The Safe, Legal, and Rare Canard

Pro-abortion advocates often argue that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” In practice, however, they care little for the “safe” and “rare” parts of that catchy and lying slogan. Their treatment of the horrific case of abortion "doctor" Kermit Gosnell is proof of this.

The facts of the Gosnell case practically demand outrage. An abortion provider – butcher would be a far better term for the man – plied his trade of late-term abortions in horrific, disgusting conditions, with help from under-trained and under-aged (One assistant was 15 years old) assistants. Gosnell’s clinic was extremely unsanitary, crawling with venereal diseases, animal feces, and severed baby feet in jars. (No, that last bit is not a typo.)

Gosnell was allowed to operate freely for over a decade, without interference or oversight. Gosnell’s nightmarish clinic was not inspected for 17 years – 17 years! – because of "pro-choice politics", according to a Philadelphia grand jury. Indeed, the horrors of Gosnell's clinic were discovered by accident. Other abortion clinics also are allowed to “self-regulate,” with (allegedly) disastrous results.

And for the most part, the media has been willfully and deliberately silent on the topic. Wikipedia is even considering deleting its article on Gosnell, claiming that the incident is a “local crime story.” Other “reporters” used similar phrasing to justify their lack of coverage. Dishonest abortion advocates claim that pro-life advocates are responsible for the horrors wrought by Gosnell – as though pro-lifers advocate for fewer restrictions on poor, already over-burdened abortion clinics. (Even as Gosnell’s trial is underway, reporters are bemoaning  “strict” new codes proposed for other abortion clinics.)

The obfuscation and silence from defenders of abortion is rather simple to explain. At least two prominent writers have stated that much of the reason for the media’s lack of coverage is due to widespread support for abortion within the journalistic community, and a willingness to look away when their preferred “side” engages in indefensible activity. And until their fellow reporters are willing to open their eyes and expose evil (even done by their side) as evil, abortion will certainly be legal, but never safe and rare. And they will be just fine with that.

Gosnell and America's Moral Crisis

There is little that I can say about Kermit Gosnell, the infamous Philadelphia abortion "doctor" who (allegedly) brutally killed women and born children in a filthy "clinic," that others (including those whom I usually disagree with politically) have not already said. All that remains to say is this: when this house of horrors (warning - graphic descriptions) is buried by activist journalists, then America is undergoing a serious moral crisis of epic proportions, where even the most disgusting treatment of human life fails to stir the consciences of a callous nation.

Simplifying the Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage Debates (With Flowcharts!)

Political debates consist of highly opinionated individuals screaming at each other and misunderstanding (often deliberately) their opponents' arguments. Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than during debates over abortion and same-sex marriage.
But these debates are surprisingly simple upon careful reflection. Out of the goodness of my heart (and a desire to protect my sanity from increasingly inane slogans and rhetoric), I am simplifying the abortion and same-sex marriage debates down to their barest essentials.

Regarding abortion: Is the fetus in a woman's womb human life or not?

If yes, then abortion should be outlawed, unless you go the Peter Singer or Mary Elizabeth Williams route and argue that terminating human life is acceptable in certain circumstances. 

If no, then abortion should clearly be permitted. 

If a fetus becomes a child at some point within the womb, then you permit abortion before it becomes a child, and outlaw it after that point.
Here's a flowchart explaining the abortion debate...

Regarding same-sex marriage: For secular purposes (yes, I know Catholics like me consider marriage a sacrament, but we don't live in a society where Catholicism is the law of the land), is marriage an institution designed to encourage the procreation of children within stable families, or is it a legal contract recognizing the legitimacy of partners in a consensual relationship?

If marriage is a contract granting legal recognition to a consensual relationship, then same-sex marriage (and, for that matter, any consensual relationship) should be permitted by secular authorities.

If marriage is an institution designed to encourage the stable rearing of children, does the gender of the parents matter in the creation and raising of children?

If so, then same-sex marriage should be banned. If not, then same sex marriage should be permitted. 

To illustrate this debate, here's a handy flowchart.

Abortion and Guilty Consciences

In my college days, I led a group that prayed at abortion clinics. We were frequently yelled at by clinic-goers and passers-by who were enraged by our very presence. One of the more frequent complaints we heard was that we were there to make the women feel bad about themselves.

This, of course, was untrue – we were there primarily to pray and assist the women, if they would allow us to. We were there to save lives and to heal souls. How well we succeeded – let God be our judge.

But in a sense, the passers-by were right. Our presence certainly did make some women entering the clinic "feel bad" about what they were about to do. And that is a very good thing. 
For our presence was a reminder to women entering the clinic that they were preparing to kill their children. Our presence reminded them that they were doing something very wrong, and that there were alternatives to ending the lives of their children. Perhaps this guilt even stopped one of them from entering the clinic, and a child was born that would not have lived otherwise.

It is a false kindness which demands that one cease making a person “feel bad about themselves" when that person is doing something wrong. “Feeling bad” in the case of abortion, is a symptom of guilt induced by wrongdoing. And guilt over wrongdoing is salutary; guilt keeps people from committing theft, murder, lying, and other sundry evils, and reminds people that they can repent of those evils.  

If we served as a guilty conscience for those who opposed us, good! Would that we could have done more to stop women from killing their children.

How Abortion Will End in America

I went to the March for Life yesterday; indeed, I actually walked 8 miles to the March with a friend. It was heartwarming to see so many people witnessing to life on such a bitterly cold day.

An estimated half a million people marched for a noble cause – the end of abortion. There is hope for this cause: I firmly believe abortion will end in my lifetime, at least in America. The pro-life movement is finally getting smarter about how it fights for life: by working to change laws on the state level, by using ultrasound technology, and most importantly, by emphasizing its advocacy of pregnant women in need of assistance. The supporters of abortion will slowly face the demographic reckoning of their embrace of the culture of death.

This hope, however, is tempered by a host of caveats. It was said by Christ that some demons can be driven out only by prayer and fasting. If this is the case for abortion, pro-life advocates have a long uphill climb in a hedonistic culture. For abortion will end only after a radical change in the American culture. American culture, as viewed through the lenses of its entertainment industry, is toxic, corrupting children quickly with the claim that sex is consequence-free run without responsibility. Too many Americans have succumbed to the corrosive idea that personal autonomy is the paramount virtue – and accordingly have scorned the unborn life that hinders the career of the mother.

It will end with the conversion or the humbling of the elites of society. Abortion has well-heeled and well-connected supporters in the government, the medical profession, the educational profession, and the media.  

It will end unevenly. Certain states have all but outlawed abortion; in other states abortion is deeply entrenched. The partisan divide over abortion will only deepen as some states protect abortion and other states seek to heavily regulate the practice.

And it will end only after millions more lives are lost. This is tragic to admit, but barring a miracle and the swift and total conversion of our President and Congress, abortion will only be strengthened, at least on the federal level, in the next 4 years. Barring a major change in the culture, abortion will remain a supposedly viable (and subtly encouraged) “solution” for “unwanted pregnancy.”

It is impossible to predict exactly when the tipping point for American culture will occur, that will make the abolition of abortion in America possible. My suspicion is that this tipping point will come between one to two generations of long, tireless, and seemingly fruitless work on the part of pro-life advocates. 

And when the day of reckoning comes for abortion in America, there will be wailing and grinding of teeth from the forces of death in America. But the noise machine of the culture of death will be drowned out on that day by those who live the Gospel of Life.

On the 40th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Today is January 22, 2013: the 40^th anniversary of the most loathsome Supreme Court decision in history, namely the legalization of abortion in all 50 states.

I loathe abortion with a fiery passion; my personal experience of abortion is particularly bitter. But I rarely write about the subject of abortion on this blog, because there is little that I could possibly write about the topic that hasn’t already been written or said by others. Today, much will be written by others wiser than I about the deleterious effects of Justice Blackmun’s 40-year old diabolical decision.

Besides, there really is to say about what is such a simple issue at heart. For if abortion is the taking of a human life, then it is never permissible; if it is not, then it is permissible; if the matter is unclear, then the benefit of the doubt should be given to the side of life.

I recognize the incredible difficulty – financial and otherwise – that many women with “unplanned pregnancies” face in keeping their children. We Christians must always exhibit charity towards women who seek to abort their children; we should be prepared to give of our own time and resources for the sake of helping such women in need, up to the point of adoption, if need be. 

But silent charity does not give us a license to remain silent on the issue. We must never slacken in our duty to demand an end to child-killing, if we truly believe that abortion is the taking of innocent human life.

I write this because I often wonder how strong the commitment of the average "faithful Christian" (yes, I include myself) is to the elimination of abortion. Intellectually, of course, I am a firm opponent of abortion; most of my readers are as well. But far too often, vital issues such as abortion take a back seat to the economy or to material concerns in the minds of “pro-lifers,” while those who support a culture of death vehemently defend even the most minor restrictions on abortion. Yeats’ words sadly ring true in our day and age: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.”

