Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 July
2007 May
2007 April
2007 January
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 June
2006 May
2006 February
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
My Links
EWTN
Dayton Right to Life Org.
Just the Facts.Org
My Yahoo Group
Toys for Tots 2004
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
|
|
|
There are currently sites in this ring. |
|
|
| Is it Time to Abandon the United Nations? |
| 01.30.04 (10:42 am) [edit] |
The future of the United Nations is far from secure as it becomes more bloated, corrupt and centered on its own desire to dictate to the world.
In 1942, FDR spoke of a “United Nations” and the hope it could bring to a world torn apart by war.
The dream was a good one.
The reality has become a nightmare.
The future of the United Nations is far from secure as it becomes more bloated, corrupt and centered on its own desire to dictate to the world.
Does the UN do the job it was formed to do?
From its own charter on Human Rights: Article 4: “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.” Article 5: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
As Secretary-General Kofi Annan is wined and dined all over the world, his own country is poor. It has one of the highest numbers of abandoned children in the world. His own African continent is in constant turmoil.
As to the rules against slavery, it is flourishing in Mauritania and Sudan. In Mauritania it is estimated that between 80 and 90 thousand people are owned and live in slavery, according to Human Rights Watch/Africa and the U.S. State Department. Does the United Nations do anything about it?
In the Sudan, truckloads of children sold into slavery can be seen traveling to meet their fate on any given day. Those who try to escape face branding, castration, beatings and rape. It is common knowledge and the U.N. does nothing.
Arabs in the Sudan kill those who refuse to convert to Islam. The Organization of African Unity refuses to “interfere” with any country’s internal problems. The people in those countries get no help from the almighty U.N to end their bondage.
On April 6, 1994 the Rwandan and Burundian Presidents were killed when their plane was shot down. The genocide started immediately. Thousands died each day. The U.N. peacekeeping force, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda, stood by and watched, forbidden to violate their monitoring mandate. Ten foolish Belgian members of UNAMIR surrendered their weapons. They were tortured and killed.
President Clinton, a supporter of the U.N., expressed his dismay over the genocide. Americans were airlifted out to safety, leaving their native staffs behind to meet their fates. Nothing more was done by the U.S.
By April 11, tens of thousands were dead. The U.N. troops were ordered to abandon their post and retreat to the airport. The 2000 people that had sought refuge within the compound the U.N. deserted were hacked to death.
On April 21st the U.N voted to abandon Rwanda and removed all U.N. forces. The Red Cross believed that hundreds of thousands of people had already died.
As the U.N. did what it does best, cut and run, the U.S. tried to justify its own inaction by splitting hairs on what the word “genocide” means. The U.N. followed Clinton’s lead to relieve itself of any responsibility. They passed a resolution condemning the acts of murder but refused to call it genocide. If they had called it what is was they would have been obligated to stop it. In one day alone a quarter of a million people fled the country, burdening their neighbors to the breaking point.
Kofi Annan, then head of the Peacekeeping forces, had this to say,“…here we are watching people being deprived of the most fundamental of rights, the right to life, and yet we seem a bit helpless ..." The understatement of the century. Perhaps they should pass another resolution. It’s the only thing they do well.
May 13, 1994 -- the U.N. wanted to vote to send in troops to stop the massacres. U.S. Representative Madeline Albright held up the vote for four days. Finally, on May 17, the vote passed, but no action was taken because of infighting over who would foot the bill. Ms. Albright says the fate of Rwanda ultimately rests with the people of Rwanda, thus washing her hands of any blood. By mid-May, as the U.N. continued to fight over cost, half a million people died.
In 100 days, over 800,000 people were dead and the U.N. still had not deployed any troops.
Four years later, now Secretary-General Annan expresses his regrets. The nearly million dead, however, can no longer hear him.
Nor can the estimated million dead in Iraq hear the U.N. spokesman as he condemns the U.S. for taking action to stop the killing.
The Food for Oil program was very profitable for the U.N. Days after saying boldly that the terrorists would not drive the U.N. from Iraq, he ordered his people out of Iraq. He is now threatening to do the same in Afghanistan.
The genocide in the Balkans was carried out as U.N. peacekeepers watched.
The U.N. and Europe preferred to wait and let the U.S. led NATO step in and stop the killing.
We eventually did with the unorthodox method of carpet bombing. This brought death and misery to the civilians they were supposed to be saving.
Now under U.N. control, the killing continues in the Balkans and Kosovo, just on a smaller, unreported scale.
The U.N. repeatedly condemns Israel but refuses to condemn the terrorist acts committed against the tiny Jewish state.
One has to ask, what good is this body?
As they go around the world promoting forced abortions and condemning the U.S. at every turn they ignore violation after violation of their own laws.
They are a fat lion with no teeth. They cower at the first shot and abandon those they are there to protect.
They demand their collective blessing but have no real vision of the world except one that is totally under their incompetent control.
The U.N. has delusions of grandeur with imagined visions of importance. Like most visions, it is far from reality.
|
|
1 Comments
|
| |
| A TREATISE ON HUMAN LIFE: An Unalienable Right |
| 01.30.04 (10:33 am) [edit] |
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…..”
The American Declaration of Independence, 1776
In his introduction to this well-documented book, A Treatise on Human Life by Dr. Harold Kletschka, Dave Racer states that “when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision it wiped clean multiple centuries of legal precedent. From universal condemnation of abortion to the Court’s sanctioning of legal abortions, the Court had rendered stare decisis moot. Instead, by the whim of seven justices, the foolishness of interest-group politics was substituted for the wisdom of the ages. As tragic is the loss of millions of human lives through abortion, the Court’s substitution of man’s will for immutable law has wreaked an even more far-ranging devastation on freedom and liberty; it has rendered futile a predictable future.”
Dr. Kletschka’s book is divided into three sections. He begins Section I by stating that “When the sperm and ovum unite in conception a zygote – a unicell – is formed. This unicell has life, but it also carries the Homo sapiens genetic code. Thus, it is human
life.” (p I-3) He then proceeds to discuss the difference between a human being and property. He quotes a Dr. J. Lejeune: “Property can be discarded….a human being (zygote/embryo) needs custody” (paraphrased from Testimony in Davis v. Davis, et al., Cir.Ct.Blount Co.,Tenn.,Equity Div. (Div. I), No. E. 14496, 1989. (p I – 7)
In Section II Dr. Kletschka discusses ancient and common law governing abortion. Through his extensive research into primary documents he is able to state: “In the historical and apocryphal works, dating back thousands of years B.C., we find that human life was considered to be sacred from the moment of conception, and that prevention of that life or its destruction in utero was continuously condemned in an unbroken chain of laws and precedents comprising the common law inherited by America. Even in pagan, uncivilized, and barbaric societies this sacredness of human life was recognized.”
It is well-known that the Catholic religion has steadfastly opposed abortion. Less well-known is the fact that the Catholic religion “formed the basis of the common law developed by the kings of England in governing abortion……England lived under these laws in communion with the Catholic Church for almost 1500 years…… Even after Henry VIII broke from allegiance to the Catholic faith during his reign from 1509 to 1547, the common law remained in place as the common law of that nation.” (II – 70)
Legal scholars Bracton and Coke also confirm that “the very earliest controlling precedents regarding abortion had been continuously recognized without change, save for reducing the degree and type of punishment meted out for commission of the crime. But the seriousness of the crime was never disputed, always being considered as murder or as barely less than murder, depending on the circumstances.” (II – 70)
Dr. Kletschka next establishes the connection of the common law precedents concerning abortion to the establishment of similar laws in America. He also thoroughly discusses the Otis-Henry doctrine in which “the supremacy and permanency of common law precedents became recognized and firmly entrenched in development of the law of the newly formed country.” (p II – 67)
Section III is Dr. Kletschka’s analysis of Roe v. Wade. He particularly shows how the justices not only departed from previous case law (stare desisis), the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence in their infamous decision, but especially documents
the Court’s egregious departure from Common Law precedents. He further documents actual errors in scholarship and research which the justices had used to justify their decision.
Dr. Kletschka concludes: “For the courts to continuously find a legal basis for abortion, in the face of the clear established common law prohibiting such practice, amounts to misbehavior by failing to enforce the law and to uphold the constitutional guarantees protecting the rights of the unborn.. Unless the established law is enforced as recited in this treatise it means we will have become a nation of men instead of laws… It will mean we are in a state of anarchy which will, if not arrested now, promise to spread in scope along with its venal consequences. Ultimately, tyranny can be expected to surface because all rights find their foundation in the right to life. Preservation of the sacred right to life is the prime barrier against tyranny. If that right disappears then all other rights can be expected to eventually vanish as well.” (III – 68)
Dr. Kletschka’s book is a valuable addition to the libraries of those seeking to understand the underlying issues involved with Roe v. Wade. Even though there is extensive quoting of primary sources, which should prove invaluable to legal scholars, Dr. Kletschka provides helpful commentary so that even the most uneducated reader can easily understand the legal, historical and moral issues involved.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Right to Life - Two of a Kind |
| 01.30.04 (9:32 am) [edit] |
Maybe it just runs in the family–a strong support for unborn children, that is.
First, there’s pro-life President George W. Bush, who has been a faithful champion not only in his first term in the Oval Office, but also when he was governor of Texas. The Abortion Establishment loathes him for the very same reason our Movement adores him: President Bush is helping to change the culture of death into a culture of life.
Then there is his brother, Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. Reading the local Florida papers online, it strikes me that they are even more vicious in their cutting denunciations of Jeb Bush than the national press is of his brother, President Bush.
Gov. Bush is absolutely fearless. As most of you know, he has been under unrelenting assault from the Usual Suspects for his role in the case of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, who suffered severe brain damage in 1990. Her husband wishes to remove the tube through which her nourishment is administered, according to the Associated Press. Her parents vigorously disagree and have fought the husband in court for years.
A few months ago, Terri’s feeding tube was removed by court order. She was within days of a death by starvation and dehydration.
Gov. Bush saw that a grievous wrong was being committed and worked with the Florida legislature to pass legislation to allow Terri’s feeding tube to be reinserted. Had he not, Terri would now be dead. Against all odds, “Terri’s Law” was passed at the eleventh hour.
Since that time Gov. Bush’s office has vigorously defended Terri’s Law and has creatively attempted to persuade various courts that her parents are correct in wanting their daughter to be fed and in insisting that Terri be given vigorous physical therapy. The case–and therefore Terri–is still very much alive.
