Senator Jack Reed is one of those “I’m personally pro-life but publicly pro-choice” Senators. But you will never hear a more eloquent defense of a “personally pro-life” stance. I mean it’s like Aquinas and Augustine had a baby together and named it Senator Jack Reed.
Just listen to his brilliant defense of his personally pro-life view in ProJo.com:
Reed was asked whether, as a Roman Catholic, he believes that abortion is wrong. “Yes, I do,” said Reed, who seemed uncomfortable discussing the issue. Asked why he believed that, he replied, “I just do.” Reed said he has an intellectual and moral basis for his view but he declined to elaborate.
Isn’t that a tad bizarre? The hottest and most crucial morality issue of our time and a publicly pro-choice Senator can’t say why he’s personally pro-life.
I’d bet he could go on for hours about why he’s publicly pro-choice but ask him why he’s privately pro-life and he’s got nothing.
But the personally pro-life folks can’t ever explain why they aren’t publicly pro-life. If you believe that the unborn baby is human, the child is deserving of all human rights. If you personally believe that it is murder to kill the unborn you can’t possibly legislate murder.
And that’s why Senator Jack Reed didn’t explain his thoughts. It’s not that he wouldn’t. He couldn’t.
November 12, 2009 at 3:38 am
He also couldn't explain why the government could force Americans to buy something they don't want. He fumbled some comparison to the draft:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56971
November 12, 2009 at 4:24 am
My experience as a candidate is that even pro-life advisors will advise a pro-life candidate not to discuss the life issues beyond saying "I'm pro-life." They seem terrified that a candidate might actually elucidate reasons for his stance.
November 12, 2009 at 12:17 pm
"Aquas and Augustine had a baby together". I'm sill smiling. Nice line.
November 12, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I definitely think this line of questioning is the best one to expose pro-aborts.
So often our tendency is to ask "How can you support this abomination in any case?!"
But for the "personally pro-life" crowd or the "for rape/incest" crowd, sometimes it works best as ask them why they're opposed to certain abortions. Then they have to articulate why they think it's wrong. If they're intellectually honest (Reed clearly isn't), they'll have to make the connection that if abortion is wrong in one case, it's wrong in all.
November 12, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I definitely think this line of questioning is the best one to expose pro-aborts.
Yes. That, and also asking, "If abortion is morally acceptable, why bother with efforts at reducing them?"
Scott W.
November 12, 2009 at 2:48 pm
If abortion is morally acceptable, why bother with efforts at reducing them?
FWIW, the usual retort to that is along the lines of "heart bypasses are morally acceptable, yet there is nothing inconsistent in working to reduce them."
November 12, 2009 at 3:53 pm
The fallacy lies in considering that abortion is a matter of belief and as such is subjective. Consequently the prohibition thereof cannot be imposed on those who believe differently. The truth is abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent life whether one believes it or not. It is not a subject of faith as it is an object of science that proves that human life, personhood with all its inalienable rights begin at conception. Sts. Aquinas & Augustine accepted this truth despite their contrary opinions. They are far more logical, intelligent and consistent than the senator, so it is highly unlikely that their pedigree would run into him. The only way for him to become their child is by adoption and that is better than abortion.
November 12, 2009 at 5:36 pm
The onset of individual life is not a dogma of the church but a fact of science; it begins at the moment that the sperm and the ovum meet and exchange chromosomal material.
I don't understand why people are so hesitant to shout it from the roof tops.
Ah, I know, they would have to change their ways, give up votes, maybe… whatever it is it is inconvenient.
Mercy.
Mum26
November 12, 2009 at 7:44 pm
As a devout and faithful Catholic, I find abortion to be an unfortunate consequence of circumstances beyond many people's control. This is one of the reasons why I refuse to allow this issue to be part of any topic in the CCD class that I teach.
November 12, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Anonymous: That simply makes no sense. Are you saying that the person who chooses to abort literally has NO choice in the matter? The alternatives may be painful and difficult, it is still a human choice.
When you speak of any human choice as a 'consequence', you essentially imply that it follows just as in dropping a stone, the consequence is that it will fall to the earth. And this is exactly what free choice, and hence any moral decision, is not. And it is a pity that you choose to teach CCD when you hold that the intentional killing of a human being is a consequence, rather than a wrong, intrinsically evil choice.
November 12, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Anonymous, wow, that is truly a shame about your CCD class… but not as much for them as for you. You will be held accountable before the Creator one day for the people under your charge (as we all will), who were innocent or ignorant, and who came to you for instruction in the Truth. Whether they know abortion is intrinsically evil or not, the consequences are unimaginable. Imagine that 20 years from now a poorly catechized woman realizes her mistake of abortion and has to deal with a life time of pain and guilt and shame, and the loss of her baby. All the while, having never been told in CCD. What are her chances of even remaining Catholic when she realizes this hypocrisy or huge ommission?
As far as control? What do you mean people don't have control over getting pregnant? (Except for the few instances of rape) I am confused as to how one can be a 'faithful and devout' Catholic, but reduce the holocaust of innocent babies and women to nothing more than an 'issue' beyond their 'control'…
I say this with all due respect… I will pray for you… and your students.
November 12, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Anonymous 2:44
To call abortion an unfortunate consequence of circumstances beyond many people's control is complete nonsense.
The unborn person is an alive person; that life is sacred; to take that life through abortion is murder. Plain and simple! Certain self-evindent truths need to be upheld at all cost!
Now, many women find themselves pregnant and in difficult situations, some of them – a minority – are pregnant through circumstances beyond their control. They need our kindness and care. Yes! But this kindness and care must not translate into taking that unborn person's life. Ever!
Btw. it would be a great opportunity to tell those kids that children belong in the Sacrament of Marriage (which is, btw. why premarital sex is not a good idea – the Church is wise). And if people lived according to the moral teaching of the Catholic Church these "out of control situations" would be drastically reduced.
And I feel sorry for the children you teach CCD because they are not being given the treasure of understanding that every life – their life included – is precious and absolutely sacred and untouchable.
Mercy.
Mum26
November 12, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Anonymous, I think you have no business teaching CCD. You're supposed to be teaching what the Church teaches, not what you think are "unfortunate consequence(s)". You're doing your students, your parish and yourself a huge disservice.
November 12, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Anonymous 2:44 has revealed in just two sentences why she is not fit to serve as a catechist. Ignorance about facts (guess what? most abortions are elective, not the result of circumstances) and about the gravity of abortion (guess what? we must exhort people under our care to adhere to the moral law) disqualify her from catechetical ministry. I feel sorry for her students.
November 13, 2009 at 3:03 am
Re: "beyond many people's control." maybe she's sincere in feeling that way. But that does not take away her responsibility to teach her student another way – a way that does not murder another person, that thinks in unselfish terms for a change i.e. carry the child for 9 months then have it adopted, but don't kill it. And of course, it is not beyond anyone's control.
Folks, don't be so hard on anonymous. She's just an agent of the pastor who is the agent of a bishop. What we need to identify are the closet pro-choice bishops because they corrupt the Church. If the bishop is staunchly pro-life, then his priests would follow suit and then the catechists and other pastoral associates. Find that bishop because corruption starts from the head.
December 7, 2009 at 1:09 am
As another devout Evangelical Christian, who teaches a Human Ethics Class, I make it clear that not all abortions necessarily involve the killing of "a person" or "a soul." I present my class with medieval, early modern, and modern definitions of the "fetus" (definitions drawn from theology) that share no consensus about the precise time when the fetus acquires personhood…