I’ve been having a number of online discussions on the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade and thereby removing a national imposition of a right to kill a child in the womb. Let me capture some of my various comments and some of the back and forth with those that either agreed with me or were opposed. There were three Original Posts on the subject, which I’ve placed in bold ahead of the comments for that post. By the way, these posts were from a conservative forum I belong to, Ricochet.
Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade
My
Comment:
I was in tears when I
heard. I thought it would be
anti-climatic given the leak of a few weeks ago, but it wasn’t. I am still moved beyond words. And it came on the Feast of the Sacred Heart
of Jesus! This is so momentous in my
life that I had to write up my own post.
God bless everyone who prayed or worked toward this day. It is a joyous moment.
Someone’s
Comment:
Donald Trump deserves
massive praise for sticking with Kavanaugh. He deserves credit for the 3
justices that joined Alito and Thomas. Credit to the Justices for the decision.
Credit to McConnell for holding the seat.
If nothing else came of
the Trump presidency, this was worth it. It was worth all the drama, mean
tweets, silly statements, hand wringing, all of it. I’d pay 10x that to have
this outcome. Trump’s presidency was overall great policy-wise, but this will
be the central pillar of his legacy.
This is the biggest pro life win since Roe. Now the battleground shifts to 51 smaller battles. Keep up the good fight.
My
Reply:
Absolutely! This will be Donald Trump’s greatest
achievement. No wishy-washy RINO
appointments to the SCOTUS. He is such
an imperfect man but I believe that God worked through him to get us here. May God bless Donald Trump for this.
Another
Person’s Comment:
I am amazed that
pro-lifers almost never used one of their strongest arguments, that Roe v. Wade
was designed and has functioned to reduce the growth of the black population.
For sociocultural reasons nobody understands, black women have abortions two or three times as often as white women.
My
Reply:
They do use that argument. It just doesn’t seem to resonate beyond those who are pro-life. If you’re pro-abortion, you don’t care where it came from.
Third
person’s Comment:
Just out of curiosity, has there been any analysis of how the final decision differs from the leaked draft?
My
Reply:
I heard it was near
identical to the leaked version. If
there are substantive differences it will come out in the following days.
Fourth
Person’s Comment:
I fear more states using this decision as a catalyst and liberalize their abortion laws to include late term abortions. I’m unfortunately doubtful this decision will decrease the amount of abortions. I sure hope I’m wrong.
My
Reply:
The stricter abortion laws of the last few years in the GOP states has most certainly reduced the number of abortions. You can find a number of articles on it, here’s one with data.
Fifth
Person’s Comment in Reply to Another Comment:
That assumes Blacks and Hispanics will remain perpetual wards of the Democrat Party. There has been significant slippage by both groups. In South Texas the Hispanics seem to be beginning the same type of political shift from Democrat to Republican that I witnessed in then sapphire-blue East Texas in the 1990s. If so, the Republicans benefit from banning abortion.
My
Reply:
I’ve said on a number of occasions this is a center left country and has been at least since 2000. However, if the Hispanics can come over to the right (say 40% Republican), then I think this country can be a center right country again. I’m not willing to compromise my principles, that wouldn’t be a center-right country, but we need to focus on them to persuade them to come over.
Sixth
Person’s (from Ireland) Comment in Reply to Another:
That was the biggest lie told in the run up to the repeal of the 8th amendment in Ireland. Even though the wording explicitly stated this, the pro abortions persistently pushed this lie that a woman would be denied life saving treatment if she was pregnant. So many people fell for it, ones you’d never expect
My
Reply:
People need a moral cover to implement and legalize sin. Then in time the sin “becomes” normal. That’s when they get outraged that a “right” will be taken away if ever challenged.
###
Why Are Abortion Proponents So Emotional?
My
Comment:
Why? That is a good question, which I’ve pondered
way back when Bill Clinton was triangulating. He could compromise on just about
anything when Republicans had that revolutionary retake of Congress in 1994.
Even when he was being impeached they stuck by him as long as he was
pro-abortion. So why do they hold on to abortion to this level? The only thing I can conclude is that this is
a “religious” issue for them. It’s a matter of doctrine, dogma, and “religious”
devotion. It is the left’s “sacrament” and Satanic devotion.
I should add to this. Abortion is the sacrament but the faith is in sexual freedom. Sexual freedom is their spiritual connection with whatever they consider divine. It’s actually quite a pagan outlook.
It’s true. Paradoxically
the more contraceptives the more abortions. It only takes one screw up and
you’re pregnant. This is why Planned Parenthood is such a pusher if
contraceptives. You would think it would be working against their interests.
But it doesn’t. It’s sympathetic to their interest in that it builds a culture
of sexual promiscuity.
###
Comment:
This is so but men were naturally made to rape and conquer foreigners. Nature sucks. We should try to move beyond our filthy ape nature.
