What the President of Catholics For A Free Choice Frances Kissling truly believes:
...Why then do we get so caught up, so tongue-tied when we are asked if we want to prevent abortion? We spend countless hours trying to find the most nuanced way of answering this question. We worry that some woman will be hurt if we acknowledge the moral ambiguity of abortion. Yes, words are important, but so is vision. Should we say there are too many abortions in the US? I doubt it. Which abortion tipped the balance from just enough to too many? It’s a little bit like Goldilocks and the Three Bears: too hot, too cold, just right. Which woman should not have had an abortion? What reason was frivolous? Our heads spin! We believe we are on thin ice if we say we want to reduce the number of abortions. Tactically, there is concern that an explicit goal of working to prevent the need for abortions or to reduce the incidence of abortion undermines efforts to demonstrate that those opposed to abortion are extremists...
Read the final sentence several times to understand Frances' full import. She has revealed her cards. There is no moral ambiguity to her tactics. In Frances' mind, it is better to have a higher abortion rate, or, a higher number of babies sucked down the sink of unregulated abortion clinics, or partially-born and struck with sharpened scissors to the back of their head with their brains sucked out until their skull collapses, than to lose any ground on her well-crafted notion that those opposed to abortion are extremists.
Frances' confession of her tactics ought to give pause to intelligent pro-choice people to her claim of abortion's moral ambiguity. Here's another thought that should give pause to intelligent pro-choicers, how much hatred does a soul need to possess to stab a handicapped newborn in the back of the head with sharpened scissors and suck its brains out until it collapses?
One of the first gifts of the New Year. Absorb it.
Thanks to Diogenes.