the sole non-negotiable
By Diogenes (articles ) | December 30, 2006 1:18 PM
Frances (Catholics for a Free Choice) Kissling has one serious problem. If pro-aborts join the call to reduce the number of abortions, doesn't that imply that abortion is a bad thing? But if they admit that it's a bad thing, they've conceded the moral argument out of hand. True, it's an astonishingly late recognition of what should have been obvious from the outset, but it's really got her squirming. Her writhings are worth reading in full.
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. Why, people ask us -- 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, acting in the interests of society and their existing and future children -- 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.
Coming from another speaker -- an IRA terrorist, say, or a Marxist guerrilla -- that last sentence might seem to be the prelude to an act of remorse. In this essay, it's a boast.
Kissling has one of those Peter Singer-like minds that executes all witnesses to its own moral incoherence, i.e., she'd rather watch her principles kill off the innocent than recant them. She understands that this "resolve" comes at the cost of shocking the squeamish, but it's a cost she's willing to pay.
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. Yes, words are important, but so is vision. Should we say there are too many abortions in the US? I doubt it. Which abortion tipped the balance from just enough to too many? It’s a little bit like Goldilocks and the Three Bears: too hot, too cold, just right. Which woman should not have had an abortion? What reason was frivolous? Our heads spin! We believe we are on thin ice if we say we want to reduce the number of abortions.
Wait a second. What exactly is she afraid of when the ice cracks? It is an electoral defeat for pro-aborts that's likely to follow a Hillary-style "safe legal rare" maneuver? On the contrary, it was adopted by Dems only because it's a politically attractive feint, and Kissling not only admits the attractiveness but encourages the feint. No, something much more important is at risk. Pay close attention to Kissling's every term in the line that follows:
Tactically, there is concern that an explicit goal of working to prevent the need for abortions or to reduce the incidence of abortion undermines efforts to demonstrate that those opposed to abortion are extremists.
Apply the Steve Grand macro here: if that last sentence doesn't make the hair stand up on the back of your neck, read it again until it does.
I don't see how it could be any clearer. The pro-abortion movement, when all the politically expedient slogans are dispensed with, is about hatred: specifically, hatred of anyone who holds himself objectively accountable to right and wrong. Rather than lose their grip on that hatred, they're prepared to throw overboard every subsidiary value -- coherence, freedom, sanity, even women themselves.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our final 2013 goal ($23,094 to go, assuming receipt of matching funds):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Jan. 02, 2007 1:10 PM ET USA
Is she really trying to claim that the high rate of abortions is really my fault???
Posted by: Exaudi nos -
Jan. 01, 2007 4:33 PM ET USA
i have been going toe to toe with this hatred for several years. If they can't refute your facts, they attack your personality. Thank God for "Making Abortion Unthinkable". it has been a Godsend in the fight to bring Reason intto the debate.
Posted by: JARay -
Dec. 31, 2006 10:07 PM ET USA
I Wondered whether to add anything here. What has been said, has been said with such clarity that further comment is, it would seem, superfluous. But numbers do count. This must not be allowed to pass into oblivion. The saying is "constant dripping wears away the stone". Hopefully the pro-life message is succeeding in wearing away the stone of such as Kissling.
Posted by: Comment -
Dec. 30, 2006 5:39 PM ET USA
You are correct, Di. The Satanic hatred behind the pro-abortion movement is exactly why it is a supreme act of charity for the papacy and bishops to loudly condemn evil in all its shapes and forms, particularly those like CFC, who blasphemously claim to be followers of Jesus Christ. What people need to see is the tremendous necessity for the Church to condemn evil and error, and the gross negligence and untold harm of allowing Satan to run rampant, as has been done for the past 50 years.