Thinking to Believe

In the Lincoln-Douglas senatorial debates, Lincoln argued against Stephen Douglas’ position that while he was personally opposed to slavery, he did not believe the federal government should outlaw it because the majority of each state should be able to choose their own position on the matter. Lincoln said, “When Judge Douglas says that whoever, or whatever community, wants salves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do a wrong.” Frank Beckwith, in Defending Life, says Lincoln’s point was that to claim something is morally wrong is to claim it is morally impermissible. To argue that one has a right to participate in a morally impermissible act is to say the impermissible is permissible.

I find this line of reasoning pertinent to the abortion debate today. Many people—particularly politicians—proclaim their personal opposition to abortion all the while advocating for the continued right to abortion in this country. But they can’t have their cake and eat it too. If they truly believe abortion is a moral evil, then they cannot advocate it as a right in this country. No one would buy the statement, “While I personally oppose annihilating Jews, I think one ought to have the right to do so.” So why does anyone buy it when it comes to abortion?

The Canadian Center for Bioethical Reform has a way of bringing the abortion issue home: put pictures of aborted babies on the side of trucks accompanied with the word “choice,” and drive them throughout the town of Calgary.

Not everyone is happy with the display of these graphic, but truthful images. Celia Posyniak, executive director of a local abortion clinic said, “I just think in Canadian society, it’s really a rude, crude display. It shows a lack of manners.” If the display of abortion photos is crude, then how much cruder is the abortion itself? If it is a lack of manners to show pictures of what an abortion does, then how much less manners does one have who obtains and performs an abortion? I always find it interesting how pro-abortion advocates find pictures of what an abortion does so offensive, but do not find abortions offensive themselves. They object to showing pictures of what abortion does, but do not object to abortions themselves. Why? Most object to showing the pictures because they don’t want the public to see what abortion really looks like. They don’t want the public to see how developmentally advanced aborted babies really are. They know that when people see the horror of abortion, public support for abortion will fade. I agree. That’s why the public needs to see these graphic images.

The President’s former speech writer, Michael Gerson, wrote an article in the Washington Post on Giuliani’s incoherent position on abortion. He writes:

In early debates and statements, he has set out his views on this topic with all the order and symmetry of a freeway pileup. His argument comes down to this: “I hate abortion,” which is “morally wrong.” But “people ultimately have to make that choice. If a woman chooses that, that’s her choice, not mine. That’s her morality, not mine.” This is a variant of the position developed by New York Gov. Mario Cuomo in 1985. In this view, the Catholic Church’s belief in the immorality of abortion is correct, in the same sense that its belief in the Immaculate Conception is correct. Both beliefs are religious, private and should not be enforced by government.

But the question naturally arises: Why does Giuliani “hate” abortion? No one feels moral outrage about an appendectomy. Clearly he is implying his support for the Catholic belief that an innocent life is being taken. And here the problems begin.

How can the violation of a fundamental human right be viewed as a private matter? Not everything that is viewed as immoral should be illegal…but when morality demands respect for the rights of a human being, those protections become a matter of social justice, not just personal or religious preference.
…
This view is likely to dog him in the primary process, not only because it is pro-choice but because it is incoherent.

HT:

Between Two Worlds

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 2^nd 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.

Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States decided the controversial case regarding partial birth abortion, Gonzales v. Carhart. By a 5-4 majority the Court upheld a 2003 Congressional ban of the procedure.

Pro-abortion advocates are up in arms over the decision. But why? The ban only pertains to a particular method of abortion. There are other methods for killing late-term babies that are still legal (namely, D&E). The fact of the matter is that there will be no fewer abortions now that the law is in effect than there were before the law went into effect. It does not restrict a woman’s right to kill her baby. It only restricts the methods doctors may employ to carry out the woman’s desire. Now abortionists have to utilize nicer ways to kill babies! So the next time a pro-abortion advocate complains that this law restricts a woman’s “right to choose”, ask them to explain how it does so.

So why are pro-abortion advocates so upset? I speculate that the reason for their anger is fear. Any law that does not expand abortion rights, chips away at abortion rights. They are afraid that eventually, with enough chipping, the whole edifice will fall. That fear is justified, and I hope their worst fears come true!