In Memoriam
From Michael Paulsen's incredible essay on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, posted today on RealClearPolitics, a piece that manages to be both scrupulously objective and emotionally devastating:
After nearly four decades, Roe’s human death toll stands at nearly sixty million human lives, a total exceeding the Nazi Holocaust, Stalin’s purges, Pol Pot’s killing fields, and the Rwandan genocide combined. Over the past forty years, one-sixth of the American population has been killed by abortion. One in four African-Americans is killed before birth. Abortion is the leading cause of (unnatural) death in America.
And later:
Roe is a radical decision and a legally indefensible one. But what really makes Roe unbearably wrong is its consequences. The result of Roe and Doe has been the legally authorized killing of nearly sixty million Americans since 1973. Roe v. Wade authorized unrestricted private violence against human life on an almost unimaginable scale, and did so, falsely, in the name of the Constitution.
It is hard to escape this conclusion, but not impossible—and many certainly try. I will not here belabor the question of whether the intentional killing of innocent, dependent, vulnerable human children is a grave moral wrong. My concluding point concerns the lengths to which we will go to deny the reality of this holocaust, because it is almost unbearable to contemplate and still go on living life as if nothing is terribly wrong. The cognitive dissonance is simply too great. And so we have become, in effect, a nation of holocaust deniers.
- Comment (100)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: In Memoriam
NormD:
If you guys are so opposed to abortion, then convince your fellow citizens to outlaw it. Abortion was legal in California, where I live, before Roe and it would remain legal even if Roe were repealed.
Of course, abortion was outlawed in the vast majority of the country, and had been outlawed in California until relatively recently before Roe.
The fact is, the country was persuaded that abortion was wrong.
What changed is that the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, which almost everyone agrees was a shoddy piece of reasoning, established a moral standard (privacy) that prevented argument. You can't argue that abortion opponents have failed to persuade anyone, because legally, abortion opponents have never been given a chance to argue the law. The principle of privacy has simply been asserted to cover abortion, and there has yet to be a coherent argument that establishes why.
Indeed, the Court now doesn't even bother arguing for Roe's logic. In Casey, the Court simply declared Roe moot but that abortion is now too ingrained to get rid of it.
The fact is, we've won the argument.
Re: In Memoriam
I respectfully refer you to the 5th Amendment, which says explicitly (not in a penumbra) that we must portect life.
Re: In Memoriam
NormD:
Abortion was legal in California, where I live, before Roe and it would remain legal even if Roe were repealed.
And before that it was illegal in California. Governor Reagan signed a law legalizing it.
I'm imagining there would be efforts to repeal it, but contrary to your "let the people" decide" argument, thanks to Roe we aren't allowed to let the people decide.
Roe, it appears, is responsible for tens of millions of deaths.
Nov '11
Re: In Memoriam
Mama Toad
Astonishing: Unless we repair our sexual mores, we will not be able to limit abortion in any substantial way.
As long as we maintain the social acceptability of having sexual relations without benefit of marriage, we will maintain abortion.
Because we love sexual promiscuity more than we hate abortion, we'll find whatever rationale is useful to maintain the "quick fix" that seems to avoid the consequences.
To say such things is to reveal oneself as ridiculously prudish and old-fashioned. · 11 minutes ago
I'm a prude too!!! · 39 minutes ago
Well, that makes two . . . which is, I suppose, a start.
Dec '11
Re: In Memoriam
Well, the thread has been lively, I see.
My original point was that invoking terms like holocaust, murder or mass slaughter when discussing abortion is repulsive. Oh, it plays well to the choir, but then, hysterical rhetoric often does.
The fact is, though, that in a nation where only 20 percent of the people believe abortion should be illegal under all circumstances, for the decided minority to self-righteously hurl comparisons to Nazis and Pol Pot at the majority is a distasteful spectacle.
Mar '11
Re: In Memoriam
HVTs
Since you've nothing for which to apologize, your apology is not accepted. Well there is one thing . . . murdering "useless eaters" was never "reasonable sounding." It was always fiendish to even have that verbal construct.
Good point, HVTs. I was trying to finish it fast because I was late for something. They tried to make it sound merciful at the beginning, but a large number of people weren't having any. It was this, coupled with the treatment of the Jews, that set off Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
(I just finished Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy this weekend. All you'll ever need to slap down anyone running that "Hitler was a Christian" garbage past you.)
I also misspelled "apologized."
May '10
Re: In Memoriam
Nobody's Perfect:
My original point was that invoking terms like holocaust, murder or mass slaughter when discussing abortion is repulsive...
The fact is, though, that in a nation where only 20 percent of the people believe abortion should be illegal under all circumstances, for the decided minority to self-righteously hurl comparisons to Nazis and Pol Pot at the majority is a distasteful spectacle.
The whole question is whether it is true that in utero babies, by virtue of their being human beings, have an unalienable right to life, or whether they may be killed at will by their mothers.
If the former is true, as we claim and argue, then comparisons to the Holocaust or to the slaughter of innocents—considering the tens of millions of tiny lives involved—however repulsive to those who don't want to hear it, are entirely justified.
The fact that this or that percentage of people don't see the truth for what it is utterly beside the point.
How is it to the point that only 20 percent of people believe that it should be illegal under all circumstances?
Edited on Jan 23 at 4:27pmOct '10
Re: In Memoriam
Tommy De Seno
I respectfully refer you to the 5th Amendment, which says explicitly (not in a penumbra) that we must portect life.
Yes, it says, "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Of course, "due process" as concerns a fetus is (how's this for understatement?) problematic to implement. So, that's why I'm content to let Profs Yoo & Epstein sort this out for us, penumbra and all. If the Constitutional answers were straightforward, we wouldn't be having this tortuous debate.
Jan '12
Re: In Memoriam
Nobody's Perfect: ...
The fact is, though, that in a nation where only 20 percent of the people believe abortion should be illegal under all circumstances, for the decided minority to self-righteously hurl comparisons to Nazis and Pol Pot at the majority is a distasteful spectacle. · 23 minutes ago
As distasteful as abortion itself?
I don't really want to fight with you. I'll assume that you are raising a tactical issue. I'll just mention that the battle for public opinion takes time. Pro-abortion advocates used wild rhetoric (plus their advantage in the colleges and on the newspapers) to belittle pro-life folks. But the tide may turn, and it will be the homicides who will have to face the rhetorical heat.
The campaign to end slavery in America persisted for at least eighty years. Some abolitionists used the more moderate persuasions of Harriet Beecher Stowe, some the more bombastic scoldings of William Lloyd Garrison. Both played parts in ending that evil.
I'll also add that if the question were returned to the states' legislatures, laws and punishments could be designed to address the issues of circumstances you raise.
Nov '11
Re: In Memoriam
Nobody's Perfect:
My original point was that invoking terms like holocaust, murder or mass slaughter when discussing abortion is repulsive. Oh, it plays well to the choir, but then, hysterical rhetoric often does.
The fact is, though, that in a nation where only 20 percent of the people believe abortion should be illegal under all circumstances, for the decided minority to self-righteously hurl comparisons to Nazis and Pol Pot at the majority is a distasteful spectacle.
Such analogies are not excessive.
Which polite words should one use to describe the practice of chopping to pieces an innocent human being alive inside its mother's womb?
One can hardly conceive an act more unnatural, brutal, and inhuman.
To imagine vividly such a thing done only once chills the soul, and makes one feel ashamed of one's own humanity.
Multiply by sixty million individual events . . . and then frail humanity becomes too weak to admit the horror of the brutal acts, but instead complains about the distasteful words.
Repulsive words fit to describe repulsive acts.
Edited on Jan 23 at 5:07pmDec '11
Re: In Memoriam
The whole question is whether it is true that in utero babies, by virtue of their being human beings
It's your belief that life begins at conception. And that's fine. Others, who do not share that belief, are hardly going to be brought around to your view by vilification.
You've got a lot of persuading to do. Remember, you are, ultimately, advocating the imprisonment of people's wives, daughters, sisters and doctors. Shrieking "holocaust" and "murder" isn't going to help you.
Dec '11
Re: In Memoriam
How is it to the point that only 20 percent of people believe that it should be illegal under all circumstances?
Because you posture as though you have a monopoly upon the one revealed truth, when, in fact, you're a member of a marginal minority.
Jan '11
Re: In Memoriam
Shrieking?
Whoa there. You characterize pro-lifers as "shrieking," while at the same time saying that vilification isn't going to help. Well, describing us as shrieking isn't exactly ... polite ... is it? And it isn't helping, is it?
