This is How You CRUSH a Liberal’s Argument

Screenshot/EWTN

There is an argument that comes from the pro-abortion left that I believe exemplifies what we on the right already know about the liberal thought process. This position was laid out recently by Eleanor Sheehan in an article she wrote for Popsugar.com. The article is titled A Catholic Nun Perfectly Explains the Hypocrisy of the “Pro-Life” Argument.  It quotes Sister Joan Chittister as she spoke on PBS’s Now With Bill Moyers:

“I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”

This is an old and tired argument.  In fact, this quote from Sister Chittister dates all the way back to 2004.  Nevertheless, the good Sister’s stance is useful for examination as it gives insight into the reasoning of most liberals (I say most because some liberals don’t use reasoning and prefer to rely on group thought).  Let’s look at the first sentence from the quotation:

“I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life.”

In this sentence the Sister is attempting to take control of the language.  The term pro-life is a powerful one and liberals know this.  They are very aware of the callousness of always arguing on the side of death and they often attempt to soften it by controlling the words used in the debate.  There is a peace that exists within members of the pro-life movement that liberals struggle to defeat.  That peace rests in knowing that no matter how nasty and combative those on the pro-abortion side can get, they can not take away the goodness of protecting the life of the innocent.  The first step in defeating the Sister’s position is to not allow her to control the language.  Pro-life means being in favor of the preservation of the innocent.  Enough said.  Let’s move to the next sentence from the quotation:

“In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed.”

This sentence is a classic example of a liberal’s most useful tactic.  They use people’s good heartedness and compassion against them as a way to plant doubt in the mind of the opposition.  In layman’s terms we call this the “guilt trip”.  It is intended to stun and confuse.  It makes you ask yourself if you have done enough to make sure the children in your own community have enough to eat or a warm place to sleep.  However, the guilt trip exposes something about the liberal.  It shows that they are well aware of just how much you care!  Why else would they make this point?  Would it work against someone that truly didn’t care about children?  In fact, liberals understand perfectly how much pro-life supporters care about children. They are totally aware of how their own subsequent lack of concern for the unborn turns the stomach of compassionate pro-lifers. However, liberals still like to create a fictitious immoral equivalency where you wonder if you might be as equally disconnected from justice as they are.

You also may have noticed in the quotation (when Sister Chittister uses the words “your morality is deeply lacking if”) what psychologists refer to as projection. Projection simply stated is when you try to induce in someone else the same feelings that you are experiencing.  Pro-choice liberals understand that their position goes against natural law and the knowledge of their own guilt eats away at and does damage to the conscience.  This technique of projection is a defense mechanism at its most basic level.  However, it becomes an offensive tactic when used against the humble that don’t want to be perceived as being non-introspective.  Be clear, though.  A pro-life position does not make one hard-headed and stubborn.  Facts and human decency are hard headed and stubborn.  You should never compromise when morality and justice are in your corner, no matter what the other person’s definition of morality might be.  Your role in that instance should be that of a teacher, instructing on the origins of both our rights AND our obligations.

Let’s look at the next part of the Sister’s statement. This is where she explains why she thinks pro-lifers don’t want children to eat or wear clothes or stay warm and dry:

“And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there.”

Ding, Ding, Ding!  There it is folks.  Sister Chittister does like all socialist liberals do.  They bring it back to the politics of economics.  The sister thinks that being pro-life means you must be pro- tax and spend.  This part of her argument is easy to defeat.  Sister, the government is terrible at charity.  It is not a charity and it never will be.  Charity is best when it is carried out by volunteers that aren’t worried about a promotion or their government pension.  Charity is also pretty efficient when carried out by nuns!  Liberals, however don’t like the idea of true charity.  Charity is given according to your own free will, and liberals hate free will.  They want the power to tell you when you will give.  Charity also feels good to the giver, and everyone knows that liberals don’t want you engaging in anything that leaves you feeling good about yourself.  All the more reason why they encourage lonely young girls to have abortions when the perfect love of a child might be all they need.  Big government does not save children’s lives.  The love of a mother does.  And maybe even the help of some nuns from a local Catholic parish.

Notice the final sentence of Sister Joan Chittister’s statement:

“We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”

The Sister of all people should understand that the morality of the pro-life stance has already been determined as have all issues of morality.  The vows she took as a nun outline where this morality comes from and no amount of “conversation” can change that.  Along with our natural-born sense of morality comes a natural law that as free men and women we must believe in.  Those that support limiting natural freedoms, like the freedom to choose when and to whom we are charitable, violate the basic premise of natural law and the morality given to us by a creator.  If we as a people allow the smallest portion of this freedom to be usurped, we will eventually lose it all.  Like the Sister I am a Christian and a Catholic.  Being a Christian means that we strive to get to know the Person of Christ.  While my knowledge of Him is imperfect, it is improving.  Therefore I will say this.  Yes, Jesus Christ did call on us to be charitable and He did command us to “Render unto Caesar what is his.”  However, you can find nowhere in the bible or in tradition that Christ worked against the free will of anyone to compel them to be charitable.  He explained to them what was expected and left it up to the individual to find the spirit of charity within themselves.  In fact, that is the only way giving can actually be charitable.  Any other way is simply coercion.   My very limited studies of Christ have also convinced me that, if He were here with us today, He would not be on PBS calling for tax increases.  Although, He would still be pro-life.

This post was submitted by:  Clayton Howard

Help us grow our site by sharing to Facebook and Twitter!

  • kapt blasto

    Excuse me…

    But if you believe that Human Life begins when Human Male Sperm Penetrates and fertilizes Human Female egg, and you define that as “Conception”

    Then explain how the Immaculate Conception came to pass.

    How did the Virgin Mary become Pregnant, while STILL being a Virgin before Jesus’ Birth?

    • That’s a great question. However, I don’t think I have an answer for “how the Immaculate Conception came to pass” under any circumstances. It is called Immaculate by the church to point out that there was no sin involved in it. Please, research this and submit an editorial for us. You would enjoy the process and we can help you get your thoughts in front of a lot of people. Thanks for the question!