It was was very disturbing to read that a leading American practising abortionist, Dr. Leah Torres, was invited to not only attend, but also address, the recent "Abortion Rethink : A Case for Care" conference conducted by a Queensland pro-life group. To me the issuing of this invitation to an abortionist for such an event was a grave mistake. History shows that common ground can never be found between good and evil. Anne states that "with the pro-abortion movement there is a single focus, to achieve their aim". This is absolutely correct. And one thing for certain is that pro-abortionists would never give a prominent pro-lifer a platform at a pro-abortion conference. I have just heard on You-Tube Dr Torres explain to a pro-life journalist her arguments as to why she believes abortion is totally acceptable and moral in our society. She said that it is only on the occasions she knows a mother is being coerced that she would refuse to perform an abortion. Dr Torres said she is as opposed to coerced abortion as she is to coerced childbirth. What an unfortunate comparison to make. The philosophy that Dr Torres recently espoused on You-Tube was quite chilling and contrary to objective truth. It is a grave disservice to the cause of the unborn for Dr. Torres to be given the opportunity to spread her philosophy at a pro-life conference.
Examples of this philosophy are her contentions that an unborn child does not have an inherent value and that there is no scientific definition of human life. Dr Torres raised in the interview the hoary chestnut of "choice" in stating that the opposing sides should aim at achieving common ground by finding ways to enable women to exercise "true choice" in deciding between abortion and child birth. This is typical pro-abortion speak which has the implication that a ''pro-choice" stance is a perfectly moral one. But of course "pro-choice" is really a euphemism for "pro-abortion" or "pro-death". In the early 1980's a pro-life bio-ethics Institute undertook studies on Australian attitudes to abortion. Following the release of a publication entitled "Finding Common Ground" which was based on the results of the studies, the CEO of the Institute told an ABC radio presenter that the main finding was that "the average Australian was not pro-abortion but pro-choice". A female abortionist who was in the studio to put the pro-abortion perspective immediately responded "exactly, that is what we have been saying all along - no one is pro-abortion, we're all pro-choice".
In Victoria in 2008 the Parliament voted to coerce the consciences of members of the medical profession who objected to abortion. Decriminalisation of abortion in itself was not enough for pro-abortion ideologues. Why is this so?
The answer is that, in a moral issue of this magnitude, you cannot stop half way. You want your opponents to recognise you are right. It is for this reason - the secret desire for moral approbation - that pro-abortionists seek to coerce the consciences of their opponents. It is also why they resort to using euphemisms to hide the truth about the horror of abortion and will never be satisfied till pro-lifers convert to their mentality.In his battle against slavery, Abraham Lincoln recognised the force of this hidden moral dynamism in his famous speech in 1860 at Cooper Institute. He asked "What would convince the slave-holders that his party respected the Union?" and answered " This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - in acts as well as words. Silence must not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them." If you substitute abortion for slavery, every word Lincoln spoke applies to this issue. If we could say abortion is right, there would be no controversy.
As long as we say it is wrong, pro-abortionists will be driven to further aggressions upon our consciences. The pro-abortion industry spends a fortune trying to influence public opinion and an abortionist with the prominence of Dr Leah Torres would jump at the chance to speak at a pro-life conference. There would have been no controversy if Dr Torres had been simply invited to attend the conference as an observer. But as she was invited to also speak, it is is little wonder there was robust debate on line among members of the pro-life community. Our unborn deserve no less. We must be vigilant. And I know that if a pro-life group with which I was even personally associated invited an abortionist to speak at their conference, I would be protesting outside the conference venue.
