Bookmark and Share
My Photo

FROM the EDITORS:

  • IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
    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.

NEW & UPCOMING, available from IGNATIUS PRESS







































































« "Simply put, a little-known classic." | Main | Fr. Robert Barron on New Media and Evangelization »

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Comments

Jeff

Wow. Senior's reasoning is so unreasonable. I think her message is, snuffing a woman's budding career writing confounding articles is a far greater evil than snuffing the life of her own child -- a child that is both miraculous and accidental. Her logic is both incoherent and unintelligible.

Janny

A woman already has had the right to control her fertility (and its results) for thousands of years: it's called not having sex when she's ovulating. Isn't it ironic that the same women who will gleefully fight for the right to tear a woman's womb apart, however, will squirm with discomfort and embarrassment if you suggest that they actually learn their own body's signs of fertility and work with them to avoid pregnancy if that's what they need to do?

Uhh...yeah.

Gnosticism is alive and well. Unfortunately, babies are not because of it.

JB

GABRIEL

A woman already has had the right to control her fertility (and its results) for thousands of years: it's called not having sex when she's ovulating

AND WITH THAT, JB JUST PUT AN END TO THE DEBATE FOR ALL ETERNITY.

THANK YOU JB.

GABRIEL

Eric Pinola

This is just proof that the pro-aborts really have no ground to stand on.

Great work on the article; it would have driven me crazy!

Tim H

That some aethiest has illogical views on abortion is really no surprise.

I understand that the article is about Antonia Senior's views specifically. But for the discussion about ending abortion in general, is not relevant or useful to do so without also discussing contraception, which is in fact, the very cause of abortion. The author of this article even states, "Sexual intercourse, by its very nature, is meant to reproduce and bring to fruition a person."

I submit we will never end abortion until we end contraception. It is contraception that has turned sex into a casual recreational activity and when contraception is not available, doesn't work as expected, or is just plain ignored, abortion is always available as a last resort.

Those who use contraception or council it's use are directly responsible for creating the conditions which allows abortion to flourish. To fight against abortion yet council the use of contraception is to be hypocritical. Those who call themselves Catholic and yet use contraception bear the brunt of the blame.


-Tim-

Carl E. Olson

But for the discussion about ending abortion in general, is not relevant or useful to do so without also discussing contraception...

Tim: We certainly agree on the evil of contraception, but my post was not really about "ending abortion in general"; rather, it was a critique of specific "arguments" used by in a specific article by a supporter of abortion.

This blog and Ignatius Insight have addressed and mentioned the contraceptive mentality and its significance on many occasions. For example, see here and here and here and here and here.

To fight against abortion yet council the use of contraception is to be hypocritical.

Agreed! Did my post somehow lead you to believe I was a Catholic who supports contraception? Or were you just making a general remark? It's not readily evident to me to whom your remarks are addressed.

R.C.

Be compassionate with Antonia Senior; it is hard for her to kick against the goads.

Be gracious with her; when one grows up in an irrational civilization, it is hard to identify, let alone exercise, rationality.

Intercede for her; her anger, and the hugs of her young child, may yet provide the heat that cracks the ice on her heart, bringing her to conviction, then to contrition.

LaVallette

"If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too."

Every extreme political and religous movement throughout the ages has screamed that slogan and therefore can justify their ethnic/religous cleansings, genocides, exterminations and final solutions: but not the Martyrs for Christ and the Church.

Mark@Hoodia Gordonii

Abortion is never a right choice I might say. It is still considered murder.

Howard

"If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too."

"Blunt and chilling. You wouldn't expect much less, however, from a radical jihadist, or an avowed terrorist, or some other sort of violent extremist."

Let's say I don't read any farther down the article, because I already notice that this is released just 2 days after Independence Day. In that context, I think of the violent extremist George S. Patton, who said, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Violent extremist? He also said, "Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more." And "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week."

Well, thanks be to God for men like Patton, for Don Juan of Austria, and John III Sobieski, even if you would group them with a "radical jihadist, or an avowed terrorist, or some other sort of violent extremist."

Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto

I'd use harsher words with such a shameful exponent of the right to Abortion. The woman is greatly bewildered. Here we find a mind so thoroughly entwined with watchwords and Party slogans that its predominance effaces any trace of reasoning.

