Real pro-choice agenda: abolish Christian morality and civilisation
Pro-choice activists are trying to tell the rest of us something very important, what it is they want, but we're not listening. So don't grasp that the future of Christian civilisation in our country is the real issue at stake.
The first thing to note is the wide diversity of individuals and groups in the pro-choice movement, with Katherine Zappone, Minister for Children, a bizarre presence among them.
They range from editors, journalists and TV presenters to politicians, trade unionists, several "rights" groups, the gay lobby, state-funded feminist outfits, big corporations, US billionaires, and so on.
Even college students, in whom we might have expected to find a flicker of rebellion, have cheerfully conformed to the establishment agenda.
What common aim has this extraordinary variety of groups and individuals?
At present the pro-choice movement is set on repealing the 8th Amendment. Its further aim is to legalise the killing of unborn children, especially those conceived in rape or who are disabled or seriously ill.
The campaign, however, is not primarily about abortion or law. Nor women's rights or well-being. Nor is it just to protect killer doctors.
New morality
The agenda that unites all these activists is much more radical. They demand a new morality in society.
They seek to replace the objective or natural law morality backed by the Catholic Church, and to end Christian civilisation based on that morality.
For 400 years European thinkers have tried to provide such a replacement morality. All that has come of their great efforts, however, is the intellectually shabby notion of "pro-choice".
All sides recognise the importance of freedom and choice. But, to simplify, pro-choice denies the difference between good and evil. It recognises no outside standard by which a chosen action may be measured.
That a person chooses to do something, miss Sunday Mass, cohabit, snort cocaine, abandon a marriage or abort a baby, makes it morally acceptable, even a right.
In this view, the law should be scaled back to allow us maximum space to act as we please; even nature may not stand in the way of our desires.
A critic of another's behaviour is accused of being "judgmental", "intolerant", hate-filled, "phobic" or of seeking to "impose" his/her own morality.
These accusations ignore the criticism, seeking to abuse or silence the critic. Pro-choice activists fear reasonable debate, sensing something irrational in their position.
Big problems
Choice, however, is a very attractive morality, at least at first sight, so it is no surprise that many people adopt it when it suits them.
With God excluded they become their own law-giver, dedicated to getting whatever they want while enjoying or demanding the approval of a permissive society.
But there are big problems with pro-choice.
• It is a morality for the powerful, for those who can ensure that their interests and demands prevail. Thus, for example, big corporations with strong lobbying power favour it.
It is interesting in this regard, that the more pro-choice morality prevails, the more anti-child our society becomes. Would unborn children, for example, vote to repeal the 8th Amendment or permit abortion?
We become more like ancient Rome where parents with an unwanted newborn disabled or female child might expose it or leave it for the wild dogs.
• Secondly, pro-choice is never satisfied. Having torn down one restriction it targets another. But no society, however permissive, can survive such an individualistic morality. The result is chaos.
• Thirdly, every person bar the severely psychotic recognises some behaviour as evil: suicide bombings, disregard for building regulations, unjust marking of college exams, rape, perjury in court, fake news in the media, or whatever.
But how do we measure such behaviour? What standard do we use? Where does the standard come from? Are we not just "imposing our views" on the suicide bomber, the rapist, the cheating lecturer, the lying journalist?
When it suits
These two moralities, the objective and the pro-choice, are incompatible. To adopt one means we have to reject the other. They also lead to very different attitudes to law.
Most people today, however, switch morality as it suits them. They are pro-choice when seeking their own desires, then smuggle in objective or Christian standards to condemn other people's behaviour.
They become pro-choice when they want to fornicate, miss Sunday Mass or promote abortion, but favour natural law to condemn rape or dishonest exam marking.
The person who adopts this duplicity, however, is in no position to condemn the rapist or the cheating lecturer who also switches from one to the other morality to justify his own behaviour.
Ireland today needs a serious debate about morality, about how we judge actions to be good or evil. But the narrow focus on abortion, however important the issue may be, is obstructing that debate.