As many Today's News & Views readers will remember, last summer Gov. Bush again showed his compassion, concern, and conviction in the case of a young severely mentally disabled woman known in proceedings only as “J.D.S.” Then 22 years old, tragically, she had been raped while living in a group home and became pregnant.
Circuit Judge Lawrence R. Kirkwood appointed a guardian in June to help make medical decisions for the mother, including what would happen to her unborn baby. There were inklings that an abortion might be performed and calls arose for the appointment of a separate guardian for the child. An Orlando-area woman, Jennifer Wixtrom, asked to be appointed but was rebuffed.
Gov. Bush joined in Wixtrom’s appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeals. Just after a three-judge panel heard arguments, JDS gave birth to a healthy 6-pound, 7-ounce girl known as “Baby S.”
Earlier this month, the court of appeals panel rejected Wixtrom and Bush, 2-1. Undeterred, Gov. Bush is already lining up key supporters, including State Rep. Sandra Murman, to secure legislation to allow “legal guardians to be appointed for fetuses whose mothers are incapacitated,” according to the Tallahassee Democrat.
"”It's an important issue," Murman, who plans to sponsor the bill, told the Democrat. Murman (who, according to the newspaper “also was in the middle of the Schiavo fight”) said, "It's the right thing to do...Terri Schiavo could have benefitted from a guardian early on. I haven't taken the temperature of our members, but I think it's a critical issue."
Not unexpectedly, State Senate President King opposes the legislation. "I think the courts have already decided that," he said. "I don't see any reason to run into that, nor do I want to." King added that he would not rule out allowing such legislation, but warned, "I would be a very reluctant participant,” according to the Democrat.
However King’s opposition has not dampened the governor’s enthusiasm, a Bush aide said Tuesday.
"The governor thinks this is a very important issue," press secretary Alia Faraj told the Democrat. "The governor is seeking a legislative solution so there is clarity in this matter. This legislation would only apply to very unique cases where a mom can't make a decision about the unborn.”
We’ll take a look at the panel’s legal reasoning in a day or two. Its arguments, presumably, will help shape support for and opposition to Gov. Bush’s proposed measure.
Stay tuned! This is an important fight.
|
|
1 Comments
|
| |
| Fathers Protest Unjust Custody Laws |
| 01.29.04 (4:04 pm) [edit] |
36-year-old David Chick donned a Spider-Man costume and spent five days atop a crane next to the Tower Bridge in London to protest unjust child custody laws. His actions should be applauded.
Last month, Spider-Man was arrested in London after spending five days atop a cloud-kissing crane next to the historic Tower Bridge.
In donning the costume of his daughter's favorite cartoon character, 36-year-old David Chick tried to draw attention to the misery of estranged fathers who have been denied access to their children by a family court system he believes is anti-male.
Was Spiderman fighting the forces of evil? Or, by snarling London traffic, did Chick's "frivolity" damage the serious complaints of an internationally surging father's rights movement?
I vote for Spiderman. The mayor of London disagrees, comparing Chick and his tactics to Osama bin Laden.
Between these diametrically opposed responses lies a question: at what point do you give up working within "the system" and step outside of it to achieve change...to demand justice?
That question haunts the most passionate issues of our time. For example, abortion: some pro-life advocates go so far outside the system as to advocate violence against clinics and doctors who provide a legal procedure. For example, protecting molested children: some mothers go so far as to kidnap their own children and live "on the run" rather than return them to abusive situations. At what point do you give up on the possibility of the law providing justice?
People who go outside the system usually do so in the belief that the system has become part of the problem. In other words, the system -- whether you are speaking of family courts, the Child Protective Services, or some other bureaucracy -- is acting to perpetuate the injustice rather than to solve it.
This belief creates a Spiderman who looks at the family court system and perceives no chance of seeing the two year-old daughter from whom he has been estranged for close a year.
Most of those who agree that "the system" is severely broken do not sit on 150-foot cranes in the middle of London. To a large degree, Spiderman's decision was determined by the issue he was confronting. For Chick, there was and is no possibility of compromise or of avoiding conflict.
Other rebels are luckier. They are able to withdraw from the system and provide for their own needs.
Homeschooling parents remove their children from what they view as a hopeless educational system even though they are forced to continue paying for it in taxes. Those approaching retirement privately fund their own futures even though they are forced to pay into Social Security.
Spiderman can't similarly withdraw. Withdrawal means abandoning his daughter. Given the high stakes, confrontation becomes inevitable.
Chick could have confronted the system through letters to the editor, petitions to lawmakers, and appeals to the court. But estranged fathers in the UK and North America have been pursuing those strategies for decades now and they are still estranged.
According to the English Lord Chancellor's Department, mothers are granted custody about four-fifths of the time. Moreover, English courts have become infamous for failing to enforce visitation rights for fathers. In commenting on Spiderman, Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips observed, "some senior judges recently acknowledged that with so many...[visitation] orders being flouted by mothers, the law is being brought into disrepute."
The absurdity of Spiderman is nothing compared to the obscenity of a system that deprives fathers of their children and children of parental love. In the same vein as theatre of the absurd, politics of the absurd is emerging on the issue of child custody.
It should be applauded as a benign alternative to the open violence that could easily replace it.
Politics of the absurd began on Dec. 17, 2002 when 200 men in Santa Claus outfits descended on the Lord Chancellor's offices in London to dramatize the plight of "father" Christmas: that is, of fathers who would not see their children over the holidays. Then, last Valentine's Day, fathers dressed as Elvis Presley crowded "Heartbreak Hotel" -- the London family court -- in an attempt to present officials with a 20-foot inflatable heart.
This Oct. 22, hundreds marched to London's Royal Courts of Justice where family law decisions are handed down; the crowd discovered two men, dressed as Batman and Robin, perched atop the structure.
And, yet, the message is far from absurd. Competent fathers want and deserve access to their children.
The message has attracted support from celebrities such as Pierce Brosnan, who recently directed and starred in an Irish film, "Evelyn," in which a father loses custody of his three young children after his wife leaves with another man: the movie is based on a true story.
Rock star Sir Bob Geldof has pleaded for mothers and fathers to share equal custody. Speaking from bitter experience after his wife left him for another man, Geldof declared, "I was handed a piece of paper saying 'you may see your children on this day and every second weekend.' Why? What had I done? I saw them every day, I took them to school, I bathed them, fed them, cooked for them...Why now was the State and all its instruments of justice...aimed at me?"
Commenting on the law restricting a divorced father's access to his children, Geldof added, "This law ridiculed me."
Now divorced fathers are going outside the system to ridicule the law. They should be applauded. Of all possible responses, laughing with scorn in the face of injustice is one of the best. And infinitely preferable to violence.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Abraham Lincoln, Statesperson & Liberal Activist |
| 01.29.04 (12:31 pm) [edit] |
The video at the Lincoln Memorial includes signs reading 'Gay & Lesbian Sexual Rights,' 'National Organization for Women,' 'Keep Abortion Legal,' and a Vietnam era video clip of a woman asking, "President Nixon where are our men?"
Marc Morano of CNSNews has reported that tours of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. aren't what they used to be.
I can remember my first visit to D.C. way back when and my parents telling me about the Lincoln Memorial, and walking up the huge steps, and seeing the great man seated and looking majestic.
I can even remember seeing his words etched in the stone all around me as I stood at his feet. It was striking, it was awe-inspiring. I thought I had learned a good deal about Lincoln in school and felt like I knew him. I guess I was wrong.
Now, according to the Discovery Channel, Abraham Lincoln, Republican, and the 16th President of the United States was in reality, a Liberal Democrat.
Moreover, not just any Liberal Democrat, he was slightly to the left of the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone.
The Discovery Channel produced a video that is displayed in the Lincoln Legacy Room at the Memorial. The video is for all who come to the Memorial to get a better understanding of what Mr. Lincoln stood for.
According to CNSNews, the video at the Lincoln Memorial "includes signs reading
"Gay & Lesbian Sexual Rights,"
"Council of Churches Lesbian Rights,"
"National Organization for Women" (NOW),
"Reagan's Wrongs Equal Women's Rights,"
"ERA Yes," "Ratify the Era,"
"I had an illegal abortion in 1967 - Never Again,"
"Keep Abortion Legal,"
"I am pro-choice America,"
a Vietnam-era video clip of a woman asking:
"President Nixon where are our men?"
and a sign reading,
"Who will Decide?" NARAL (National Abortion Rights & Reproductive Action League)
"In Opposition to King Richard [Nixon],"
"U.S. out Now,"
"Equal Opportunity for All,"
"Peace,"
"Hell No We Won't Go,"
"No More Lies, Sign the Treaty Now Coalition,"
and marchers chanting
"U.S. Out Now"
There was no showing of any opposing or contrary demonstrations except to show pro-life activists tangling with pro-abortionists.
All to the tune of "We Shall Overcome,"
There was a tendency among the young and impressionable to accept what they learn in school about our former Presidents.
Whether it was the honesty of George Washington, the bravery of Teddy Roosevelt or the wit and wisdom of John F. Kennedy.
It's not that we received a "complete" picture of the men, uh people, we just got what we needed. And what we got was based upon historical fact.
Now, using the "What would Jesus Drive?" mentality, the folks on the Left have decided to extrapolate Abe Lincoln's views from the 1800's to their present day agenda's.
Whether it is abortion on demand, Gay Rights, Gun Control, or not fighting communism, Honest Abe may not be with them in body, but he is in spirit.
The Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. is part of the National Park Service and does not charge an entrance fee. In 2001, there were 4,115,139 visitors to the memorial and cost the taxpayers a little over 2 million dollars per year to maintain.
Nowadays it may be politically correct for students to question our government about everything they do, and to find nefarious motives present in any endeavor undertaken by the present Administration.
It has gotten so bad that President Bush is viewed by some to be a greater danger than Saddam Hussein of Iraq, or Kim Jung Il of North Korea.
Students don't learn to dislike their government innately; they have to be taught.
It isn't clear when it became trendy to teach Americans not just what was known by historical record, but to teach by opinion.
We all know or at least have heard of other governments, those that lack self-esteem or are just plain paranoid, indoctrinating their citizens, both young and old to the party line.
It looks like the Left, knowing that their ideology cannot withstand being scrutinized or even questioned has undertaken the last policy of all totalitarians; they program their message to an audience without fear of being challenged during the indoctrination.
No one can know for a fact how Mr. Lincoln would feel today about any of the things the Left claims are part of his 19th century struggle against injustice.
What we do know is that he was willing to go to war to keep America united.
The Left, with their penchant to claim allegiance to a free and just land while they stifle any opposing views, can do little but divide America, not along the Mason-Dixon line, but rather our consciousness.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Anti-Life Dean Won't be Outdone by Anti-Life Kerry |
| 01.29.04 (12:14 pm) [edit] |
My initial plans for today were to write about Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. The President’s brother is reportedly going to propose legislation that would provide for the appointment of guardians for unborn babies whose mothers are legally incompetent.
The question was brought to the fore last spring when a developmentally disabled woman was raped. Given the mother’s inability to make decisions for her unborn baby, Gov. Bush wanted a separate guardian appointed for the child in addition to the guardian appointed for the mom. The usual suspects–Planned Parenthood and the ACLU–were adamantly opposed.
Unfortunately, Bush was rebuffed by various courts. Fortunately, the guardian appointed for the mother decided not to recommend an abortion.
The child was born healthy. I just found out last night that the case had made its way to the Fifth District Court of Appeals and that a decision had been rendered. We’ll talk about this tomorrow.
But a word is in order on another topic today, following pro-abortion Sen. John Kerry’s convincing victory last night in the New Hampshire presidential primary. In case you missed it, trolling for votes last week, Kerry “called himself the only Democrat in the race who hasn't ‘played games’ on the abortion issue,” according to the Associated Press.
"I'm the only candidate running for president who hasn't played games, fudged around," said Kerry. "If you believe that choice is a constitutional right, and I do, and if you believe that Roe v. Wade is the embodiment of that right ... I will not appoint a justice to the Supreme Court of the United States who will undo that right.”
Which, when you think about it, is a remarkable statement. None of the Democrats running for their party's presidential nomination could even imagine nominating a justice to the Supreme Court who did not pledge his or her undying loyalty to abortion on demand. You can look it up.
Moreover, Senators Joseph Lieberman and John Edwards are so far out in left field that they even voted against the ban on partial-birth abortions. (Roger Salazar, a spokesman for Edwards, boasted to Fox News that the North Carolina senator has a " ‘100 percent record supporting a woman's right to choose,’ including late-term abortions.”)
Retired General Wesley Clark inadvertently let the cat out of the bag when he declared that life begins “with the mother’s decision”–which is the practical effect of the position taken by all the candidates on abortion. After being coached, Clark rhetorically retreated, mumbling that he also supported the 1992 Casey decision which allows for certain minimal limitations such as informed consent legislation.
Told of Kerry’s remarks, former Gov. Howard Dean, offered a very revealing rebuttal. “In response, Dean noted that he once sat on the board of Planned Parenthood in northern New England,” according to Fox News.
Got that? What possible better qualifications could an abortion supporter offer than serving on the board of Planned Parenthood? After all, Planned Parenthood operates the largest chain of abortion clinics in the United States.
Its international arm uses its financial muscle to try to strong-arm those who try to defend protective abortion laws. If you’re going to compare pro-abortion credentials, Dean is saying, this is as good as it gets.
One final thought. Several Dean apologists, including one gentleman in particular, emailed me to say that I had misrepresented/mischaract erized Dean’s position on abortion in a previous edition of Today’s News & Views. I hadn’t, and pointed out as well that a physician and a Planned Parenthood board member ought to be able to say what he means about the flashpoint social issue of our time in a manner that is not open to dispute as to its meaning.
But for our purposes, it is something else that matters. People get caught up in candidacies all the time. It is one of the blessings of living in a democracy and is to be encouraged and congratulated.
I, for example, fell in love with politics years and years ago. My latest swoons were for pro-life President George W. Bush, and his brother, Jeb, both of whom I admire enormously.
The gentleman who emailed me with the most passionate objections described himself as against abortion. I take him at his word. He is able to oppose abortion yet defend a rabid supporter of abortion such as Gov. Dean.
But countless millions of Americans can find a given candidate attractive for any of a hundred reasons, yet still vote against him or her IF they support the slaughter of unborn children. Properly, they have made the moral calculus that a candidate may be good on a host of issues but still fail the test if they fail the unborn.
And it is this resolute determination to put first things first that put a pro-lifer in the White House and is changing the climate on abortion.
|
|
1 Comments
|
| |
| Abortion - Looking Back and Looking Ahead |
| 01.28.04 (1:23 pm) [edit] |
When future generations look back at us, what will they see?
They will see a society that prided itself on being humane and concerned for human rights, but one that also engaged in the practice of killing small children by dismemberment or poisoning/burning.
It did not do this to all its children, just certain ones, who were still in the first phase of their lives. It was a practice called abortion.
One would think that such a practice, with its ghastly methods, would be outlawed. It was not; it was perfectly legal. In fact the individual states were forbidden by the Supreme Court to outlaw it and protect these children.
Many in the society welcomed this, for they wanted to keep the practice "safe" and legal. Didn't they find it odd to refer to a practice that destroys little children as "safe"?
It was a society that held up very high standards in condemning discrimination against people merely because they were in some way different from those who happened to be the majority, such as in skin color.
But it was also a society that treated some of its members very differently from others because they were different: much smaller, much more dependent than the majority, and not in a familiar environment. They were treated differently in that they could be killed if they did not fit into others' plans.
Perhaps that was part of the explanation why a practice that kills a child was called safe: the child doesn't count as a real person because she is different (too small, etc.).
In other cases such an attitude would be vigorously condemned as discrimination. Here it was approved, and often strongly supported.
Laws that allowed people to murder babies were called liberal, while in other contexts that term referred (among other things) to the protection of those who could not protect themselves.
The child was not taken seriously as a real person. Perhaps that explains how those who favored this practice would vigorously defend "a woman's right to choose." They called themselves "Pro-Choice," thus conveniently avoiding any reference to the killing of the child. They would ordinarily defend choice only in personal matters that did not adversely affect others. They would never defend a right to choose to kill a person, or to discriminate against a person.
It was a society that itself looked back on a horror scene, a holocaust where some six million people were exterminated. It was aghast at what it saw, and kept saying "Never again!" It did not see that essentially the same thing was going on in its own neighborhoods.
This is what they will see.
What will they say?
Probably many things. One of them being, "Why didn't those people who did see abortion for what it is do something?"
That brings us back to the present, where we can look ahead to the future. For us the question is: what must we do now to end the mass abortion killings? Let me suggest the following Call to Action.
We must awaken the American people to what is happening. Two things should be stressed: the reality of the child and how abortion kills the child, the ghastly methods and their results.
A major part of this education campaign should be pictures of the child. In so many cases, seeing is believing. If a woman sees her child, she may change her mind about having an abortion. Dr. Bernard Nathanson discusses an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, which reported an interview:
[T]wo women in the early part of pregnancy ... were privileged to watch their infants on an ultrasound screen. The women were asked if they would still entertain the thought of abortion after having seen their babies move, breathe, and do all those inexpressibly endearing things that all babies do, born or unborn. Both women categorically rejected the abortion option, one stating: "I feel that it is human. It belongs to me. I couldn't have an abortion now."
We must stress that abortion is not a private matter. Joseph Scheidler urges us to "develop an educational program that concentrates on the unborn child as an unseen victim. It is essential that this victim becomes a real person in the mind of the community. The more the unborn is acknowledged, the less tolerant the community will be of taking that person's life."
Why do those who support abortion not see its victim as a real person?
I think a major factor is prejudice. We must work to overcome this prejudice where it exists, and a good first step is to understand it. Germain Grisez, in his excellent treatise, "Abortion and Prejudice against the Unborn" explains: "Prejudice takes advantage of a difference" between "those who are prejudiced" and "those against whom there is prejudice." Those who are prejudiced are so for "an intelligible motive" that explains the "development and persistence" of the prejudice. For abortion there is an obvious motive: the desire to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
While prejudiced people are not simply dishonest, they act as if they suspected the truth and were trying to avoid facing it.
People who are racially prejudiced do not like to be shown facts and have a hard time following arguments that might dislodge their prejudice.
This resistance is always surprising, especially when it is encountered (as often happens) in persons who are extremely perceptive and logical in other matters.
The same applies to prejudice against the unborn.
Further, "a system built on prejudice is never consistent." People who are pro-abortion are generally very strongly opposed to racial prejudice. Perhaps that helps to assure them that they themselves can't be prejudiced. But, in fact, prejudice is a universal human danger, which any of us can fall into.
To speak of prejudice here is not to level a charge against persons who favor abortion; it is simply a way of trying to understand an aspect of the pro-abortion mentality.
How can people favor allowing babies to be killed?
The viewpoint of prejudice helps to provide an answer.
There is also, I think, the fact that many people do not support abortion as a conclusion from a process of reasoning. Rather, they first decide that abortion is necessary or desirable, then find reasons to support this view. One such reason is the so-called unreality of the "fetus" as a person. That, in turn, is a prejudice against the unborn.
In addition to those who explicitly favor abortion, there is a large majority who are complacent. They are in between, neither actively pro-abortion nor filled with outrage at this horror. They must be awakened to a response of outrage, and inspired to form a movement to end this mass killing. They must come to see abortion in a new way. According to Brennan:
As long as abortion remains at the psychologically-remote and abstract level of removing insignificant tissue or contents from the womb, not that many people are likely to get upset. The holocaust perspective, on the other hand, possesses a tremendous potential for breaking through this facade and revealing the harsh realities of large-scale killing, whatever the historical period of their perpetration, and whether the victims be born or unborn. Only when people are allowed access to the concrete, emotionally repugnant facts of unborn baby killing will they be filled with outrage and motivated to demand an end to the destruction .
One of the most important tasks is devising ways of reaching the American people with a message to awaken them to the reality of the child-killing that is politely referred to as abortion.
Perhaps a mass mailing can be arranged. A vital part of this message is a call to action: "If you are outraged at abortion, then ________," specifying what a person should do.
We must prepare a program of political action for ending the mass killing. We must prepare bills to be introduced in Congress. We must devise strategies for reversing court decisions that protect the alleged right to kill instead of the rights of the victim. We can then focus people's energy into specific programs: support this bill, call this government official, etc.
In pursuing the first two steps, our objective must be clear: full membership of preborn children in the community (full status as persons and full protection under the law). There can be no compromise on this. The child can never be killed to benefit the woman or others, any more than the woman or others could be killed to benefit the child.
It is essential that legal protection for preborn persons be written into the Constitution, so that no future court or legislature can ever deprive them of it again.
There must be a Constitutional amendment that specifically states that preborn children are persons and entitled to full legal protection.
Three elements are essential:
One, the amendment must restore personhood to the unborn child.
Two, it must clearly apply from the beginning of life, conception-fertilization.
Three, its prohibition of abortion-killing must contain no exceptions.
It will be said that this objective cannot be achieved all at once. If this is so, we should work in stages, doing what we can at each stage and continuing until our task is complete. It is important to be clear on the difference between this approach and one that accepts compromises. We might, for example, start out with a law that bans saline abortions: they are so horrible that it is hard to believe they are used, and even sanctioned by law.
Someone who is unclear whether or not the "fetus" is a person could still see the horror of doing this to any living creature, for whom the evidence (presence of nerve endings, etc.) is overwhelming that it feels excruciating pain, and for a considerable time. A law banning the saline method would not condone other abortions; it would simply not mention them.
Once this is accomplished, we must work in stages to forbid other types of abortion as well.
Working for such a law does not constitute a compromise on principle. It means climbing the first rung of a ladder before climbing the second.
If abortions that cause more pain are greater evils than those that cause less pain (or no pain), we should outlaw the greater evil if we cannot outlaw both evils. Incomplete laws are better than no law at all.
However, we must not compromise, allowing an incomplete law that would eliminate or seriously reduce the chances of a complete law later. We must never say that a little bit of murder is acceptable. No murder is acceptable. We must constantly work towards eliminating all abortions.
People who do not understand that a very early abortion is wrong will usually see the wrongness of a late abortion. There are parallel examples in which the wrongness of some abortions is easier to see than that of others. Thus, if we can convince people that certain abortions should be prohibited, we should do so; and then continue our efforts to extend this to all other abortions as well.
Keeping in mind, then, the temporary character of these stages, let me suggest some examples of them.
A law, or court ruling, that allows protection for the child; then one that requires it.
A ban on all third trimester abortions, then second then first; or, a ban on killing a viable child, then a previable child.
A ban on abortions that cause the worst pain or are more likely to cause pain; then, a ban on others.
A ban on all surgical abortions and abortion pills (e.g., RU486); then, one on abortifacients.
A denial that there is any right to an abortion. This would mean prohibiting all abortions other than the hard cases (rape, incest, health and life of the woman); then, prohibiting these as well.
The first stage would eliminate about ninety-seven percent of all abortions, a great first step, but only a first step.
These five items refer to eliminating all abortions, stage by stage. The remaining nine concern abortions that remain at any stage short of the final stage. They are aimed at reducing the harm done to the child, to the woman, and to the family; at curtailing the number of abortions; and at lessening the inherent evil of abortion (e.g., by banning government funding).
There should be no abortions at all, at least no legal abortions, but as long as it is impossible to ban all legal abortions, those that occur must include:
Anesthesia for the child in all cases where there is even a slight chance of pain for the child.
An informed consent requirement. Any person considering a medical procedure has a right to a full disclosure concerning what that procedure involves and what its possible consequences are. It can be expected that this requirement will significantly reduce the number of abortions.
The full disclosure should include all relevant information about the effects of the abortion:
(A) What the child looks like, her status of development.
(B) What abortion does to the child, the methods of abortion, the high probability of terrible pain for the child, and the length of time of the procedure. (
C) What abortion can do to the woman, short term and long term, physically, psychologically, and in regard to future pregnancies: how it can effect her relationships with others.
(D) Where applicable, the hazards of eugenic abortions (for eliminating handicapped babies), especially amniocentesis.
(E) Alternatives to abortion.
(F) Support groups ready to help the woman continue a difficult pregnancy, especially by supporting her in the face of pressure by others to abort.
It is of the greatest importance that the woman be given this information honestly and objectively, that she be encouraged to ask questions. Any kind of pressure in the direction of abortion must be prohibited.
A forty-eight-hour waiting period before an abortion can be performed, so that the woman has time to change her mind. Many do. It is a tragedy when a woman is rushed into an abortion, one she may regret bitterly.
A requirement that in all live births, the child be given complete medical treatment to maximize his chances for survival and health.
Parental consent for minors, something required for all other medical treatments. Making an exception for abortion is outrageous.
Spousal consent for married women. Excluding the father is a terrible injustice. The father has obligations of child support; he should also have corresponding rights. For unmarried women, the right of legal intervention for the father of the child.
A ban on all government funding of abortion.
A ban on all other government participation in abortion.
This includes a ban on: offering abortions at government facilities such as military bases, granting tax exempt status to organizations that promote or perform abortions, funding such organizations, promoting abortion in government-sponsored programs, such as family planning.
Other measures, such as a ban on all advertising for so-called abortion services, and excluding abortion from health insurance plans.
As many of these proposals as possible should be enacted concurrently, and coordinated with one another.
While working towards this objective, we must continue our efforts to save babies and their mothers from abortion.
An excellent guide to this is Joseph Scheidler's book, Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion. His first way is sidewalk counseling, in which pro-lifers go to abortion clinics "to intercede for the baby's life":
Sidewalk counseling is a method of saving babies by talking to their parents in front of the abortion clinic. It is probably the single most valuable activity that a pro-life person can engage in. When pro-lifers counsel in front of an abortion clinic, they are coming between the woman and the doctor, between the baby who is scheduled to be killed and the doctor who will do the killing.
These efforts can be highly successful:
Women can be turned back. In Chicago, in one thirty day period, half a dozen sidewalk counselors at only a few clinics were able to stop ninety women from having abortions. Seventeen were stopped in a single morning at a clinic on Michigan Avenue. While a few of these women may have gone back to have their abortions later, more than ninety percent did not return and they kept in touch with the pro-life counseling center.
As the title indicates, there are many things one can do to fight the evil of abortion. A sample of these include: The Counter-Demonstration, How to Get on Talk Shows, Aids to Effective Lobbying, Call their Bluff: the Legal Threat, and Warn the Garbage Man, "You're Hauling Corpses." All of these ways are non-violent, and there is a chapter, "Violence: Why It Won't Work."
Besides Scheidler's suggestions, especially direct intervention on the sidewalk, there are several other specific things we should do:
We should support women with problem pregnancies. We should encourage them to keep their babies. If they are being pressured by others to kill their babies, we should offer them a haven of support and encouragement. In all these things there should be both spiritual and material assistance.
We should work to encourage adoption as an alternative to abortion for cases where the woman is unable to raise the child.
We should be concerned with women who have had abortions.
If you or someone you love is suffering from the emotional or physical aftereffects Of abortion, you can find compassionate help and support from women who have been through the same experience by contacting any of the WEBA chapters in your state, or any of the other post-abortion counseling groups which are being formed. If WEBA is not listed in your phone directory, call one of your local or state right-to-life organizations and they will be able to give you a phone number for the post-abortion support group nearest you. Most of these groups have a hot-line that you can call to talk to a sympathetic, non-judgmental member at any time, whenever you need them.
There is also a nationwide toll-free crisis hot line: 1-800-848-5683.
Abortion can be devastating to women, in many ways, as we have seen. We should continue our research into this: How many women suffer? From which problems? For how long? How severely? We should carefully examine the challenges of abortion defenders. Our aim must always be to find the truth.
We must warn women of the hazards of abortion. I see this as a task of the greatest importance. We must protect not only the child, but also the mother. This protection can come from the law, and from an awakened public that realizes the evil of abortion and condemns it. It can also come from an awareness of the terrible things abortion can do to women. The myth of "safe abortions" must be exposed for what it is. We must work towards a general awareness of the threat of abortion to women. "Having an abortion can be hazardous to your health" must become a household phrase.
Saving babies, supporting women before their decision and after it, these are our present tasks. Many organizations exist for these purposes; let us join them, or start new ones where there are none. We cannot merely be against abortion; we must be for the woman and her child, and we should translate this commitment into action. In fact, we are against abortion only because we are for the child and his mother.
Through all this, we must see ourselves as advocates of the preborn child: voices for those who cannot speak for themselves, who are forgotten because they are unseen. Equally, we must be advocates of women, supporting and encouraging them. For both the child and the woman, we must promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.
These commitments must continue after we achieve our objective of fully recognized personhood for the child. That will be a major step, but it will not be the end of the road. The temptation to succumb to abortion will remain after it has been made illegal. The struggle for justice is an ongoing one.
Finally, I would like to suggest that we work to heal the wounds in our society resulting from the bitter struggle over abortion. If we affirm the personhood of the preborn child and the woman, we must also affirm the personhood of all those who advocate abortion. We must try to help them see abortion in a new way.
|
|
4 Comments
|
| |
| Abortion - Public Funding |
| 01.28.04 (1:02 pm) [edit] |
It is argued that the government should fund abortions for poor women.
"Not to do so is discrimination. The rich can still get abortions while the poor are denied them."
Again, it is said, "Abortion is cheaper than welfare. Poor women who want abortions should be encouraged to get them, and supported financially, to ease the welfare burden. Supporting a child on welfare is expensive over many years."
It is clear that government should not fund abortions. Funding abortion means paying for the killing of a small, defenseless child, a child who is singled out for death because he is in the way, and sometimes because it costs too much to support him.
Abortion funding is a triple evil. First, there is the moral evil of abortion itself, as the murder of a small child.
Second, there is the additional evil that the government gives this killing its blessing by allowing it under the law.
Third, the government even participates in the crime by paying for it.
In reply to the objection that refusal to fund abortions for poor women is a form of discrimination: it is true that there should be no discrimination. But this must be achieved in precisely the opposite direction: neither the rich nor the poor should be allowed, or encouraged, to kill their preborn babies. If poor women are not able to destroy their preborn infants, that is good. Rich women should be in the same position. The law must protect all preborn babies, of rich and poor mothers alike.
