Abortion: finding the right words

Cardinal Keith O'Brien in his sermon against abortion and politicians who collude with the "evil trade" has sinned against the rules of politics: he's used "inflammatory" language. Worse still, the words he used carry actual meaning rather than being the stuff of Punch-&-Judy political rhetoric.

Jeremy Purvis, a Lib Dem MSP, whimpered that:

I think it’s very unfortunate that he has chosen to use extreme and provocative language, and a hectoring and bullying tone against MSPs and MPs who every day balance their own consciences against what they think are the best interests of their constituents

What does Mr Purvis think that the Cardinal should have said?

Instead of:

I urge politicians to have no truck with the evil trade of abortion. For those at Westminster this means finding means of overthrowing the legislation, which makes the killing possible. For those at Holyrood that means refusing to allow our health services to participate in the wanton killing of the innocent

Perhaps this?

The termination of foetuses is a challenging issue for all stakeholders, particularly to the womb-dependent community, and we need a partnership-based strategy to work towards the reduction of this form of inappropriate population management

If you regard abortion as murder, then it is preposterous to use the sort of milk-and-water language that one might use to attack Gordon Brown's Tax Credits to denounce abortion. It would be crazy for the Cardinal not to use black-and-white, uncompromising language to remind the members of his flock what the Church's teaching is.   

Any Catholic MP or MSP knows the Church's position on abortion, so the Cardinal's words can hardly be regarded as "hectoring". Nor can the Cardinal be said to "bullying" Catholic politicians with excommunication because those politicians should already know that, according to long-established canon law, they will have excommunicated themselves if they support pro-abortion laws. This article in First Things clearly explains the position. Go read it.

Robbie Millen

Comments

[John Allen]

Or perhaps he could have responded in kind: "Coming from an institution which has serially turned a blind eye to pedorasty in its clergy, and abusive practices which have caused damage to hundreds of children charged to their responsibility, I find the Cardinal's remarks unduly strident".

No, clearly not. Sorry Robbie, I think you've missed the point here. By using words like 'evil trade' and 'wanton killing', the Cardinal instantly puts himself on the fringes of politics. Political parties don't even have to respond to his point, but can issue platitudes like Mr Purvis', then carry on regardless. How exactly does the Cardinal intend to advance his cause from here? It's all diminishing returns after this stunt.

If he was only preaching to the converted, you'd have a point. But to everyone else, he is likely to sound shrill, and his words will seem disproportionate. Many of us are ambivalent about abortion, but O'Brien will have closed more minds than he opened. The fact that he provided advance copies of his sermon to the media rather suggests he thinks his words will aid his cause.

So, although your satire is fairly witty, there is clearly a gulf between the language of Blairspeak and Canon Law. A more moderate tone that seeks distinctively to persuade, and not just shock, would surely have been better.

[Andy O]

It's John Allen who's missing the point: if the cardinal believes that abortion is equivalent to murder, how can his words be "disproportionate"?
And as for bringing up the sins of the Catholic church, these would have to be relevant to any wider debate about the role of the church in politics, but Mr Allen is clearly using the classic political tactic of attacking the speaker rather than his argument.

[John Allen]

Andy O, it is the Cardinal indulging in ad hominem attacks. Right after asking if he should have responded in kind, I pointed out that this would 'clearly not' be appropriate. I intended to illustrate that rhetoric which resorts to heavy-handed language is bound to be faulty. Issuing thinly-veiled threats of excommunication to MSPs is playing the man, not the ball.

The point is not what the Cardinal believes, but whether he wants to convince anyone else of the same. He clearly wants us to listen, viz. my point about his releasing an advance text of his sermon. So the question of proportionate use of language turns not on the subject matter, but on the audience he wishes to convince. His chosen tactics allow politicians to ignore him, and the rest of us to glaze over.

As I said: what does he do now? This intervention will be off the news cycle in about six hours... and by speaking so sensationally he'll never get even that level of coverage for the same points again.

[Tony Francis]

In the US, the Clinton's came up with a new one: "We want to make abortion safe, legal and rare." But in typical Clinton fashion, making something "Safe and legal" only makes it "common", not "rare". Imagine this with anything else: "We want to make murder safe, legal and rare." or "We want to make tax evasion safe, legal and rare." 'We want to make bank robbery safe, legal and rare." Insert any activity you want in for abortion, and it sounds idiotic. They are still spounting it, 15 years after it was coined. I heard Hillary say this just recently.