Once upon a time, back in the dark ages (pre-ultrasound technology), unborn babies and their defenders could easily be besmirched. Bereft of hands-on (or, in this case, eyes-on) information, many Americans fell victim to the siren call of those who whispered that the out-of-sight, therefore out-of-mind unborn child was nothing more than a blob of tissue.
Given this blanket of ignorance, our resistance to abortion was on the public agenda, but only at the margins. Now, thanks to a confluence of events, the fate of the unborn child has forced its way onto center stage.
Two items reminded me of this today. First, there was an e-mail from a gentleman volunteering his services. He began this way: “Dear _______. Defense of the defenseless is indeed a noble thing. Thank you.”
To an extent that I can not recall previously, good folks are e-mailing me, asking “how can I help?” No longer can they tolerate being on the sidelines. Their voices, added to a glorious chorus, are making an already beautiful sound louder and louder.
The second item is a column I read written by Cathy Cleaver Ruse, Esq., director of planning and information for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. The title, appropriately, is, “Recognizing the Child.”
Her analysis of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, recently signed into law by President Bush, is superb. Midway through, she raises a point that I too seldom address.
“Abortion advocates hold up Roe as if it were the standard by which all other laws should be judged,” she write, “forgetting that legal abortion is the uncomfortable exception, not the rule, when it comes to the way the law treats unborn children.”
Ms. Ruse lists some of the many areas where the law recognizes unborn children. “Most states allow legal recourse for prenatal injuries and recognize fetal homicide as a crime,” she points out. “Unborn children can inherit property, be represented by a guardian, sue for a wrongful death if their father is killed. They are considered human subjects protected from harmful research, and can qualify as recipients of state-funded health insurance.”
In other words,“Abortion is the glaring exception here,” she writes. "It defies logic that on Monday a child can inherit property or file claims in court and on Tuesday he disappears in the eyes of the law if an abortion choice is made.”
This insight reminded me of something else I recently read: Settling a particular case does not settle the principle. For a time, Roe seemingly “settled” the issue of the unborn vis a vis abortion. But even as that decision was under constant siege, the unborn, outside the abortion context, still possessed rights, as Ms. Ruse reminds us.
Abortion supporters are caught in a pincer-like grip. They are squeezed on one side by the unraveling of the rationale for abortion, and on the other side by the schizophrenia inherent of a situation where an unborn child can “file claims in court” one day but “disappear in the eyes of the law” if he’s aborted the next day.
Ms. Ruse likens the “logic” of abortion to the Emperor's new clothes.“[T]he abortion lobby stands in fear of the day when this logic is revealed to be just as insubstantial.”
And that day, once barely discernible on the horizon, is closer than any of us know.
Once upon a time, back in the dark ages (pre-ultrasound technology), unborn babies and their defenders could easily be besmirched. Bereft of hands-on (or, in this case, eyes-on) information, many Americans fell victim to the siren call of those who whispered that the out-of-sight, therefore out-of-mind unborn child was nothing more than a blob of tissue.