The Age Editorial admits "ABORTION is the termination of life"

The USCCB has stated that the Church’s position on abortion is based on the scientific fact that from conception we are dealing with a human being and that natural law tells us that it is morally wrong to kill a human being.

As of today, it appears that the first peg in this argument has been admitted by the “pro-abortion” lobby. In its editorial, The Age this morning stated:

ABORTION is the termination of life. There is no aspect of it that is easy. The act evokes reactions that embrace the universal and the deeply, intimately private. It is a major point on the moral compass. The dilemma in any modern society is to decide whose moral compass. And from that: in which direction should society go?

From there it went on to argue that:

For this is the essence of this reform: to remove the shadow of criminality from a woman, who for a variety of reasons that can only be known by that woman, has decided to terminate a pregnancy. Such an act can be painful and distressing. The burden of being a criminal should not also be placed on the shoulders of such women.

Note very carefully what is going on here. There is an admission that the performance of an abortion is “the termination of life”. Now, Perry and I (and an unusually moderate and reasonable PE) have been having a discussion below in a com-box about the meaning and distinctions of the term “human being”, “human life” and “human person”. Nevertheless, I think we might reasonably extrapolate from the statement in the editorial that The Age admits that abortion is “the intentional ending (= termination) of (a human) life.” Indeed, this is not an admission that an abortion means the “termination of a human person”, nevertheless, it is an admission that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being.

And you know what? They don’t care.

They just don’t care, because in this case they presume that the rights of the adult human being trump the rights of the unborn human being. Tuff bickies to the little tike.

So, where is this in relation to the USCCB’s statement?

1) The pro-abortionists admit that the unborn foetus/embryo/baby/child really is a human life. Okay, that just means on this point they have conceded what every rational person must concede. As Perry said in the abovementioned com-box: “At a minimum, I think all rational participants in this discussion have to accept that the foetus is (a) human and (b) alive.”

2) (and here is the hub of the matter): Where the pro-abortionists disagree with us is that they believe there are times when the deliberate ending of an innocent human life is NOT morally wrong.

And now it is time to be afraid. Really afraid.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to The Age Editorial admits "ABORTION is the termination of life"

  1. Arabella-m says:


    I believe that on the ‘pro-choice’ side of the debate it has been long recognised that in abortion a life is terminated, especially those coming from a position of logic rather than mere emotion.

    You would be aware of Professor Singer’s views. Another with similar views is Professor John Harris, a bioethicist with the British Medical Association.

    He caused some controversy in 2004 when he said that “the geographical location of the developing human, whether it is inside the womb or not, is not the sort of thing that can make a moral difference.”

    He is a proponent of abortion and questioned if we should also accept infanticide in the case of serious handicap as there is no moral difference between it and late term abortion.


  2. Arabella-m says:

    Correcting my first sentence from above:

    I believe that on the ‘pro-choice’ side of the debate it has been long recognised that in abortion a life is terminated, especially BY those coming from a position of logic rather than mere emotion.

  3. Past Elder says:

    I submit the problem is not that they don’t care, but that they care about something else, or at least value something else greater. Also, and again, that human+alive does not equate with human being in their mindset, therefore, where we see wordplay, they see a distinction between human life and a human being that is intensly agnonising from which criminality should be removed.

    So as with the slaves, it is the inherent humanity that is at issue, and not universally recognised. Therefore, where the conversation begins.

    All of which is particularly troubling to a US reader, at least this one. The document in which we declared our independence contains language that appears to be as revolutionary in our time as when written.

    It says there are some truths which are self-evident — not a matter of religious belief, nor of scientific validation, not awaiting further research for same.

    It says that among these, or as we might say now, including but not limited to, are the right to life, to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness.

    And it says this is so not by decree of the state, the church, or a woman’s decision or anyone else’s, but because Man is so endowed by his Creator, thereby including that Man does not just exist or happen to be, but is the creation of a creator.

    Truth that is self-evident, that Man is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — and that to secure these rights, not grant or decide them, governments are instituted among men, detiving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    These words were written as the basis of our independence, yet slavery was a fact at the time. And was observed, this nation cannot long endure half slave and half free. Just as then, admission to statehood was greatly inflenced by whether the proposed state would be slave or free and thereby change the balance of power, so now we vote for presidents with an eye to the Supreme Court justices they may appoint and whether that will turn the balance of power.

    We could not endure before when some human life is human beings endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights but some not, and I do not think we can endure it now. We are the abolitionists of the present.

  4. Past Elder says:

    In sum, I submit the hub of the matter is rather that the other camp, pro-choice, not pro-abortion, by its very term shows that it disagrees with us not that it believes that there are times when it is not morally wrong to take a human life, by which we understand human being, but they see times in which life does not equate with being and therefore it may regretably terminated by choice.

    They do not understand what that choice is.

  5. matthias says:

    Interesting comment by arabella -m re arguments of aboriton being from “posiitons of logic and not mere emotion.”.
    The trouble is that it was within a logical framework that the nazis framed their murderous rampage . Jews,Gypsys,Slavic peoples,and those with a disability -were deemed ‘not fit” and thus elss than human . Sounds familiar.This use of logic can be seen in Singer’s comments regarding the right of parents to use infanticide on a child with a disability or even on the newborn per se- they are not human untilt eh aprents say so.
    As Francis Schaeffer the protestant theologian and philosopher said” this is vicious stuff”

  6. Louise says:

    It is vicious stuff and I hate to say it but some women facing an unplanned pregnancy are vicious women. That may sound harsh, but it won’t when you read what they sometimes write.

    We do not need to be afraid, David, but we must be vigiliant.

    Apparently that new bill in Victoria also includes (I think this was via Fr Frank Brennan via Cardinal Pole’s blog) clauses which would make it illegal for medical practicioners to opt out of performing abortions.

    Now… there’s something to be even more concerned about.

    Nasty little totalitarians, these secularists. Must keep our wits about us.

  7. Arabella-m says:

    Lifesite, at the link, comments on the feminist Camilla Paglio who admits “abortion is murder” but considers it should be allowed anyway:

    Paglio speaks of facing the ethical consequences of embracing abortion. “I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *