Pro-life citizens and organizations are celebrating the small but significant victory in today’s Supreme Court decision to uphold a partial-birth abortion ban (medical illustration of the murderous procedure at right). In the majority decision, Justice Kennedy wrote
The Act proscribes a method of abortion in which a fetus is killed just inches before completion of the birth process. . . Congress determined that the abortion methods it proscribed had a ‘disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant.’ .. ." The majority ruled that a general ban on the method is permissible and does not violate the general "abortion right" enunciated in past decisions such as Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992).
But what is really notable is Clarence Thomas’ additional written opinion.
I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade,
410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. See Casey,
supra, at 979 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment in part and
dissenting in part); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 980-983 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting).
EO has a couple of good posts on this, including
Think Progress, the moderately reasonable liberal site, also has a nice recap and links (HT: Silver).
If ever there was a clear cut moral issue, this one ranks up there with slavery, perhaps even above it. It is hard to believe the extent of our moral blindness on this issue, although I once supported abortion, responding to pro-life advocates after I had viewed The Silent Scream, "I don’t think an unborn child has any more value than a monkey." I was real smart back then. But it made an indelible impression on me, and I never forgot it. The abortion itself was spiritually and morally horrible to watch – not like watching regular surgery. It turns your stomach.
Thank
God we are coming to our senses and waking from the 5000 child a day
holocaust that pro-choice radicals have heinously and errantly
wrought. This is the start of the erosion of abortion on demand.
Hopefully this will start a sea change away from our current unbalanced
state of affairs. Pro-lifers, fight on! With perseverance, we could
see the overturn of RVW in our lifetime, and see the protection of
children from the earliest stages of pregnancy.
BTW, I’m sure it would never happen, but can a Supreme Court Justice resign his position to run for president? Thomas for prez!!!
5000 child a day holocaust that pro-choice radicals have heinously and errantly wrought
Seeker no matter how much the question of abortion is a serious moral and political issue for you, the use of that kind of rhetoric is nothing more than shrill alarmist banter. It certainly does not bring you closer to conversing with the opposition to this change in legal precident.
Additionally, make no false assumptions that this Supreme Court decision changes anything at all in terms of the legality of performing these procedures. The ruling remains completely silent on which procedure (there are 2) that is commonly referred to late term abortion is explicitly banned (neither does the Congressional law). Further, the ruling does not tell doctors how to diagnose, determine, or counsel women in these situations. Lots of ambiguity.
In effect, several national recognized medical centers (including a couple in the Bay Area) have gone on record saying that they will continue to utilize BOTH procedures as a medical option. So, the procedure will continue…even without federal funding. (Source NPR)
BTW, I'm sure it would never happen, but can a Supreme Court Justice resign his position to run for president? Thomas for prez!!!
A judge appointment is a lifetime appointment. However, a Justice can resign at any time for any reason. The most recent example of this is Sandra Day O'Conner's retirement from the court.
That being the case, if a Justice retires, he/she is free to run for political office.
Now, Thomas getting elected!??! I will sell you a bridge in Brooklyn if you believe that is remotely possible.
– Silver
I wish Thomas would resign to run for office. And while I'm wishing for the Moon, why not include the arch-radical Scalia as well?
the use of that kind of rhetoric is nothing more than shrill alarmist banter.
It can be, but it’s also a valid descriptor – when nearly 5000 American children a day (this doesn’t even take into account the sex-selection and other abortions going on worldwide, esp. in India and China), the word “holocaust” is accurate, and pro-choicers need to hear those words so that their dead consciences might feel something for these unborn CHILDREN.
History will show that they are on the WRONG side of this issue, just like the pro-slavery people who argued that blacks were not persons with rights. Abortion is a damnable shame to any nation. I know it’s rhetoric, but we should be alarmed at the murder of so many innocents.
Regarding the procedures still being done, I know that pro-choice doctors will look for any loophole to keep murdering children, by claiming ambiguity, and all I have to say is, let’s remove the ambiguity and start prosecuting.
Seeker, I would like to keep this conversation as civil, and on-topic as possible, because I am legitimately interested in how you see this issue (since you obviously feel so strongly about it). Could you please answer the following question for me?
Other than the potential for temporary pain — the presence and extent of which is arguable — in what way do you see these “5000 American children” as being worse off for having been aborted?
Stewart, I’m not seeker, but if you are interested in my answer, I would have to ask you a question: Would you consider your own death as making your “worse off” than you already are? Are those killed on death row worse off? Are those killed in Iraq by the terrorist or by the US military worse off? Is anyone worse off when they are killed? That is the real question.
Aaron, I’m definitely interested in your opinion on this as well. I think you know me well enough at this point to predict my answer to your question, though.
No, I would not be worse off than I am now if I were dead. How could I be? I would be dead. People who are killed on death row, victims of car-bombings, and euthanized pets are not worse off for being dead. For those of us who are not dead yet, we are not better off for this, either. It’s not that being dead is great, it’s that being dead is being dead. It is, in fact, not being at all.
