Donald DeMarco:
A friend of mine who teaches theology at a Catholic university informed me of an unforgettable experience he had on a flight to Chicago to visit an old friend. Seated next to him was a young woman wearing a t-shirt identifying herself as a proud member of the “pro-choice generation.” My friend wanted to say to her, “Lucky for you your mother wasn’t a member.” He said nothing, a “moment of cowardice I now regret.” But he continues to send prayers her way.
Does this young woman have any respect for the meaning of the word “generation.” She is, whether she realizes it or not, the consequence of a long line of generations that lead back to our first parents. All her preceding generations said “yes” to life. Now, she says “no!” But why? What can be greater than life? According to her t-shirt philosophy, it is “choice.”
“Choice” is a body without legs. It does not go anywhere. One might as well have a t-shirt that says, “Go!” But one may ask, “Go where?” Go crazy, go to church, go away, go rogue? “Choice” is dangling in the air destitute of any connection to anything. We do not see t-shirts sporting the word “Go” no more than we see them with the word “Stop.” No one is either “pro-go” or “pro-stop.” These words are much too indefinite to have any meaning, let alone inspire a nationwide movement.
My friend explained how implausible it is to boast of being a member of a “generation” whose philosophy is, in itself, indecipherable. As he informed me: “It is astonishing to me that even after fifty years of hearing the same tired old shibboleth, the pro-choice crowd continues to trot it out as if it were a thunderbolt fallen from the sky. To them, the argument is as fresh and delicious as this morning’s first cup from Starbucks.” Well phrased and philosophically impeccable!
No one is against choice if that word merely expresses the capacity to make choices. Thus, “choice” is not an issue. There is absolutely no need for a pro-choice movement. What is at issue is what is chosen. Advertisers are in love with the word “affordable.” Every senior residence, for example, is “affordable.” But it is affordable only to those who can afford it. “Affordable” dangles in the air and to whom it applies is unspecified. It surely does not apply to everyone.
If I were in this ticklish situation that my friend experienced on the airplane, what might I have said to the young lady? “Excuse me, I am fascinated by the statement on your t-shirt. But I have a question. Do you include me in your membership? I have chosen to ask you this question and I am wondering if, in asking it, I am out of bounds?”
She would extend to me the right to choose this question. Then, I would ask her another question. “Do you realize that your pro-choice philosophy is identical with that of Adolph Hitler’s because he was also pro-choice in feeling free to choose exterminating the Jews?” She would then become indignant and insist that there are limits to choice. I would then suggest that she modify her t-shirt slogan by adding the words, “with restrictions.” “You, nor anybody else is simply “pro-choice.” “Your t-shirt is a lie!” I have now angered my co-passenger and she begs me to leave her alone.
“Please let me ask you just one more question,” I would entreat, “since I am trying to understand your position. Is something good because it is chosen or is something chosen because it is good?” My question would puzzle her and I would need to rephrase it. “Does your mother love you because you are loveable or are you loveable because she has chosen to love you?” She changes the subject because she is not sure that her mother really loves her.
I continue to explain by pointing out that it is not being chosen that makes one good. If that were the case, then we would be bereft of any shred of goodness that is our own, certainly a condition that could not make us proud. We are loved because we are originally something that is good. Love is a response to that goodness not its creator. So too, our ability to choose should be directed to something that is good. The abortion issue is not about choice, but about whether the unborn child is something good that we should not seek to destroy. If you were upfront about your position, your t-shirt should read, “I am in favour of the choice to kill unborn children.” That would be honest. But it would never sell. “You are a member of an advertising firm that wants people to think that your movement is better than it really is.”
There is an element of cowardice in being pro-choice by concealing what is chosen. There is also an element of respect for life in the fact that the odious word “abortion” is an affront to respect for life.
These words may not have been convincing. The promotion of abortion requires the abandonment of reason. Being pro-life and being pro-reason coincide. Nonetheless, it is everyone’s moral obligation to stand up for reason and condemn its abuse. I find myself to be an invisible co-passenger with my friend in his flight to Chicago and will join him in prayer for the misguided young woman he encountered.
