Debbie Wasserman Schultz says Children in the Womb are Not Persons

By Deacon Keith Fournier
11/8/2011
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

The question must be raised, who are the extremists?

Human rights are based on the natural law inscribed on human hearts and present in different cultures and civilizations. Removing human rights from this context would mean restricting their range and yielding to a relativistic conception. Not only rights are universal, but so too is the human person, the subject of those rights (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)

Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Congresswoman from Florida and Chair of the Democratic National Committee, recently told CNS News that calling the child a person is an extremist position.

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

WASHINGTON,DC (Catholic Online) - On November 8, 2011, the people of Mississippi will have an opportunity to cast their vote to affirm a scientific fact, that a human being in the womb of his or her mother is a human person from the moment of conception. The lieutenant Governor of the State recently expressed what many of his fellow Mississippians believe in these words: "The Founding Fathers said that every American has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. On November the 8th, we're going to give that right to every child in America, beginning in Mississippi"

If the people of the State pass this amendment to the State Constitution, intentional abortion, which is the taking of innocent human life in the womb, will be illegal - just like every other act of killing an innocent human person. The Mississippi amendment specifically includes them in the definition section of person in the State Constitution.

The Mississippi effort is a part of a growing trend in the States to pass such constitutional amendments to protect the lives of our youngest neighbors. These efforts are referred to collectively as the "Personhood" movement. Even within the Pro-Life movement, they have their detractors. However, the Pro-Life detractors do not deny the truth about the personhood of the unborn; they disagree with the legal approach taken by the Personhood proponents. They share the goal of re-securing the fundamental Right to life for these children in the first home of the whole human race.

The personhood movement has similar initiatives underway in more than a dozen States. The movement draws its marching orders from the language of Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun in the infamous Roe v Wade decision, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." The Amendment to which Justice Blackmun referred is the Fourteenth Amendment to US Constitution which, in its first section affirms,

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Congresswoman from Florida and Chair of the Democratic National Committee, recently told CNS News that calling the child a person is an extremist position. "For the vast majority of Americans, including people on both sides of the abortion issue, this is an extreme and radical step." She further alleged it was a "divisive, dangerous, and destructive" attack on women.

She continued, "To American women, their reproductive health and choice is an intensely personal and private issue between themselves, their families, and their doctors. But Republicans in Washington and across the country have tried to limit these rights, with their assault on Planned Parenthood in Congress and restrictive laws in the states being among several examples."

"Now, the effort by the far right [is] to pass these so-called personhood amendments-divisive, dangerous, and destructive laws which would cripple a woman's right to choose, limit access to birth control, and put the lives of women with difficult pregnancies at risk."

As I read her words I recalled a statement issued by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on September 8, 2008, the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary called "The Dignity of a Person". This defense of the dignity of every single human life from the moment of conception until natural death should be read by all who work to stop the killing of children in the womb by intentional abortion.

As is the custom with "magisterial" documents of the Catholic Church, the title of this instruction was taken from the first line, "The dignity of a person must be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death". The document continues, "This fundamental principle expresses a great "yes" to human life and must be at the center of ethical reflection on biomedical research, which has an ever greater importance in today's world."

All Catholic Christians should read this well written teaching document. It is a "doctrinal" statement of the ordinary magisterium (teaching office) and must be given the full assent of our intellect and will. However, the document is not only for Catholics, other Christians or even just people ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 75 Comments

margaret sheridan
1 year ago
Does Debbie Wasserman Schultz have any living children?
Martin
1 year ago
At the risk of re-starting an argument that may have died down, I would like to add a few words in defence of JuneauAlaska. Juneau referred to "the moment of conception" and was criticised for doing so. This is another instance of, I believe, people arguing but saying the same thing. A simple explanation of terms can settle matters. In everyday language we talk about the "moment of conception" as if it happens instantaneously. From an historical and lay viewpoint this would be correct. However because of advances in understanding about how two games (egg and sperm) fuse to produce an embryo, in scientific terms this is no longer an instantaneous event but a process which can be traced and followed in time, passing through distinct stages. This process is not long (I don't know how long - it could be less than a second or longer than a day) so to all intents and purposes it is a "moment", though if being described in specific terms it is not an instantaneous happening. Pro-choicers will use this argument to distract attention from the point and it is important to understand the language THEY use so that it can be used AGAINST them.
Because both sides of this argument / discussion are correct from the viewpoint of their own definitions, there can be no agreement even though they are, in fact, arguing towards the same point. This kind of division is most harmful - "A house divided against itself is doomed to fall".
In terms of making a pro-life case, I agree entirely with Juneau in that a factual, scientific argument devoid of any emotional language is the best to use, as the pro-choice people cannot counter the argument. Once their "scientific" language and terminology is used against them, THEY will resort to emotional arguments about rape victims and single, underage girls etc. Then WE can insist that they stick to the facts and, as THEY always insist, not resort to emotional arguments. At this point their own strategy is used against them and they frequently collapse against someone who knows more than they do.
"Belief" based arguments are valid ONLY when discussing with people who share your beliefs, and beware: making the case as a "Christian" and "Catholic" faith argument may only serve to distance Jewish and Islamic believers who should be our natural allies in these campaigns, so be very careful when claiming "Divine support".
I hope this helps.
Judy
1 year ago
Juneau: One thing is certain. We can never "...elude the grasp of Almighty God". 2 Mc, 6:26
As to your remarks of accusation and taking offense...Where are you coming from??? I had NO INTENT of accusations; nor challenging you. Evidently, if it were two or three hundred years ago, you would probably challenge me to a duel. Poppycock! is all I have to say about what you have to say on the "emotional aspect of this subject". Bravo! I say to you on your explanation of emotion. Yet, Listen to yourself... Be wary of who you point the finger! On a later post, mentioning "...red herring"; your accusations and attacks on me, (which have no merit, because I can and will back them up), and the use of the word fallacy; now I know where I met you, in Critical Thinking. One can become almost as devious as people think lawyers are, picking words and sentences apart. But one gets on a very slippery slope, when they try to prove or disprove God, don't they... It cannot be proven. (Supporting Facts Against Accusations: I was not a traditional college student. I entered college at age 36. I therefore was old enough to use more common sense and Reason. I personally, saw and heard, Some science professors, teach their bias, like picking certain passages from the Bible to suit themselves. Belittle and make fun of those students who did not agree w/their teaching; Their own personal perception, as in pushing a theory rather than a fact. Please note that I said Some, not All. (Parents who send their children to college today, Know that this will happen. I have three children who suffered through the same thing. Going to UCLA, SDSU, OSU, CSU, and GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY. I will add that they all had Catholic School Ed. All three have times of doubt. As do all of us. The point i would like to make, is that in today's world, it is harder). Therefore, I present myself in numerous science classes as evidence, plus, my three kids. I do think that our courts would take such evidence). Please Juneau, do not make accusations of anyone anymore. This is not what this site is about. It is about sharing and learning. It is about stretching the muscles of the mind. It helps broaden one's horizon, lovingly and prayerfully. I agree w/Pete on his brilliant post on science! Especially I liked, "Faith is not opposed to science". I tell my adult kids, "the more science discovers the more one learns how Infinite God Is". I also liked: "When did God become man?" Answer: At the "moment of conception". Period. Juneau, Some of us would rather be disgraced by others, than to lose the courage to reject what is not in accordance w/Holy Mother Church and Christ's teaching. I do not think that such persons can be found guilty of attacking or accusing. Of course, I am not perfect, and I have been wrong before. I personally, will not address any of what I consider to be false accusations or attacks. My time is too precious to be caught in a web of words w/Critical Thinking used as its premise. Blessings always..
JeanCatherine
1 year ago
You know if abortion is great what is the point of having children in this world to begin with? After all it is a natural process of this planet so why do we persist in destroying ourselves? It begins with us and will end with us. Were slowly exterminating ourselves and we dont even know it or realize it in most cases.
Pete Brady
1 year ago
Tyrone and Beth: Well said!!! Actually, "well said" to all the pro-life folk here, Catholic or not.
Beth
1 year ago
