Two expressions that I dislike are “pro-choice,” and “pro-
life.” Both of these expressions seek to skirt around a very
ugly word: abortion. This is understandable in the case of
those who favour abortion; in labeling their stance “pro-
choice” they brilliantly obscure the evil, which they promote.
After all in a free society who can be opposed to “choice”?
The fact that the choice in question is the killing of an
innocent, albeit unborn child is conveniently forgotten.
The anti-abortion movement has conceded much ground
to the pro-abortion movement by calling itself “pro-life”.
Here again we have an effort to put a positive spin on the
movement being “for” something rather than being “anti.”
However, in terms of morality it is sometimes positive to be
anti-something: anti-abortion, anti-communist, anti-nazi,
anti-racist. The anti-abortion movement makes itself
vulnerable by its “pro-life” label when abortion opponents
muddy the waters as they seek to expand “pro-life” issues
to include hunger, poverty, and capital punishment. The
last issue is particularly insidious as the execution of
someone found guilty of heinous crimes is put on the same
moral plane as the abortion of an innocent child.
Scientific advances increasingly support the anti-abortion
movement ultrasound imagining gives us dramatic and
graphic proof of the humanity of these unborn children.
When confronted with science, pro-abortionists sometimes
try to fall back on theology.
Years ago when still running for office, former president
Clinton when confronted with science countered that
nobody knows when ensoulment takes place! The topic
was not the existence of the soul but of life. Even so using
the ensoulment logic, is it not better to err on the side of
caution? Clinton further stated that he wished to see
abortion legal, safe and rare. But if it is morally permissible
as well as legal and safe, why should it be rare? In both of
his stances Clinton basically concedes the immorality of
abortion and yet this was not given due attention.
Nancy Pelosi’s recent specious use of St. Augustine to
justify her support of abortion fortunately met a better
reaction as a number of Bishops brought her to task.
Like Clinton, Pelosi sought to use the question of when
ensoulment takes place. Her use of Augustine was utterly
specious and betrays a cynicism that staggers the
imagination. In the passage she was supposedly citing,
Augustine was commenting on Exodus 21:22 which fines a
man who in striking a pregnant woman causes an abortion
rather than demanding the death penalty. Augustine
speculates that this is affected by ensoulment. If the
unborn child did not yet have a soul then the crime is not as
serious than if it had a soul. Nevertheless the act remains
a crime. It is not a question of when life begins but of if a
soul is present in the life, and in no way excuses abortion.
The Church has addressed the issue of abortion from its
earliest days, and has always opposed it.
The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is the
earliest known catechism dating to roughly 110 – 120 AD.
In its second article the Didache condemns abortion (as
well as contraception, which it refers to as “magic” and
“potions.”) In 314 AD, forty years before the birth of St.