"Abortion is cheaper than welfare." Indeed it is. So is killing the handicapped, the aged who are unable to take care of themselves. Killing is always cheaper than caring. The Nazis realized this, and put it into practice in their program of mass extermination of handicapped children, the aged, and others who were "useless eaters." Let us not follow that path.
|
|
3 Comments
|
| |
| Abortion - Exceptions? |
| 01.28.04 (12:59 pm) [edit] |
Should the law prohibiting abortion allow for exceptions? Specifically, to save the life of the woman and in cases of pregnancy due to rape or incest? A law incorporating such exceptions is advocated either because its proponents feel that such exceptions are justified and called for, or because they believe no other law is possible, that a law that mandates an exceptionless prohibition stands no chance of passage. They then argue that it is better to have a law that bans almost all abortions, and saves many lives, than the present situation (in the United States, and in much of the rest of the world) in which there is, in effect, abortion on demand. "Better to save most babies and allow a few to be killed, than to allow the number of abortions we have today."
The motives of such people are noble. They want to save as many lives as possible. And surely it is better to save some than none at all. If a thousand innocent people are about to be exterminated by the Nazis, and we can rescue only some, we should, of course, do so: better to save some than none at all. But is an abortion prohibition with an exception clause parallel to this?
In analyzing the question of exceptions. I will begin with the rape/incest case, then discuss the "life of the mother" case, and finally the question of exceptions regarding the IUD and other abortifacients.
A law is enacted that says, in effect: Abortion is wrong; it is prohibited, except if the woman is pregnant due to rape or incest. Then abortion is permitted. What it says is that it is wrong to kill almost all babies in the womb, but all right to kill a few. For a child conceived in rape or incest, the law says, "You may kill this child for the benefit of his mother."
Even in the case of rape or incest, there is a child present, a real person, essentially like the rest of us. Abortion is murder, and remains murder when the victim is conceived in rape (or incest). The child is absolutely innocent, completely her own person, not a part of her father's character, just as she is not a part of her mother's body. Even assuming abortion benefits the woman, we cannot kill one innocent person to benefit another. The child has no duty to give up her life to try to benefit her mother, and we may therefore not force her to do so by killing her. If we do not kill the rapist for his crime, still less should we kill the child who has committed no crime. Abortion for rape is not a solution because it is an assault on the woman, a cure that aggravates the disease, and because it does not address the real problem of rape pregnancies (the social stigma against the woman and her child). And finally, abortion in the case of rape is more of the same: first a horrible violence against the woman, then a horrible violence against the child. For all these reasons, abortion in the case of rape (and incest) is not justified.
The child in the womb conceived in rape or incest has the same right to have her life protected by law as anyone else has. This means there can be no exception in the law for rape or incest. There are two fundamental reasons for this, one concerning the principle at stake, the other, the practical effects. The second follows naturally from the first.
First, the question of principle. A law that incorporates the rape/incest exception means that murder is given the blessing of law in certain cases. "Yes, go ahead, you can murder this child, since his conception was due to rape." The law can never allow murder. A law that does so is not only a gross injustice in itself but also a contradiction to the very meaning of law, the upholding of what is right and just in the public domain. That is, the whole law prohibiting abortion would be fatally flawed by this exception clause. Such a law could never be a genuine prohibition of murder of the child when it makes an about face and says, "Yes, you can murder this child." The exception clause would mean the breakdown of the entire law. It would no longer have a foundation to stand on. It would not be like the removal of one checker from a board of checkers, leaving the rest intact. It would be like removing the foundation of a building: the whole building would collapse. For the foundation of the law banning abortion is that abortion is murder. If the law allows murder, it has destroyed itself.
Such a law admits that abortion can be justified under certain circumstances, namely rape or incest. But if in these circumstances, why not also others? The question is surely a reasonable one. And with it we come to the second part: the practical effects of a law that allows the rape/incest exception. There are six specific points:
Such a law will be challenged. On what basis is abortion to be prohibited in all other cases? Is it because there is a child there, and abortion is murdering that child, and the law may not allow murder? But that applies equally to the child conceived in rape. If abortion in such a case is allowed, the reason just given can't be the basis of the prohibition. By allowing murder, the law defeats itself. It invites a challenge that is not only perfectly reasonable, but cannot be met by those who agree with the exception law.
That is, in proposing or agreeing to an exception law, we would surrender everything that is essential to protecting any infant in the womb. We would forfeit our chance to enact any legal protection for preborn infants. We would grant our opponents who favor allowing abortion the idea that the child may be killed for the benefit of another. Granted, we would be conceding this in only one area, but it would be the crack in the door.
If the exception for rape or incest is granted, should we then have another exception based upon pain and trauma from other causes? To deny such a request at this point would be impossible. If trauma and pain due to one cause are to serve as a reason for permitting abortion, then the similar trauma and pain for another cause must be given the same privilege.
There is a further, very serious problem. How much pain and trauma are to be counted as sufficient? How are they to be measured? Who is to decide? The decision will be left to a psychiatrist and other doctors. In practical terms, it will mean that a woman seeking an abortion has only to find a doctor willing to certify, in his professional judgment, that she needs an abortion for psychological reasons. When she does, no one will be able to dispute this doctor's claim. We will no longer be able to appeal to the state for protection for the innocent. We will have surrendered that element in the law that allows for exceptions.
The first of the two fundamental reasons for rejecting a law with exceptions, namely, that it violates principle, is no idle or stubborn clinging to the abstract, in disregard for practical consequences in the real world. On the contrary, the principle that all persons must be respected, that all murder must be condemned by state law, is needed for practical reasons. Abandoning the principle has disastrous consequences in the real world, consequences which flow directly from the surrender of the principle.
It may be claimed that abortion for rape is essentially different from all other abortions to benefit the woman, because in rape she was unjustly coerced. The presence of the child in her represents an injustice, and therefore she may remove him. Two wrongs, however, do not make a right; I cannot try to undo a wrong done against me by doing another wrong - e.1 2ially murder - against another person. The woman cannot try to undo the wrong done by killing the rapist, or the innocent child. Allowing such killing in the name of undoing a wrong is a violation of the principle that all innocent persons must be respected and protected. Holding fast to this principle is not only important in itself but also essential for practical reasons.
Will a rape exception law require proof that the woman was actually raped? If the answer is yes, there are insuperable objections and difficulties. She may be unable to prove it for lack of witnesses. The rapist might not get caught; and even if he is, it is her word against his, with no proof. Forcing her to go through court proceedings is wrong and unrealistic. Even if it were expected, and the woman were forced to submit to it before she could get the abortion, it would take too long. The baby would be far along in development and suffer a late-term abortion. The proceedings might even take longer than the pregnancy itself, thus nullifying the whole intent of the law.
It is clear from this that no requirement for proof could be written into the exception law. This means that a woman could legally claim an abortion on the basis of rape without proof. The mere claim of rape would suffice. It is easy to predict what will happen. Women who feel they need an abortion could claim rape and get their abortions. Family members and others who feel the woman needs an abortion could pressure her into claiming rape. We would be back to where we are now: abortion on demand.
It may be charged that I take a cynical view here, saying that women will lie in order to get an abortion. Those women who claim abortion as a right will understandably see in the restriction to rape clause an unwarranted intrusion into their privacy, a provision in the law put there in order to appease those who want to forbid abortion. They will feel justified in trying to evade this restriction. "If a woman who has been raped can get an abortion, why can't I?" The same applies if it is others who pressure her into an abortion. If we surrender the principle that abortion must be prohibited as murder, that every child in the womb is entitled to the same protection of law that we are entitled to, we really have no answer to this question. In comparison with the horror of abortion itself, and the terrible violation of justice of allowing some preborn persons to be killed with the blessing of the law, a woman lying in order to obtain an abortion is very insignificant indeed.
We are now in a good position to see the essential difference between a genuine concern to save as many people as possible rather than none at all, and a law prohibiting abortion that allows exceptions for rape and incest. A thousand innocent people are condemned to die by the Nazis. We have several trucks, that together hold two hundred people. We can make only one trip. We take two hundred, saving them. We are unable to save the rest. But we do not compromise those eight hundred that we cannot save. We do not say to the Nazis, "It's all right, you can kill these people." But that is precisely what the exception clause in an abortion law would say. A law containing such a clause does not merely fail to save, as in the case of the shortage of trucks, it gives a positive sanction to killing. It enshrines it in the law. That is what is so objectionable, first as a violation of principle, then in its practical consequences, which are essentially the unfolding of the violation of the principle. The exception law must be rejected because written into it is the idea that some persons may be murdered.
It is sometimes said that a law need not, often cannot, include all that should be prohibited. Granted. But the crucial thing, in the present context, is that the law cannot incorporate an immoral principle, such as "You may kill the child if he was conceived under certain conditions." The very purpose and meaning of a law prohibiting abortion is to protect every child, to prohibit murder. An exception for rape is a contradiction to this, a negation of the very essence of the law.
An exception law delivers the message that it's all right to have an abortion under certain circumstances. With this the whole edifice of state protection for preborn persons collapses. "This must mean that abortion isn't really murder, else it wouldn't be allowed in some cases." These are the thoughts that will naturally suggest themselves to people if the law to protect preborn persons contains exceptions.
The practical effects of such a climate of opinion are easily predictable. An exception law will not be respected. It is a law that contains an inherent contradiction, for it is a law that both wants to prohibit murder (in most cases) and also to allow it (for rape and incest). And the exceptions will be widened. Why shouldn't they be, once the idea is accepted, and enshrined in the law, that a benefit for the woman can justify abortion? The exception law would not save most babies as its advocates expect. It would leave us where we are, with a legal system that sanctions murder.
"A law containing a rape and incest exception is all we can get. There seems to be a consensus for that, but not for an absolute prohibition on abortion. Most Americans oppose abortion on demand, but only a minority supports an absolute prohibition."
First, there is every reason to be confident that if the American people fully realize what an abortion is, they will demand an absolute prohibition on abortion, no exceptions. We must make clear the reality of the child in the womb. We must publicize pictures of the child that show he is one of us and may not be destroyed for any reason. We must publicize pictures of the results of abortion. The full impact of the horror of abortion should silence any thought of exceptions. How can one stare abortion in the face and still suggest exceptions?
Second, a law with exceptions is not only a violation of fundamental principles, it is also useless; its practical consequences will be abortion on demand. If we settle for an exception law, we may not get another chance to enact a real prohibition on abortion. We will have compromised ourselves to ultimate defeat. We cannot let this happen. Therefore an exception law is not only useless; much worse, it is something that may close the door to any real protection for preborn persons.
