The new liberal mantra on abortion is that “abortion should be safe, legal, and rare,” made famous by Hillary Clinton. I always find this ironic. What other Constitutional rights does anyone work toward making rare? The reason abortion-choicers such as Clinton want abortion to be rare is because they know abortion is immoral (but can’t admit it). After all, if aborting a child is no more moral significance than pulling a tooth; and if aborting a child is a good thing for the mother and society, why work to make it rare?
Some abortion supporters are angered at those like Hilary Clinton who say they want to reduce the number of abortions in this country. Why? Because they know it implies that abortion is not a good thing; i.e. it is wrong. Francis Kissling, President of Catholics for Free Choice, wrote an article in the October 2nd edition of Salon Magazine to address the topic:
If abortion is a morally neutral act and does not endanger women’s health, why bother to prevent the need for it? After all, the cost of a first-trimester abortion is comparable to the cost of a year’s supply of birth control pills–and abortion has fewer complications and less medical risk for women than some of the most effective methods of contraception.
…
Is abortion a morally neutral act? Is it, as some have said, an unambiguous moral good? This is where we go limp and get tongue-tied. If abortion is such a good thing — if it results in women coming to terms with their moral autonomy, making good choices for their lives, and acting in the interests of society and their existing and future children — then why, people ask us, do we want to reduce the need for it? Simply put, the movement as a whole and most of our leaders find it difficult to acknowledge publicly that we have spent our lives, our passion, fighting for something that both is central to human freedom and autonomy, and ends a form of human life.
…
Why then do we get so caught up, so tongue-tied when we are asked if we want to prevent abortion? We spend countless hours trying to find the most nuanced way of answering this question. We worry that some woman will be hurt if we acknowledge the moral ambiguity of abortion.
There are many other quotable sections of this article as well. Kissling argued that being in favor of abortion rights does not mean one has to treat the unborn as worthless things. As life, they are worthy of respect:
We interpret life broadly. We say we are in favor of legal abortion because it protects women’s lives. We do not mean just their physical lives; we mean their capacity to live full, free and happy lives. Why, then, should we think that a presumption in favor of life is inappropriately applied to fetal life? Why do we insist that because the fetus is not a person in any theological, scientific, legal or sociological sense, it does not deserve our consideration? Do not people want to know if those of us who advocate a moral right to choose an abortion also approach all aspects of life with wonder and awe? Can we totally separate our attitude toward the justifiable taking of non-personal life in abortion from the other principles of protecting life that have become crucial to our survival as civilized human beings?
…
Although it would be unjust to place on women’s reproductive decisions the moral burden of upholding absolutely a presumption in favor of life, it is important that we express our belief that the ability to create and nurture and bring into the world new people should be exercised carefully, consciously, responsibly and with awe for our capacity to create life. That is one reason why we must commit ourselves to working to make abortion unnecessary, and be willing to use those words.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>
Apart from my disagreement with Kissling’s philosophical notion that the unborn are non-persons, how can he say they are not persons in any theological sense ? If nothing else, Christian theology teaches that the unborn are persons. Even legally speaking, the unborn are considered persons. The only exception is when they are unwanted by their mother, and killed by a doctor. Then they purportedly cease to be persons.
The article is worth the read. While the author is confused and mistaken, there are hints of honest recognition about the evils of abortion.
<!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>Francis Kissling, “Should abortion be prevented?: Why the case for abortion rights must include a call for responsibility toward the creation of life”, in Salon; available from http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/10/03/abortion/; Internet; accessed 02 May 2007.
Thinking to Believe 
May 9, 2007 at 6:49 am
Jason,
It’s interesting to contrast Kissling’s comments with those of the Roe court.
Kissling: “Why do we insist that because the fetus is not a person in any theological, scientific, legal or sociological sense, it does not deserve our consideration?”
Justice Blackmun, Roe v. Wade: “The absence of a common-law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins. These disciplines variously approached the question … in terms of when a ‘person’ came into being, that is, infused with a ‘soul’ or ‘animated.’ A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth. This was ‘mediate animation.’ Although Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that prior to this point the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide.”
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/roe.html
Thus, the Roe court seems to concede that philosophy, theology and law have not only long recognized the value of the unborn, but even their personhood, and that personhood begins prior to birth. Such personhood was recognized at 40-80 days, which may be well past conception but well within the window of most abortions. In any event, it’s a stark contrast to Kissling.
LikeLike
May 9, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I think the “we” to which Kissling refers is his pro-abortion audience. He is not speaking on a legal level.
LikeLike
May 9, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Jason, I think you missed my point. Kissling claims that a fetus, because it is unborn, is not a person in a theological sense. But even the Roe court did not go that far, and conceded that theology and philosophy have long recognized that personhood begins prior to birth.
Arthur
LikeLike
May 10, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Your point seems to be that Kissling’s assertion that the fetus is not a person in any theological sense is contradicted by the findings of the SCOTUS. Agreed.
My point was that Kissling is not interested in what the SCOTUS has said (as though pointing out Blakmun’s quote would make him retract his statement), but on what he and his abortion-choice community think.
The one thing that is clear is that Kissling is dead wrong. It’s obvious at a moment’s glance. After all, it’s religious conservatives who make up the largest proportion of pro-life advocates. They are usually guided by their theological convictions about the unborn, so saying the fetus is not a person in a theological sense is patently false, to the point of stupidity.
Jason
LikeLike