The curious doctrine of the two classes of the unborn

The new doctrine implied by many of the most conservative Catholics, including the former Archbishop Raymond Burke of Saint Louis, is indeed curious, though it is regrettably not unprecedented. Under this doctrine there seem to be two categories of the unborn, and they deserve completely different accounting in the moral sphere.

One class of the unborn deserves very little recognition, and can apparently be killed by the millions without much concern. Into this first class fall, for example, the unborn victims of war, the countless unborn who will die directly as a result of policies originating from the current administration’s suppression of the evidence of global warming, those unborn poor who need quality healthcare, those unborn who are malnourished, among other groups too numerous to mention here.  Lest we forget, there are many of the born in similar groups who are dieing each day as a direct result of the current administration’s policies.

The other class of unborn is so especially deserving of our protection, however, that even though a candidate has no direct legal authority to protect them, the mere announcement of his or her opposition to a legal precedent enjoins us to put all other concerns out of mind, and cast our vote, as unthinking automatons, to continue the slaughter of those unborn in the first class.

Therefore I must ask those who enjoin Catholics to cast their votes only for so-called ‘pro-life’ candidates,  to clarify, with some precision, what are those characteristics of the first class of the unborn that make them so undeserving of protection and conversely makes those in the second class so especially deserving of our protection?  This question deeply vexes me.

Advertisements
The curious doctrine of the two classes of the unborn

4 thoughts on “The curious doctrine of the two classes of the unborn

  1. catherine kennedy says:

    Really are you that gullible?
    if you cant see why abortion is wrong then please go back to school!
    also have no unborn the victims of war never ever ever died under Roosevelt, Wilson and John F Kennedy when they were USA presidents
    so stop trying to jusify abortion by invoking war, health policies etc
    this is such a diversionary tactic it is so laughable!
    global warming is not the same as the direct hand of an abortionist, health policies can be improved to save lives,
    and innocents unfortunatelyy may always unitentionally get killed in wars yes this is a terrible consequence but an abortion is always always a calculated taking of an innocent life
    simple as that!

  2. adam says:

    I have to say I think poor old Catherine is a little confused – you raise an excellent question that deserves an answer.

    The basic point is that if abortion by a doctor – presumably with the aim of helping the patient in some way – is wrong, then dropping a large explosive device near someone – with the aim of only helping yourself or your side – is also wrong.

    “and innocents unfortunatelyy may always unitentionally get killed in wars”

    Hm. Interesting point. Al Qaeda made the same statement about September 11th. Hamas says the same about car bombs versus Israeli snipers.

    If you’re dropping explosives on a city – or indeed any populated area – then civilian deaths are not unintentional. Its a bomb, it goes off and kills people. Some of those people will be completely uninvolved. A reality check – up to 1941 more British civilians were killed or wounded than soldiers.

    “yes this is a terrible consequence but an abortion is always always a calculated taking of an innocent life”

    Usually to save or improve another life, one which is presumably, on your thinking non-innocent. I’d guess because she had sex.

    OK got it. The reason that you’re groping for that its OK to kill pregnant women (and their unborn children) using bombs is that the mother has original sin, which is why saving a mothers life using an abortion is also wrong.

    I suspect that this is a rather odd set of values, and hardly Christian, but that’s people for you.

  3. George says:

    Catherine is quite confused. The issue you raised has little to do with the question of whether or not abortion is wrong. The core issue which you do raise is one of the complexity of almost all moral decisions. Abortion has become a shibboleth, used by some segments of the Roman Catholic hierarchy as well as Evangelical Christians to neatly, and simplistically, divide the world into two camps: righteous and unrighteous. The abortion issue has been used to propagate the myth that all moral questions have black and white answers and that thinking in terms of shades of grey is a sign of moral and intellectual weakness. Those for whom the world must be black or white have throughout human history created social systems that have failed because they are both morally and intellectually bankrupt. Finally, with these systems, the incongruity between the “shades of grey” world in which we actually live and the fantasy “black and white” world which the proponents of simplistic morality have tried to create becomes too great and they collapse because of the weight of the lies upon which they were based.

    George

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