Compromising position.

As one who once bought into the "common ground" argument, I have some fundamental criticisms of the September cover story ("A little less confrontation, a little more action") by Vincent Gragnani. First, the argument that the lack of government programs, adoption alternatives, and post-natal care is somehow a "cause" of abortions is spurious, and those who promote it know it is. All of the facts argue against it.

It is in the wealthiest countries in the world that abortion is most common. It is not the poor who clamor for abortion on demand; it is the comfortable middle class. Even if one supports the changes mentioned in the article, it is delusional to think that they would have any impact on abortion rates.

Second and most importantly, one does not compromise with evil. This is not a claim that all "pro-choice" advocates are inherently evil, but they do approve of and many seek to advance a position that is clearly objectively evil. This does not mean the prolife side must not be civil, and it certainly doesn't mean violence against them is justified. What it does mean is that one should not compromise a prolife position, just as one would not compromise with a pro-slavery of pro-child-abuse or racist agenda.

Sean Hannaway

via e-mail

Let's face it. The main reason Catholics are not interested in abortion and abort as often as the general population is that they never hear it preached in Sunday sermons. Catholics are deluged by the culture of death in the media, yet their priests and bishops are silent on this matter. No wonder the moral culture of this country is changing. And you can apply this same principle to sermons on homosexuality, premarital sex, pornography, and birth control. Unless there is a major change of heart by American Catholic leaders, the prognosis for this country is dismal.

Michael Aiello

via e-mail