Please Finish the Sentence

'Choosing' Not to Say What They Mean Los Angeles Times, May 18, 2000 By Roger Mahoney (Cardinal Roger Mahony is the Archbishop of Los Angeles) So often I hear candidates for political office proclaim their great support for "a woman's right to choose." But choose what? As the many political races begin to heat up across the country, I am becoming confused and frustrated by candidates who seem unable to finish a simple English sentence. "Choice" in American history and culture has become a precious heritage. But normally, when one speaks about choosing something, one finishes the sentence. For example, after viewing the menu in a restaurant, you don't say to the waiter, I think I will choose . . ." and not tell the waiter whether you want the fried chicken or the meatloaf. Some sleuthing of my own leads me to believe that what politicians really mean is, "I support a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy, that is, to get an abortion." Why can't they just say that? Why do the media allow political candidates to get away with this vague, meaningless "choice" language when they should be demanding that candidates finish the sentence? I am vigorously pro-choice, because I believe in the individual's right to make choices in life and in our society. But I sure want to specify what that choice is all about, and as a church leader, to make certain that one is supporting a moral good in that choice. I personally support a woman's right to choose a number of moral goods: * The right to choose a religious faith, congregation or community. * The right to choose what school she will attend. * The right to choose her health care providers. * The right to choose a husband. * The right to choose a neighborhood in which to live. * The right to choose a school to send her children, and if that choice is really to be protected, to have a voucher to back it up. These are just a few of the morally good choices that I fully support for the women of our country. I'm not afraid to name the choice, to finish the sentence. If political leaders are proud of the fact that they support the termination of a pregnancy, the taking of the life of an unborn baby, then why can't they simply say so? What's with all the wishy-washy "choice" language? I am increasingly suspicious that shadow language is used because many political leaders either don't support abortion and are afraid to say so or because they want to pretend that a moral evil is somehow a moral good. And the only way to make evil into good is to disguise it. Bingo! Don't finish the sentence. No one in our country who is pro-abortion can deny that there is a living being in the womb of the expectant mother. Otherwise, there would be no reason to destroy that living being--just leave him or her alone. But that living being is on his or her way to natural birth and to full development as a human being created by God: something precious and alive, not a choice. So why are political leaders and abortion advocates afraid to speak the truth? If they are so sure that their position is good and valid, why can't they simply say aloud, "I support the right of a woman to destroy her unborn baby"? Or "I support the right of a woman to have an abortion and terminate her pregnancy"? I would have more respect for the politician and abortion advocate who would finish the sentence and tell us the truth. Maybe they don't tell us the truth because they are trying to hide the reality of the inherent evil in abortion. Maybe they don't feel comfortable with their position, but because it has become so politically correct they are afraid to say out loud what they might feel in their souls. Maybe they believe that they really need the votes of those who relish the incomplete sentence, "a woman's right to choose." And maybe they believe that no one will challenge them to finish the sentence. I would hope that all of us could be more honest and open with our beliefs and our language that confirms and proclaims those inner beliefs. Maybe when we cast the light of truthfulness and honesty on what we speak out loud, we will think through our positions more deeply and force ourselves to identify and weigh the moral good and the moral evil in our choices. And maybe we won't be afraid to finish our sentences.


Cardinal Mahoney Prays for Unborn at Democratic Convention

From Sarah: "Do you honestly believe that making abortion illegal will solve the problem?"

Should Health Care Plans Pay for Contraceptives?

The School Voucher Issue

Interview on Birth Control

Human Cloning: A Catholic Perspective (How the Unthinkable Became Inevitable)

Mary Bloom Center for Natural Family Planning

Everything You Never Wanted to Know About Birth Control (by Protestants Against Birth Control)

The Preacher and the Pill (How the Church and feminism gave a woman control of her body)

Artificial birth control as a major root cause of poverty: Keynote Address to St. Vincent de Paul Regional Gathering, May 16, 1997.

What Every Catholic Couple Should Know

For more on the struggle between dissent and orthodoxy see my review of Flawed Expectations.

Why Humanae Vitae Was Right An excellent book on the Birth Control Debate edited by Dr. Janet Smith

Review of Why Humanae Vitae Was Right

A clear and concise Summary of Church Teaching on Contraception

Chemical Abortions (Interview with Dr. Thomas Hilgers, M.D.)

To plan or postpone pregnancy: Billings Method

Cukierski Family Apostolate
"Not Your Mother's Birth Control"

Infertile and Catholic: Help for Catholic couples who have been unable to have children.

The Moral Difference between NFP and Birth Control. (Response to letter from Ken Stuart.)

He Approached the Victim: "It's much more likely one of your relatives will lose his life by surgical abortion than by heart attack."

Surviving as a Catholic Family (Archbishop Charles Chaput reflects on the difference between Birth Control and Natural Family Planning)

Stem Cell Research: Teaching of Bible & Catholic Church

Germaine Greer on Birth Control


News Ticker provided by Lifesite Daily News