NIETZSCHE VS. CHRIST
Abortion Is More Than 'Murder'
November 2005By Richard Stith
Richard Stith, who teaches at Valparaiso University School of Law in Indiana, is a member of the national boards of Consistent Life and University Faculty for Life (UFL). This article was adapted from a presentation at the UFL's annual meeting in June 2005.
Suppose we were to find out that over a quarter of the nation's grandparents are killed each year by their teenaged grandchildren, usually through deliberate dismemberment. Wouldn't responses such as "This is murder!" somehow understate the matter? Wouldn't this response be even more inadequate if grandparent-killing had been declared to be a constitutional right?
Yet such a reaction to the current right to kill unborn children throughout pregnancy ("murder") is about as hard-hitting as one can find in most prolife writing. We need to say more. Words such as "murder" inadequately express the full horror of abortion, just as they would be insufficient as expressions of our shock at the mutilation of grandparents.
The main linguistic problem is that the word "murder" conjures up only a single lethal act against an adult stranger. When a murder is particularly horrific in technique or circumstance, we append adjectives to it. By calling abortions simply "murder," we seem to place them in the ordinary, non-horrific category.
Abortion does, in fact, involve extraordinary violence -- deliberate dismemberment -- while the child is still alive. Indeed, that is precisely why Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens upheld the right to partial-birth abortion in the year 2000. They said it is "simply irrational" to object to suctioning out a fetus's brains partway through birth when the alternative -- standard intra-uterine abortion -- is, in their words, at least as "brutal," "gruesome," "cruel," and "painful" as abortion during delivery.
You have two options:
Subscribe now to New Oxford Review for access to all web content at newoxfordreview.org AND the monthly print edition for as low as $38 per year.
Single article purchase:
Purchase this article for $1.95, for viewing and printing for 48 hours.
If you're already a subscriber log-in here.
Back to November 2005 Issue
|Read our posting policy
Add a comment
|Written in 2005, now we are in 2008. What I find hard to understand, here in the U.S., is the number of catholics that continue to vote for politicians that support abortion. On many occasions, I have watched on TV a politician that claims to be Catholic that is supporting the democrat party. Yet that party has made abortion (pro-choice) a core value. Those, who claim confusion (between care for the sick,hungry etc and abortion) the Church has finally clarified that abortion is the primary issue that overides other important issues of life. Yet, today, we still have people, claiming to be Catholic, yet a supporter or volunteer working for the dem party. What has happened to these people?
I suppose part of the problem is the reticence on the part of the Church in America to speak out correctly. The excuse of not wanting to politicize Holy Communion by refusing pro-choice,catholic Politicians for example. If the church doesn't lead, the people will fall away, especially in this secular progressive environment we have in the U.S. And with this moral decline, goes our country, as our Founding Fathers (though not Catholic) recognized the value of a self-disciplined citizenry in maintaining this great democratic republic.
|Posted by: wunsch
January 23, 2008 10:49 PM EST
|Add a comment
The Pope will create 14 new cardinals at a Consistory on June 29th, promoting prelates from Iraq, Pakistan, Portugal, Peru, Japan, and more.
Every Chilean bishop in Rome offers his resignation to the Pope after a three-day meeting about their sex abuse scandal.
The CDF releases a document on the economic-financial system, calling for a synthesis of ethics, technical knowledge, and human wisdom.
Prosecutors request a 'super injunction' against all media reporting of upcoming trials of Cardinal Pell on charges of past abuse offenses.
U.K. officials suggest six-year prison terms for online critics of Islam, transgenderism, or other 'protected characteristics.'
Google bans all advertisements for both sides in the abortion referendum, prompting concerns this will disproportionately hurt the
more news links...