DoggieHeadTilt

5 Responses to “Writing the Final Chapter”

1. marble Says:
   January 23rd, 2012 at 10:37 am

   Thank you for that nuanced reminder: pray, hope, take action [lovingly], and do not despair. . . .

   Especially in these days, which seem ever to grow darker.

2. Adam Wishart Says:
   January 23rd, 2012 at 11:01 am

   This is a complex and thoughtful response to a difficult issue. I agree that this is a heinous act, and must be regarded as a sin. However, I’m not sure overthrowing Roe v. Wade is the answer. It seems to me that people are going to get abortions whether or not it is legal. And, if they get an abortion in a sub-par environment, the dangers to the woman are greatly increased.

   If the laws were rewritten to increase regulation of abortion, it may be possible to decrease the number while keeping them safe. I agree, however, with Ron Paul in that writing and passing laws does not change the hearts and minds of people. It is only culture that can change hearts and minds.

   This may just be another paradox within this issue…

3. Fr. Jonathan Smith Says:
   January 23rd, 2012 at 11:41 am

   Excellent!

4. Mike Metzger Says:
   January 25th, 2012 at 5:17 pm

   Dear Adam:

   Thank you for writing. I appreciate it, however, I’m afraid that the paradox is not between laws banning abortion and the safety of the mother.

   If, as you say, abortion “must be regarded as sin,” can you name any instance in scripture where sin is to be tolerated or regulated rather than ruled to be wrong and forbidden?

   Furthermore, saying that some people are going to get abortions regardless of the law – and therefore we ought to ensure that they can get a safe abortion – is similar to saying that some people are going to murder others regardless of the law. Since we can’t stop them from doing so, we ought to at least ensure that the murderer is not harmed.

   The merit of any law is not based on its efficacy – whether it can be enforced – but on how it reflects the moral stance of a society. Roe v Wade is based on several spurious moral arguments, including a right to privacy that came out of thin air as well as the claim that abortion will reduce violence to children since “unwanted” babies will be aborted. Violence rates have in fact risen since 1973. In 1992, the Supreme Court upheld Roe v Wade, claiming we can’t be sure when life begins. The irony is that hunters are charged with manslaughter if they are unsure of a rustling noise yet fire a shot in the woods that unintentionally kills a human being. The hunter’s maxim is: if unsure, don’t shoot. The Supreme Court said: if unsure, go ahead and shoot anyway.

   Laws that make it getting an abortion more difficult are a step in the right direction. But Adam, we must be clear as to what is at stake here. The argument for safety seems to overlook how a human being is still murdered, regardless of the mother’s health. There is no paradox in this case between changing the law and the health of the mother.

5. merrill Says:
   January 27th, 2012 at 6:33 am

   Nice piece, Mike.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website