09 May, 2012

A response to a comment raised by my 'Gordian Knot' column

Below is a response to my old friend 'Anonymous' which challenged my contention that pro-lifers are concerned about the expenditure of tax dollars. It affords me the chance to expand upon a point which I trust will satisfy his/her concern.

Anonymous: I agree. But can you name for me one example in a democracy where an established right was removed successfully? The closest example I can think of is prohibition, and that would hardly be counted as a success. It doesn't happen.

Roe v Wade (which is commonly held as the start of the abortion on demand era even up here) has survived every challenge. Courts and legislatures can try and set the HOW this right is exercised (must have sonogram, parental consent, etc.) but the essential decision that a woman has the right to control her body, even to the point of terminating a pregnancy is now as solidly set in principle and precedent that it will not be over turned. In statutory and social terms, it would be the equivalent of the Supreme Courts of our lands making slavery legal again or removing a woman's right to vote. It will not happen.


As a citizen, I have the right to demand that I not be made to materially cooperate with evil. I have the right to argue that not one cent of my tax dollars be used to facilitate evil. I can make a valid argument as well that in times of increasing shortage of needed medical procedures for an aging population, the government should not be dedicating ANY RESOURCES WHATSOEVER for the provision of an entirely ELECTIVE PROCEDURE such as an abortion.

Our entire social network and pensions systems are government managed pyramid schemes in which current workers are paying more and more of the direct cost of paying pensions to the generation that preceded them into retirement. Governments have raided most of the actual funds that they put aside for our elders, and now we're in the difficult situation where the burden of maintaining their pensions AND trying to put away for our own pensions will be even more expensive for us to pay with our CPP premiums. PLUS, our taxes are going to have to go up to repay those funds taken from the CPP plan, so we are going to pay twice for money that was borrowed from us in the first place! WE CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR ELECTIVE PROCEDURES SUCH AS ABORTION in the face of such a calamitous fiscal mess and pay for the hips, knees, and other procedures that are actually NECESSARY to maintain a tolerable lifestyle.

So, even if the law of the land will permit legal and safe abortions, it does not and should not pay for it. It's nothing more than Gen X & Y picking the pockets and bank accounts of their elders. We've given enough. I for one refuse to see my friends, parishioners, and family suffer in pain, unable to move around because of arthritic or destroyed joints so that another 20 or 30 year old won't be inconvenienced with a pregnancy. Lord knows, the demand for an infant for adoption FAR EXCEEDS the supply and adoption laws no longer require a total severing of a relationship between birth parents and adopted children, greatly ameliorating the emotional or psychological damage from not knowing 'who' you really are - the last great bug-bear that abortion rights partisans toss up to argue that death is preferable to life as an adopted child: "It's really for their good. Adopted kids are damaged goods."

Talk about imposing one's values on another! Talk about being judgmental! How the hell abortion advocates can claim any moral ground is beyond my comprehension. They are guilty of far worse hypocrisy and oppression than Christians have ever been. They just lack the courage to admit that they are no different than the Churchmen. They've done no better. In my opinion they've done far, far worse since the count in souls killed via abortion rivals any holocaust effected by any religion throughout time.

So, to summarize all this up: I am being pragmatic and realistic is accepting that abortion has become virtually across the globe as a woman's right. It will never be extinguished. The genie is out of the bottle...the toothpaste has left the tube... the train has left the station. It is settled case law in both national and international legislation and courts.

But I still believe that it is wrong. I will do everything I can to ensure that I do not materially cooperate in what I consider to be a horrendous evil via my taxes. That is my goal.

Now is the time to make a credible political argument that will accomplish this goal, based on the principles of triage and justice. This is the tactic that I propose to achieve my goal.

Finally, all of this assumes that I am also doing all I can to convince as many mothers as possible to keep their child alive within her until such time as she can safely hand him/her over to a couple who desperately want to love parent a child through life. All Christians, no matter what the law of the land, must do justly all that they can to convince others to respect the laws of God as well.

"The Church proposes; not imposes." (JPII) It's the same with God. He want to win our hearts; not impose his will. I believe that what I suggest in column fits within authentic Catholic teaching.

I am open to be convinced otherwise.

Fr. Tim


  1. Anonymous10 May, 2012

    But Tim. Of course there is a huge precedent in opposition to what you are proposing. War. There are quite established faith traditions that follow absolute pacifism. At the very least, those that uphold this tradition are required to pay through taxation for wars that their respective countries of domicile engage in. Quite often their young people are required to fight during these times of war. Even the most humanitarian countries reserve the right of conscription and quite often exercise it. Has anybody in your family been drafted to bear arms when they really felt that the conflict that they were to engage in was immoral? Maybe not, Catholics are such happy soldiers. No shirkers they, eh? I know many among my own family and friends who have been so obliged. Some who objected strongly were imprisoned for the duration. Some were allowed to go to war in non combatant roles. Most were simply told that they would have to fight and they did, often bravely. Some were maimed. Some died. Nobody cared about their faith beliefs.

    According to this precedent, you could not only be required to subsidize abortion but to participate in it's performance. Count your blessings, Ace.

    1. Ace: I actually thought of that example, but I think it is a different case. Expenditures for a DEFENSIVE war is part of my collective responsibility to protect our country. The only thing being defended in abortion is the right to KILL an innocent which is the polar opposite from the goal of a war.

      I believe that if it were an OFFENSIVE war (a war on conquest) then I would be obliged to ensure that I did not materially cooperate in such an act. I would not fight or support such an act and would accept whatever punishment came my way from civil authorities as a conscientious objector.

      No, I think my argument stands your challenge.

      Fr. Tim


Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics