The Observer is a Student-run, daily print & online newspaper serving Notre Dame & Saint Mary's. Learn more about us.



The freedom of choice

Observer Viewpoint | Monday, November 22, 2004

In the Nov. 15 issue of the Observer, Blake Swenson of the University of Kansas questioned how voters could say “marriage, family, reproductive choice and bio-ethics … were the only moral issues in the election.” Well, they weren’t – but they were the most important moral issues. War and health care were not and should never be ignored but when weighed against abortion, stem-cell research, and euthanasia they were secondary. In the 16 months before the election, 16,561 people died from the war in Iraq while 1,750,656 died from abortion. That’s 105 times more deaths by abortion alone.

Swenson also implies that these have only become moral issues because “a Christian leader says it is a question of morality.” In addition, he suggests that “a national discussion on our population’s morality” is required. While I agree there needs to be more discussion on these issues, they have neither become moral issues because someone said they were nor because of a group consensus. Morals are not a choice and cannot change. Certainly what a person believes may change, but that does not change the reality of truth. Truth does not change. It is neither subjective nor can it contradict itself. Either abortion is killing a human being or it is not. No matter how much society wants abortion, stem-cell research and euthanasia to be right, they cannot become so. They are intrinsically evil. Our culture has tried to teach us that morality is based upon our opinions and our wants. Our freedom to do whatever we want is placed higher than truth. Making these actions legal, however, does not make them morally right. This would only reject truth and embrace relativism. True freedom is choosing to do what is right.

Joseph Kirkconnell


Dillon Hall

Nov. 21