By Dave Andrusko
I suspected we were in for it when pro-abortion Pastor Donna Schaper half-way through the first sentence of her Huffington Post diatribe against the usual suspects (that would be us) talked about “another anti-abortion niggle” reaching the Supreme Court. Of course I had to look up “niggle” and in this context it means a trifling. Okay, at least we got that straight.
Rights of conscience and freedom of religion which are at issue in the battle against the Obama mandate are minutiae to Schaper, rather ironic coming from Senior Minister, Judson Memorial Church, wouldn’t you say? Anyway, writing with “great weariness,” she believes employers should be compelled to provide health coverage for drugs and procedures to which they have moral or religious objections, and it annoys her to no end that she has to repeat the “positive moral argument in favor of what the Court has already decided.“
As so often is the case with abortion advocates, Schaper begins with a faux concern (“it’s painful”) “for one Christian to have to argue with another one about the freedom of the human to make choices.” But she quickly gets past the pain and lambasts everyone, Christian or otherwise, who is not persuaded that the “freedom of the human to make choices” ends the debate, now and forever more.
Pretending that the “positive moral argument” for abortion has somehow swept the nation may assure Rev. Schaper that she has the high moral ground. However if, like me, you find her litany of half-baked, question-begging “arguments” unpersuasive, you’ll probably conclude she needs to get out more.
This is the last post of the week, so this will be brief.
Try not to grow weary by her use of hoary, 1960s-esque language (“mandatory motherhood,” women as “second class citizens,” etc.). Look at what she is arguing. It’s really quite amazing in its simplicity and irrelevance. For example
“Each person and each community of believers has the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, without compulsion from authoritative structures. Therefore, current legislation restricting women’s reproductive choice also restricts moral choice. To restrict a woman’s choice is to refuse her soul freedom.”
Syllogisms, anyone? Just plug in something other than abortion and see how it works:
“Each person and each community of believers has the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, without compulsion from authoritative structures. Therefore, current legislation restricting a boyfriend’s right to beat his girlfriend to a pulp also restricts moral choice. To restrict a man’s choice to treat his girlfriend like a punching bag is to refuse his soul freedom.”
Oh, but that’s different, the Rev. Schaper would respond. Sure, IF you agree that the unborn is not one of us; is not deserving of the community’s protection; and is a just value-less obstacle to a woman exercising “soul freedom.”
She also tells us, “Our faith tradition teaches freedom for religion and freedom from religion.” What exactly does that mean in this context (aside from attempting to wrap herself in the Constitution)?
What if in the 19th Century, respect for the inherent equality of African-Americans was a core principle of your religious faith. If you were motivated to end slavery because of that principle and were successful in winning legal protection for our fellow Americans, should that victory have been disallowed because we must have “freedom from religion”? Please.
Back to abortion: If I am secular or an atheist, is it okay to fight for the rights of unborn children? What if (regardless of my faith background, or lack thereof), I make the case for the equality of unborn children solely on a non-religious basis? Does anyone think for 30 seconds Rev. Schaper would be any the less weary?
Schaper drags in other illustrations which have nothing to do with anything, let alone the Supreme Court agreeing to hear a case against the Obama mandate. But that’s the way pro-abortionists argue.
It really IS wearisome.