And the media, being pro-choice, stifle any questioning that would expose how irrational their position is.
The first thing to note is the wide diversity of individuals and groups in the pro-choice movement, with Katherine Zappone, Minister for Children, a bizarre presence among them.
They range from editors, journalists and TV presenters to politicians, trade unionists, several "rights" groups, the gay lobby, state-funded feminist outfits, big corporations, US billionaires, and so on.
Even college students, in whom we might have expected to find a flicker of rebellion, have cheerfully conformed to the establishment agenda.
What common aim has this extraordinary variety of groups and individuals?
At present the pro-choice movement is set on repealing the 8th Amendment. Its further aim is to legalise the killing of unborn children, especially those conceived in rape or who are disabled or seriously ill.
The campaign, however, is not primarily about abortion or law. Nor women's rights or well-being. Nor is it just to protect killer doctors.
New morality
The agenda that unites all these activists is much more radical. They demand a new morality in society.
They seek to replace the objective or natural law morality backed by the Catholic Church, and to end Christian civilisation based on that morality.
For 400 years European thinkers have tried to provide such a replacement morality. All that has come of their great efforts, however, is the intellectually shabby notion of "pro-choice".
All sides recognise the importance of freedom and choice. But, to simplify, pro-choice denies the difference between good and evil. It recognises no outside standard by which a chosen action may be measured.
That a person chooses to do something, miss Sunday Mass, cohabit, snort cocaine, abandon a marriage or abort a baby, makes it morally acceptable, even a right.
In this view, the law should be scaled back to allow us maximum space to act as we please; even nature may not stand in the way of our desires.
A critic of another's behaviour is accused of being "judgmental", "intolerant", hate-filled, "phobic" or of seeking to "impose" his/her own morality.
These accusations ignore the criticism, seeking to abuse or silence the critic. Pro-choice activists fear reasonable debate, sensing something irrational in their position.
Big problems
Choice, however, is a very attractive morality, at least at first sight, so it is no surprise that many people adopt it when it suits them.
With God excluded they become their own law-giver, dedicated to getting whatever they want while enjoying or demanding the approval of a permissive society.
But there are big problems with pro-choice.
• It is a morality for the powerful, for those who can ensure that their interests and demands prevail. Thus, for example, big corporations with strong lobbying power favour it.
It is interesting in this regard, that the more pro-choice morality prevails, the more anti-child our society becomes. Would unborn children, for example, vote to repeal the 8th Amendment or permit abortion?
We become more like ancient Rome where parents with an unwanted newborn disabled or female child might expose it or leave it for the wild dogs.
• Secondly, pro-choice is never satisfied. Having torn down one restriction it targets another. But no society, however permissive, can survive such an individualistic morality. The result is chaos.
• Thirdly, every person bar the severely psychotic recognises some behaviour as evil: suicide bombings, disregard for building regulations, unjust marking of college exams, rape, perjury in court, fake news in the media, or whatever.
But how do we measure such behaviour? What standard do we use? Where does the standard come from? Are we not just "imposing our views" on the suicide bomber, the rapist, the cheating lecturer, the lying journalist?
When it suits
These two moralities, the objective and the pro-choice, are incompatible. To adopt one means we have to reject the other. They also lead to very different attitudes to law.
Most people today, however, switch morality as it suits them. They are pro-choice when seeking their own desires, then smuggle in objective or Christian standards to condemn other people's behaviour.
They become pro-choice when they want to fornicate, miss Sunday Mass or promote abortion, but favour natural law to condemn rape or dishonest exam marking.
The person who adopts this duplicity, however, is in no position to condemn the rapist or the cheating lecturer who also switches from one to the other morality to justify his own behaviour.
Ireland today needs a serious debate about morality, about how we judge actions to be good or evil. But the narrow focus on abortion, however important the issue may be, is obstructing that debate.
And the media, being pro-choice, stifle any questioning that would expose how irrational their position is.