Reply:
If men stop raping and conquering, civilization can still continue. Not so if women don’t have children.
My
Reply:
And men weren’t made to rape and conquer. That’s from his perverse understanding of humanity.
Reply
to my reply:
We are pretty close to
chimps mate. It ain’t pretty but it’s True.
My
Retort:
You maybe, but not me.
A
Different Person’s Reply to Me:
Religion has a refutation and an explanation for science, but… science also has an explanation for religion, and need not bother with refutation. That said, I agree that HC has mis-stated the case.
My
Reply:
Scientifically, the difference between a chimp and a human is great. Just look around you. Can a chimp design a car and build one? Does a chimp live in a house? Does a chimp create a bourbon I’m now sipping? Come on. You’ve bought into this pseudo science.
His
Reply:
I’m intrigued by chimp
bourbon.
My
Reply:
LOL. I’m not sure it’s worth trying.
###
A Missed Pro-Life Argument: Addressing Ambivalence
My
Comment:
I don’t know. There’s
always a mushy middle on every issue. Abortion strikes me as an issue where
there is a sharp and clear divide. It’s just a more emotional and polarizing
issue than others. And there’s very little room to compromise. You’re either
for it or against it. It should be made clear. The SCOTUS decision the other
day did not ban abortion. It returned the issue to where it rightly belongs,
the states.
A
Reply to Me:
Wrong. I, for one, am in the uncomfortable middle.
FWIW, here is the outline of my stance:
I am not religious, and I
don’t recognize moralizing arguments re abortion founded in any particular
religion. I also think the country is past the point where a religious based
argument will carry the day, it’s instead more likely to cause blowback.
Nonetheless, there needs
to be some recognizable combination of ethics and pragmatism, that is
reasonably likely to stand the test of time in the face of political, social
and technological change.
·
I personally believe the cutoff date for
abortion without evidence of grave harm to the mother should be at the point of
higher brain function, which is what distinguishes a potential human from an
animal. (So I’m already outside the all-or-nothing set.)
·
However, I don’t found my argument for a
public solution on that personal belief, instead I’m basing it on pragmatism,
specifically in what rationale is likely to survive technological and market
challenges.
·
Current technology allows a fetus to be
taken to term outside the womb for almost the entire third trimester. Killing
it rather than extracting it in that case I find hard to distinguish from
murder. I think that’s an argument that will largely resonate for anyone who’s
not an absolutist for abortion to the point of birth.
·
On the other hand, abortifacients, e.g.,
‘Plan B’ are readily available and that genie is not going back in the bottle.
Trying to outlaw abortions during the period when they are effective would lead
to an even more tragic drug war, with second order effects that would likely
include the creation of even more powerful and easily concealable abortion
doses. I think that’s also a reality that can be recognized by those who are
not religious absolutists against abortion of any kind.
·
And finally, the whole issue arises
tragically because people literally f*** up.
While there are accidents out there, the majority find themselves in a
morally compromised position due to incompetence or indifference. It’d be nice
if that could be an issue that both sides would cooperate to improve, but I’m
not holding my breath.
I will probably, as usual, take incoming from both sides. C’est la vie.
My
Reply Back:
No you’re wrong. You are objectively killing a human being no
matter what stage in their life, whether it be one second after fertilization
or one trimester or at birth at at two years old or forty years old or 100
years old. That is the objective
criteria. To kill a human being is
morally unethical at any stage. If you
don’t want a moral criteria, then you’re a liberal, playing God at will with
life and death depending on your utility.
“I personally believe the
cutoff date for abortion without evidence of grave harm to the mother should be
at the point of higher brain function, which is what distinguishes a potential
human from an animal. (So I’m already outside the all-or-nothing set.)”
Ha! That’s like five years old. That is the liberal criteria, sentience. What you are arguing for is infanticide, just
like Pete Singer and the radical leftist “ethicists” and filtered down to
college students arguing to kill two year olds.
This is the perfect example of why conservatism is not conservative unless it be linked to Judeo-Christian morality. You can’t have conservatism without God.
His
Reply:
Your actual statement of position is what I referred to as religious absolutism, and is an example of what I think will not only not win the day in public opinion, but will probably have negative results.
My
Reply:
No, it’s not religious
absolutism. It’s scientific
absolutism. A human being is a human
being at any stage after fertilization.
That’s the objective criteria.
Everything else is arbitrary for convenience.
His
Reply:
A normal embryo has the genetic endowment of a human being from the point of conception. It does not, however, have the fully developed phenotype of a human being, a reasoning mammal, which is when I would contend its rights begin to overwhelm any consideration of the mother. That’s just as ‘scientific’ as your formulation.
