Abortion isn't a religious issue (And it should not be a political issue says the author)

LA Times ^ | 4 November 2007 | Garry Wills

[shrinkermd]

Evangelicals are adamant, but religion really has nothing to say about the issue

What makes opposition to abortion the issue it is for each of the GOP presidential candidates is the fact that it is the ultimate "wedge issue" -- it is nonnegotiable. The right-to-life people hold that it is as strong a point of religion as any can be. It is religious because the Sixth Commandment (or the Fifth by Catholic count) says, "Thou shalt not kill." For evangelical Christians, in general, abortion is murder. That is why what others think, what polls say, what looks practical does not matter for them. One must oppose murder, however much rancor or controversy may ensue.

But is abortion murder? Most people think not. Evangelicals may argue that most people in Germany thought it was all right to kill Jews. But the parallel is not valid. Killing Jews was killing persons. It is not demonstrable that killing fetuses is killing persons. Not even evangelicals act as if it were. If so, a woman seeking an abortion would be the most culpable person. She is killing her own child. But the evangelical community does not call for her execution.

About 10% of evangelicals, according to polls, allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest. But the circumstances of conception should not change the nature of the thing conceived. If it is a human person, killing it is punishing it for something it had nothing to do with. We do not kill people because they had a criminal parent.

[Friendofgeorge]

Preaching mostly to the choir I assume, but here is my 2 cents anyway......

Anybody that votes or suggest they will vote for Rudy G, is simply not pro life!!! Case closed the fat lady has sung

[N3WBI3]

“About 10% of evangelicals, according to polls, allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest. But the circumstances of conception should not change the nature of the thing conceived.”

How true this is, the position that ‘in case of rape or incest’ ignores the humanity of the unborn..

[WashingtonSource]

Gary Wills bent so far backwards in his “reasoning”, he stuck his head up his butt. This is beyond twisted logic. It’s deliberate self-delusion.

[Sherman Logan]

The author is correct that this is an inconsistency in pro-lifers.

Are you equally anxious to see Jeffrey Daumer made “restored and whole?” Or do you preach vengeance for him, but not for her? If so, on what logical basis?

[Earthdweller]

"It is not demonstrable that killing fetuses is killing persons...

Willful suspension of disbelief anyone? Talk about having no faith in modern science.

[mware]

Without the right to life, there are no other rights.

[Hornitos]

Actually, personhood is an absolute and totally independent from what a law defines it as. But your over all point is well made, that laws are crafted to discriminate against personhood, be it non-person slaves, illegal and non-person Jews, or non-person unborn children.

[N3WBI3]

esp considering that the word ‘fetuses’ means nothing more than *unborn child*

[reg45]

Try putting an “Abort Hillary” bumper sticker on your car and see the reaction you get from the pro-choice types.

[steadfastconservative]

Gary Wills is conveniently ignoring several historical facts here and he also is failing to look at this issue from any kind of reasonable historical perspective. First the early Church condemned abortion in a first century document, the Didache. Although it did not consider abortion to be murder until much later in history--because of the lack of knowledge about human reproduction and embryology--the Church has always condemned it. Also, he purposely has misinterpreted the pope's comment on natural law. Natural law is not something demonstrated by science: it is a knowledge of right and wrong that can be recognized by most people. It is not up to science to "prove" that abortion is murder. Moreover, since John Paul II explicitly condemned abortion as murder in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, this subject is no longer open for discussion by Catholics, including Wills. And this brings me to the point about Wills' lack of historical perspective. Since Aquinas did not know how conception occurred and since no one knew that the fetus really existed until the mother could feel its movements, which was in the fourth month of pregnancy and which was called "quickening," he concluded that ensoulment occurred at quickening and that that was when the fetus became a person. But Aquinas always considered abortion to be a sin because he saw it as a kind of birth control. Finally, let's get to the issue of personhood. Those who argue that the fetus are not persons are arbitrarily separating the idea of personhood from the biological existence of a human life. There is no good, logical, or compelling reason for them to do this, however. By doing this, they turn personhood into a subjective concept, so that it no longer means that there as a human life whose existence can be empirically demonstrated but that a person is someone who possesses certain qualities, such as autonomy, intelligence, the ability to think, feeling, etc. This is a convenient way of denying that entire categories of human beings, such as the unborn, those who are disabled, those in comas, are not persons. It is scandalous for Wills to continue to portray himself as a faithful Catholic when he is nothing of the sort.

[Friendofgeorge]

I heard someone suggest that Rudy was a good argument for abortion....I guess Hillary also.

[peteram]

Are you equally anxious to see Jeffrey Daumer made “restored and whole?” Or do you preach vengeance for him, but not for her? If so, on what logical basis?

Dahmer knew what he was doing. In many cases women who get abortions are not fully aware of the magnitude of their decision and are usually counselled (preyed upon) to do so by those on the left with an agenda. They are talked into it. Then regret it the rest of their lives.

[jesseam]

“Without the right to life, there are no other rights.”

That is such a profound statement that only liberals would not know what it means.

[puroresu]

It is not demonstrable that killing fetuses is killing persons.

Then why do abortion supporters call themselves "pro-choice" and not pro-abortion?

Better yet, why do abortion supporters recoil with horror and outrage when photos or videos of abortions are shown? Why do they protest when laws are initiated requiring abortionists to show women considering abortion an ultrasound?

If Wills were correct, it would be the pro-abortion side that would be wanting to display clear photographic and medical imagery of what they are doing.

[shrinkermd]

If abortion is a killing, then why were women never prosecuted? They instigate the abortion, often pay for it and an abortion cannot be done without their cooperation.

I practiced medicine for 13 years prior to Roe vs. Wade and women were never prosecuted in Minnesota. It was this kind of tautology that made harsh abortion penalties almost impossible to enforce.

[Sherman Logan]

Sure, but many women also know exactly what they are doing and just don’t care. Your automatic exclusion from responsibility for all women is not logical, and is frankly more than a little patronizing.

[redgolum]

So if it isn’t a human child, what is it?

[Jumper]

Abortion is a losing issue for the Dem’s and is one of the few “emotional” issues that rally’s Republicans. Dem’s usually vote because “the sky is falling” and so on this issue, along with Homosexuality and socialism, Republican’s hold their lines. Of course the Dem’s want to see this issue go away, because the Republicans wouldn’t have a rallying issue to get the voters to the polls.

My cup if half full and I’m grateful, yet my Democratic voting friends always see their glass half empty.

[grellis]

Interesting...never thought of it that way.

[SittinYonder]

If abortion is a killing, then why were women never prosecuted?

Are you suggesting that government's failure to prosecute is the evidence necessary to establish that abortion is not killing?

Ridiculous.

What government does or does not do establishes nothing.

The question, if there is one, is at what point does life begin. I think the answer is clear that life begins at conception. The organism is forming and growing from that point on.

Any other conclusion, I believe, is agenda driven. It is beyond me how "science" can throw up its hands in defeat and not admit that life begins when the organism begins to form and grow.

To suggest that life begins when a fetus is viable is simply absurd - that fetus began long before it became viable.

If we are unwilling to concede that a growing fetus hours or days or weeks old is a living organism, how can we possibly conclude that an amoeba is alive?

It may be a legal question whether or not this is killing we allow in our culture - such as hunting or stepping on ants ... but to suggest that it is not killing is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.