I do believe that abortion will be abolished in the United States in my lifetime, if only because of the slow but steady demographic suicide that defenders of the pro-choice banner have chosen to inflict on themselves through their embrace of abortion. But this natural demographic process is slow and by no means certain, and will involve the loss of literally millions of innocent lives and the continued moral corrosion of American society. An eventual victory by suicidal attrition is a Pyrrhic victory in the cause of life.

Today is a perfect anniversary to sound the death knell of abortion in America, the most heinous expression of the culture of death. 40 years of legalized child murder is enough. May the days of Roe v. Wade be numbered! 

Rant Concerning a Romney Ad

I have tried to avoid discussing politics on this blog (I have another blog dedicated to my musings on politics), and have largely refrained from inflicting upon my political rants upon you.
So I apologize in advance from this piece, but I need to say this somewhere.

I recently saw this ad from Mitt Romney's campaign.

This was my reaction to the ad. (WARNING: Mild profanity alert.)

It's not that I don't understand the logic of this ad. From a political standpoint, it changes nothing. Every careful watcher of this presidential campaign already knew that Romney supported abortion in cases of rape and incest.
And I understand the logic behind Romney's decision to air the ad. Romney wishes to blunt the idiotic "war on women" nonsense that the Obama campaign has accused him of. He also has adopted the common political tactic of "running to the center," which involves seeking to get moderates to vote for him and emphasizing his "centrist" political positions. He seeks to emphasize positions that appeal to "moderate" voters, since he figures that his base will vote for him anyway.
I must state right away that my opinion of Romney as a candidate remains unchanged by his choice to run this ad; I will still vote for Romney this November.

And yet, the ad still bothers me immensely, for two reasons. 

The first problem with this ad is a political one: in a base election (and in this polarized America, this is an election where candidates increasingly rely on their base), why on earth would you advertise to your supporters that you support abortion, even in some cases? I can already picture individuals (Mark Shea comes to mind) already opposed to Romney seizing upon this ad to argue that Romney is simply another Obama, and convincing others to do the same. I can also picture devoted pro-lifers being so turned off by the fact that Romney supports any abortions whatsoever that they refuse to vote.
But the second objection is far more important, for it is moral in nature. For if the fetus in the womb is really a child, then a voter or politician must oppose abortion in all cases. ALL CASES. Nothing justifies the murder of an innocent victim - not even the horror of rape.
For Mitt Romney to advertise that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape and incest is for him to advertise that he is not truly pro-life. He does not hold that the child in the womb is truly a human worth protecting in all cases.
And this bothers me immensely. Where is the candidate who will say that ALL life is sacred and must be protected, no matter the cost?
I will still vote for Mitt Romney because I disapprove of Obama's evil policies. But I do so with a very heavy heart.

Abortion and Christian Charity

I was praying at an abortion clinic last weekend with a group of friends. As sometimes happens, we were yelled at by a passerby while we were praying.

An irate man yelled at us as we were praying (somewhat more politely than most, I might add – no expletives were used). He adopted the familiar tactic of accusing pro-lifers of not caring for women: “So you really want to help these women? Then you need to provide free day care for them for the rest of their lives! These women will never see you after today, and all you are making them do is feel bad. You…”

At this point, the man stopped. I don’t know whether someone talked to him, or whether he just got disgusted that we didn’t drop everything, stop praying, and listen to him.

But I badly wanted to speak to him. For he was wrong, wrong, a thousand times wrong! But his lie contains a grain of truth.

I’ve written on this topic before, but it bears repeating. The Church does care for women in danger of abortions, if the women are not too proud to ask for help. Pregnancy centers, homeless shelters, food banks, adoption agencies – caring for the poor and disabled is a Christian way of life, that faithful Catholics do practice.

But his statement should be reflected upon by us Catholics, who are often lax in providing charity to the poor and downtrodden. Catholics – especially young Catholics – must know how to help women in danger of obtaining abortions if the opportunity arises. We must know where they can go for help. We must be prepared to give of our time, our resources, and even ourselves, if need be, in order to help women in need.

College students cannot, of course, pay for free day-care, or adopt children, or make massive monetary commitments. But youth is a time of energy, not to be wasted. We may not have the money to give to the poor – but we often do have the time to volunteer at pregnancy centers and food banks. We may not have the means to give monetarily to charity – but we usually have the means to show charity to our neighbor.

