|
||
 Email this article  Discuss this article Other Articles by Judie Brown Printer Friendly Version |
||
| Maybe Abortion Isn't Murder After All | ||
Recent Articles:
>>See more Pro-Life articles
Pro-Life
Pope's Opposition to Euthanasia is Personal: Cousin had Down's and Was Taken by the Nazis
Teen Sex Linked To Regret and Abortions in Later Adult Life
Incest is Perfectly Permissible if the Secular Worldview is Right
Pro-life Legislation Gets Differing Endorsements
Pro-life Legislation: Pay for an Ultrasound Before You Kill the Baby?
>>See more Pro-Life articles
April 10, 2008
There was a comment in the Argus Leader, a South Dakota newspaper, that deeply troubles me. In the article we are told, "South Dakota is joined by other states trying to either rein in abortion with stringent requirements or to creatively outflank it."
The article discusses various ways of wording a proposed law or ballot measure that will permit abortion in a limited number of cases. For example, in Missouri the goal is to limit abortion to instances where "the procedure is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious medical risks."
My first reaction to such mumbo-jumbo is to ask: "How do you think an abortionist will interpret these efforts?" My answer: "He will see them as a license to continue killing as many babies as he likes."
And that is why proposals like these are flawed-they permit what they claim to oppose and cause me nightmares.
This sort of thing has been going on for more than 35 years. Many pro-life leaders and organizations have been strong proponents of exceptions for a wide variety of reasons. In some cases it is deemed to be politically advantageous. In others it is described as the prudent thing to do. And in still others we are told that the public is not ready for a no-exceptions proposal or that the timing is not right for banning all abortion!
But such arguments are inane and the proposals that come out of such thinking are fraught with problems-not for pro-lifers but for preborn children. If we state that we know that a preborn child is a human being, then it does not follow that we would, in the next breath, defend proposals that permit the killing of some of these children.
Professor Charles Rice argues that, "every time a pro-lifer proposes a law that would tolerate the execution of some unborn children, his pro-life rhetoric is drowned out by the loud and clear message of his action, that he concedes that the law can validly tolerate the intentional killing of innocent human beings."
Political science Professor Christopher Wolf's opinion on this is as follows: "The simple fact of the law is itself profoundly important. No matter how carefully the law is framed in words that respect the ideal of the sanctity of human life, compromise legislation still has as its bottom line the toleration of some abortions. And people being the way they are, some, perhaps many, will conclude from the fact that an act is not illegal that it is not immoral."
A very dear friend of mine, Marie Dietz, who has gone to her eternal reward, once wrote a marvelous brochure for us entitled "When it Comes to Abortion Bans: Exceptions Break the Rule." In that little tract, she wisely instructs:
These exceptions are being sold to the pro-life movement as "smart politics" which will save some babies, arguments which appeal both to the politicians among us and to those in the movement who feel the death of these babies in the very depths of our souls.
But William Buckley, writing about the abortion debate in National Review (11122189), injects a dose of reality: "The positions of such as Mario Cuomo, Patrick Moynihan, and Edward Kennedy remind us that the temptation to be guided by political considerations not only shapes our public declarations, but tends to calcify our consciences." (Emphasis added.)
And in The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis tells us that if we throw away the yardstick we no longer have anything by which to measure. If the pro-life movement throws away its moral yardstick by admitting, however tacitly, a "right" to abortion, by what standard will we measure the right to life of anyone?
I submit that ours is not a political movement. It is a moral movement brought into the political arena through no fault of our own. But if we are not a political movement, then politics cannot save us-or the babies.
I think it's high time we thought about this with a little more contemplation and paid a lot less attention to polls, politics and pragmatism.
This initiative is designed to get people to agree on at least the most obvious forms of murder represented by abortion. The opposition recognizes that it is an attempt to draw all along the road of recognizing (and outlawing) all abortion as murder. We lost the last referendum because we didn't have enough people that recognized all abortion as murder, but from the evidence of polls, we would have had enough votes to recognize some abortions as murder. This law attempts to go back and pick up those votes and start to build more.
The statement of our bishop reads (in part):
This principle of gradualism may be exercised by public officials and voters. Thus, in the context of the
present petition drive, the question arises, “Is it permissible for a Catholic public official or voter to
support this referendum by circulating or signing the petition and/or voting for it?” In response I offer
the following observations:
1. All Catholics are called to the fullness of the Church’s teaching that all life is sacred and that the
taking of life in abortion is a grave evil. No exceptions can be endorsed as a good in themselves.
Everyone should make every effort to end abortions.
2. A Catholic may, after prayer and sufficiently informing his or her conscience, support this
referendum under the principle of gradualism as long as he or she does not accept exceptions as a
good and, and as Pope John Paul II taught “never abandon the moral requirement to seek full
protection for all human life.” One’s intention would be to reduce the numbers of abortions as much
as possible and to eliminate the exceptions when this is possible.
3. A Catholic may also, after prayer and sufficiently informing his or her conscience, abstain from or
oppose this referendum because it does not reflect the fullness of the Church’s teaching on the
sanctity of all human life.
4. As Catholics prayerfully consider this complex issue, we should also pray for humility and charity.
We must all support the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. We may differ on
occasion about how to enshrine that truth into secular law. We are called when we differ in opinion
to respect one another.
The statement is available on the diocesan website (pdf)
http://www.diocese-of-sioux-falls.org/info/bishopsdocs/AbortionPetition.pdf
In short, Ms. Brown is right in that the pro-life movement is not a political movement and that politics cannot save us. But Fr. Pavone and others have also told us to use what political capital we can to limit this evil where possible. South Dakotans continue to try to use all methods, including, but not limited to, political means, to lead our fellow citizens to the realization that killing any child for any reason really should be unthinkable.
She is also correct that we need more contemplation, We also need more prayer, more teaching on the natural law and the word of God. We need more fasting and begging the Lord for a mass infusion of the understanding of the evil of abortion into the minds and hearts of all Americans.
But that doesn't mean that we should stop using the forum that we have by our political structure, just because it doesn't do enough. We have to make it do what it can and extend it to do more wherever possible. If politics is the art of the possible, we have to use it to do whatever is possible and turn the impossible over to the hands of God.
I would argue that in South Dakota, we are doing both. Our legislators of both parties are trying to craft and pass pro-life legislation over a very vocal opposition (oxymoronically named Coalition for Healthy Families) and on any given day there are people standing in prayer in front of the single (I emphasize: one) Planned Parenthood facility that does abortions (in the entire state-- 380 miles x 210 miles) that has to have its abortionist brought in from out of state.
I would also request that you pray for South Dakota and all fronts on this battle, that we stay within God's will to faithfully, even if not completely successfully, fight for the lives of the preborn.
Submitted by mallys on Fri, 04/11/2008 - 8:01am.
Isn't the point to save as many babies as possible? Most likely, abortion will not be outlawed by one sweeping legislation. Chipping away at the most horrendous forms of child-killing is not a license to continue abortions, but an attempt to save as many lives as possible, as soon as we can. Would proponents of the all-at-once-or-nothing philosophy object to the recent law banning partial birth abortion because it only banned one kind of abortion? This reminds me of the anti-slavery crusades. Some of the most vocal abolitionists demanded nothing short of immediate emancipation, but in the end it was Lincoln, a practical politician willing to compromise (he exempted a few states from the emancipation proclamation) who eventually achieved freedom. I think the pro-life movement does itself more damage by internal fighting than anything the anti-lifers could accomplish.
Submitted by phantom77 on Fri, 04/11/2008 - 7:13pm.
I think that as long as we can all agree that we will keep up the struggle until every life is protected from conception to natural death, we can accomplish much more.
No benefit comes from denigrating those who seek a gradual elimination, or presuming that they mean to permanently tolerate exceptions until they make it clear that they do.
Submitted by Arkanabar on Fri, 04/11/2008 - 8:28pm.
Once you allow or make an exception, particularly when this exception is written into law, you only lead the way for further exceptions. Abortion is an all or nothing proposition.
Submitted by LALOVER on Sun, 04/13/2008 - 2:40pm.
Can we conclude from this that Mrs. Brown and A.L.L. will not be supporting the initiative in South Dakota at all?