Time For Truth

A place to grow in the Grace & Knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ

Abortion is an absolute Evil

Scott Klusendorf has written an excellent book entitled the Case for Life.


He makes an excellent point, both in the book and in this on-line interview, about the fact that abortion is an absolute evil, in comparison with “unjust” war which is a contingent evil. We must be careful in making moral equivalents where there is none. Here is an important part of the interview:

 

 

 

 

 

In the recent election we know that many Christians voted for Obama. Why do you think that more people don’t consider a candidate’s position on abortion to be a “trump card” issue when voting?

SK: Simply put, they wrongly assume moral equivalency. For example, Just prior to the 2008 elections, a kindly nun at a Catholic high school pulled me aside to thank me for speaking to 400 of her students on the theme, “The Case for Life.” In fact, she couldn’t say enough good things about my talk. “I agree with everything you said. It was exactly what our kids needed to hear,” she beamed.

However, a moment later it was clear we didn’t agree when it came to applying pro-life principles. In fact, her moral reasoning was deeply troubling. She began our conversation by lamenting that her students were not pro-life on all issues. She then said, “I am consistently for life, and that’s why I’m voting for Senator Obama. Most people focus too much on abortion.” To which I replied, “What do you mean people focus too much on abortion?” She said that ending war is a pro-life issue like ending abortion, and at the moment, the war in Iraq was even worse than abortion. So I asked her, “To be worse than abortion, how bad would an unjust war have to be?” She replied that war, abortion, and poverty were all equally bad and Obama was right on most of those issues, so she was voting for him. “But are those issues bad in the same way?” I asked. “Correct me if I’m wrong,” I continued, “but doesn’t church teaching distinguish between moral absolutes and prudential judgments? In other words, the decision to wage war is not intrinsically evil, though it must be morally justified and prudently considered. But the deliberate killing of unborn human beings is an absolute evil and laws permitting it are scandalous. If I understand you correctly, you are willing to overlook Obama’s pledge to uphold an absolute evil because he might help us avoid a contingent one?” Her reply: “I just know war is worse right now.” I left her with this question: “To be worse than abortion, wouldn’t an unjust war have to kill more innocent people than abortion does each year? The war in Iraq has resulted in 100,000 deaths total (all sides) while abortion kills 1.2 million each year! In short, the evil of abortion is immeasurably worse, but she refused to see it.

This is also an excellent (biblical) way of arguing from lesser to greater. If we were to consider the war in Iraq to be a worst case scenario of a total unjust and evil war (most would not), it still would not rise to the level of an absolute evil, or even if it would in some minds, it would still not be equivalent in numbers of innocents who die due to abortion. If we were to concede that there was some justification for this war, even if we were deceived into entering the war and that it has created some good (for the Iraqis and others), and if we were to consider that there is in the end little difference in how either major party candidate would have dealt and is dealing with ending the situation there. And if we add into the mix the Bush-like policies that Obama has instituted in Afghanistan, then we must conclude that there clearly was never even the slightest moral equivalency on the issue. And we have continued to sacrifice our children to Molech for the sake of political expediency and political correctness. I highly recommend this book.

Advertisements

March 18, 2009 - Posted by | Uncategorized

2 Comments »

  1. John Holdren, Barack Obama’s newly appointed “science adviser” was a regular collaborator with reliably wrong prognosticator Paul Ehrlich. He also has advocated not only for the theory of man made climate change, but for the “de-development” of the industrialized world. Thus is the real agenda of these guys exposed – not to “save the planet” but to destroy the free market system and weaken Western Civilization.

    The agenda also becomes evident in that while they claim that climate change is such a clear and present danger that all other priorities must yield to it, yet they oppose nuclear energy which is clean, reliable and available, and is the only alternative which could have any significant effect on carbon emissions in the near term.

    And of course all this cap and trade stuff will stick it to blue-collar manufacturing workers most while doing little for reducing carbon.

    Comment by Whit | March 19, 2009

  2. Excellent points Whit. You are absolutely right.

    But at least they are “de-politicizing” the science of climate change along with embryonic stem cell. Hah!! this whole administration would be laughable if written in a novel, but sadly and painfully it is all too true. And president Obama is still treated like a rock star? Go figure?

    Comment by Adel | March 19, 2009


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: