come more people will be flee to Russia and former soviet countries for political freedoms being denied them here.

  5. Hegesippus says:

    Jack, you can always find a very unusual case to cite if you want, while claiming that this trumps the very vast majority and dictates the lowest common denominator.

    However, we are talking about the very vast majority, where there is no biological confusion. What gives anyone the right to foist groundless modern social fashions on to children and society as a whole?

    You cannot apply the extreme to the normal and demand all drop their long-established, scientifically-supported and theologically-sound understanding. And all this even without discussing it.

    Oh, and without a full understanding (as in FULL) understanding of how biology works, it is best not to use biological confusion to work as a foundation of anything. Instead pray for the person.

  6. Jack says:

    A few years ago I saw a program on one of the science channels about a woman, to all appearances, who had always been raised female. However, by college her periods had not yet started.

    Genetic tests revealed she is XY.

    Is this person a woman or a man with natural breasts and female genitals?

    A man who had fought as a man in the armed forces had to have an abdominal CT scan. It turned out he had a perfect, though non-functioning, internal female reproductive system.

    Is he a man or a woman?

    I asked my Catholic doctor about these, and he cryptically replied, “When dealing with human sexuality, things are seldom what they seem>

    1. P says:

      So do anencephalic babies mean that it isn’t warranted to say that humans have high functioning brains? Beware of using exceptions to dispose of the norm.

    2. Bertrand Ruskin says:

      The truth is in nature there are a many complications during child birth, but common sense should prevail over identifying the gender of the offspring. To answer your points, using science: In the first case: The XY chromosomes show he was male. The boy had been indoctrinated from a young age to believe he was a girl. This is a form of child abuse and should be outlawed, not encouraged.
      In the second case: A woman when pregnant can have more than one egg fertilized. If at a very early stage, the two eggs get “mixed up”, then at birth different things can happen such as, conjoined twins, and in this case dizygotic (“fraternal”) twins whereby the female twin did not survive, except her organs (and probably some other tissue) got trapped so to speak within the male twin. He is still a man, but he has inside himself something of his sister. Nature is very complicated, but we should NOT be redefining people and animals according to a secular political ideology. There are only two genders: male with XY and female with XX chromosomes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.