Anthony Kelly–Abortion and the Selective Compassion of our Time

Culturally speaking, the abortion question seems to have slipped under our guard. Society has grown aware of its ecological responsibilities. The recognition of endangered species calls forth prompt and effective protection. But here we are dealing with a danger rather closer to home. Up to a third of the next generation is being terminated. A 30% casualty rate would point to a particularly bloody military engagement. Ecologically speaking, it would be an unacceptable proportion, say, in regard to Black Cockatoos or Great White Sharks.

Still, a dramatic ethical development has occurred in many areas. The death penalty has been outlawed. Violence, rape, racial prejudice and the corruption of children cause moral revulsion and are met with the full force of the law. More positively, the principle of equal opportunity, extending especially to the handicapped and the underprivileged, is taken for granted, even at considerable economic cost. Further, any form of cruelty to animals provokes outrage. More positively, the generosity of the Australian public towards those who suffered recent natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts and floods in our region and beyond, has been inspiring.

We might expect that such instances of genuine moral sensitivity would create a climate of grave concern over the present scale of abortions. But our social conscience is strangely tongue-tied on this question. However the silence might be explained, public reflection on abortion is episodic and is usually “no-go zone” in political discourse.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Culture-Watch, * International News & Commentary, * Religion News & Commentary, Australia / NZ, Children, Law & Legal Issues, Life Ethics, Other Churches, Religion & Culture, Roman Catholic, Science & Technology

2 comments on “Anthony Kelly–Abortion and the Selective Compassion of our Time

  1. Undergroundpewster says:

    The negative comments to the original article are a sad and sobering reminder that the unborn must have advocates.

  2. Terry Tee says:

    A long time ago, before ordination, I was active in the Labour Party (no more, I assure you – anyway as an RC priest I am strictly non-partisan). At one meeting the usual motion came forward wanting to remove the restrictions on legal abortion. I argued that we ought to oppose abortion, and keep the restrictions, because of Labour Party policy. I pointed out that it was a strong part of Labour policy to defend and promote the interests of disabled people. Yet disabled babies in the womb were the most likely of all to be aborted. This, I said, gave disabled people the message that they were not really wanted. The proposer of the motion visited wrath on my head – but I noticed had no reply to the argument. Generally, it was assumed that there could be no discussion on the issue which was closed.