Your position is that people will be offended if you tell them that their actions cause death to innocent life. That the legalization of this procedure has caused death to tens of millions of innocent lives. Pointing that out, and refusing to resort to euphemisms, isn't shrieking at people.
Re: In Memoriam
Nobody's Perfect: .
... for the decided minority to self-righteously hurl comparisons to Nazis and Pol Pot at the majority is a distasteful spectacle. · 2 hours ago
The only one doing that is you, NP.
The comparisons I see the rest of us making is to the number of dead, nothing else. I would be no more comparing American mothers who have aborted to Hitler than I would mothers to car accidents if I were to compare the deaths there.
May '10
Re: In Memoriam
Mama Toad
Karen
The abortion argument should be about class warfare, not legality or morality. The Right has failed to argue on these terms. You won't convince women to stop having abortions by claiming the moral high ground. Abortion disproportionately impacts the poor and minorities, yet despite their support of abortion the Left has their vote, all while they promote a culture of dependency and victimhood. The fact that this persists reflects a failure on the part of pro-life conservatives. It doesn't matter if pro-lifers feel their beliefs are justified, continuing to make the same arguments, the same way (and shooting the messenger) and expecting a different outcome is, well, crazy. Pro-life conservatives must spend more energy proposing and supporting alternatives to abortion, creating opportunities for people to better themselves, instead of spending a great deal of time condemning those who support abortion.
Edited on Jan 23 at 6:23pmRe: In Memoriam
Nobody's Perfect:
It's your belief that life begins at conception.
Are you denying science? Not one scientist in the world will say the zygote is not "alive." You are confusing "alive" which is a scientific term with "personhood" which is a purely legal term defined by legislators (and Judges) which has no scientific meaning.
May '10
Re: In Memoriam
Karen
Mama Toad
Karen
The abortion argument should be about class warfare, not legality or morality. The Right has failed to argue on these terms. You won't convince women to stop having abortions by claiming the moral high ground. Abortion disproportionately impacts the poor and minorities, yet despite their support of abortion the Left has their vote, all while they promote a culture of dependency and victimhood. The fact that this persists reflects a failure on the part of pro-life conservatives. It doesn't matter if pro-lifers feel their beliefs are justified, continuing to make the same arguments, the same way (and shooting the messenger) and expecting a different outcome is, well, crazy. Pro-life conservatives must spend more energy proposing and supporting alternatives to abortion, creating opportunities for people to better themselves, instead of spending a great deal of time condemning those who support abortion. · 1 hour ago
Edited 50 minutes ago
Oh, but conservative have, Karen, through private adoption agencies, teen pregnancy crisis centers which advocate adoption. The gov't under the Bush W. admin. even made a wrong-headed decision to subsidize adoption - $10,000 worth per kid.
May '10
Re: In Memoriam
Tommy De Seno
Nobody's Perfect:
It's your belief that life begins at conception.
Are you denying science? Not one scientist in the world will say the zygote is not "alive." You are confusing "alive" which is a scientific term with "personhood" which is a purely legal term defined by legislators (and Judges) which has no scientific meaning. · 1 hour ago
One of the first thing we learn in biological sciences is that a cell is a smallest living oraganism.
Edited on Jan 23 at 7:22pmMay '10
Re: In Memoriam
Tommy De Seno
I respectfully refer you to the 5th Amendment, which says explicitly (not in a penumbra) that we must portect life. · 4 hours ago
The Constitution stipulates that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, etc without due process. Presumably, you go on to infer that the Constitution prohibits abortion, since abortion is the deprivation of life without due process. The implicit premise however is that a fetus is a person.
-A person is something which may not be deprived of its life without due process
-A fetus is a person
-A fetus is something which may not be deprived of its life without due process, i.e., abortion is unconstitutional.
In this case, one can quite easily concede that a fetus is living; this is uncontroversial. But what's a person and how does a fetus qualify?
Jan '11
Re: In Memoriam
How about this question first: why make a distinction between a living human being ... and a person?
Is it that we have a definition of personhood and we're trying to fit the fetus into that defintion ... or ... is it that the legal idea of personhood is a fiction in the first place?
One note to consider: no "person" is anything other than a single human being, or a group of living human beings acting in concert. Whether single or a group .. they're all composed of living human beings. You cannot have a legal person without at least one human living being.
If you're a living human being ... you're a person. Persons may be more than one living human being, but they can't be anything less.