For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. ---Ephesians 6:12


"The age of casual Catholicism is over; the age of heroic Catholicism has begun. We can no longer be Catholics by accident, but instead must be Catholics by CONVICTION." ---Fr. Terrence Henry TOR, Franciscan University of Steubenville

Friday, April 4, 2008

An Old Pro-Abortion Argument Gets A Make-Over


Barack Hussein Obama recently referred to having babies as a punishment. This would be consistent with other things he's said and done on reproductive issues. It would also seem to be consistent with the liberal, pro-choice (<--so called) position on abortion, which I believe is primarily based in fear, whether it's fear of loss of liberty, fear of failure, or fear of the loss of monetary prosperity due to the cost of raising children. How unfortunate that unborn babies are caught up in such desperate rationalizations, where they can be demonized and/or dehumanized for mere convenience's sake.

And with this in mind I'd like to direct your attention to Matt Kaufman's latest column called Intruder Alert, about some variant forms of some very horrid pro-abortion arguments so warped they become difficult to address...but not too difficult for Mr. Kaufman. Here are a couple of excerpts from the column-- the arguments in favor of abortion rights.

First the old one:

[McDonagh didn't bother to deny that a fetus is a person. Instead, she argued that a fetus is, in effect, a criminal — a "powerful intruder" guilty of "kidnapping" a woman and holding her hostage for nine months — and thus could be dispatched like any violent assailant. "The fetus is not innocent," she wrote, "but instead aggressively intrudes on a woman's body so massively that deadly force is justified to stop it."]

And then the newer argument:

[The argument is this: It doesn't matter at what point a fertilized egg becomes a zygote or a zygote a fetus or a fetus a baby. Personhood is irrelevant. The state simply does not have the right to require any citizen to use their body to keep another citizen alive, much less for nine months. The state can't force us to donate blood or organs. The state can't make us sign up for bone marrow registries. If we choose to do these things, it is noble and good, but we still would never tolerate, as a society, being forced to do so. How much less, then, should we tolerate the state forcing women to use their bodies to keep other people alive for nine full months, with all the risks and permanent changes in the body this entails? How is this permissible if women are fully functioning moral agents with all the rights of citizenship and not state-owned incubators?]

You will have to click on the link HERE to see his response to them.

Matt Kaufman writes for Boundless Webzine, a website of Focus On The Family.


1 comments:

Frank said...

So by mentioning Obama at the start of your post, you are tying him to what Kaufman refers to as the "corruption of the heart," right?

I wonder sometimes why so many prominent politicians of the Democratic party have flipped on abortion over the years. Al Gore comes to mind, as do several others. What makes a man with no dog in the race take that position, other than to pander to his constituancy? Like Obama, they are corrupted from the get-go.