|
The
Reasonableness of the Pro-Life Case for Life
Editor's note. My family is on vacation this
week. TN&V through this Friday are editions that
were particularly well received. This first ran
January 13, 2009. Please send your comments to
daveandrusko@gmail.com.
"Both
sides
have
chosen,
and
promulgated
into the
mainstream,
appealing
names
for
themselves.
Who,
after
all,
doesn't
like
life, or
choice?
But the
central
abortion
debate
is about
neither.
Rather,
it comes
down to
something
akin to
religious
belief,
and is
thus
resistant
to
reason."
From
"Abortion
in Our
'Times,'" by Elisabeth
Eaves, which ran Friday at Forbes.com.
The "Times"
in this headline refers to the
New York Times.
Eaves, described as "the deputy editor of
the opinion channel at Forbes.com," does a
nice job explaining how the Times
had cobbled together factoids and anecdotes
and goofy extrapolations to manufacture a
sensationalized story about alleged
self-abortion and Latina women. Ironically,
not unlike the author of the
Times
story, Eaves' some-of-this, some-of-that
opinion piece stitches together various and
sundry threads to reach the predetermined
conclusion that pro-lifers are toast.
Neither the
New York Times
story nor the Forbes
column qualifies as news. So what caught my
attention? It wasn't Eaves' notion that both
sides have appealing names ("pro-choice" and
"pro-life"), but rather her conclusion that
the abortion debate is "resistant to reason"
because it is "something akin to religious
belief." Really?
This is
wrong on so many levels that I knew I needed
a powerful antidote. Immediately I thought
of what I gather is the last book review Fr.
Richard John Neuhaus wrote for his beloved "First
Things"
magazine. As our faithful readers recall,
Fr. Neuhaus passed away last week.
As the
prodigious output of Fr. Neuhaus exemplified
as well as anything possibly could, there is
no incompatibility, no tension between faith
and reason. It is one of those false
dichotomies intended simultaneously to
marginalize believers and to end
conversation. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis,
faith and reason are like two blades of a
scissors: both are necessary for the
scissors to work properly.
What's
fascinating is that it is pro-abortionists
who routinely resort to the kind of
evidence- and reason-free "faith" that Eaves
has in mind in her caricature. Neuhaus
talked about this at length in his terrific
review of
The Democratic Virtues of the Christian
Right, written by political scientist
Jon Shields.
After outlining the all-too-typical
intolerant campus attitude toward
pro-lifers, Neuhaus makes this statement
which is as true as it is infrequently
noted:
"While
the
pro-life
cause
welcomes,
and has
been
greatly
bolstered
by, the
support
of many
distinguished
intellectuals,
the same
is not
true of
the
pro-choice
movement.
On the
contrary,
intellectuals
who
share
their
policy
preferences
are
always
raising
inconvenient
questions
about
the
intellectual
coherence
of
arguments
advanced
in favor
of the
unlimited
abortion
license."
By
"inconvenient," Neuhaus means that
anti-life intellectuals can and do embarrass
the Abortion Establishment who want to be
seen as mainstream "moderates." They do so
by pointing out the logical conclusion that
follows when, based on the most shoddy and
morally incoherent reasoning, the unborn are
robbed of their right to legal protection. Bioethicist Peter Singer is only the most
famous example.
As Neuhaus explains, Singer called the
liberal bluff: he (correctly) concluded that
"Liberals have failed to establish a morally
significant dividing line between the
newborn baby and the fetus." But rather than
retreat, Singer races forward, concluding
(in Neuhaus's words) "that it is therefore
permissible
to kill
babies
outside
as well
as
inside
the
womb."
Put another way,
"pro-life
intellectuals,
like
pro-life
activists,
insist
on
talking
about
the
science
and
moral
reasoning
pertinent
to the
moral
status
of the
unborn," Neuhaus wrote. What is hugely
beneficial for the pro-life cause--honesty
from pro-life intellectuals--is "more
hindrance than help to the pro-choice
movement" when practiced by pro-choice
intellectuals.
The media stereotype is that the pro-life
community is uniformly homogeneous and
judgmental. It is far more accurate to say
that we are like a coat of many colors that
is wrapped around pregnant women in their
hour of need.
To come full
circle pro-lifers of all stripes share a
common faith: the conviction (as Fr. Neuhaus
so often wrote) that there is no moral,
ethical, or scientifically coherent argument
to exclude the unborn "from the community
for whom
we are
responsible." |