In her statement "A woman's right to have a life beyond the home and to be allowed by law and custom to order her own life as she chooses", she ignores that it is not only her life that is involved but the life of another human being in the process of coming into the world by birth.

Regarding the lack of pain during the first 24 weeks between conception and birth as a good enough reason to justify the killing is preposterous.

Carl E. Olson

Howard: If Patton had made his remark in the context of killing unborn babies or innocent civilians then, yes, it would be the language of a violent extremist. So, yes, a person does need to read further to gain the context, but I think you'll agree that the context is very important in understanding what I meant. Killing combatants in war is one thing; killing innocents is something altogether.

Howard

So, what you meant to say is more like this"

"If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too."

"Blunt and chilling. You wouldn't expect much less, however, from a radical jihadist, or an avowed terrorist, some other sort of violent extremist, or a hero in a just war." It's not just that context tweaks how chilling the statement is; without context, the statement is not chilling at all -- it might be inspirational.

In other words, it's like the statement, "He has no idea what's about to happen." It's chilling if the speaker is a terrorist, and kind of nice if it's someone planning a surprise party. Or, "You're going to face trial." Scary enough if it comes from the proper authorities, but absolutely terrifying when coming from vigilantes.

What makes the original statement chilling is not the statement itself; it depends entirely on who is killing whom, and why.

Carl E. Olson

without context, the statement is not chilling at all -- it might be inspirational.

I appreciate your argument to a certain point, but think there are a couple of problems. First, the context is given, and it is chilling. But even if there is fault to be found in how I initially presented the quote (and I don't deny there is), I think the words "kill" and "cause" should give pause. Having known many men who have bravely served in the military, and some of whom have seen action, I don't think they would normally speak in such a way. They would speak in terms of "defending my country" or "defending freedom," but not in terms of "killing for a cause." Too me, a "cause" has a subjective and ideological quality, which is different from fighting to defend freedom (properly understood) and going to war (under legitimate conditions) to defend one's country. Perhaps I am making too much of the semantics, but I think they are important. In the end, even if I could have presented the quote better up front, the larger point of my post stands: such language, coming from an abortion advocate, is indeed blunt and chilling.

GABRIEL

You shall not murder.

End of story.

Lauri Friesen

I'd like to add that, if one is willing to die for a cause, it is precisely because one is unwilling to kill for it.

melanie statom

killing is killing...whether we justify it as " defence" or not. It is not the path of the Lord. He did not respond with violence from the cross and we are called to do the same.

Brian J. Schuettler

killing is killing...whether we justify it as " defence" or not. It is not the path of the Lord. He did not respond with violence from the cross and we are called to do the same.

2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.

Brian J. Schuettler

CCC 2517 The heart is the seat of moral personality: "Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication. . . . " The struggle against carnal covetousness entails purifying the heart and practicing temperance:
Remain simple and innocent, and you will be like little children who do not know the evil that destroys man's life.

Antonia Senior's heart is reflected in her comments.

John the Convert

Great post, Carl, you're on a roll the last few days. "I don't want it, so I can kill it" pretty much sums it up for me. Like my 5-year old screaming "No Fair!" What we think is fair isn't really the issue, is it? And as Janny points out, responsible alternatives do exist. Thanks again.

richtea

I know hayfever is nasty, but man is NOT an animal: Please, get that right next time. At that point, I stopped reading.

Carl E. Olson

but man is NOT an animal:

Even with hayfever, I'm fairly certain of my grasp of the classical definition of man. Aristotle said the "formula of man" was that he is a "two-footed animal" (Metaphysics, 1037b13-14). The Catechism, quoting Tertullian, states: "Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him" (par. 1951; also see this article on the nature of man from the Catholic Encyclopedia). The word "animal," of course, comes from the Latin word animale, which means "living being, being which breathes."

So, please continue reading!

Gail F

What a strange article. She goes on and on, but she never says why killing a baby is the "lesser" of two evils -- she just says that it is. Why is the alternative "more evil"? Likewise, she never explains what she seems to think is the crux of her argument: that if you are willing to die for something, you must be willing to kill for it. Says who? Just weird.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight

Twitter


Ignatius Press


Catholic World Report


WORTHY OF ATTENTION:




















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