Youth is no excuse for lack of charity – it is a time of action, as well as a building block of future charity. And charity, our Christian duty, can potentially save lives and souls.

A Margaret Sanger Interview

Legendary newsman Mike Wallace recently died. His death led to the finding of this interview with Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. The interview is incredibly interesting and worth a thorough viewing. Here is a link to the full interview (set aside about 25 minutes for a full viewing):

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/288555-1

Several things struck me about the interview.

The first was that Sanger was making the EXACT same arguments that the modern political left is making today - on a host of topics. Overpopulation, the purpose of marriage and of sexual intercourse, the nature of love, divorce, the nature of God and sin – all these issues came up. And Sanger trotted out views that could be parroted word for word by modern liberals. (Wallace challenged these views – but later generations of journalists adopted them.)

The second was the intense anger Sanger displayed when discussing the Roman Catholic Church. Sanger specifically named the hierarchy of her Roman Catholic Church as her biggest enemy. She even snapped at one point: “They’re celibates! They don’t know love, they don’t know marriage, they know nothing about bringing up children or any of the marriage problems of life, and yet they speak to people as if they were God!”

The third was the fact that Sanger dodged many of Wallace’s questions and probes. “I don’t agree” and “I haven’t heard of that” were common phrases out of her mouth. At one point, she adamantly denied she had made a statement that she had made to Wallace’s own reporter.

But the final and most interesting part was right at the end. For Wallace asked about Sanger’s children and grandchildren. For a woman that showed such hostility to children, (she even said that bringing children into the word was a “sin”) she loved her own. And she exhibited obvious love for her eight grandchildren, despite her railing against children.

The interview confirms that Sanger was a ruthless enemy of the Church, and even an eneny of the human race. But even the worst of people retain touches of their humanity. Make no mistake, I believe Sanger to be one of the worst human beings ever to have walked the earth – on the level of Stalin or Hitler. But even the worst enemies of Christianity are human.

Moral Evil in History

Social conservatives and social progressives alike seem to think that rampant homosexuality, contraception, abortion, sexual immorality, and other issues of the modern age only arose over the last hundred years or so. Moral evil is thus portrayed by its defenders as a sign of the progression of civilization, and treated by its opponents as something new and un-heard of.

They are wrong. The ancient world was rife with infanticide, human sacrifice, homosexuality, and a host of evils. And these evils were largely defeated by Christianity, and have only recently arisen again in force.

Moral evil was rampant in the pre-Christian world. The Carthaginians used to throw babies into fires as human sacrifices. The Romans used to leave babies outside to starve to death. The Greeks celebrated homosexual relationships and concocted potions to prevent conception and kill unborn children. The Jewish people were a rare exception in the ancient world – more accurately, THE exception – in not accepting these evils as normal.

When Christianity came into the world, Christians fought these evils, knowing them to be incompatible with the law of God. And they largely succeeded in ridding the culture of these vices. They existed, but were treated by Christian society as the perversions they were. 

But in this modern age, vice is celebrated as “progress” and “liberty” from the forces of oppressive and outdated Judeo-Christian morals. And Christians have forgotten their roots, and are unaware that this battle has already been fought and won by their forefathers in faith.

Modern morality represents a retreat back to the forces of barbarism and pagan nonsense that Christianity overcame in ancient times, not a path to progress.

Nor is the modern world necessarily undergoing an inexorable march to moral depravity. Christians won the battle over the forces of barbarism in ancient times. We can do so again.

Debunking the Freakonomics Argument for Abortion

In Steven Levitt's 2005 book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, a rather callous argument was made for abortion – namely, that abortion reduced crime rates. Author Steven Levitt explained the logic behind this shocking statement on his blog: “Unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to be criminals, and legalized abortion reduces the number of unwanted children. Consequently, legalized abortion lowers crime in the future.”

Levitt went on to explore the political implications of this theory. He argued that if one was pro-life and viewed abortion as the killing of a child, that abortion killed more lives than it saved and should be outlawed. If one believed that fetuses were not human, then abortion could be seen as a public service, protecting the lives of people in the future. (And if a person was uneasy about whether abortion meant the killing of a child or not, the book recommended weighing the decrease in crime wrought by abortion against the proportion one thought an unborn fetus was a human life, multiplied by the number of abortions in America.)

So, by this argument, if unborn children are not people, then abortion actually saves lives in the long run.