My
Reply:
Neither does a one day
old. Neither does a person born mentally
challenged. Neither does a person who
has severe brain damage. This again is
the Liberal argument from sentience.
His
Reply:
No, it’s not. I’m saying the cutoff is evidence of cerebral cortex function. Neural activity, no IQ tests, no sanity checks. How about engaging with that argument instead of name calling or putting words in my mouth. I’m told that’s more persuasive.
My
Reply:
I didn’t call you any names. I’m not sure there is much of a distinction between sentience and brain function ability. Even if granted the distinction, it’s still an in process of development moment in time that considers a person not to be a person because he is not fully developed. I don’t see that as any ethically different.
A
Different Person Replying:
Definitively. Evaluation of human worth and subsequent
killability is not a matter of individual estimation. Either it is human, and individual, and
living, or it is not. Once we start
saying that a human life is not old enough to be of worth, or thoughtful enough
to be of worth. Then all killing of
innocent life is reasonable.
A newly fertilized egg will mature into if all goes well and according to nature’s plan a 70 or 80 or 90 or 100-year-old man or woman. We don’t have the right to say one person is worth this existence and another is not.
My
Reply to the Third Person:
Thank you. No argument
can sustain philosophic inconsistency. That’s why the Liberals changed their
criteria from “it’s not human” to sentience as to when to allow abortion. They
lost the argument that it’s not human.
By the way, the “it’s not human” argument was the same argument used to justify slavery of blacks. It was no longer sustainable once you had objective facts.
A
Fourth Person Replying to Me:
Actually, I believe there
are some variations that suggest a middle ground, albeit a middle ground that
would be totally unsatisfactory to anyone who believes that life begins at
conception.
For example, a majority
of Americans believe that abortion (at an early stage) is acceptable in cases
of rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother. Many also believe that
abortion is acceptable (at some point) when the baby will be born with down
syndrome or some other genetic deformity.
In my state, Ohio, for
example, the Republican legislature adopted a heartbeat bill, which suggests
that the states interest in protecting the baby’s life begins when the baby has
a heartbeat and thus could theoretically survive outside the mother. This is,
of course, a very early stage of pregnancy.
To me, these are middle grounds that would be unacceptable to those whose beliefs inhabit the far ends of the debate (like me), but they are middle grounds nevertheless.
My
Reply to the Fourth Person:
Well, there is political
power and political power will ultimately get its way. I have been arguing from the philosophic
merits of the issue. Each state will
find some balancing point to satisfy the most voters. But mind you, this is raw political power,
not philosophic consistency or more importantly ethical justification. It is the same raw political power that
determined people with black skin were not human beings and justified
enslavement or the same raw political power that determined in Nazi Germany
that six million people were not human enough to live. Raw political power, that is, might, does not
make right. And for certain there is no
nobility in it.
Let me tell you something
about the heartbeat criteria. I’ve been
close to the pro-life movement for at least ten years, probably more. When I was looking for some sort of
compromising criteria, I came up with the heartbeat. No where had I ever heard anyone propose it,
and for the longest time I still hadn’t.
I thought I held the secret formula for compromise. Not that I published it anywhere, but since I
never heard anyone else bring it up I held it close to my heart. The first I heard anyone was a year to two
years ago when one of the states recently brought it up as a criteria. Perhaps it was Ohio. I thought, finally someone is bringing this
up, but by this time I had come to the realization that it is just as much a
human being before the heart starts beating as after. The normal human progress is under way, just
as any normal human progress, just as my body at 60 is heading toward
senescence. A human being is a human being at whatever stage it is at. It does not meet meet the ethical criteria.
Now that is not to say I would not accept it. The heart starts beating at six weeks or less. That’s pretty early and is a firm criteria that an abortionist can be held to. If the most Liberal of the states would adopt the heartbeat criteria I would be thrilled. I think I’ve mentioned this before. On abortion I feel like Schindler at the end of the movie, Schindler’s List. How can I save one more.
My
Concluding Comment:
Any line that is drawn
will be purely arbitrary, except perhaps the heartbeat line as David mentioned
above. Some would like to pick a spot
where the child has not developed pain yet.
That can’t be done. There is no
way to know that, and it’s actually an admittance of the cruelty of what is
done during an abortion. The heartbeat
is a clear marker that you can measure and is a sort of incomplete science
where one can claim that life begins there.
That’s why I was so hot on it for a number of years. But it’s incomplete because one has to put
blinders on as to what is happening beforehand.
By the way, I don’t think
I have ever brought up religion in this argument. I have brought up human ethics. It’s the pro-aborts who always claim
pro-lifers are motivated by religion.
Perhaps there is an intertwining of ethics, religion, and pro-life, but
I have not made any argument from a religious point of view. Perhaps there is no human ethics if one does
not believe in religion. Dostoyevsky
seemed to think so: “Without God all things are permitted.”