Juneau - What I was attempting to ask is, "What is the fallacy?" Sorry, I am a stay-at-home mom, not a scientist. I do have a fairly strong background in biology, having had an interest in it as a student, so I am not completely ignorant. But I have read your posts and still don't understand the fallacy of using the term "moment of conception", because - as I tried to explain in my previous post - the term - in common usage - is referring to that time at which the process of fertilization has achieved its natural end, that is, when a new human organism has been created with a unique and complete complement of human DNA. You tend to be circuitous in your comments and are obviously an intelligent person - and of course, you're right, this is an emotional issue. But just as name-calling might be indicative of a weak argument, so is (in my opinion) the tendency to take offense and then focus on the perceived insult rather than actually clarifying what it is you're trying to say. So, can you please (and I mean this to be conveyed with genuine curiosity), clarify your objection to the use of the term "moment of conception" in this article (and, apparently, elsewhere)? And if there is (as you concede) a moment of conception, when does it occur and how should it be defined for the purposes of establishing from a legal standpoint the beginning of human life?
vance
1 year ago
Pete, great point. I was trying to be subtle with Juneau but you articulated a better response. This guy is just another anti-Catholic bomb thrower that posts on different articles and leaves semi-intelligent points of view just to stir the pot. I doubt that he paid any attention to our posts.
Juneau Alaska
1 year ago
I'm not sure I have the desire to clarify the words I typed. I think they have remained relatively unassaulted. What has been assaulted, however, is what individuals claim I say or even more peculiar, what they wish to engage. This happens a lot and I chalk it up to the emotional aspect of this subect. But emotion, no matter how strong it may be, is superfluous here. It is not helpful. Emotional appeals do not bolster claims, provide evidence, or sway careful thinkers. Emotion, no matter how strong or shrill, does not make a claim factual in and of itself. Claims are factual because of evidence. That's it. And the claim here is that there is a "moment of conception fallacy". It is often used politically, not scientifically. It is mentioned in this article. Notice, I did not, nor have I ever stated there is no such thing as a moment of conception. That is an entirely different matter. What I did state is that there is a fallacy about conception and my thoughts on that remain unchanged. I have a method when engaging forums such as these, and that is to always focus on the claim, not the individual. I can usually do it and when I fail, I will apologize and amend my ways. If people take offense at my vigorous inquiry about claims, that's a red herring. Anyone can take offense to anything but in a discussion such as this, it becomes a distraction. When, however, an attack is made on the person, not the claim, as was done, that is something quite different. It is an attempt to discredit the source of power for the claim rather than the claim itself. It's called name calling and I don't like it and it usually, though not always, indicates an argument empty of critical thinking.
Pete Brady
1 year ago
The motto of my alma mater is "Ex Scientia Tridens." It means "From Knowledge, Sea Power." Too many people confuse what is known as the "scientific method" with "science" itself. The word "science" comes from the Latin "scientia" to mean knowledge, or knowledge of something or a particular discipline. Biology 101 or "Bio 699+" as it has been used herein refers to the "study of" the phenomena of life and living organisms. There are hundreds of "ology/logies." But we can be reasonably assured that they each endeavor towards the "study of" or "knowledge of" some particular thing. Faith is not opposed to science. In fact, theology, the study of or knowledge of things pertaining to God, has in times immemorial been referred to as the "Queen of the Sciences." Now, one of the previous commenters in this "discussion" has presented a "scientific" author to support his own personal questioning of the concept of the "moment of conception." And then scurries out of this room (the "boards") with the assertion that the concept is merely "political." You know who and what you are, sir. You assert that you are "personally offended" by certain remarks. To the contrary, every genuine Catholic in this forum is offended by YOUR REMARKS. The "moment of conception" is not political. It is at the very root of what defines the Catholic. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Belief in the true Incarnation of the Son of God is the distinctive sign of Christian faith: 'By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.' Such is the joyous conviction of the Church from her beginning whenever she sings 'the mystery of our religion': 'He was manifested in the flesh" (CCC 463). When did God become "man?" Answer: at the "moment of conception." Every day I pray the scriptural rosary for the souls in purgatory. The guide I've used for years ends the First Joyful Mystery with the reflection "The angel departed from her. And the Eternal Word of God became the holy child in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary" --- in reference to Luke 1:38 and John 1:14. The argument is not one of "politics;" but a deliberate attack on the the Catholic Faith. It is an attack on the belief that God became "man" at the "moment of conception." Jesus Christ EXISTS as "True God and True Man." He IS, the "I AM.". He has two natures; He is God and He is man. He has no other natures. While in the womb of His mother Mary He did not exist for nine months as a "something else," as some kind of mere glob of inert cells bereft of humanity, of personhood. In the womb "He was manifested in the flesh," True Man from the "moment of conception." And since he shares "in our humanity" all other human beings share in that "personhood" that Jesus Christ Himself had from the very "moment of conception." Scientia. Science. Period.
Rob
1 year ago
I was listening to an interview this morning being done for the lawyer who represents the group who tried to pass this law in MS. He made a comment that the bishops have not really supported the law because they felt it did not have a chance of passage in the Supreme Court. The Bishops have basically remained neutral on this. I didn't get a chance to listen to all of the interview, but I was pretty shocked by this statement. Does this mean that the Bishops really aren't that vested in the legal fight for life? Are they waiting for some magical recipe in the supreme court before really wage the fight? I think a Catholic, perhaps not well versed in their faith, could take those statements to mean that abortion really isn't an issue when I vote. And quite honestly, why should it if the leaders in our church aren't fighting it with everything they got?

Prev12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment