Personally Opposed But...

By Russell Shaw
Herald Columnist
(From the issue of 8/26/04)

I suppose everyone sometimes ends a conversation and then later thinks of what he should really have said. That happened to me recently on the subject of abortion and the "right to choose."

I was trading e-mails with an intelligent, libertarian Catholic who said he was opposed to abortion, but supported the right to choose. Superficially, this argument makes sense, and it had persuaded him.

I pointed out that both logicall*----** and morally there is no substantial difference between supporting abortion and supporting the right to choose it. Predictably, he didn't buy that, and he suggested an analogy in response.

He was, he said, firmly opposed to capital punishment. But he was no less committed to the proposition that the views of people who honestly support the death penalty ought to be respected. Did I therefore mean to say that, morally speaking, he was indistinguishable from someone who backs the death penalty?

No, I told him, because although you're confused, you're sincere. And, as a matter of fact, death penalty supporters might also be sincere. Whether your sincerity and theirs absolves you and them of moral responsibility is something no one else can say. God reads hearts; we don't.

Thinking about that later, it struck me as a weak reply. And then I knew what I should really have said.

"No, you aren't indistinguishable from the supporters of capital punishment — your moral responsibility is greater than theirs. They think capital punishment is acceptable, but your only excuse is that you respect their right to be wrong. Try saying that to a man the night before he's executed, in hopes of justifying yourself.

"Of course, the death penalty isn't a good analogy for legalized abortion. People who support capital punishment often are motivated in particular cases by hatred. They want the guilty party not merely to be punished for his crime but killed. Vengeance is what they seek, and the death penalty is the most satisfying way of getting it.

"It's different with abortion. Even its most ardent supporters express repugnance toward it. There may be some people who want to kill the fetus for the sake of killing it, but they're probably few and far between. Most simply consider this to be an unpleasant but necessary means to reaching some other goal. That doesn't justify them, but it does distinguish them from people who want to kill criminals for the sake of killing them.

"That aside, though, my conclusion about 'personally opposed to abortion but in support of the right to choose' is just the same as my conclusion about someone who says the same thing regarding capital punishment: If you think abortion or the death penalty is wrong, but are prepared to accept it, you're more guilty — objectively speaking — than someone who supports it without thinking it's wrong.

"Of course subjective factors enter the picture in particular cases, and the subjective factors determine how guilty or innocent an individual is in God's eyes. But on the objective level things are as I've just sketched them, and we are not just entitled, but obliged to make our judgments accordingly.

"That's as true of a politician running for office as it is for anybody else. Plus, the candidate bears this added burden of responsibility — his example probably influences how many other people think.

"It makes no difference whether he's Catholic or how often he receives Communion — if he's 'personally opposed to abortion, but in favor of the right to choose,' he's doing something very wrong, and he should stop."

Copyright ©2004 Arlington Catholic Herald.  All rights reserved.