When we refer to people who are either not born yet, or who have already died, we’re not really referring to an actual person. They only exist in a conceptual sense. They have no interests, because there is no “they” to have an interest.
Even if you believe in an after-life existence, it’s hard to imagine that there are millions of aborted fetuses sitting around in some ethereal plane, complaining about how Planned Parenthood robbed them of their opportunity. And if you believe in a pre-life existence, it’s equally implausible that there is some queue of unborn children who are impatiently waiting to be born. It’s simply nonsense. People who are dead or not-yet-conceived have no interests, because they do not exist.
This isn’t to say that death is trivial. Death can be very painful for those who are forced to say goodbye to people they care about. It can be very frightening to those who are forced to think about their own mortality. But death itself is completely unremarkable. Every single person and animal will someday die. If you think that’s a tragedy, I don’t know what to tell you except that your expectations may be too high.
Then why do you argue against violence, war, death penalty, etc? If life means nothing why try to protect?
See my last paragraph in the previous post. Death isn’t a problem for those who have died; it’s a problem for those who haven’t. And that’s to say nothing of pain, especially prolonged, or chronic pain.
This is pointless. Because I support a woman’s right to control their bodies (ie, they’re more than just incubators for the precious, all-important fetus) I am condoning murder and, in a perfect future, would be prosecuted. This is yet another reason why I think xians are nuts.
This is pointless. Because I support a woman’s right to control their bodies (ie, they’re more than just incubators for the precious, all-important fetus) I am condoning murder and, in a perfect future, would be prosecuted. This is yet another reason why I think xians are nuts.
Louis, agree that this discussion is pointless unless you completely agree and buy the Ant-Abortion movement’s position hook line and sinker.
Strictly speaking, if you want to talk about murder, as a Roman Catholic the use of contraceptives is morally wrong and can technically be construed as murder by preventing sperm from fertilizing an egg.
So, we can all go round and round on this topic or just let it die with the Conservative faction bantering on and on in a rabid fashion. I am voting for the latter at the moment.
– S
Yeah, every time you jerk off you’re murdering thousands of humans. In fact, every time a woman becomes fertile she should be forcibly impregnated, otherwise it’s murder.
Because I support a woman’s right to control their bodies (ie, they’re more than just incubators for the precious, all-important fetus) I am condoning murder and, in a perfect future, would be prosecuted.
YOu support a woman’s right to infanticide. Congratulations on your moral rectitude.
And Cin, your argument about people being better off dead doesn’t need an answer. I mean, you are kidding right? I mean, with that kind of reasoning, you might as well kill off anyone you want. In that view, the “right to life” means nothing. Don’t want your kids? Kill em!
It doesn’t matter that they haven’t had any experiences outside of the womb, or conscious hopes and dreams. I mean, if you want to think along those philosophic lines to see how crazy it is, fine, but if you really look at it that way, no wonder you could care less about the unborn.
Seeker, did you even read my comments? First of all, I’m not Cineaste. Second, and more importantly, I never used the phrase “better off dead”. In fact my entire point is that one cannot be better off dead, or better off alive. You can’t compare existence to non-existence, because when you don’t exist you have no interests.
I very politely asked you a simple question, and you blew it off entirely. How should I receive that? You claim to be interested in reasonable abortion limits and discussion — you plug your hollow group CRAL whenever you get the opportunity — but you’re essentially closed off to debate on the topic. Your beliefs on this issue are based on dogmatism and metaphysics, but I’m still willing to talk about them; you’re just blathering at this point, though.
And, in fairness to you, I will restate the question to keep this thread on-topic:
Other than the potential for temporary pain — the presence and extent of which is arguable — in what way do you see these “5000 American children” as being worse off for having been aborted?
“YOu support a woman’s right to infanticide. Congratulations on your moral rectitude”
The voice of fanaticism embodied. There’s nothing to be done except to cease attempting communication at all. One might as well try to talk to some mullah.
The voice of fanaticism embodied.
Actually, the voice of derision and disgust.
in what way do you see these “5000 American children” as being worse off for having been aborted?
They have had their lives stolen from them. All of their potential for joy, experience, love, contribution, and service are gone.
What makes a 1 day old child worse off if their mother decides to suffocate them?
“Actually, the voice of derision and disgust.”
Exactly the way I regard you.
Let’s assume you’re right. Do you think that they mind? What I mean is, do you think that — as I joked about in a post above — there are millions of fetuses in some ethereal realm, complaining about how Planned Parenthood screwed them over? And if you do (in perhaps a less satirical manner), do you think the multitudes of naturally-deceased fetuses feel similarly?
I’m very serious about this line of questioning, because I don’t understand the pro-life position regarding it. You are calling abortion a holocaust, but from my point of view, it doesn’t seem like the aborted fetuses mind very much.
Nothing. The rest of their family might be pretty upset, though. And to me, that’s the fundamental difference: Ostensibly, no one is mourning the loss of an aborted fetus, including the fetus.
I’m very serious about this line of questioning, because I don’t understand the pro-life position regarding it. You are calling abortion a holocaust, but from my point of view, it doesn’t seem like the aborted fetuses mind very much.
Seeker’s point is, they would if they could. Again though, so would any of the millions of potential blastocysts God aborts via miscarriage. He laments what could have been. It’s the argument from potential again, which is hypocritical to boot. It’s a really poor argument on his part but I wanted to clarify it for him.
Seeker, what do you say? Is Cineaste correct about your position?
You are calling abortion a holocaust, but from my point of view, it doesn’t seem like the aborted fetuses mind very much.
I think that the question of the intrinsic value of people is meaningful, not just the question of suffering. Just because a one day old child can’t conceive of things like a future, that’s no reason to devalue their life. Same with an unborn child.
Their value is intrinsic as persons, whether they are unable to ponder their own futures or not due to immaturity or retardation. I guess now I understand your question, but the ethical and moral decision, to me, seems only partly about cognizance of suffering, and more about the value of humans, and what happens if we devalue human life.
I mean, is it ok to kill an adult if you do it quickly without them realizing? You know, shoot them in the head from behind? No pain for them. And if they don’t have a living family and friends, who cares?
But what about the people that love them and depend on them? And I guess underneath this part of my argument is that even if WE don’t love the unborn, God does, and is grieved.
And again, when we devalue human life, it has repercussions in the rest of society. I mean, using this logic you are proposing, in isolation, would justify infanticide.
So I ask you, if you are against infanticide, why doesn’t that apply to the unborn? What principle besides that of suffering or understanding of feeling loss would you use?
One more thing regarding personhood. I actually am of the opinion that abortion is potentially morally bad from conception on, but I’m not really sure.
So legally, I don’t think that is worth pushing for because it is very arguable. I think, however, from a legislative perspective, we can and should establish some rules for personhood that protects the unborn, who are helpless victims here.
I think establishing a limit of 4-6 weeks after pregnancy is the right balance between protecting the child, being morally and ethically cautious about killing children, and giving women some time to exercise their conscience and rights after becoming pregnant.
But why are these unborn persons valuable? It’s more than just “can they feel pain” or conceive of a future. They are valuable because they are human, and loved. And allowing infanticide, like other injustices and develuations of human life in society, leads to other types of problems (like, for example, encouraging promiscuity, eugenics, euthanasia, and lowering the bar of conscience regarding murder of other types).
Stewart, thanks for your patience, I have ranted a bit on this thread. I get tired of people defending late term abortion as if they can’t see the victim.
I guess the bottom line for Christians is that children are persons with rights, with a future, with feelings, with intrinsic value. We are commanded by God to help the weak and defenseless, and to prevent murder and killing of humans. We don’t believe that birth makes a child a person.
Most xians believe that the womb is a sacred thing, and that to violate it is morally evil. How that plays out in specific prohibitions (like drawing the line at birth control, test tube insemination, day after pills, or late term abortions) varies among Christians.
However, in general, xians lead toward the beginning of the timeline of pregnancy.
BTW, the argument about God killing blastocysts, or even “causing” miscarriages in later children, is specious. God allows us all to die, but that doesn’t mean God did it. Much of the corruption in our genetic code, if not in our spirits and souls, is our own fault, not God’s.
And regarding abortion, I don’t argue “God said” but rather, I think we need to appeal to the proposition that it is OBVIOUS that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
I would say, then, that Cineaste was wrong about your position. It does not appear that you are making an argument from potential, as much as you are making an argument from sin. That seems to be the only consistent position that you could take on this issue. That is, that abortion is a violation of God’s will, even if it cannot be shown to have any ethically-significant, non-religious consequences. For me, it brings to mind similar Christian proscriptions, such as not taking the name of God in vain, not worshiping idols, observing the Sabbath, etc.
I don’t see why you wouldn’t hold that position. Based on what you’ve written about abortion, I don’t understand how you could support anything but total cessation. If you believe that it’s God’s feelings on the matter that count (as opposed to the fetus’s, which don’t exist), then it’s difficult to see why you would draw a distinction between one week and twenty weeks. Maybe there’s a difference to God, but it seems like wild speculation to assume what that difference is, and where it’s made.
The flip side to this argument is that it is wholly inapplicable to secular logic. You can’t reasonably expect someone like myself, an atheist, to accept a proscription against something on the grounds that it saddens God.
Maybe. I wouldn’t, though. What if you were wrong? What if they did have friends or family? What if you misfired and accidentally maimed them?
And there is a bigger concern: If you knew that friendless people were potentially fair game for killing, that might cause you some anxiety. Is it clear that you have friends and family? What if someone mistakenly thought that you didn’t? That kind of fear could lead to severe trauma, regardless of whether anyone tried to act on it. For that reason alone, I find this sort of action undesirable. But it’s impossible for a fetus to know that termination is a possibility, and equally impossible for one to be afraid of it, so this rationale clearly does not apply to the issue of abortion.