Those of us who believe that pro-life issues should be given priority of place in deciding how to vote are often chastised for downplaying valid concerns about the environment, foreign policy, healthcare, and other matters of morality and justice.
But as David Koyzis persuasively argues, there is something distinctive about the abortion issue:
[N]ot all issues necessarily have the same import or significance—something the language of morality may mask. In fact, there is a qualitative difference between abortion and the cluster of issues touched on above. In the case of the latter, no one disputes that the environment must be protected; the current debate revolves around how best to do so. Some favour a market-oriented approach, while others are convinced that government must play a central role. Again no one denies the desirability of furnishing the best health care to all citizens. Disagreement arises over whether this is best done through private or public insurance plans. . . .
[. . . ]
Abortion is different. Here the quarrel is not over the best way to protect the unborn; it is precisely over whether to do so at all. Those believing women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy hold this position despite the presence of the vulnerable child. Those who believe that the unborn deserve protection do so because of the child’s presence. This fundamental disagreement over what is at stake is what sets the abortion issue apart from most others. Proponents of the so-called consistent life ethic generally fail to comprehend this. Such bishops as Denver’s Charles Chaput are right to make a fuss over Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. Abortion is not merely a private opinion; it is a clear matter of justice that needs to be addressed head on.
September 17th, 2009 | 8:24 pm
Two things. First, why rag on the consistent ethic? I know very few people who use the consistent ethic to show and all the issues are equal in gravity…certainly Bernardin did not. Rather, it is to show the logical connections between the issues: special concern for vulnerable life, a commitment to non-violence, etc. The thing which frustrates those who adhere to the consistent ethic, and especially Catholics, is when certain Christians prize their late-20th-century political affiliations ahead what the Church teaches about poverty, health care, the death penalty, war, animals and the environment, etc.
Second, while a proponent of the consistent ethic, I certainly think that abortion (at least in the context of the United States) is a far more serious problem than any of the others mentioned above. But the reason has nothing to do with the reasons mentioned in this article. Consider that with the death penalty there are also some ‘for’ and some ‘against’ the practice…as with abortion. No different in that respect. Where it is different (I’m not sure the complex discussion of ‘intrinsic evil’, traditionally used to do this, is all that helpful here) is in the magnitude of the evil. 1.3 million abortions of the most helpless members of our human family intentionally killed…often simply because of their gender or the lifestyle choices of their parents. That has got to be our primary focus of our attention…though, as the consistent ethic implies…concern for vulnerable life needn’t be a zero-sum game.
September 18th, 2009 | 12:18 am
If one looks at the abortion question, as opposed to all those others which are often put in some sort of “competition” with abortion–and one looks at it strictly from a secular societal or indeed a purely patriotic perspective…
Can a society which kills its babies for the sake of convenience or lust, be expected to endure?
I think it’s that simple. None of the other pressing matters of public policy would affect the basic health and long-term viability of the culture the way the abortion issue does.
September 18th, 2009 | 1:16 am
Charlie, I think you are right about the consistent ethic. Ultimately most of our social justice issues boil down to violence… by committing to a non-violent/non-harm ethic (except for defense but even then, only if necessary), we would solve many problems at once. Therefore it makes no sense to me to pick and choose which beings we can be violent to and which ones we can’t, gradually eliminating one injustice and then another.
http://justbramble.blogspot.com/2009/01/pro-life-omnivores-and-pro-choice.html
September 18th, 2009 | 12:57 pm
Joe DeVet has it right.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact