top of page

"I'm personally opposed to abortion, but refuse to impose my morality on others."

I'm not going to impose my belief on another.

Some may see this statement as balanced, non-judgmental, and fair-minded. It is none of these. Favored by politicians, it is not only cowardly and irresponsible,  but conflicted and incoherent. If you encounter this attitude in conversation, try sharing the following points:


1.  Gently ask why they are personally opposed to abortion. Is it because abortion takes an innocent  human life, or that aborted baby parts are now sold as commodities?  If abortion does not do these things, then there's no reason to oppose it. If it does, then we should refrain from it ourselves, and work to prevent others from doing it in the same way we pass laws that restrict rape, child abuse, and murder.  It's like saying, "I'm personally opposed to child abuse, but if you want to abuse your child, that's your choice, and none of my business." 


2.  Ask, "So, you oppose legal protection for the unborn?" By "refusing to impose morality", we are in effect excusing ourselves from protecting the life of an unborn child. By virtue of our government's Judeo-Christian foundations, our laws already impose moral judgments by punishing acts that harm or destroy lives or property.  


3.  Point out that legality does not necessarily determine morality. That abortion is legal is one of the weakest arguments for it.  Consider this: In 1857, the Dred Scott decision ruled that slaves were not legal persons and therefore were not protected in the U.S. Constitution. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice, stated, "A black man has no right which the white man is bound to respect." In the 1940's, it was legal for Germans to kill classes of persons considered inferior, such as the disabled, the unborn, and Jews.  Today, we look at these legalities in horror at their barbarism.  C.S. Lewis coined the phrase "chronological snobbery" to describe our sense of moral superiority when looking back at such cultural injustices.  Yet in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that unborn children were also not legal persons and therefore not protected under the Constitution. That abortion still stands as a legal "right" in our nation should prompt us to honest reflection on our ability to discern and stand for objective moral truth and justice.


4.   Don't "impose" -instead, invest and advocate for the pre-born and their mothers.  As citizens, we should insist that our representatives work to improve the dignity and well-being of pregnant women by reducing the coercive pressures that force them into choosing abortion. It is not "empowerment" for a woman to feel that the only way she can succeed in life is by killing her own child.  The early abolitionist and women's rights leader Elizabeth Cady Stanton stated, "When you consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to dispose of as we see fit."  No woman should "see fit" to make such a desperate and degrading choice because of a lack of resources or support.  It is this lack that many women have said drove them to choosing abortion.  Let us pledge a renewed respect for the value of motherhood. It would go a long way to elevating the dignity of women and give them real hope for their future and the future of their children.

1 view0 comments

Comments


bottom of page