Should the law allow an exception to save the life of the mother? This question has, in effect, already been answered. Abortion is murder, and murder can never be sanctioned by the law. We cannot kill the woman to save the child. Equally, we cannot kill the child to save the woman. We may not be able to save both, we may have to withhold treatment from one if it cannot be given to both, but we may never deliberately kill the one to save the other.
The law should incorporate the three principles discussed earlier, in chapter 10. I propose it include the following section:
If complications arise, all reasonable efforts must be made to save both the woman and the child. Each must be respected and treated equally as a person. Neither may be killed for the benefit of the other, or in an attempt to save the life of the other.
Let us turn finally to the question of exceptions regarding the IUD and other abortifacients. The same principle applies here too: there can be no exceptions, all preborn persons must be given legal protection.
Suppose, however, that a law prohibiting abortion that includes a ban on all abortifacients cannot be passed, that only a law prohibiting surgical abortions, including prostaglandins, can be enacted. Isn't it better to save most of the vast number of babies being killed by these methods, and forego legal protection for tiny infants who would be killed by abortifacients, than to have nothing at all? In addition, enforcement of a ban on abortifacients would pose great difficulties.
This is a difficult question. Let me suggest the following points:
Any law that is passed must be free from all the objectionable compromises discussed above in regard to exceptions for rape and incest. It cannot be a law that contains an expandable loophole.
Specifically, it cannot be a law that explicitly allows early abortions (abortifacients). It could only be a law that omits mention of abortifacients and focuses on outlawing the savagery of surgical abortions. It would have to be a law that represented a real parallel to the example above, of saving some potential victims of Nazi extermination while failing to save others because it is impossible to do so.
If such a limited law could be formulated and enacted, it would have to be seen as a temporary measure. We would have to work vigorously to extend its prohibition to all preborn persons.
We should not, however, assume too readily that a law including a ban on abortifacients cannot be enacted. We must make full use of all the arguments and evidence available to us, primarily all that which makes it clear that a person begins his existence at conception-fertilization, that the zygote-embryo-fetus is a person all the way through and does not become one gradually. We should supplement these arguments with the probability argument (if there is any significant chance that the zygote is a human being essentially like the rest of us - and surely there is - we may not destroy him.); as well as with the "no difference" argument (if the child is to be killed, what difference does it make whether he is killed earlier or later? Either way he is deprived of his entire future life). All of these provide an abundance of reasons to help people realize that a tiny human being near the beginning of his existence is a person too, essentially like the rest of us, and therefore entitled to the same protection of law.
We cannot compromise on this. The most we might do is work in stages, first enacting a law that recognizes the personhood of the victim of surgical abortions, then also the personhood of the victim of abortifacients. There is some parallel to this in the case of slavery in America. The first stage was freeing the slaves from their bondage, the second stage was granting them equal status as persons in society and under the law. Necessary as this second stage is, it was wise to begin with the first stage if the two could not be accomplished together. Just as it was better that blacks be freed from slavery, but without full civil rights, than continuing to be slaves, which is an even greater violation of their civil rights and their dignity as persons. So too it is better to save many babies by giving them legal protection, than to continue the present horror in which no preborn babies are given any protection of law.
But it must be stressed that in such cases legal recognition and protection of blacks and preborn persons - there can only be stages, and not compromises of principles. We could never concede that a black person is not fully a person, or that a tiny infant is not fully a person. If it takes time to awaken people to the full impact of the evil in both cases, we must work in stages. The first stage must be accomplished in such a way that it naturally leads to the second. Abortion by D & C, saline, etc. means killing a small child and must therefore be outlawed. Abortifacients also mean killing a child, merely a smaller child, and must therefore also be outlawed.
There is a difference between a rape exception law and the two-stage procedure tentatively suggested here. A two-stage procedure with no compromises on principle goes in the right direction. A rape exception law goes in the wrong direction. The two-stage procedure affirms that any being who is a person must be given equal protection of law; it only leaves open whether a zygote is such a being. The rape exception law must be condemned precisely because it denies the principle that any being who is a person must be given equal protection of law. The two-stage procedure is thus open to full recognition of preborn persons from the very beginning of their existence at conception. The rape exception law, by its exception clause, closes the door to any genuine and effective legal protection for preborn persons.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Abortion - Penalties |
| 01.28.04 (12:51 pm) [edit] |
If abortion is made a criminal act under the law, should it be declared murder? Should the penalties be the same as for other cases of murder? How should they apply to the doctor? How should they apply to the woman?
Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. It is a case of murder. It must be called by its proper name, both in the moral and legal order. Anything less is an injustice to the child. The seriousness of the charge of murder is a reflection of the seriousness with which we take the reality of the victim of the killing. Preborn babies are not lesser persons - they are our equals. Killing a child before birth is as much murder as killing that child, or anyone else, after birth. The law must reflect and express this. It must call abortion by its proper term: murder.
A doctor deliberately kills a sick five-year old child. A second doctor kills a newborn baby. A third doctor deliberately kills a preborn baby. Surely the first doctor commits murder. And the second? Of course. There is no morally relevant difference. And the third? Again it is murder, there is no morally relevant difference. The only difference between the three is that the child is a bit younger and smaller in each succeeding case, and in a different environment in the third case. But the horror of the deed, the gravity of the offense is the same in all three cases. The third has a different name, abortion, and perhaps a different psychological appearance, but it is of the same nature as the other two.
Doctors who perform abortions are hired killers, paid professional killers. They should be indicted for first-degree murder just as in all other cases of deliberate, premeditated murder. The penalties for doctors for killing preborn babies should be the same as the penalties for killing born persons. Only in this way do we grant the preborn child the equal treatment he or she deserves.
Does this judgment sound harsh? If so, is it because we do not seriously consider the child to be a person? If we do, does it still seem harsh? If we recognize that the doctor is deliberately killing a small child who cannot defend herself, who is ruthlessly crushed because the doctor has the power to destroy her, how can we say that the doctor's deed is anything but murder?
Recall the horror of abortion, how the child is cut to pieces, dismembered by suction, or subjected to being burned all over her body for one to two hours, and then ask: Where is the harshness? In the judgment on the doctor, or in what the doctor does to the child?
It goes without saying that any doctor who kills a preborn child should immediately be suspended from the medical community and barred from any further medical practice. He has violated his professional trust and obligation in the most fundamental way. Medicine exists to heal and save people, not to kill them. A greater contradiction to the spirit and essence of that noble profession can hardly be imagined.
A doctor who performs an abortion may see it as a service for the woman, an act on her behalf. This has to do with the motive of the agent; it does not affect the nature of the action. That action is still murder, and should be declared so under the law. A doctor who kills a handicapped newborn baby may also do it as a service to the parents, perhaps out of compassion. Whatever the status of his motive, his deed is clearly murder, the deliberate killing of a helpless infant. Abortion is no different.
Let us turn to the question of penalties for women. On the one hand, as I have shown, women are in various ways the second victims. They are often pressured; they turn to abortion because they are not supported and see no alternative. Far from being a genuine choice, abortion is often an act of desperation. Women are often devastated in many ways, by feelings of guilt, regret, depression, and by physical damage. Abortion is a terrible assault on the woman, psychologically and physically. One might easily say they have suffered enough. Moreover, women are often unaware of the full reality of the child, and how horrible abortion is for the child. All these are surely mitigating factors.
On the other hand, we must not retreat from the stand that abortion is murder, and, therefore, that the woman in choosing abortion participates in murder. Women themselves sometimes say, "I have murdered my baby," or something similar.
"But is it not an extreme and harsh view that would treat women who have abortions as murderers?" This is sometimes asked by defenders of abortion as an objection to making abortion illegal: "It would treat women as murderers." It is assumed that any sensible person will immediately see that this is absurd.
But is it? If we recall what a horrible act abortion is, as we have repeatedly stressed here, any apparent absurdity will quickly vanish. Abortion is murder, and therefore all those who are involved in it are involved in murder. It is not my judgment that makes the killing of an innocent human being murder, but the facts of the case itself. The alleged absurdity here comes from failing to see the reality of the child in the womb and the horror of deliberately killing her. Given this horror, how can abortion be anything but murder?
Part of this question/objection stems from the idea that we should have pity on the woman. Indeed we should. But to call such an action murder is not to contradict pity. If a desperate person kills an innocent person, we can have great pity on him; we do not judge him harshly, and yet we say his deed was murder. Pity is a response to the person; the question of murder pertains to the nature of the action. The action, if it is the deliberate killing of an innocent person, does not cease to be murder because we have pity on the person who committed it, or the person involved in it.
We should pity the woman who has an abortion. And the child! We should have the same concern for the child that we naturally have for the woman. If what is done to the child in abortion were done to the woman, we would be outraged. We would surely call it murder, regardless of who did it, or why that person did it. We must be equally outraged at what is actually done to the child, and we must call it murder as well.
At first the two aspects - calling abortion murder, recognizing that women who choose abortion are involved in murder; and having pity on women as second victims of abortion - may seem contradictory or opposed. I think that on a deeper level they unite. The law must recognize abortion in all its seriousness and apply penalties that reflect this. This is not only in response to the child as the primary victim, to protect him, but also in response to the woman, the second victim, to protect her. Paradoxical as it may seem, we can have pity on women by recognizing abortion as murder, with appropriate penalties. It is a way of conveying the message that abortion is a terrible thing, from which women must be protected. "Do not commit murder" is a powerful warning.
In all of this I have not spelled out what the penalties for abortion should be, for the doctor and for the woman. That is a topic beyond the scope of this book, belonging to other subjects, the ethics of punishment and criminology. I have argued for two main points: equal treatment for the preborn child, that killing her be treated as murder, just like the killing of a born child, or any other person: and protection for the woman. Whatever penalties are imposed must reflect this, as well as take into account any relevant mitigating factors, just as in all other cases of murder. There are, however, several points that should be made in regard to the question just raised.
First, the severity of the penalty should reflect the seriousness of the crime. The gravity of the penalty is a measure of the seriousness with which we take the offense. If we value human life, we must impose a corresponding penalty on those who would deliberately destroy it.
Second, should we pity the criminal? A tension between pity and justice runs through the whole of the criminal justice system. The rapist who evokes our wrath may also evoke our pity if we look into his rniserably unhappy childhood, and if we see him harshly punished. This tension is a very general one, not confined to any single type of crime. And it is not, I think, easily resolved. The pity/justice tension that we see in the case of abortion, pity for the woman, justice in response to the murder of the child, is part of this general tension. It should be seen as such, and not as something special. And neither element should completely overshadow the other, as when pity for the woman leads to a denial that the abortion she requests is a case of murder.
Third, consistent with justice, the penalty for a crime should be severe enough to provide maximum deterrence against committing it. The principles here are the same as for the murder of born persons. Murder of the preborn must be punished in such a way as to afford the potential victims the maximum protection of the deterrent effect of law, consistent with justice. This is the kind of protection we owe the woman; and her preborn child.
Finally, as in all cases of killing, the severity of the penalty should also reflect all the relevant factors of the individual case. All the elements that make women the second victims of abortion enter here as mitigating factors. In some cases, similar considerations may also apply to the doctor. As a general rule, however, it seems to me that the penalties should be more severe for the doctor than for the woman. As noted, the doctor is a hired killer, and should be treated as such.
The question of penalties for women is an agonizing one. In trying to resolve it, I suggest we keep in mind the four points immediately above, paying special attention to the second: pity for the woman, but also a concern for justice.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Abortion - Discrimination Against the Poor |
| 01.28.04 (12:50 pm) [edit] |
"If abortion is made illegal, the rich will still be able to get an abortion, for example by traveling to another country where it is legal, while the poor will be unable to. This is unfair discrimination."
The first point to stress is that the difference involved here is not a matter of discrimination, of being unfair. That applies when the law itself discriminates. But when the law applies equally to all persons it is not discriminatory, even though compliance is unequal. Generally, the rich can often evade a law that the poor cannot evade (e.g., by hiring expensive lawyers who can find loopholes in the law). That is a defect in law enforcement, not in the content of the law. The issue here is the content of the law: should it recognize and protect all persons? That question is not answered by pointing to something quite general, namely, that, whatever the law says, whatever its content, the rich are often in a position to evade it in a way that the poor are not. This is an injustice perpetrated by the rich. It has nothing to do with the question of what the law should say, what it should allow or forbid. Sexual exploitation of children, for example, must be prohibited, as a matter of principle, because it violates their rights, rights the state is required to uphold and defend. That a rich person can evade the law prohibiting this in a way a poor person cannot is completely beside the point. Neither should be allowed to do it. If there is a discrepancy, the rich person should be brought to where the poor person is: prevented from committing such a crime. Not the other way around: allowing the poor person to do what the rich person already manages to do.
This is what applies to abortion. If abortion is the horrible crime that it has been shown to be, then neither rich nor poor women should be allowed to perpetrate it. They should be made equal, not by allowing the poor to kill their preborn babies but by more vigorous enforcement to prevent the rich from doing so.
Discrimination means the denial of a right that one really has. Poor women (and all women) have no right to kill their preborn babies. The real discrimination is against the child when killing him is allowed by law. This is the discrimination that must be prohibited - the discrimination that means the denial of his most fundamental right, the right to live.
Illegal Abortion Would Create Havoc
"Making abortion illegal would create havoc with existing laws and systems; e.g., the census, apportionment of legislatures or services based on population, tax law."30
This is simply not true. Many of these items would be unaffected by the enactment of a law recognizing preborn persons and upholding their right to live. An example is apportionment of legislatures, which can continue to be based on the number of born persons. Generally, we can legitimately make legal distinctions between born and preborn persons in some respects, without condemning preborn persons to the status of non-persons who may be legally destroyed. We legitimately distinguish between minors who cannot vote and adults who can, without declaring minors to be non-persons who may be legally destroyed. Precisely the same thing applies to a sub-class of minors: preborn babies.
Some of these, and possibly other similar items may be affected by enactment of the legal recognition that is due to preborn persons. So be it. If we owe them a service let us give it to them. Making the necessary adjustment would not create havoc, but would be a requirement of justice.
Above all, the reciting of such a list should not obscure the elementary point, that we owe the child in the womb recognition as a person, and the equal protection of law that flows from it.
Legal Status of Unborn Would Limit Women's Freedom
"If the fetus is granted legal status equal to other persons, would pregnant women be forbidden to smoke, since that has a harmful effect on the fetus? Would they be forbidden to do other things that might have harmful side effects on the fetus? Such prohibitions are absurd, an invasion of a woman's privacy. In any case, they are impossible to enforce."
It is true, as the objection assumes, that it is morally wrong to do things like smoking that adversely affect the child. The child has a right that such things not be done to him. It is a new question whether this right can be, and should be, enshrined in the law. Perhaps it should not be, and cannot be, because of the privacy factor. If so, that hardly means that another right the child has should not be enshrined in law, namely the right to live, the right not to be murdered. From the unfeasibility of protecting the first right, nothing whatever follows regarding the second right. Not all rights can be given the protection of law, but some surely can, especially the right not to be murdered.
A born child has a right to good health care, proper diet, protection from harmful effects. To some extent this right can be enshrined in law, to a large extent it cannot. We cannot have police at the family dinner table ensuring that the child gets all the nourishing food and vitamins he needs. Nor can he be protected from all harmful effects in the home, parallel to the harmful effects for the preborn child from his mother's smoking. But surely the born child's right to live must be enshrined in the law, and given the same legal protection the rest of us enjoy. Exactly the same applies to that child before he is born.
It is interesting that this objection argues equally against the pro-abortion view that the being in the womb is only a potential person and not an actual person. For the harm done to the "fetus" by the pregnant woman's smoking will be manifest, and will be suffered, when that being is a person after birth. Even if he is not a person before birth, as this position holds, he is surely a person after birth, and suffers then because of the adverse effects of his mother's smoking before his birth. So the wrongness of smoking while pregnant is in no way removed, or even mitigated, by adopting the view that no person is present in the womb. Correspondingly, if smoking is already wrong on the assumption that the "fetus" is merely a potential person, nothing significant is changed or added when we come to realize that he is already a real person, an actual person. Hence the objection is not peculiar to the position defended here, that the being in the womb is a real person, entitled to the same legal status and protection as the rest of us.
Can a pregnant woman undergo medical treatment or take medication that is beneficial to her, but has a harmful side effect on the child? In some cases, yes, in some cases, no. I suggest three principles to help decide such cases: (A) The woman and her child must be treated equally as persons. (B) We must try to benefit both as much as possible. (C) Proportionality must be observed. A harmful side effect for one person must not be caused that is out of proportion to the good effect intended for the other person.
Illegal Abortion Would Make All Miscarriages Suspect
"If abortion were made illegal it would 'perhaps require women who had spontaneous abortions [miscarriages] (and their doctors) to undergo special scrutiny to prove that they were in no way induced.'"31
If there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the spontaneous abortion was indeed deliberately induced, there should be a special scrutiny; for inducement of abortion means that a small child had been deliberately killed. Deliberately killing him should be treated just like deliberately killing any child. If there are no reasonable grounds for suspecting a deliberate killing, there would be no scrutiny. This is precisely the same situation as the death of a born baby from an accident at home. If there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the accident was deliberately caused, there will be, and should be, an investigation. If not, there will not be.
Illegal Abortion Would Proscribe Certain Treatments
"If abortion were made illegal, it would mean that treatment for certain medical conditions would be proscribed if the treatment had an abortifacient side effect."32
The force of the objection assumes the pro-abortion position, that women have the right to bring about the death of the child within them. Once this assumption is removed, the objection collapses. A woman does not have the right to a treatment that benefits her while killing the child. One cannot benefit B by killing innocent person A, as has been noted so often already. The objection arises because one does not recognize the reality of the child. Imagine someone suggesting the converse of this: a treatment for certain medical conditions in the child that would have the side effect of killing the woman. The term abortifacient side effect does not sound so bad, until one realizes what it means: a human person is being killed.
The reply to this objection is simply that such medical treatments should be proscribed if they include the killing of the child, just as any treatment, or any action, should be proscribed if it includes the killing of an innocent person.
Illegal Abortion Would Prohibit Certain Contraceptives
"If abortion were made illegal, specifically, if it were declared that human life begins at conception-fertilization, that would make illegal certain kinds of contraception, such as the IUD and some oral contraceptives (such as the Morning After Pill)."
The first point to make is that this formulation of the objection (which is common) confuses two essentially different terms: contraception, which means preventing the coming to be of a new person, and abortion, including abortifacients, which means destroying an already existing person. Outlawing abortion would in no way affect what are really contraceptives. It would outlaw abortifacients such as the IUD and the Morning After Pill, which destroy a tiny human person.
The reply to the objection applying only to abortifacients is that making abortion illegal would indeed outlaw the IUD, the Morning After Pill, and other abortifacients. If the child is recognized as a person from the very beginning - despite his small size, lack of development, and inability to function as a person - his right to live, his right not to be killed should be recognized also. If our right to live is enshrined in law, his right should likewise be enshrined in law. It is very easy, and often very convenient, to kill a preborn child by an IUD, while it is generally difficult, especially psychologically to kill an older person. That is hardly a morally relevant difference. It is unfair to take advantage of a person's small size and inability to defend himself in order to kill him. It is likewise unfair to deny a tiny child the legal protection we enjoy.
Protecting a child from death by IUD or the Morning After Pill is much more difficult than protecting him from death by D & C, saline, and other surgical killings. But the principle is the same: the child must be protected by the law. There must be a legal prohibition on the manufacture, transport, distribution, possession, and use of IUD's, Morning After Pills, and other death-dealing devices. That which has as its sole purpose the destruction of a small person cannot be legally tolerated. That enforcement of such a prohibition will be difficult is no argument against it. Protecting babies from child abuse in the home is also difficult in terms of enforcement, but is of course absolutely imperative.
|
|
3 Comments
|
| |
| Back-alley Abortions |
| 01.28.04 (12:44 pm) [edit] |
"Do you want to return to the butchery of self-induced or back-alley abortions? Keep abortions safe and legal." The right to legal abortion is crucial to the health and well-being of American women. This fundamental right is guaranteed by the U.S. Supreme Court decision of January 22, 1973, which: Affirms every woman's right to end an unwanted pregnancy safely and legally. Affirms that women need no longer be forced by desperation into the horror of underworld abortion."9 "Desperate women will get abortions in any case. Let us keep them legal so that they are safe, so that women are not forced into the horrors of back-alley abortionists. Or to self-induced abortions by coat hangers!"
"Keep abortion safe and legal." First, legal abortion is not safe for the child! The idea of a "safe" abortion can arise only if the reality of the child is overlooked.
