Home
A New Spring in Their Step...
There were so many unfamiliar people in church yesterday, most in town for today's March for Life. For this year's march, 33 years after the Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade, there's a new feeling of hope: As the editors of National Review point out, the Roe consensus is "crumbling." Polls showing support are misleading, the editors argue (I think their analysis of what the polls really indicate rings true), and, moreover:
"The Court would be perfectly justified in concluding that its attempts to micromanage abortion policy have failed, in regarding this failure as an indictment of its pretensions to have any special expertise or authority to do so, and in scrapping Roe. In Casey, the Court argued that many people have relied on the availability of abortion in the event of contraceptive failure, and that this fact was a reason to continue to protect a right to abortion. But legislatures are perfectly capable of deciding what weight to give to that fact.
"The justices may prefer to move incrementally. They may decide, when they again rule on partial-birth abortion later this year, to rule narrowly: to cede just enough legislative authority back to legislatures to let them prohibit partial-birth abortion. Little by little, they might restore democracy in this area.
"Roe's twin fortifications are there to protect each other's weaknesses. The alleged popular ratification of Roe is invoked to cover its legal implausibility. But a truly populist constitutional law would allow prohibitions on late-term abortions and substantial restrictions on early-term abortions, so the majesty of the law and the authority of the court have to be invoked against this threat. The only way to keep the game going is through sleights of hand, diversions, and illusions: Roe creates only a limited right to abortion; everyone loves Roe; it is settled law; repeat as necessary.
"The pro-abortion activists are right to be alarmed."
If Roe is overturned, then the issue of abortion will return to where it belongs--with the people and their elected representatives. Future hearings for Supreme Court nominees will return to normal--but we'll have big battles over the issue at the state-level. We'll still have to make the case that abortion is wrong. Amy Welborn of Open Book has a number of posts today of the sort that will be helpful should that come to pass. One is by Princeton jurisprudence professor Robert George:
"Now a supporter of embryo-killing for biomedical research might concede that a human embryo is a human being, yet deny that human beings in the early stages of their development are due full moral respect such that they may not be destroyed to benefit more fully developed human beings who are suffering from afflictions.
"But to deny that embryonic human beings deserve full respect, one must suppose that not every whole living human being deserves full respect. And to do that, one must hold that those human beings who deserve full respect deserve it not in virtue of the kind of entity they are, but, rather, in virtue of some acquired characteristic that some human beings (or human beings at some stages) have and others do not have, and which some human beings have in greater degree than others.
"In my judgment, this position is untenable...."
Another post concerns
musician John Bonaduce's scripturally based requiem for unborn children:
"The liturgy, named the 'Shantigarh Requiem for the Unborn,' is a journey through Scripture. The very first words sung by a choir of more than 100 are from the Book of Wisdom: 'Before the Lord, the whole universe is as a grain or a drop of morning dew. And though we are small his love is great, for he is Lord and lover of souls.'"
(Bonaduce has personal experience with abortion, having helped a friend obtain one 25 years ago.)
If Roe is overturned, it will have a catalclysmic impact--and I'm not referring only to the state-level fights. The Roe decision plays a big part in the way we think about (and act upon) sexual urges today. As Marvin Olasky writes:
"Pro-lifers say the Jan. 22 anniversary of Roe v. Wade is about life. Pro-choicers say it's about sex. Both are right.
"Many of my baby-boom cohort are still greatly conflicted about sex. Some of us publicly avow a biblical worldview but, when it seems that no one is watching, fall back into the Playboy bait-and-switch philosophy. The bait is physical pleasure and a sense of psychological conquest. The switch becomes evident over time, when young bodies become old and loneliness swamps lust....
"The paramount pro-life message on Jan. 22 should of course be, 'Choose life.' But pro-choicers are right to say that our parallel message has to be, 'Abstain from sex outside marriage.' A few married couples choose death for their unborn children, but the overwhelming majority of abortions come when the father and mother are not married to each other. We can lower the abortion rate by offering compassionate help and developing laws that protect the unborn, but the front line is abstinence from extra-marital sex--and older adults need to set a good example."
Abstain from sex outside of marriage! Yikes so that's why Roe is so beloved, even among people who are well beyond the age of needing an abortion or do not engage in procreative sex: It is beloved because--along with the pill--it makes it possible to lead lives in which anything goes. Many who will never have the occasion to experience abortion personally are devoted to Roe because it bolsters their belief that there are no sexual boundaries.
Thanks to Filling Up Space,an excellent Protestant blog, for pointing out that Churck Colson makes a similar point today:
"On this anniversary, Christians must resolve to go on fighting, not only on behalf of the unborn, but addressing a broader question: Does our society have the capacity to rule itself according to what is the common good, adhering to its founding principles of the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or will it be swept up in the notion that the only thing that matters is that individuals can choose for themselves whatever they want?"
