Patrick Radcliff writes claiming to desire a "rational" discussion of the abortion issue, and such a discussion ought not include the words "evil" or "Satan." Interesting he uses the word "Satan" since the latter word is rarely heard in these discussions. His evident intent was depict pro-lifers as those who would shriek "Satan" at their calm, reasoning intellectual superiors like himself.
It's also interesting Radcliff would have the gall to use the word "rational" given his absurd claims in the name of rationality. Despite what he claims, rationality and morality (including the reality of evil) are hardly mutually exclusive. Perhaps he would also like to lecture us regarding the Holocaust. Was it evil? Presumably, the word "Holocaust" would also make his list of verboten words.
Radcliff's arguments make a joke of rationality. He says of the pro-life movement, that since it does not oppose warfare against Third World nations that "its moral concern with the sanctity of life terminates once life has departed from the womb." There are a number of things wrong with such a statement. First, many oppose abortion and warfare. Radcliff's "rationality" includes the making up of facts. Second, our nation does not deliberately target innocents for death in warfare. Radcliff's "rationality" is inconsistent. Third, abortionists' routinely torture their victims to death. Radcliff's "rationality" gives tacit approval to crushing a living breathing child's skull, cutting her to pieces, chemically peeling the skin from his body, or other such means.
Other affronts to rationality include the claim unwanted children inevitably cost society money, or they grow up to commit crime. Of course children are expensive, but they also ultimately make contributions to society. It could just as easily be argued we have murdered several tens of millions of potential taxpayers. Radcliff's rationality includes dusting off the false claim unwanted children will be abused, though most abused children were wanted and planned. Even if so, his rationality would solve the problem of child abuse by pre-emptively torturing the child to death.
In the ultimate joke of rationality, he claims concern that such children would suffer infanticide one wonders if we are permitted to use the word "evil" regarding infanticide. If so, we observe we already have passed that threshold with so-called "partial birth abortion," in which an already born child is killed.
Although Radcliff's claims to value rationality, his arguments demonstrate it has no value for him.
Dan Kessinger
St. Marys
