Dead Reckoning
Yesterday was the annual March for Life here in Washington, D.C., marking the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. In 1998, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the decision, National Review published the editorial "Dead Reckoning: Roe at 25."
Excerpts:
Via The Corner at NRO.
Excerpts:
The abortion regime was born in lies. In Britain (and in California, pre-Roe), the abortion lobby deceptively promoted legal revisions to allow "therapeutic" abortions and then defined every abortion as "therapeutic." The abortion lobby lied about Jane Roe, claiming her pregnancy resulted from a gang rape. It lied about the number of back-alley abortions. Justice Blackmun relied on fictitious history to argue, in Roe, that abortion had never been a common law crime.And:
The abortion regime is also sustained by lies. Its supporters constantly lie about the radicalism of Roe: even now, most Americans who "agree with Roe v. Wade" in polls think that it left third-term abortions illegal and restricted second-term abortions. They have lied about the frequency and "medical necessity" of partial-birth abortion. Then there are the euphemisms: "terminating a pregnancy," abortion "providers," "products of conception." "The fetus is only a potential human being" — as if it might as easily become an elk. "It should be between a woman and her doctor" — the latter an abortionist who has never met the woman before and who has a financial interest in her decision. This movement cannot speak the truth.
Everything abortion touches, it corrupts. It has corrupted family life. In the war between the sexes, abortion tilts the playing field toward predatory males, giving them another excuse for abandoning their offspring: She chose to carry the child; let her pay for her choice. Our law now says, in effect, that fatherhood has no meaning, and we are shocked that some men have learned that lesson too well. It has corrupted the Supreme Court, which has protected the abortion license even while tacitly admitting its lack of constitutional grounding. If the courts can invent such a right, unmoored in the text, tradition, or logic of the Constitution, then they can do almost anything; and so they have done. The law on everything from free speech to biotechnology has been distorted to accommodate abortionism. And abortion has deeply corrupted the practice of medicine, transforming healers into killers."Abortionism" has indeed become not a matter of opinion, law, or morality, but an entire belief system.
Most of all, perhaps, it has corrupted liberalism. For all its flaws, liberalism could until the early seventies claim a proud history of standing up for the powerless and downtrodden, of expanding the definition of the community for whom we pledge protection, of resisting the idea that might makes right. The Democratic Party has casually abandoned that legacy. Liberals' commitment to civil rights, it turns out, ends when the constituency in question can offer neither votes nor revenues.
Via The Corner at NRO.
Comments on "Dead Reckoning"
you know, for once i think you and i agree, roe sucks. let's let the states decide, at worst it will energize our base. i hope that it would really highlight the differences between conservatives and liberals, becoming a real hot button issue. who knows, it might be sufficient to be THE issue of the next 50 years or so like slavery, communism or the free coinage of silver were back in the day.
Let's have Christ our President
Let us have him for our king
Cast your vote for the Carpenter
That they call the Nazarene
The only way
We could ever beat
These crooked politician men
Is to cast the moneychangers
Out of the temple
Put the Carpenter in
Oh it's Jesus Christ our President
God above our king
With a job and pension for young and old
We will make hallelujah ring
Every year we waste enough
To feed the ones who starve
We build our civilization up
And we shoot it down with wars
But with the Carpenter
On the seat
Way up in the capitol town
The USA
Be on the way
Prosperity bounds!
Very interesting article.
In reading it, I'm remined how the recent Alito hearings have demonstrated that the Liberal argument here has come to so dominate discussion, that it is regarded as extreme to come out and flatly state you oppose abortion.
It's curious. I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I oppose abortion. But you are regarded as an extremist for saying so. Really, it seems to me the other position is quite extreme.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
AIJ (who is no fool) has much of it correct. In no particular order, most energizing issues are always in danger of becoming identified by their most extreme supporters (think Eagles home games, here). Similarly, it has been said that 70% of Americans are actually opposed to 90% of abortions.
I'm not sure about the practical effect of one's views on abortion having their origin in one's religion. My views respecting adultery, for example, arise from my religious views. Yet the Farmer's Wife, who does not share my religious views, fervently supports my opinion respecting adultery.
Go figure.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The tricky thing about the abortion issue, with regard to religious views, is that if one’s view on abortion derives directly from religious faith, it becomes non-negotiable. If your faith means you believe that conception = human being, and you’re reasonably principled about said faith, then there’s simply nothing (and rightly so) that’s going to convince you that legal abortions make for acceptable public policy.
To a person who uncompromisingly believes that abortion is murder, you can’t “debate” the issue. Arguments about women’s rights, or about medical privacy, or about various biological aspects of zygote-hood, or whatever, simply aren’t going to cut it.
At the same time, of course, for the person on the other side, “my religious beliefs insist that human beings exist from the moment of conception” isn’t going to fly as an argument either. So no one is persuaded, and the whole thing becomes a nightmare that disproportionately distorts all other political issues.
For the record, I don’t think someone saying he/she is opposed to abortion is extreme. I’ve known lots of people who’ve embraced that view, and I’ve been pretty much confined to hard-core liberal enclaves my whole life. I’d be much more surprised to hear someone say “I not only think abortion is appropriate under EVERY circumstance, but I think it’s a good thing, in general. In fact, there should be lots more of them.” At least reducing the number of abortions is something everyone can agree on, no?
It is precisely because opposition to abortion is a matter of faith that it belongs outside of government (or put more succintly, get your nose out of my uterus!). Prescinding from the question of the technical analysis used to support Roe, state legislatures (and good heavens, the feds) have NO business enacting laws on such a complex, controverted and divisive matter. And if Roe were to be overturned (notwithstanding certain justices and would-be justices' disingenuous adoration of stare decisis), the red states' efforts just might find themselves with significant gender gaps. I guess either way we can keep down the population, eh?
As to the Gentleman's Farmer's explanation of why he thinks adultery is wrong, I am somewhat perplexed. One would think he eschews it so as not to hurt his beloved wife. Did he embrace adultery as a practice prior to finding the Lord?
"If you want a hypothesis, I would guess that, in the end, many people who are anti-abortion are motivated by religious reasons (lord knows the Catholics who taught me were). When you attack people on logical grounds, they're less likely to get testy. When you attack a pillar of a person's structure of beliefs then you'll really piss them off."
The implication is that opinion that is informed by religion is illogical?
Defend that position.
It has no basis. If the logic behind you being against abortion or adultery or human sacrifice is that "God doesn't like it" is, frankly, stupid.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ah. Now I see.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Which, if you're to be believed, is no kind of sight at all.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.