Bookmark and Share
My Photo


    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.


« My theocracy, 'tis of thee...? | Main | Beckwith on Romney, Mormonism »

Friday, May 25, 2007



The "personally pro-life but legislatively pro-choice" argument does not hold up to any logical scrutiny. The logic of the letter writer goes as follows: I believe that abortion kills an innocent human being. Other people believe that abortion is morally acceptable. Therefore because I don't want to impose my views, I believe that the government should allow the killing of innocent human beings.

I can't help but feel that the position is rooted in cowardice.

The Logic is exactly the same as the following: I believe that killing a black person is murdering a human being. There are some people who believe that killing black people is morally acceptable. Therefore because I don't want to impose my views, I believe that the government should allow the killing of black people.

Harsh? Well, that is the reality of the situation. The reality of abortion is quite harsh. So harsh that most people take refuge in cowardly stances of moral ambiguity.

Sorry if that sounded a little glib, but my unborn brothers and sisters are sick of being ripped apart in the name of separation of church and state.

Mark L.

" . . . the law must be made for all persons, atheists and Christians, Muslims, liberals and fundamentalists." so long as the law doesn't do anything to protect the unborn who, clearly don't you know, couldn't possibly be considered a part of "all persons".

I will pray for this poor, misguided soul.

Ed Peters

When people don't give you/us specific examples, that can in turn be weighed, affirmed, or rejected, their criticisms are not only a total waste of time, they come across as whinny and preachy.


"Here in Holland this social teaching is very much alive and has been instrumental in reaching our standard of living."

Oh, the great free country of Holland where:
1.Persons 16 years old and older can make an advance "written statement containing a request for termination of life" which the physician may carry out. [Chapter II, Article 2, 2.] The written statement need not be made in conjunction with any particular medical condition. It could be a written statement made years before, based upon views that may have changed. The physician could administer euthanasia based on the prior written statement.
2. Teenagers 16 to 18 years old may request and receive euthanasia or assisted suicide. A parent or guardian must "have been involved in decision process," but need not agree or approve. [Chapter II, Article 2, 3]
3. Children 12 to 16 years old may request and receive euthanasia or assisted suicide. A parent or guardian must "agree with the termination of life or the assisted suicide." [Chapter II, Article 2, 4]
4. A person may qualify for euthanasia or assisted suicide if the doctor "holds the conviction that the patient's suffering is lasting and unbearable." [Chapter II, Article 2, 1b] There is no requirement that the suffering be physical or that the the patient be terminally ill. (
5. The prime minister of the Netherlands thinks that killing babies because they are born with terminal or seriously disabling conditions is not a scandal, but daring to point out accurately that German doctors did the same during World War II, is.
6. Groningen University Medical Center made international headlines when it admitted to permitting pediatric euthanasia and published the "Groningen Protocol," infanticide guidelines the hospital followed when killing 22 disabled newborns between 1997 and 2004. The media reacted as if killing disabled babies in the Netherlands was something new. But Dutch doctors have engaged in infanticide for more than 15 years. (A Dutch government-supported documentary justifying infant euthanasia played on PBS in 1993. Moreover, a study published in 1997 in the Lancet determined that in 1995, about 8 percent of all infants who died in the Netherlands--some 80 babies--were euthanized by doctors, and not all with parental consent; this figure was reproduced in a subsequent study covering the year 2001.)

Lady, don't ever speak of a blog being glib or praise the Nazi-like social justice in your country when stuff like this is occurring!

Christopher Milton

Hmm, I believe B16 said something about Reason with out Faith, too.

Jennifer F.

"But the tone of your comments that accompanies quite a few of them is sometimes rather glib and seriously polarising."

I'm surprised to hear that criticism directed at you. Sometimes I read blogs by Catholics and kind of cringe at their nasty, uncharitable words towards those they disagree with (I've done this myself, unfortunately). But one of the things I love about this blog is that you always deliver your opinions firmly and call it like it is, yet you don't cross that line into being insulting or mean.

That one email certainly doesn't speak for all your readers. Keep up the good work!

Jeff Miller

Mostly the poverty in Holland is spiritual and there is a major problem with priestly vocations. Fr. Roderick tells a story of as a teenager wanting to go to confession and the priest he had gone to had forgotten the words of the rite it had been so long since he had done it. Yeah that Dutch catechism bringing the Church into the modern world was really helpful.

Ed Peters

As someone once put it, "The Dutch Church should have served as warning; instead it served as a model."

Scott Gilbreath

"How would you feel if Islamic laws were introduced such as mandatory veil wearing, sharia etc. Far fetched, you say, well it was considered in Canada . . ."

Inaccurate. Wholesale adoption of Islamic laws has never been considered in Canada. Mandatory veil wearing in Canada? You've got to be joking.

A proposal to implement sharia for Muslims in one part of Canada was roundly rejected. A year or two ago, the government of Ontario floated a trial balloon about allowing sharia family courts for marital disputes involving Muslims. After a loud chorus of disapproval from Muslims and non-Muslims, the proposal was quickly repudiated.

Some of the most telling objections came from Muslim women who do not trust the inevitably male-dominated sharia courts to render impartial justice.


Although I am personally not in favour of abortion, I am pro choice...

Blah blah blah blah...


I personally oppose slavery, but if you want to own a slave, that's your choice if the state says it's ok. Acceptable?


But surely these fetuses could have been sold
and the money given to the poor.

Carl Olson

But one of the things I love about this blog is that you always deliver your opinions firmly and call it like it is, yet you don't cross that line into being insulting or mean.

Of course, Jennifer, you'll sing a different tune the day I turn my polarizing eye and glib pen/keyboard toward you. ;-) More seriously, thanks for the kind and encouraging words; they are appreciated.


I like "polarising." And "glib" is even better.


Holland is also where some pedophiles wanted to start up a political party, but that's another story.


I don't care much for "tolerance" or "understanding."
And as a general rule, I try only to "agree to disagree" with my wife.

Peter, Ireland

I thought that the rate for abortion in Holland was low due to having another category called "menstrual extractions" for teenagers (I think) which is not called abortion?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight


Ignatius Press

Catholic World Report


Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad