World Net Daily has an article on Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade fame appealing to the Supreme Court to overturn the “raw exercize of judicial power.”
This is true: “In her concurring opinion, Judge Edith Jones lamented the case was moot, which prevented McCorvey’s evidence from being heard: “If courts were to delve into the facts underlying Roe’s balancing scheme with present-day knowledge, they might conclude that the woman’s ‘choice’ is far more risky and less beneficial, and the child’s sentience far more advanced, than the Roe Court knew.”
Apparently, liberal theologian Jim Wallis met with leaders of the Democratic party last week and urged them to reach out to the anti-abortion movement, acknowlege their concerns and find common ground. If Democrats cannot do this, I fear they will be the perpertual minority party.
David Brooks has a good commentary in today’s NY Times today about whether Democrats ought to try and work with President Bush, or emulate the policy of total all-out obstruction of former speaker Gingrich, when Clinton was President. Democrats should reach out and work with Republicans on some issues, and I would say abortion should be the very first.
It would be unwise for Democrats to bring up support for Roe v Wade during hearings of judicial appointments and Supreme Cour nominees. Roe v. Wade is a fundamentally flawed decision. It rests on the contention that the fetus is not a person, a legal view that is doomed to be overturned. If you want to preserve abortion rights for a narrow range of situations involving medical neccesity, or rape or incest, Roe v. Wade is a false bulwark.
What is required is nothing less than a philosophical reversal on the part of the Supreme Court comparable to Brown V. Board of Education overturning Plessy v. Fergusson. Plessy v. Fergusson enunciated the principle of “separate but equal and Brown said separate was inherently unequal.”
The fundamental problem with Roe v. Wade is it’s central contention that the fetus is not a person during the first trimester of gestation. This is an untenable and morally unacceptable position. Some people see Roe V. Wade as the only bulwark against a complete prohibition that would even outlaw abortions of medical neccesity, and as such must be defended. I would argue that another bulwark is neccesary – one obtained through an earnest effort to reach compromise and common ground with anti-abortion forces; provided they are willing.
I’m confused by your post, Dean. I think We agree that Roe v. Wade is an “untenable and morally unacceptable” legal ruling. But I don’t understand what follows.
I read your post as saying that “another bulwark” besides Roe v. Wade that would prevent making abortion illegal is necessary because some woman somewhere may medically require an abortion, and that this “bulwark” can only be established if “anti-abortion forces” are willing to compromise.
Is that an accurate reading of your post?
Daniel – We have a moral obligation to sharply reduce the number of abortions in this county. The question is how best to proceed towards that goal. The problem with a complete prohibition is that (1) It doesn’t address the underlying reasons for abortions, (2) it could result in the creation of an undeground abortion industry, and (3) there may be a narrow range of situations involving rape, incest and the life of the mother where you want to keep abortion legal.
People who want to keep abortion legal for that narrow range, have to accept restrictions in other areas. We should phase out public funding and private insurance coverage for those procedures, and we should require mandatory adoption counseling, for example. There should be public education directed at young people about avoiding pregnancy with abstinence as the primary, but not the exclusive method urged. There should be more financial aid for adoptive parents and young women who choose to carry to term.
I think there is a lot of common ground and many avenues for making progress towards the goal of steadily reducing the number of abortions. It seems to me that a lot of people who consider themselves liberal who, as they grow older, are viewing abortion less as a right than a tragic outcome. Maybe when they were younger and knew people who had abortions, they remained silent on the subject out of politeness. Now as parents they see how truly tragic the entire situation is, and are willing to take a stand against it.
The Democrats have to stop being morally tone-deaf and stupid on the abortion issue, and the Republicans have to stop being politically opportunistic and give up a really good club to beat the beat the Democrats with. They both have to work together towards a common and stated goal.
Note 1. The reasoning of Roe v. Wade was that a fetus has no inherent right to life if it is not “viable” which was defined as the “ability to live outside the womb.” There is no first trimester restriction on abortion.
I don’t see how abortion applies to Brown v. Board of Education though.
RE #3. Brown v Education was only mentioned as an example of another dramatic reversal by the Supreme Court. Similarly, instead of nibbling around the edges, the court has to totally reject the contention that the fetus isn’t a person and declare a whole new set of guiding principles.
RE #2. Dan – The tradeoff for keeping abortion legal for rape, incest and life of the mother, has to be acceptance of legal restrictions and financial disincentives for the non-medically necessary abortions, along with inititives to promote adoption and sexually responsible behavior. The challenge will be getting both sides to compromise, but I think its the only way to make real progress.
Sorry if it sounds like I’m repeating myself here. Several of the posts didn’t go through at first and I thought I had timed out.
Our faith tells us that God knows us as we are woven together in our mother’s womb. That is, we are a person known by God from the moment of conception; a person with an inalienable right to life. How is one supposed to compromise on that position?
At one point I used to accept that children conceived as a result of rape or incest should be killed. Then I started to really think about the pro-life position, that asked, “Why should these children be punished for the violent act of another?” And then I read this story by Russell Saltzman, a Lutheran pastor, who’s “conception and birth were the product of stepsibling incest..” He writes about a support group for adult children born of rape or incest that is organized by a woman named Jennifer, who is also a “child of a violent rape”.
Rev. Saltzman closes with the following:
“Absent a creator – absent God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth – your conception and birth are exactly that, dumb blind chance. Yet we say that God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, made you. And me. And a very talented, warm-hearted woman named Jennifer, with two sweet kids of her own. Her body itself, and my body, aging though it is, carries a living and breathing rebuke to those who regard human life as a matter of convenience. Against all appearances to the contrary, imagine this: God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, made her, made me, made you.”
This month’s Atlantic Monthly, which is chock full of great articles, has one entitled “Letting go of Roe.” Author Benjarmin Wittes argues that the Roe v. Wade decision is constititionally weak, and defending it has been so damaging to the Democratic party that they should abandon the effort.
Instead, Wittes argues that laws governing abortion should be left to the States and subject to the type of voter propositions and referendums we have seen on the Gay Marriage issue. Differences among States may emerge, with some more permissive and others more restrictive. Eventually he argues, our laws will reflect the sentiment of the majority of the public – that the numbers of abortions presently are too high and greater restrictions and disincentives are needed, but the procedure should remain legal for a narrow range of situations involving rape, incest or medical neccesity.
Instead of the relatively easy task of arguing that Roe v. Wade is too permissive, anti-abortion advocates would face a more challenging task of convincing the public that a total prohibition is necessary.
“Clinton Seeking Shared Ground Over Abortions”
“ALBANY, Jan. 24 – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Monday that the opposing sides in the divisive debate over abortion should find “common ground” to prevent unwanted pregnancies and ultimately reduce abortions, which she called a “sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/nyregion/25clinton.html?ex=1264309200&en=02934398dccfc9b8&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
Many anti-abortion advocates may find Senator Clinton’s position on abortion less than adequete. Nonetheless, it looks like a window of opportunity is opening to make progress on reducing abortions. Will Republicans and Democrats of good will work together towards that goal? Or is being able to continue beating the opposition with the abortion club more important?
Here’s something I heard this morning while listening to Laura Ingraham that really made me think: If abortion is a “right” established by the Unites States Constitution why should it be described as a “sad, even tragic choice to many, many women”? Why should it be made “rare”, as Sen Harry Ried said recently? If abortion is a Constitutional Right, shouldn’t it be embraced and encouraged, like freedom of speech and freedom of religion?
Here’s something I heard this morning while listening to Laura Ingraham that really made me think: If abortion is a “right” established by the Unites States Constitution why should it be described as a “sad, even tragic choice to many, many women”? Why should it be made “rare”, as Sen Harry Ried said recently? If abortion is a Constitutional Right, shouldn’t it be embraced and encouraged, like freedom of speech and freedom of religion?
Dan – Most Americans refuse to accept either of the extreme and unreasonable positions offered by the pro- and anti-abortion movements. Public opinion polls continue to report that the majority of Americans believe that abortions of social convenience are morally disturbing and ought to be restricted, but that the procedure should remain safe and legal for a narrow range of circumstances including rape, incest and medical neccesity.
The question as to whether there is a “right” to have an abortion is the subject of heated and complex debate. Numerous Supreme Court decisons have stated that the various protections in the Bill of Rights create a “zone of privacy” which include a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her own body. However, the Supreme Court has also ruled that consitutionally-protected rights may be abridged by State laws if there is a “compelling State interest”, such as the State’s interest in protecting prenatal life.
What is encouraging is that there appears to be greater support accross party lines for efforts to reduce the number of abortions. They may not be solutions that anyone will ever regard as perfect, but they represent progress nonetheless. Right-wingers like you have to ask what is more important, working together to make real progress reducing abortions, or having a public relations club to continue beating Democrats over the head with.
Tyrants We Choose to Fight
From military historian Victor David Hanson
The difficult postbellum reconstruction in Iraq is costly and heartbreaking, but so far after September 11 we have lost fewer troops in 3 years of fighting that we did in one day during the Bulge or at Normandy.
Note to Dean and Jim Holman. If you pop up with the Johns Hopkins 100,000 civilian deaths, please note that this was a statistical study. This means that an arm-chair academic in the United States took a small sample and extrapolated it. The statistical validity of the study has been shredded. Of course, it will be cited ad infinitum by the mass media.
Also note: The cost of Saddam’s continued rule. Probably 1,000 people per year lost their lives in Saddam’s torture rooms and prisons. So between 1991 and 2003 inclusive 13,000 died at Saddam’s hands directly, many more indirectly.
Missiourian – The city of Fallujah has been destroyed and its population made into refugees. What was once a city of 300,000 is now a giant hole. Saddam didn’t do that. We did.
Had a foreign government done the same thing (Assad’s assault on Hama comes to mind), the U.S. would have gone positively NUTS denouncing it. But since we did it, there seems to be a distinct lack of moral outrage.
Major damage has been inflicted on almost every city in Iraq. The infrastructure has been obliterated, and what is left of the economy has been hammered flat.
How many people now dead would have died anyway under Saddam? God alone knows. How many people now dead would have survived and prospered under the continued rule of Saddam? God alone knows. How many buildings now destroyed might have been bulldozed by Saddam? God alone knows. How many buildings now laying in ruins would have lasted another 100 years or more if Saddam had stayed in power? God alone knows.
Is the liberation of Iraq with its thousands of dead and millions of dollars in destruction a net savings for the Iraqi people vs. the continued rule of Saddam? Is the current anarchy more beneficial than the continued rule of an authoritarian regime?
I don’t know the answers to these questions, because I am not God. The U.S. has chosen to play God’s role, to decide who lives and who dies. We have arrogated to ourselves the role of destroyer and builder. I, for one, don’t want this role. I would NEVER support attacking and occupying a sovereign nation ‘for its own good.’ It leads to these kinds of discussions like we are having now. “Hey we killed thousands, but thousands of others would have died anyway so its a wash! After all, they’re just statistics. Arabs are fungible, one is just as good as another one. God will understand, after all, because we did all this with the best of intentions!”
Who would have lived had we not attacked? Who would have died? How many children dead today would have lived to a ripe old age had we never intervened? 10 years from now – what will we think about this time when we helped birth the Islamic Republic of Iraq on the foundations of a secular state?
Victor Davis Hanson loves to draw comparisons between the Iraq fiasco and WWII. These are specious comparisons. In WWII we were up against the premier war machine of all time – the Third Reich. Able to wage war on three continents against the combined might of two of the world’s largest nations, the Germans were a potential global menance. To sacrifice blood and treasure to stop such a threat is not really an option, we had no choice.
On the other hand, the Iraq War was entirely of our choosing. We know from the Duelfer Report and other sources, and have known for a long time, that Saddam was no threat to the U.S. We chose this war and one stated pretext was to improve the lives of the Iraqis. We attacked them with high-explosive munitions in order to make their lives better. A better comparison with Iraq would be the Phillippine Insurrection, in which the U.S. killed an estimated 200,000 Catholics in order to bring ‘freedom’ to Asia.
As a veteran of the Marine Corps (Hanson did not serve, I believe), I find the statement that ‘only’ a 1,000 deaths has occurred to be highly offensive. In a war of choice, any number of deaths is too high.
What do the church fathers say is the highest virtue? Humility. Humility requires that we cannot make such calculated judgments as to whether it is justified to kill thousands of innocent people for a political idea. Humility requires that we not believe that we can play God.
The City of Fallujah was destroyed by jihadis. The United States troops rescued a greatful population.
************************************************************************************
Glen Chancy writes:
Missiourian – The city of Fallujah has been destroyed and its population made into refugees. What was once a city of 300,000 is now a giant hole. Saddam didn?t do that. We did.
Had a foreign government done the same thing (Assad?s assault on Hama comes to mind), the U.S. would have gone positively NUTS denouncing it. But since we did it, there seems to be a distinct lack of moral outrage.
Missourian replies:
In April of 2004, the jihaids lead by Al-Zarquari ambushed aide workers bringing food and medical supplies into Fallujah killed them and roasted their bodies, then hung the bodies from a scaffold. Glen apparently would have us to nothing but wring our hands. The United States started a military action, then at the request of the locals pulled back. For four months the people of Fallujah were subjected to the most horrific reign of Islamic terror in recent history. Websites posted by the United States military provide pictures of torture rooms. Locals reported people being shot summarily in the street. After four months of this outrage, the brave soldiers of the United States Marines rescued the people of Fallujah from the jihadis. American troops went in only after every effort had been made to evacuate the peaceful locals. American soldiers report that local Iraqis in
Fallujah left notes in thier houses telling American soldiers they were welcome to sleep there.
To allow the jihadis to continue to control Fallujah would have been the basest appeasement of Islamic terror imaginable. The buildings may have suffered some damage but civilians were largely evacuated and the United States and the current Iraqi government is providing a large amount of aide to the returning population.
As a veteran of the Marine Corps, I think you would have had more respect for the sacrifices of the young Marines that liberated a city.
If you think that Christianity teaches appeasement of evil, I think you are wrong. By your reasoning we couldn’t maintain a civil police force and police officers couldn’t carry guns.
***********************************************************************************
Glen Chancy writes:
Major damage has been inflicted on almost every city in Iraq. The infrastructure has been obliterated, and what is left of the economy has been hammered flat.
Missourian: This is simply factually untrue. The hospitals, schools and infrastructure of Iraq had been destroyed by Saddam. He milked the country of every dollar he could find. He used that money to bribe our wonderful friends the Europeans. Chiraq is on the take, as is George Galloway, as is Kofi Annan.
The three-week military campaign by the United States to unseat Saddam infliected the least damage on infra-structure than any major military campaign in history. Do you remember that the oil fields were not torched? This was due to superb military planning by the United States and the protection of the oil fields was carried out by special forces from the U.S. and Australia. Hurrah for those courageous diggers!! True friends they are. Saddam torched the oil field of Kuwait as a spiteful display of pique as his stormtroopers retreated in face of American troops.
As an environmental plus, the marshlands drained by Saddam in an effort to hurt an ethnic group he thought was not sympathetic to him have been restored. But, of course, the United States can do no good, so even though this is THE REVERSAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME BY SADDAM, we cannot take credit for it.
We have restored schools, universities and hospitals to a level above Saddam’s time. We have invested a great deal in an electrical grid that had not been updated since 1945. One of the difficulties American engineers faced was that the infrastructure was so old and so tottering that nobody made parts for systems designed in 1945 anymore. The point is that Saddam allowed the electrical grid to rot in those areas where he thought his enemies lived, the Shia areas, he kept it going in the Sunni areas.
**********************************************************************************
How many people now dead would have died anyway under Saddam? God alone knows. How many people now dead would have survived and prospered under the continued rule of Saddam? God alone knows. How many buildings now destroyed might have been bulldozed by Saddam? God alone knows. How many buildings now laying in ruins would have lasted another 100 years or more if Saddam had stayed in power? God alone knows.
Is the liberation of Iraq with its thousands of dead and millions of dollars in destruction a net savings for the Iraqi people vs. the continued rule of Saddam? Is the current anarchy more beneficial than the continued rule of an authoritarian regime?