The main argument of the book – that abortion actually reduced crime rates in the first place – has since been debunked by multiple researchers. This is not surprising, for the argument that abortion reduces crime faces two major philosophical flaws.

The first philosophical flaw in Levitt's argument is that abortion contributes to an increasingly violent, less stable culture. Abortion provides a disincentive for women to engage in stable relationship behavior by having families. It provides an opportunity for men to avoid the responsibility of helping to raise the children they sire. Abortion provides a disincentive for marriage and the formation of families, leaving men unstable and women vulnerable. Thus abortion, by contributing to promiscuous behavior and an unstable society, increases crime.   

The second flaw is a problem common among many activists in modern society – that Levitt told only one side of the story. When looking at the impact abortion had on society, Levitt failed to consider the positive impact those killed by abortion would have provided to society had they lived.   

The authors only looked at the potential impact of abortion on crime rates. They did not examine the impact of people who would overcome their handicaps and become doctors, teachers, scientists, and other useful professions. Whatever good unborn children might have done in society was overlooked by the authors, because the authors only looked at unborn children as potential future criminals.  

Yes, abortion kills many who might have grown up to be criminals. It also kills people who might have risen from unforuntate circumstances to become the next Beethovens, Wilma Rudolphs, and Steve Jobses. The abortionist wielding his knife does not and indeed cannot know whether the child he or she is killing will become the next Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchhill, common criminal or ordinary citizen.

My Abortion Story

If a medical test shows that a child will be born disabled or in any way imperfect, pro-abortion advocates argue that child should be aborted, because his or her “quality of life” will be diminished, and he or she will be a burden to the mother and to society. Better, they argue, for a disabled child to be killed then to experience a life of pain and suffering.  

If my mother had followed this logic, I would not be writing this. My bones would be lying in a landfill somewhere. And I would be dead.

My abortion story begins when my mother was twelve weeks pregnant with me. (I was her first baby, and she was newly married.) She went to a gynecologist for the first time, and was asked to take what is known as the alpha-fetoprotein test, which checks for possible medical conditions in unborn children, including mental retardation.  

The blood test came back positive (or, as she later found out, in the “high” range of the normal category of proteins). My mother was led to believe by her doctor that I would live a life limited by mental retardation.

My mother was told that by the age of twenty, I would have the intellect of a five-year old. I would know my name, my address, maybe my phone number – and no more.

My mother’s gynecologist told my mother that I would not have a worthwhile life, and she strongly advised my mother to abort me. But my mother still wished to have me, mentally retarded or not, and rejected her doctor’s “advice.”

But her doctor would not give in so easily. She grew progressively nastier to my mother as the pregnancy progressed. Until the very end of my mother’s pregnancy, she pressured my mother to get rid of me. And my mother had no idea where else to go for medical help with the pregnancy (I was her first child, and she was young and newly married), so she was forced to undergo this doctor’s pounding week after week, until it was time for her to give birth.

When I was born, my mother’s gynecologist was cruel to her, even saying to her during her delivery: “Will you hurry this up? I have other patients to attend to.” Even after I was born, she wouldn’t relent; her last words to my mother were: “You make sure to come into my office Monday morning so that this NEVER happens again.”

Of course, the “expert” was wrong, and God has blessed me with an intellect greater than that of a five-year old. But I am a very lucky man – for if I was born to other parents, I would very likely not be writing this.

How many women could have borne perfectly healthy children, who instead chose abortion because they were falsely told that their child would be born useless or his or her “quality of life” would be diminished? How many “wasted lives” were aborted, boys and girls long since aborted, some of whom might be my friends today?

Only God knows the answer to that question. But the answer is certainly very many.

My mother’s story also provides insight into the trials of what many women undergo during pregnancy. Doctors, family, lovers, and friends of pregnant women often lead them to believe that their child is worthless or will have a diminished quality of life due to disability. And so they abort their children. And children who might well have been healthy are now dead as a result. Many women are simply not strong enough to bear their children in the face of authoritative pressure and the lies of those they trust.

I do know that I am very grateful to my mother for bearing and raising me. Many women, under the pressure she was forced to undergo, wouldn’t have been able to hold firm against a doctor’s demands and bear me to full term. My mother was strong and courageous enough to do so. And for this, as for everything else she has given me (and she has given me a lot!), she deserves my undying gratitude.

My father supported my mother throughout her pregnancy, and stood with her as she was being pressured to abort me. Many women are forced to make their decisions alone, under incredible pressure to abort their unborn children, without the help of the child’s father. My mother had my father’s unconditional support.

I owe them both my life; they wanted me to be born and fought hard for my birth, and I am writing this today because of their strength and willingness to accept even a disabled son into the world.

Thank you, Mom and Dad, for accepting me into this world. It is an honor and a joy to be your son, and I will always be grateful to you for fighting for me to be born. I love you both, now and forever.

Pro-Life, Inside and Outside the Womb

A common and ridiculous claim among many self-styled “progressives” is that pro-life advocates care nothing about people outside the womb. 

This claim is nonsense, of course. It is incredible hypocrisy for abortion groups to claim that pro-life men and women care nothing for those outside the womb. After all, groups such as Planned Parenthood do not concern themselves with the health of the mother after birth control or abortion. Women after abortion (many of whom are poor and troubled) are thrown back onto the street, without healing or counseling from abortion providers. They are left alone by pro-death groups to bear their loss and guilt. And religious and pro-life groups such as Rachel’s Vineyard and Silent No More are left to pick up the pieces. 

Nevertheless, the progressive gibe, however ridiculous and untrue, still raises an important point. Pro-life advocates must be concerned with life after conception. After all, the common prayer that all human life be protected “from conception to natural death” spans the breadth of human existence. The true Christian must – and indeed is – concerned with human life during all stages.

This is NOT to say that opposition to abortion is optional. It is not, and never will be. But concern for those outside the womb is demanded of a person who claims to be pro-life, just as concern for those inside the womb is neccesary.

And the Church and pro-life groups consistently rise to the challenge. Pro-life people and pro-life groups are incredibly generous in the time and support they give to the underprivileged and the troubled. Crisis pregnancy centers, soup kitchens, food pantries, missionary work, teaching, and a host of other activities are run by the Church.

The Catholic Church does care for the poor, the troubled, and the disabled - indeed, more so than any institution. Motivated by the love of God, it effectively and joyously serves men and women of all ages.

The Church’s care for the unborn, the aged, and EVERYONE in between – is unmatched. The Church provides a consistent ethic of life from conception to natural death. And she lives that life out in Her mission, just as Her master commands.

And all of us who are Christians must remember to live out that mission, of service to all, inside and outside the womb.  

The “Personally Opposed” Canard

Many politicians, when discussing the abortion question, claim that they are “personally opposed” to abortion, while at the same time supporting “abortion rights” in practice, due to so-called concern for women’s health.

This is perhaps one of the most inane and shallow arguments ever constructed. A similar claim could be made for murder or rape: “Well, I am personally opposed to rape, but I support giving rapists the right to practice their predilections.”Very few people would support that argument.

Personal opposition to any behavior counts for nothing if a practical policy of support for the behavior is justified. If I am “personally opposed” to theft but let someone get away with the crime of stealing, I am effectively condoning theft. Similarly, if I am “personally opposed” to abortion but seek to protect a “woman’s right to choose,” I am in practice encouraging abortion.

The only way that the “personally opposed” argument is justifiable for a behavior is if that behavior is truly one of personal preference, rather than a matter of moral law. I can be “personally opposed” to body piercing, while accepting the right of a man or woman to allow himself or herself to be pierced.

But if abortion is considered merely a matter of personal preference, then the abortion issue is already decided. For if abortion is a matter of allowing a woman to make a personal choice to undergo a distasteful procedure, than it is the right of the woman to do whatever she wants with her body. Distasteful medical procedures (to some) such as plastic surgery and tattooing are not forbidden under the law.And pro-abortion advocates claim that abortion is a matter of personal preference, just like the others.

But pro-life advocates claim that abortion is murder. Murder is forbidden under the law. Under this definition, one cannot be “personally opposed” to murder and accept it in practice.

By professing “personal opposition” to abortion while protecting abortion via law, politicians have taken the side of the abortionists.

The “personally opposed” argument is used by politicians who wish to justify their support for abortion while at the same time cynically claiming the moral high ground on the issue. Even worse, most people are willing to let the issue pass without much thought.

The claim that abortion is murder is a serious charge – one that must be resolved before ANYTHING is decided regarding the abortion question.

If abortion is murder, then it should cease immediately. If abortion is the mere removal of fetal tissue, then there is no point in hindering it. If there is debate over whether abortion is the taking of a human life or not, then politicians should err on the side of life.

But “personal opposition” and practical support for murder is not an option that even politicians would countenance if challenged. Why, then, do pro-life advocates allow them to get away with it?