Abortion impotence

Why is it that a society can be so deeply deeply contradictory with respect to so-called human rights as to deny the outrageous holocaust of abortion? I feel so impotent about the thousands of lives taken in the war on the unborn and partially born. And doubly impotent about the cover up that means so little balanced public discussion is allowed to occur. And triply impotent because the horror of abortion is such that sane, mature people don’t want to dwell on it or pass around the images or the details. Two cases recently in the news: one is the US doctor now convicted of murder. Archbishop Cranmer comments here (but WARNING: the details and photos are appalling.) And in Australia a brave doctor has spoken out after someone procured an abortion on the grounds of sex selection.


Abortion impotence — 1 Comment

  1. A comment and my response from Facebook on the issue of using emotive language and polarising the debate:


    Chris I think conservative Christians have also had a hand in polarising the debate on abortion so that emotive words like murder. scandal, holocaust only add to the polarisation. We need to create a middle ground of a far more nuanced position on abortion. Most people of good will would say there are too many abortions and abortions are done far too easily and quickly. We need to change social attitudes (which cannot be done by legislation) and provide appropriate support for those who find themselves suddenly pregnant. This requires much better attitude to the casual sleeping around common in our society and promoted in films and TV. We need better contraceptive education. We need to know how to support those found pregnant. We need to recognise that the child is the child not just of the mother but of the mother and the father and of the families those parents represent, Then we also need to realise the brokenness of so many relationships so that we need contingency plans to cope with the times these ideals are broken and to be able to choose between two bad options – continuing the pregnancy in an impossible situation and terminating with all the heart break that can bring.


    Yes Alan: I agree. And also with the implicit suggestion that abortion is, sadly, sometimes the lesser of two evils. And yes I have always been reluctant to use those words ‘holocaust’ etc because that paints me/us into a corner with blind fundamentalism or those who promote violence against doctors who perform terminations.

    But sometimes I wonder if our desire to remain in conversation doesn’t also anaesthetise us to what *ought* to be an emotive subject. And it’s cases like Gosnell that bring things to light; not just the extreme things he did, but the fact that every day what can only be called ‘baby human beings’ (I know, emotive language) are being killed (another emotive word).

    So, what do we do? I agree completely with all of what you say. But why is it that the voices of ‘people of good will’ are not being heard more? Or are there a very few of them? Or perhaps they like you and me don’t want to be seen as polarising the debate.

    Okay… let me challenge people to speak up. And seeing I started the discussion, let me make a rule: no more emotive language. Let’s talk about ways forward in promoting real public discussion that doesn’t fall into the morass of abusive, emotive language and polarisation. Discussion that allows the truth and all thoughtful opinion to be heard. Discussion that doesn’t bow to political correctness.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.