Click here to subscribe today or Login.
Saturday, February 11, 1995 Page: 8A
There is nothing `morally foggy’ about abortion issue
Consider this headline: Innocent bystander attacked at abortion clinic.
What is one’s immediate reaction? Outrage? Anger? Indignation?
These are typical responses most morally sensitive individuals feel
regarding recent reports of clinic fatalities such as those attributed to
gunman John CSalvi Jr.
The Times Leader editorial (Jan. 4) wisely chastises pro-life leaders for
rationalizing Salvi’s mo~tivations and thereby giving an appearance of
justifying his behavior.
Indeed, unjust premeditated violence and killing are morally reprehensible
and must be publicly exposed and condemned without qualifications.
Kudos to the TL for specifically demonstrating that moral integrity and
intellectual consistency demand that clinic shootings be simply condemned
without further explanation.
Unfortunately, however, by describing abortion itself as a “morally foggy”
issue, the editorial does not pass the tests of moral integrity and
intellectual consistency.
To demonstrate this, consider the above headline again. This time though,
suppose that the innocent bystander was a pregnant pedestrian and that the
only serious injury was to the baby who then became crippled — a tragic
outcome indeed.
In this instance, should one’s outrage and condemnation be diminished if it
is discovered that this pedestrian was on her way to have an abortion?
Does the reality of the crippled child then become a “morally foggy” issue?
Would it be less foggy if the mother intended to keep the child? Clearly,
society should condemn such an attack regardless of the mother’s intentions.
But our society and its laws are amazingly schizophrenic. In the case of
crippling the unborn, the perpetrator can legally be charged with assault (or
homicide if the baby dies). But if a mother hires a doctor to accomplish the
same end, it is considered acceptable.
The TL editorial, in effect, unwittingly perpetuates this psychosis by
supporting such blatantly irrational distinctions.
If outrage and moral condemnation of crippling a baby in utero are
universal and unambiguous because of the violence committed upon the unborn
child, then how could one maintain logical consistency and not have the same
reaction to the violence committed by the doctor’s instruments inside the
clinic?
Clearly, no morally significant change occurs to the baby in the process of
birth. In order to maintain integrity and consistency in moral reasoning, then
unjust violence inflicted upon innocent human life both born and unborn must
be absolutely and unconditionally condemned — period, without qualification.
Abortion is such violence. By describing it as a “source of endless moral
debate,” The Times Leader is guilty of the same charges it makes against
Caffrey!
Thomas Pieczynski
Kingston
~~