"The Court would be perfectly justified in concluding that its attempts to micromanage abortion policy have failed, in regarding this failure as an indictment of its pretensions to have any special expertise or authority to do so, and in scrapping Roe. In Casey, the Court argued that many people have relied on the availability of abortion in the event of contraceptive failure, and that this fact was a reason to continue to protect a right to abortion. But legislatures are perfectly capable of deciding what weight to give to that fact.
"The justices may prefer to move incrementally. They may decide, when they again rule on partial-birth abortion later this year, to rule narrowly: to cede just enough legislative authority back to legislatures to let them prohibit partial-birth abortion. Little by little, they might restore democracy in this area.
"Roe's twin fortifications are there to protect each other's weaknesses. The alleged popular ratification of Roe is invoked to cover its legal implausibility. But a truly populist constitutional law would allow prohibitions on late-term abortions and substantial restrictions on early-term abortions, so the majesty of the law and the authority of the court have to be invoked against this threat. The only way to keep the game going is through sleights of hand, diversions, and illusions: Roe creates only a limited right to abortion; everyone loves Roe; it is settled law; repeat as necessary.
"The pro-abortion activists are right to be alarmed."
If Roe is overturned, then the issue of abortion will return to where it belongs--with the people and their elected representatives. Future hearings for Supreme Court nominees will return to normal--but we'll have big battles over the issue at the state-level. We'll still have to make the case that abortion is wrong. Amy Welborn of Open Book has a number of posts today of the sort that will be helpful should that come to pass. One is by Princeton jurisprudence professor Robert George:
"Now a supporter of embryo-killing for biomedical research might concede that a human embryo is a human being, yet deny that human beings in the early stages of their development are due full moral respect such that they may not be destroyed to benefit more fully developed human beings who are suffering from afflictions.
"But to deny that embryonic human beings deserve full respect, one must suppose that not every whole living human being deserves full respect. And to do that, one must hold that those human beings who deserve full respect deserve it not in virtue of the kind of entity they are, but, rather, in virtue of some acquired characteristic that some human beings (or human beings at some stages) have and others do not have, and which some human beings have in greater degree than others.
"In my judgment, this position is untenable...."
Another post concerns
musician John Bonaduce's scripturally based requiem for unborn children:
"The liturgy, named the 'Shantigarh Requiem for the Unborn,' is a journey through Scripture. The very first words sung by a choir of more than 100 are from the Book of Wisdom: 'Before the Lord, the whole universe is as a grain or a drop of morning dew. And though we are small his love is great, for he is Lord and lover of souls.'"
(Bonaduce has personal experience with abortion, having helped a friend obtain one 25 years ago.)
If Roe is overturned, it will have a catalclysmic impact--and I'm not referring only to the state-level fights. The Roe decision plays a big part in the way we think about (and act upon) sexual urges today. As Marvin Olasky writes:
"Pro-lifers say the Jan. 22 anniversary of Roe v. Wade is about life. Pro-choicers say it's about sex. Both are right.
"Many of my baby-boom cohort are still greatly conflicted about sex. Some of us publicly avow a biblical worldview but, when it seems that no one is watching, fall back into the Playboy bait-and-switch philosophy. The bait is physical pleasure and a sense of psychological conquest. The switch becomes evident over time, when young bodies become old and loneliness swamps lust....
"The paramount pro-life message on Jan. 22 should of course be, 'Choose life.' But pro-choicers are right to say that our parallel message has to be, 'Abstain from sex outside marriage.' A few married couples choose death for their unborn children, but the overwhelming majority of abortions come when the father and mother are not married to each other. We can lower the abortion rate by offering compassionate help and developing laws that protect the unborn, but the front line is abstinence from extra-marital sex--and older adults need to set a good example."
Abstain from sex outside of marriage! Yikes so that's why Roe is so beloved, even among people who are well beyond the age of needing an abortion or do not engage in procreative sex: It is beloved because--along with the pill--it makes it possible to lead lives in which anything goes. Many who will never have the occasion to experience abortion personally are devoted to Roe because it bolsters their belief that there are no sexual boundaries.
Thanks to Filling Up Space,an excellent Protestant blog, for pointing out that Churck Colson makes a similar point today:
"On this anniversary, Christians must resolve to go on fighting, not only on behalf of the unborn, but addressing a broader question: Does our society have the capacity to rule itself according to what is the common good, adhering to its founding principles of the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or will it be swept up in the notion that the only thing that matters is that individuals can choose for themselves whatever they want?"
<< Loose Canon Home