The force of this argument is its own destruction. It is the horror of death and mutilation for women at the hands of back-alley butchers. But this is precisely the horror that is repeated in every abortion! That is why every abortion, legal or illegal, must be prevented at all costs. The true response to back-alley abortions is to be outraged at all abortions, to condemn all abortions - not to propose one kind (legal) in place of another (illegal). The very evil that the argument appeals to is the essence of every abortion. And for this reason every abortion must be condemned, morally and by the law.
The "back-alley" argument for legal abortion is a contradiction. It is the argument, "We should allow abortion so that women are not killed." But, since abortion is itself killing, the argument reads: "We should allow killing so that there is no killing."
We cannot legalize murder. To appeal to terrible side effects for the person ordering the murder is not an argument. It does not justify the murder. Mary Ann Warren, who advocates the right to abortion, is clear on this point: "The fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects [i.e.. death due to illegal abortions] does not in itself show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it."10
The "back-alley" argument is not really an argument, either for the moral rightness of abortion or for its legalization, but merely a threat: "Give us legal abortions, or else." A law protecting preborn children is a just law. Everyone ought to obey it. Pointing to the hazards of disobeying the law is no more valid in this case than it would be in any other.
There is a second major reply to the appeal to "safe abortion": legal abortion is not safe for the woman. Reardon's research reveals a frightening fact: "Legalization has improved the odds that an individual will survive an abortion, but the astronomical increase in the number of abortions performed means that more women are dying. The percentage chance of survival is improved, but the absolute number of those who suffer has increased!"11
He goes on to add that this increase in suffering applies also to abortion complications and that one must also include "the deaths which are indirectly caused by abortion," namely future wanted babies: "Each year approximately 100,000 'wanted' pregnancies will end in the sorrow of a spontaneous miscarriage because of latent abortion morbidity." 12
Keeping abortion illegal is better for women: "The number of women dying and suffering from physical complications alone far exceeds the number who would have suffered similarly if abortion had remained illegal. Rather than reducing the pain and suffering of women, legalization of abortion has increased it by exposing many more women to its inherent risks. The only difference is that now the pain and suffering can be antiseptically ignored because it is 'legal.'"13
These numbers are based on reported deaths, and, as I noted before, "the reported rate of deaths due to legal abortion is being deliberately kept low through selective underreporting."14
As an example, Reardon mentions a Los Angeles doctor, Lester Hibbard, who was "charged with keeping track of maternal deaths." While "four abortion-related deaths [were] officially reported as such," Dr. Hibbard said that "he personally knew of at least four other deaths which had followed legal abortions but had not been reported as such on the death certificates. Furthermore, he said he was certain that these unreported abortion deaths were only the tip of the iceberg."15
Reardon reports, "According to one estimate, less than 10% of deaths from legal abortion are reported as such."16
Women are suffering and dying from legal abortions partly because abortion is inherently unsafe for the woman, an assault on her, and partly because, in many cases, the staff at legal abortion centers can be as dangerous (or nearly so) to the woman's health as some of the infamous "back-alley" abortionists at illegal abortion centers. Reardon presents a frightening array of data:
Abortion clinics routinely hire low-cost, unskilled staff members to fulfill the quasi-medical tasks normally performed by physicians or nurses.... There are no educational or certification requirements for abortion clinic personnel.... The depth of knowledge which abortion staff members have, therefore, is generally far below the usual standards of the medical and nursing professions.17
In the typical abortion clinic, these staff members counsel the patients about the procedure, examine the patients, estimate gestation, perform any required tests (e.g., pregnancy tests and blood samples), record vital signs, prepare the patients for surgery, and assist patients through the recovery room.... By delegating responsibility and minimizing patient/doctor interaction, abortionists free themselves to work solely on performing the actual abortion in the least amount of time possible. 18
As a result of cost-efficient measures, most clinics do not have transfusion supplies and blood type selections available, even though 2 to 12 percent of aborted women bleed enough to warrant a transfusion.19
"Keep abortion safe and legal." And, "Let us not return to the days of back-alley abortionists." How do these phrases square with the reality of legal abortion? Reardon explains: "To increase profits even further, abortionists try to work as fast as possible in order to handle as many patients per day as possible. Besides the obvious risks in hurrying a blind operation which involves sharp instruments and vacuum pressures capable of tearing out organs, the rush for efficiency often results in 'cutting comers' on normal sanitation standards."20
The Chicago Sun-Times series shocked readers with the fact that many abortions were being performed by "moonlighting residents, [and] general practitioners with little or no training in women's medicine." But once again this "revelation" was not unique to the four Chicago clinics which were investigated. Instead the use of such "untrained" abortionists is perfectly legal and commonplace.21 Abortionists are essentially free of oversight by state and local governments or even by state medical boards. Even if an abortionist causes numerous complications or deaths, there is no mechanism to prevent him from continuing to perform abortions short of imprisonment for criminal neglect.22
Both illegal abortions and legal abortions are dangerous for women, legal abortions being somewhat safer. Most women wanting abortions are dissuaded from seeking them if they are illegal. ("75 percent said they definitely would not have sought an illegal abortion."23) What, then, is the actual implication of the appeal to keeping abortion legal for the sake of safety? It would mean increasing the safety margin for a small group of women - 25% or so who would resort to it in defiance of the law - while at the same time opening the floodgates of massive destruction for millions of preborn children and an increase in suffering and death for women as a whole. Legalization improves the odds that an individual woman will survive an abortion, but the astronomical increase in the number of abortions performed means that more women are dying.
A word about self-induced abortions by coat hangers. Here too the force of the argument is its own destruction. The horror of a woman killed by a coat hanger is repeated in every abortion, with the child the victim of a horrible death. If the woman should not be killed by one instrument of death, a coat hanger, then neither should the child be killed by another. We cannot legalize murder in order to dissuade people from choosing particularly dangerous forms of carrying it out.
In addition, coat hangers will be a thing of the past, replaced by new forms of abortion, such as an abortion pill.
Finally, "a return to illegal abortions" for those who choose to defy the law "does not mean that there would be a return to the death and complication rates of illegal abortion prior to 1973," when abortion was legalized throughout the United States. "Instead, the complication and death rates would be much lower" because of improvements in "medical care for abortion complications" and in "the abortion techniques used ... illegal abortionists would continue to use the suction curettage that is used in legal abortion clinics today." This means that "illegal abortions performed by physician/abortionists will be no more dangerous than legal abortion - they will only be far less common, and that alone will save lives and reduce complications."24
Fewer women proportionately are dying from abortions now than before, not because of legalization, but because of improvements in medicine. Dr. Willke tells us: "With penicillin, the number [of deaths] dropped sharply. . . . " The general decline in deaths "was clearly due to better antibiotics, the establishment of intensive care units, better surgical techniques, etc."25
The actual number of women who died from illegal abortions prior to legalization is far lower than is sometimes claimed by pro-abortion groups. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, in the past a leader in the effort to legalize abortion, and now a leading opponent of abortion, tells in Aborting America the story of his struggles and his profound change, and that the high figures were an outright lie.
When we spoke of the [number of deaths from illegal abortions] it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too.... But in the "morality" of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted.... The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.26
Keeping in mind that not all abortion deaths are reported, it is still of some interest to see what the reported figures are: "In 1967.... the federal government listed only 160 deaths from illegal abortion. In the last year before ... [abortion was legalized throughout the country], 1972, the total was only 39 deaths."27
Abortion Laws Unenforceable
"Laws prohibiting abortion are not enforceable. Desperate women, denied legal abortions, will find ways to obtain abortions in other ways. Trying to ban abortion is like trying to ban alcohol: it would be Prohibition all over again. The law would be flouted, creating disrespect for law in general."
It is simply not true that the prohibition of abortion is not enforceable. Abortion "clinics" could be shut down; hospitals now performing abortions could be prevented from doing so; doctors could be prosecuted, jailed, and barred from practicing. Those who counseled women to have abortions, and those who assisted at them, could be prosecuted. For most of our history, until very recently, abortion was illegal. Those who committed this crime were prosecuted. The child in the womb received legal protection in the past; what was unjustly taken away from him should now be restored to him.
Perhaps what the objection has in mind is that there would be widespread resistance to outlawing abortion. That should not be a factor in deciding law. "We will protect you as long as it is not too difficult to do so, as long as such a measure meets with popular approval." Imagine saying this to a minority suffering discrimination. Persons must be given equality before the law because it is demanded by justice, not because (or only if) it is easy.
The protection of certain rights is more difficult to enforce than that of others. It is easier to protect a person's right not to be beaten or killed in a public place than it is to protect the right of a child against child abuse at home. But the law must stand with equal clarity and firmness in both cases. The case of the child in the womb is similar to the child at home: both are more difficult to protect than an adult or child in a public place. But the essential point remains, that both should be protected, and protected equally.
"Desperate women will flout the law and try to have abortions anyway." In general, some people desperate to do something prohibited by law will try to do it anyway, and some of them will succeed. This is surely not a reason to have no law. Consider rape. Some desperate men will commit this crime anyway, even though it is illegal. Making rape illegal does not eliminate it. However different the psychology and motivation may be in the two cases, the effects on the victim are comparable: a violation of the intimacy and integrity of an innocent person. Such attacks on the person must be prohibited by law, that some people will disobey the law is tragic, but is not the point here.
Most women are not "desperate women (who] will flout the law." As was cited above, seventy-five percent of women seeking legal abortion .said they definitely would not have sought an illegal abortion." These are the women who are, to a large extent, "protected from being pressured into an abortion" by its illegality.28
Trying to outlaw abortion is like bringing Prohibition back."29 This is simply not true, for a number of reasons. First, the aim of Prohibition was to prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages. This is largely a private matter, where the state has no clear and evident right to interfere. In direct contrast to this, abortion is not a private matter, but the killing of one person by others.
Second, even if prohibition of alcohol were justified, it would not be required as a fundamental principle of law. Prohibiting murder, all murder, is required as a fundamental principle of law.
Third, a basic defect of Prohibition (of alcohol) was the confusion between a practice and its abuse. What Prohibition wanted to eliminate was the abuse of alcohol; what it actually prohibited was alcohol itself. No such confusion, or even distinction, exists in regard to abortion. It is abortion itself that is a terrible crime; there is no question of any abuse.
Finally. there is the charge that making abortion illegal would mean widespread flouting of the law, and a consequent loss of respect for the law. On the contrary, when the law fail | |
