|
The Politics of “Personally Opposed”
by John
Crandall
We heard it again - that
politically-correct phrase used by pro-choice politicians to temper or
mask their position on abortion. It is a meaningless phrase - a cop-out
designed to give moral cover to those without the political courage to
state their true convictions. We heard it most recently from Kansas' own
Kathleen Sebelius. Three weeks before her confirmation as Secretary of
Health and Human Services, Ms. Sebelius went before the Senate Finance
Committee. In response to a question from Senator Jon Kyl, she pulled
out that old familiar reply, “I am personally opposed to abortion.”
Personally opposed! Why is she
personally opposed? And what, exactly, does it mean to be personally
opposed? Furthermore, is it ethically or even logically possible to be
personally opposed yet politically committed to abortion? These are the
questions that should have been asked. These are the follow-ups that
should be asked of any politician that tries to use this phrase as cover.
Just once it would be refreshing to have a public official or courageous
journalist challenge the politics of “personally opposed.”
Suppose these hard questions had been
asked. Would Sebelius have been confirmed? Imagine what might have been,
or better yet, what could be next time. Just imagine, if you will, that a
governor from a midwestern state has been nominated for a cabinet post –
say, the head of Health and Human Services. And suppose this governor
must answer questions from a philosophically-astute member of the Senate
Finance Committee. Consider how such an exchange might play out.
Senator: Governor, I would like to begin by
asking your position on abortion.
Governor: I am personally opposed to
abortion, but I believe the Constitution guarantees the right of women
to choose that option.
Senator: Why are you personally opposed?
Governor: My faith informs my morality. It
teaches me that life is sacred and deserves my utmost respect.
Senator: Does that include unborn human
life?
Governor: Yes.
Senator: Doesn't abortion take an innocent
human life?
Governor: Yes, I would say so.
Senator: Do you believe it is morally wrong
to take an innocent human life?
Governor: That is my position.
Senator: Then you believe abortion is
morally wrong, is that correct?
Governor: As I stated before, my faith
informs my morality. Abortion is morally wrong for me.
Senator: Governor, you are speaking as
though morality is subjective, a matter of personal taste. It seems to me
if abortion is wrong, it's wrong for you, wrong for me, wrong for anyone.
Governor: We live in a pluralistic society. Not
everyone shares the same moral viewpoint. I can't force my moral view on
others.
Senator: Have you ever vetoed pro-life
legislation in your state?
Governor: Yes, but only those bills that
threatened the constitutional rights and medical privacy of women.
Senator: By exercising your veto power,
weren't you in fact forcing your moral view on those pro-life legislators?
Governor: (Pause) Well...if you want to look
at it that way. I look at it as protecting the rights of women.
Senator: Are you claiming that privacy
rights outweigh the fundamental right to be born? Didn't you state that
life is sacred? Didn't you also agree that abortion takes an innocent
human life and that it is wrong to take an innocent human life? Can you
justify how a wrong can be made a right?
Governor: I also stated that we live in a
pluralistic society. There are many moral viewpoints and beliefs.
Senator: People believe a lot of foolish
things, but believing them does not make them right. I may believe that
2+2=5, but believing it does not change the fact that I am wrong. Two
conflicting moral viewpoints cannot both be right. Governor, you speak of
having a personal morality, but I am not certain you have a grasp
on what it means to be moral. Classical morality has three unalterable
principles. First, it is an authoritative guide to human conduct.
Second, it has a prescriptive element, that is, it tells us what we ought
to do and what we should not do. Third, classical morality is universal.
Moral rules, like mathematical rules, apply to everyone, everywhere, and
at all times. The equation 2+2=4 is universally true. Someone's personal
belief that it equals five does not make it so. Likewise, unjustified
homocide is always wrong, it always has been for everyone, everywhere, and
for all times. Classical morality has never been defined by one's
personal choice.(1)
Governor: I believe morality is relative. We
ought to respect the moral viewpoints of others.
Senator: Governor, if morality is relative,
then your statement is meaningless. There is no sense to the word
“ought.” We need not respect anyone's viewpoint because there is no moral
force requiring us to do so. If morality is relative, then there is no
moral difference between the individual actions of Mother Teresa and Dr.
Mengele. If morality is relative, the Allied Nations had no moral duty to
stop Hitler's Third Reich in World War Two. If morality is relative, then
your “personal opposition” to abortion holds no moral weight at all. It
is just your personal taste – like preferring one flavor of ice cream
over another. “You prefer butter pecan ice cream, I prefer strawberry ice
cream. You prefer abortion, I prefer not to abort.”(2)
Governor: Senator, I do not consider crisis
pregnancies and the health issues of women to be matters of personal
taste. We are speaking of weighty issues about real women making tough
personal choices!
Senator: I agree that these are very weighty
matters. That is precisely my point. You stated that your faith has
taught you the sanctity of life, yet your actions say otherwise. You are
a moral relativist, so your personal opposition to abortion is
meaningless. Governor, your answers before this committee today do not
indicate to me that you have the moral knowledge or integrity to make
morally correct decisions to these very weighty issues. I cannot, in good
conscience, recommend you to head such an important post in our
government. Thank you for coming.
______________
- See Francis J.
Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted In
Mid-Air (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998), 29ff.
- For a good
treatment on moral reasoning, see Francis J. Beckwith, Politically
Correct Death (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993), 19-28.
Unjust Law
by John G. Crandall
In a recent Letter
to the Editor (Legal Standing, Letters, June 14) the writer
presented a well-written argument in support of the legal standing of the
pro-choice position. He argued that the pro-choice position is “legal and
grounded in the Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court” and
in the democratic tradition of individual liberty. In contrast, the
pro-life position is illicit in that “its advocates promote overturning
the law.”
The
argument, compelling on its face, is deeply flawed. First, the writer
confuses a law's, i.e., Roe, present legal status with its legal
and moral legitimacy. That abortion was made legal in 1973 by an act of
“raw judicial power” does not give legitimacy to Roe v. Wade
any more than Chief Justice Roger Taney gave legitimacy to the pro-slavery
position in his 1857 Dred Scott majority opinion. By substituting a
few words, the writer's argument sounds very similar to Taney's argument:
“The pro-slavery position is legal and grounded in the Constitution as
interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. It holds that 'individuals,' i.e.,
slave-holders, have a right to property that includes a right to make
choices regarding their property.” This was Taney's argument in 1857.
Legal scholars consider both Roe and Dred Scott to be
poorly reasoned. Both claimed to “find” rights in the Constitution that
theretofore did not exist. Judge Robert Bork writes that one can draw a
direct line of reasoning from Roe backward to Scott. Sandra
Day O'Conner has written that “Roe... is clearly on a collision
course with itself....[It has] no justification in law or logic.”
Second,
the writer, like Justice Taney and Roe's Harry Blackmun, commits
the logical fallacy of begging the question. He assumes what he is
attempting to prove without providing evidence for that assumption. Bush
assumes that the unborn are not fully human, just as Taney assumed blacks
were not fully human. If the unborn are not fully human, then his
argument holds. However, if the unborn are fully human, then his argument
collapses as Blackmun conceded Roe would collapse. But Blackmun
discounted the evidence for fetal personhood from the outset, and so
reduced his argument to an emotional appeal that begs the question.
Pro-lifers
advocate the overturning of illegitimate laws like Roe because, as
Martin Luther King, Jr. stated, “An unjust law is a code that is out of
harmony with the moral law,” and one has the moral responsibility to work
to overturn such a law.
|
