Skip to main content

A Case Of Flawed Reasoning

I have a friend who complained about the re-instatement of the "Mexico City Policy," a prohibition against the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions internationally. (We have a similar policy domestically: the Hyde Amendment.) Presumably because some of the groups that will now lose funding also do other things of which he heartily approves, he added, "This [policy] will actually increase abortions. It would be funny, if it weren't so sad." The argument goes thusly: why not support oral contraceptives and other services provided by these now-disfavored groups, if I really want fewer abortions?

The plainest answer: I don't want fewer abortions; I want none.

Let us assume for a moment that the basic anthropology offered by the Catholic Church is correct; abortion and contraception are contrary to humanity's purpose and destiny. Let us further assume that I am a Catholic politician. My understanding of my obligation as a legislator and a Catholic is that I may work incrementally, permitting moral evil, provided that I have no other good option, and that I make clear what I am doing, and that the present state is not morally acceptable.

I have no obligation to cooperate even remotely in evil. I would be happy to cooperate in a more general sense, when moral obligations are not at stake. It is usually at this point that an objection is raised: Religion is being imposed! More than that, we are a pluralistic society.

This objection mistakes advocacy for imposition; it also assumes that the multiplicity of value systems implies that no one is correct. Tolerance is meant to serve peace and solidarity; pluralism is not a virtue in itself.

I regard this latest change in policy as a good one. We may have to do other things to make the horror of abortion less likely. If we fail, through callousness or imprudence, the fault is ours. But we never will serve the greater good by doing evil.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
17 comments
Read more

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...
Post a Comment
Read more

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...
Post a Comment
Read more