Missourian replies: It is amazing how little weight liberals give liberty. The current estimate is that the voter turnout in Basra, Iraq may be as high as 90%. This is in the face of an enemy that promises to kill voters. How many of use would go to the polls if it meant risking our lives. I would say that this more than anything else proves that the Iraqi people believed the misery of the war was well worth it.
We do have some idea of how many people would have died under Saddam. We can look at records that the Iraqis are developing as they uncover grave site after grave stie after grave site.
***********************************************************************************
Glen Chancy writes:
I don?t know the answers to these questions, because I am not God. The U.S. has chosen to play God?s role, to decide who lives and who dies. We have arrogated to ourselves the role of destroyer and builder. I, for one, don?t want this role. I would NEVER support attacking and occupying a sovereign nation ?for its own good.? It leads to these kinds of discussions like we are having now. ?Hey we killed thousands, but thousands of others would have died anyway so its a wash! After all, they?re just statistics. Arabs are fungible, one is just as good as another one. God will understand, after all, because we did all this with the best of intentions!?
Who would have lived had we not attacked? Who would have died? How many children dead today would have lived to a ripe old age had we never intervened? 10 years from now – what will we think about this time when we helped birth the Islamic Republic of Iraq on the foundations of a secular state?
Missourian replies: No, the United States is not God, but we are the only superpower. We were criticized for NOT INTERVENING in Rwanda in a book called “The Problem from Hell.” Just last week, Human Rights Watch declared that national boundaries should not be respected when genocide is going on. Human Rights Watch has argued that there is a moral case for overriding the sovreignty of the Sudanese government and intervening militarily from outside to save the people of DARFUR. We know that genocide went on. We now that civilian populations were attacked with poison gas in a manner designed to kill thousands at a time.
Until the Lord comes again to this Earth we will live amongst evil. We know the capacity of humankind for the most atrocious evil. Monsters will arise which cannot be stopped except by armies. We are the superpower of the world now, and it was our army that had to stop Saddam.
Saddam was a major source of support for jihadi violence for decades. He was truly an enemy of the United States and he lived to wreck havoc on the America that had humiliated him.
*********************************************************************************
Victor Davis Hanson loves to draw comparisons between the Iraq fiasco and WWII. These are specious comparisons. In WWII we were up against the premier war machine of all time – the Third Reich. Able to wage war on three continents against the combined might of two of the world?s largest nations, the Germans were a potential global menance. To sacrifice blood and treasure to stop such a threat is not really an option, we had no choice.
On the other hand, the Iraq War was entirely of our choosing. We know from the Duelfer Report and other sources, and have known for a long time, that Saddam was no threat to the U.S. We chose this war and one stated pretext was to improve the lives of the Iraqis. We attacked them with high-explosive munitions in order to make their lives better. A better comparison with Iraq would be the Phillippine Insurrection, in which the U.S. killed an estimated 200,000 Catholics in order to bring ?freedom? to Asia.
As a veteran of the Marine Corps (Hanson did not serve, I believe), I find the statement that ?only? a 1,000 deaths has occurred to be highly offensive. In a war of choice, any number of deaths is too high.
Missourian replies: Funny how enforcing the United Nations resolutions suddenly disappears. The actual resolution passed by Congress enabled the President to take action to …..drumroll please…. ENFORCE THE UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION. The United Nation resolution required Saddam to prove that he had destroyed the weapons he had declared. Please try to get this straight. In 1991 Saddam submitted a list of weapons that he had. He agreed to publicly, and subject to inspection, destroy those weapons. Even Hans Blix in his book states that Saddam was NOT IN COMPLIANCE. The United States did not have the burden of proof, Saddam did. Repeat that 25 times. The reference to WMD was contained in the preamble to the resolution and was listed as only one of several reasons to give President Bush power to change regimes. President Clinton had signed a bill in 1998 calling for regime change in Iraq.
************************************************************************************
Glen writes:
What do the church fathers say is the highest virtue? Humility. Humility requires that we cannot make such calculated judgments as to whether it is justified to kill thousands of innocent people for a political idea. Humility requires that we not believe that we can play God.
Missourians: The Bible teaches us that this world is full of sin. We will not achieve perfection in this lifetime. Only the citizens of heaven are perfect. The Bible warns us that Satan stalks this Earth wreaking havoc whereever he goes.
The Bible teaches us to value LIFE. Satan loathes life. We have every right to take action to protect life. I am proud of the American forces who faced a bestial enemy and liberated Fallujah. I know that I don’t have 1/100th of their courage and strength. They are true heroes.
Jesus did not tell the Centurion to change professions. Joshua and David were soldiers. Sometimes, imperfect as we are, we must rise and face evil. I have no shame at all that we deposed Saddam. None. What. So. Ever.
Your route would be an eternal retreat in the face of evil.
Iraqis Prove they think the war was worth it.
Reports from credible sources state that the Iraqi government expects 90% of the residents of the Basra region will vote on Sunday despite the fact that they could be taking their lives in their hands to do it.
I think this answers the question of whether the war was worth it. The Iraqis are telling us, it was.
***********************************************************************************
Human Rights Watch has criticized the West and the United States for not intervening in Rwanda and Sudan. They say that sovreign borders should not block action to stop genocide. Human Rights Watch doesn’t think Saddam killed enough people quickly enough to justify outside intervention. Wow, it would take Solomon to make these distinctions. Lucky for us, we have Human Rights Watch.
************************************************************************************
When someone mentions the humanitarian reasons for deposing Saddam, the Left screams about how Rumsfeld allegedly conspired with Saddam to help his war on Iran.
So here is the moral calculus. Saddam was so evil that dealing with him in any way tarred us morally, BUT, he was not evil enough to depose no matter how many people his killed. Sure.
First of all I apologize for posting twice my comments above. I should know better than to try to stop the computer once I’ve set it into action.
Secondly, Glen & Missourian, I appreciate your debate on Iraq (and side with Missourian on this argument) but what, in the world does it have to do with “Jane Roe visits the Supremes”. I think you two have posted some comments that belong elsewhere on this blog.
Note 9. Dean Scourtes writes: “Instead of the relatively easy task of arguing that Roe v. Wade is too permissive, anti-abortion advocates would face a more challenging task of convincing the public that a total prohibition is necessary.”
This is clever but misses the point entirely.
Any restriction on abortion validates the moral arguments of pro-lifers and shifts the ground of the debate markedly. Hillary Clinton’s move to the center regarding abortion for example, will threaten the pro-choice lobby because they will no longer be able to continue the charade that abortion is morally neutral. Abortion ideologues understand that their greatest threat comes from the received moral tradition. The only way to silence the authority of this tradition was to dismiss it altogether. Once they allow the tradition to speak to even one abortion, they open the door to having confront the tradition in its entirety — which Clinton’s move to the center represents.
I’ve argued for a while that the moral arguments are winning (see “Choice on Earth” Unmasks the Desperation of Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood’s Christmas Card: “Choice on Earth” or “Slaughter of the Innocents”?) and Clinton’s move to the center is starting to prove my thesis. I don’t care if the move was purely political pragmatism, it is still the right move.
Right now there is probably confusion and panic in the pro-choice lobby.
Your retort is clever only in the sense that you attempt to shift the onus of moral justification on pro-lifers instead of the pro-choice lobby where it rightfully belongs. You underestimate the power of the ideas within the moral tradition to affect the conscience and thus culture. Some of this short-sightedness has to do with your political progressivism, particularly the moral assumptions that inform it.
Father Jacobse: I’m very interested in you views on this issue, as well as what the Orthodox church teaches. Certainly, we all agree that abortions of social or economic convenience are morally objectionable. We are both on the same page here.
However, I do not know whether the Church makes exceptions for a narrow range of rare circumstances, namely: rape, incest, medical neccesity, or a severe deformity or profound mental impairment in the fetus. These are more complicated situations, so my inclination is to resist any easy, simplistic answers.
God forbid anyone ever finds themselves in this situation, but if a married couple was told by their doctor that the wife could die from a dangerous pregnancy would you tell them that she would have to risk her life, rather than abort?
Of course not.