Frances Kissling in a burqa?

Frances Kissling’s pro-abortion credentials are rich. She was the founding president of the National Abortion Federation from 1977-1980 and president of Catholics for Choice from 1982-2007.

Kissling is currently a Visiting Scholar at the University of PA Center for Bioethics.

Bioethics? Interesting. Princeton defines this as “the branch of ethics that studies moral values in the biomedical sciences.”

It seems to me Kissling is trying to abort not only her position but her entire department at U of PA after declaring at a conference on abortion at Princeton the weekend of October 15-16, “We have to get rid of the idea of evil.”

If there is no such thing as right or wrong there is no need for bioethics, right?

Of course Kissling longs for a world without judgment since abortion’s major stumbling block is most people innately believe it is murder.

But Kissling’s support of abortion entered the world of the bizarre when she also stated at the conference:

I don’t care how you accomplish it [the right to abortion], whether through a constitution, the UN, state laws or federals laws, or by the Taliban.

Kissling may have been exaggerating to make her point – or not, who knows?

Whatever, Kissling’s comment was offensive, as anti-feminist as one can get. The Taliban engages in the worst societal treatment of women on the planet, forcing them to wear burqas, banning their education, treating them as slave property, marrying them off as young girls, committing “honor” killings.

Kissling is saying these brutal human rights violations are acceptable if the Taliban supports legalized abortion.

This liberal feminist view of holding abortion supreme above all other women’s  rights is actually what we’ve observed throughout the 2008 and 2010 election cycles. They would rather keep women down than lose the right to abort babies.

31 thoughts on “Frances Kissling in a burqa?”

  1. Jill,
    Kissling  and the pro-aborts are so committed to the murder of babies that they have no dimensionality to their thought. Ethical categories and distinctions collapse into “The right to choose”, which then decays into the imperative to abort. Their fatuous attempts at “ethics-speak” betray their a priori conclusion that does not admit the categories and debate inherent in genuine ethics.

  2. So, pro-aborts call US “terrorists” but Kissling gets away with this? Give me a break.
    People innately believe it’s murder BECAUSE IT IS.
    “We have to get rid of this stigma that rape is evil.”
    “We have to get rid of this notion that child abuse is bad.”
    “We have to get rid of this notion that shoplifting is wrong.”
    Moral relativists, that’s all pro-aborts are.

  3. omg, you guys and your “moral relativists” catch phrase.  There is nothing relative about it.  Child abuse is bad.  Period.  Shoplifting is wrong, period.  Abortion is a right. period.

  4. Well Hal, I think people are reacting to what she said about

    “We have to get rid of the idea of evil.”

    Now I appreciate that you see shoplifting and child abuse as bad, period, so there is more common ground for you and me, but it can’t be bad or wrong in Kissling’s worldview if she desires to rid the world of the idea of good and evil.

    So perhaps we can’t refer to you as a moral relativist (hurray!) but Kissling would fall under this category, if she does not believe in good or evil.

  5. Thank you, Bobby.

    Kissling’s quote is the very definition of “moral relativism.”

    As for abortion being a “right”….Hah. Abortion kills a person. That is bad. Moral relativism isn’t a catchphrase. It’s just the truth.

    “Shoplifting is bad, but slavery is a right.”

    Abortion is a RIGHT? Says who? The Supreme Court, when they made a suspiciously awful and uninformed decision that wasn’t based on facts or biology? Abortion isn’t a right, it never will be. You can’t say shoplifting is bad, and then abortion—which is FAR WORSE than shoplifting–is a right. That doesn’t make sense.

  6. Hal: Abortion is child abuse.  Period.  (Or would you care to explain how dismembering a developing member of the human species is okay?)

  7. I’d say they sound more and more like they’re mentally unstable or at the very least mentally ill – you can have a mental illness and have it under control to the point where it has a negligable effect on your everyday life. But yeah, this woman is majorly warped.

  8. How big a following do these mentally unhinged have? Like that frightening woman who advocates smothering a suffering child with a pillow as any loving mother would?

    Let’s call it like we see it. Crazy.

  9. Hal,
    You might be interested in the writings of a political scientist named Hadley Arkes.  I’ve only seen him on YouTube, but I would love to read him if I had the time…

  10. It is amazing how many people holding the title of “professor of bioethics” are advocates for eugenics.
    With the latest linking certain genes to obesity, will they add that to the list of genetic “defects” which they want to mandate termination for?
    If you haven’t seen “Gattaca” it might be worth seeing if you want to see where these people want to take us.

  11. Hal:
    “omg, you guys and your “moral relativists” catch phrase.  There is nothing relative about it.  Child abuse is bad.  Period.  Shoplifting is wrong, period.  Abortion is a right. period.”

    Had Hal lived at different points in history, he would no doubt have added the following:

    Owning slaves is a right. Period.

    Sterilizing the developmentally disabled is a states right. Period.

    Alienating the homes and property of Jews is a right. Period.

    Incarcerating Japanese Americans in camps during war is the government’s right. Period.

    Exterminating Native Americans and alienating their lands for whites is a government right. Period.

    Not having to sit at a lunch counter and stare at a black face while I eat is a right. Period.

    Not having a black man pee in the same toilet as me is a right. Period.

    In their day, all were rights under positive law, but nothing on earth ever made them right, Hal. That’s because the common thread that binds all of those issues together into a tapestry of evil is the understanding that all humans have intrinsic dignity because of the KIND of being that they are. The superficial features of pigment, genes, faith, and developmental stage have no bearing on the baseline dignity of any of those individuals. That’s not so hard to see Hal.

  12. Hal said: Abortion is a right. period.

    hal – if the state granted it – the state can enforce it (like China).

     At some point one mass of people will demand control another mass of people through the use of absolute force when hearts get too hardened.

    You’re not connecting all the dots.  As much as you want to see gray on this issue – the abortion choice road leads to enshrinement of absolute power.  That’s what it’s all about.

    I find it amusing that the liberal left often cloak themselves with authoritative labels –  because they perceive such labels grant them authority (power) without understanding that authority comes from authenticity.

    Again it comes down to “might makes right” vs “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

    Kissling is purely a hypocrite.

  13. The Church (churches) won’t speak up about this because unfortunately the churches won’t really speak up about anything.  For many years Catholics (and others) have tried to convince the Church to take a strong stand against abortionist politicians and they have gotten nowhere.  The Church is squishy soft now and seems willing to tolerate almost anything.
    They (the churches) are simply not providing the kind of moral leadership we desperately need.

  14. It is amazing how many people holding the title of “professor of bioethics” are advocates for eugenics.
    Unfortunately, the only prolife bioethicist I can think of is Wesley Smith.  Does anybody know of any more?

  15. Professor, I know we disagree on abortion, but it wasn’t very nice to accuse me of being capable of that list of very immoral things.  Wonder how history will judge those who are trying to stand in the way of progress for gay people?

  16. The Church (churches) won’t speak up about this because unfortunately the churches won’t really speak up about anything.

    Joe, that’s true of Protestant churches as well as Catholic ones.  Too afraid of losing their tax-exempt status, I guess and offending people.  Well, the early Christians were in danger of losing their LIVES, and that didn’t stop them.  I wish we all (including myself) could be more like them!

  17. No god, no satan. Therefore no single parameter of ‘good’ and ‘evil’.
    This is supported by Dr. Nadal’s list of items which were seen as ‘rights’ but are now seen as ‘wrongs’. ‘Morals’ change over time and through history.
    No slavery.
    Womens vote.
    Womens job equality (well we can try)
    Gay marriage.
    Chris – “hal – if the state granted it – the state can enforce it (like China).” – what, like we are all forced to get drivers licences? Or a higher education? Or vote? Or drink alcohol? Or move freely from one city to another?

  18. cranium,
    Well, since good and evil are so relative to you, no wonder you’re not concerned about those humans who are soon-to-be born.

    You’ve opted out of morality, laws, and the human race itself.
    Welcome to the jungle. Keep an eye out for everyone bigger and stronger than you. Perhaps you can come up with some warning display to others. Perhaps your hair could stand on end and you could growl.

  19. I find your comments Hans, to be puerile, lacking in logic and unsubstantiated. My feeling is that you may have opted out of reality, but that’s just a feeling. Gullivers Travels?

  20. cranium,
    Blunt, yes Puerile, no. Slavery and abortion were always wrong. It just takes enlightening the majority to make them rare.
    Not enslaving or aborting someone isn’t a matter of logic, but of right and wrong.
    “Gulliver’s Travels” is my favorite film. The neglected one in what is considered the golden year of 1939. It shows there may have to be a Stronger Hand to finally end our squabbling.

  21. Cranium,
    You missed the point. Morals don’t change over time. Laws and policies change in response to the same universal moral norm: All humans, regardless of state, have an unalienable intrinsic human dignity.

  22. Again with the inverted slavery/abortion thing! Wrong conclusion. Inaccurate analogy. We moved forward to freedom from slavery. We moved froward to freedom from enforced gestation.
    The only ‘stronger hand’ is reason.
    I find that quite naive Dr. Nadal. Morals have changed over time. Why would laws change if the moral norm remained static and universal?

  23. Sigh. If you really do think moral laws are relative, you live in a scarier world than I do.
    I’m talking about the big ones: murder, rape, etc. Not spitting in public. If we don’t base our laws on “Natural Law” we are without a compass. It’s survival of the fittest (or meanest).
    That’s the problem I have with Libertarianism It easily leads to a planet of “moral hermits” who are their own island. “The Greatest Love of All” is not self-love That’s the easiest one of all.
    If we are not societal beings, we are no better than animals. And that primary Natural Law is “Do To Others As You Would Have Them Do To You”
    That means don’t end their life unless they’re about to end yours. Don’t enslave, steal, etc. Six of the Ten Commandments have that pretty well covered.

  24. Ah, so there are big ones and not so big ones. Can some change and not others?
    I agree that rape and abortion are generally seen as immoral, stealing too. One of the reasons for this is that we wouldn’t like it to happen to us. Now, am I likely to face being aborted? Probably not. So guess what.
    Whose ‘natural law’? Based on what conceptual framework?
    “It easily leads to a planet of “moral hermits” who are their own island” – this is disproven by an analysis of history, societies and the influence of factors such as religion/absence of religion.
    What do you think is ‘the greatest love of all’ then? I think its love of my fellow human beings and the environment and universe in which we reside.
    We certainly are societal beings. Not all as you would have it though. Or as I would have it.
    But we are better than animals. That’s why we can have sex for love, pleasure and companionship; not just periodic, instinctual, rutting procreation.

  25. Sex for love, pleasure, and companionship, except we don’t want to love, please, or enjoy the company of children.  That doesn’t make us better than animals; it makes us much lower.  There is a species of monkey that use sex for a wider variety of social interaction than most mammals (the bonobo) but guess what?  They don’t kill their infants, either.  Humans are a cooperative and interdependent species.  Abortion is an abberation and deviation from the healthy norm.  Abortion is the result of a pathology.  

  26. Abortion is the result of a pathology.  

    Yup.  Off to a prayer group.  I’ll remember to pray again for you cran!

  27. Loving our fellow human beings, the environment, and the universe is a pretty good translation of natural law. But loving a baby enough to allow her to be born safely should trump a tough seven months for her mother.
    And yes you can be aborted. The word only means stopping an ongoing process, whether it’s a mission or a life.

Comments are closed.