David Bentley Hart on the Nihilism of the Western Notion of Freedom

"The issue for me is whether, within the moral grammar of modernity, any of these good souls could give an account of his or her virtue. I with, that is, to make a point no conspicuously different from Alasdair MacIntyre's in the first chapter of his After Virue: that is, what an odd bricolage ethics has become in the wake of a morality of the Good. As far as I can tell, homo nihilisticus may often be in several notable respects a far more amiable rogue than homo religiosus, exhibiting a far small propensity for breaking the crockery, destroying sacred statuary, or slaying the nearest available infidel. But, love, let us be true to one another: even when all of this is granted, it would be a willful and culpable blindness for us to refuse to recognize how culturally arid and spiritually impoverished our society has become - which any unprejudiced survey of the artifacts of popular culture will effortlessly confirm. How, after all, should Christians regard the present age when, in America alone, more than 40 million babies have been killed in the womb since the Supreme Court invented the right to abortion, and when there are many who see these deaths not just as tragic necessities, but as blameless consequences of a moral social triumph? When the Carthaginians were prevailed upon to cease sacrificing their babies, at least the place vacated by Baal reminded them that they should seek the divine above themselves; but our culture offers up its babies to "my" freedom of choice, to "me." Surely a Christian must doubt that any other society's moral vision has ever shown itself to be more degenerate."

"Christ and Nothing (No Other God)," in In the Aftermath: Provocations and Laments

a brief word from Cardinal Newman

"Those whom Christ saves are they who at once attempt to save themselves, yet despair of saving themselves; who aim to do all, and confess they do nought; who are all love, and all fear; who are the most holy, and yet confess themselves the most sinful; who ever seek to please Him, yet feel they never can; who are full of good works, yet of works of penance. All this seems a contradiction to the natural man, but it is not so to those whom Christ enlightens. They understand in proportion to their illumination, that it is possible to work out their salvation, yet to have it wrought out for them, to fear and tremble at the thought of judgment, yet to rejoice always in the Lord, and hope and pray for His coming."

From his sermon, "The Lapse of Time"

http://www.newmanreader.org/controversies/guides/selection.html

abortion: sex-selection vs. equal opportunity

In the first issue of The Economist for the new year, the Banyan (the journal's column devoted to Asia) wrote a piece on the challenge of sex-selective abortion among Asian countries. In general, it lamented the practice because it targets girls who are not viewed as highly as boys. I'll spare you the details as you can read it for yourself, but what I find so very interesting is that it seems to go without question that sex-selective abortion is wrong. The article does not bother to argue why it is wrong. My guess is that some notion of women's rights is the driving force of the article. In so many ways I am all for women's rights! But that is not the primary reason why sex-selective abortion is wrong. It is an important part, but it is not the ultimate reason. It is wrong because killing the unborn, girl or boy, is wrong. Contrast this method of abortion with the "equal opportunity" abortion policy of western countries where a mother can have an abortion simply because it was an accident, she was not old enough or mature enough to care for baby, she didn't have enough money, etc. Please hear me, I know there are scenarios that are very complicated, and although I still think abortion is wrong on principal, I want to sympathetically acknowledge such occasions. However, most abortions are probably not due to such unique circumstances. Most, I would venture to say, are due to irresponsible and selfishness behavior.

I know a girl who has had two abortions, although I knew her only when she had the second, and it was simply inconvenient to her and her extended family. Her mother told her that she could not bring the baby into her house, where my friend needed to stay for financial reasons. My friend's mother bears her own guilt for making such a requirement, but my friend made an entirely selfish choice. She soon got rid of that boyfriend, who wanted nothing to do with the child whom she aborted, and she found another guy with whom she'll have to be more careful. The "equal opportunity" abortion practice in the West is assumed by many to be a justified practice, something that goes without explaining. (Obviously abortion is still debated, but culturally and politically it is often assumed to be the "human rights" position. Some Republican candidates are pro-life only to tow the party line. And many who are against abortion support many anti-life issues! Another topic for another day.)

The irony is that from the West's perspective sex-selective abortion is assumed to be morally evil while non-selective abortion is assumed to be morally okay. What's more offensive? The overall thoughtlessness that this requires, or the latent hypocrisy that seems so obvious?