Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Abortion Always Takes a Human Life
Gregg at Pundit Review knocks it out of the park with his response to these comments by Roger Pilon in WSJ
Whether we believe that the right to life begins at conception or at some point over the next 270 days, we all believe, I hope, that it begins at some point along that line. We all agree, there is some point at which abortion amounts to murder…we just can’t agree on where that point is.
Gregg fires back:
This is utter nonsense. We should be able to agree on “when life begins” since it is an undisputed empirical biological fact that can be found in any first year medical student’s embryology textbook that life begins at conception when the human sperm fertilizes the egg-called the process of “fecundation.” Any other arbitrary demarcation of “when human life begins” contradicts this scientific fact. There is no debate on “when human life begins.”
I encourage you to read the whole post, it is tremendous. However his response to a readers comment deserves a post of its own:
Doug H, you say:
“If “everyone” agreed, there would be no Roe in the first place, and no abortions at all–or conversely there would have been no need for Roe in the first place.”
Of course not “everyone” agreed that abortion should be banned or heavily restricted, however all 50 states had laws on the books prior to Roe which either banned or heavily restricted the practice. The overwhelming majority of Americans opposed abortion until the activist Douglas Court decided Roe based on the infamous “penumbras and emenations” of the Constitution- some recondite “right of privacy” based on the Griswald discision in 1965. As Roger Pilon states in his article that I link to, even Ruth Bader Ginsberg admitted in her 1993 Madison Lecture at NYU Law School that Roe was not solid constitutional law and that a more “measured” opinion might have spared the nation this pain. The premise of your argument is flawed. To say there was a “need” for Roe because not everyone “agreed” doesn’t make any sense. The fact is that the activist Warren Court imposed their own social views on America by usurping the legislative authority of the individual states to decide abortion on their own. I encourage you to check out “Men in Black” by Mark Levin for a full history of Roe and the cases which preceded it. It is highly instructive to see how Justices Lewis Powell and Potter Stewart who voted with the majority in Roe were influenced by their own personal preferences. Potter Stewart, for example saw abortion as a reasonable solution for population control. Blackmun as well acknowledged similar policy issues at stake in the abortion debate including population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones. Unfortunately personal policy preferences have nothing to do with constitutional analysis. Liberals unanimously concur that Roe was justified on policy grounds and not legal grounds. Again, the judicial branch of our government only has the authority to interpret the law not to make it (legislate from the bench). Not only wasn’t there a “need” for Roe, there is never a “need” for any activist decision not founded entirely on the constitution of the United States of America. When people “disagree” it is for the people themselves to decide via the constitutionally proscribed legislative process. Although I do agree that when it comes to abortion, because of the proclivity of activist courts to overthrow and usurp the will of the people as communicated at the ballot box, in this case, as I mentioned, I believe a Constitutional Right to Life Amendment is necessary to protect every living human being regardless of what stage of development. Even the most defenseless human beings are protected under our Constitution.
To your second point:
“Obviously, reasonable (and unreasonable) people disagree, which is why the debate continues, probably without end, and why many pro-choice (NOT necessarily “pro-abortion”) people acknowledge the reproductive rights of those who believe differently than you do.”
First of all, people who claim to be “pro choice” are always “pro abortion.” Let me explain why.
Claiming that one is personally opposed to child abuse but in favor of his neighbor’s “right” to abuse his child is the same in that it recognizes and promotes the very legitimacy and social acceptance of child abuse.
Similarly, when an individual claims that he opposes abortion because he believes it to be the deliberate taking of life, he is, in effect, legitimizing and condoning abortion when he or she cedes that “right” to others. This is an untenable and illogical position which cannot be rationally justified. Individuals who make this claim believe that they have taken a “middle of the road” more “moderate” position in between the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” positions. However, one cannot have it both ways. Either an individual believes that all human life is sacred and deserves legal protection or he doesn’t. People who are “pro-choice” vote the same way that “pro-abortion” people vote. Both vote against conferring legal protection on the unborn.
The bottom line is that those who call themselves “pro-choice” oppose legal protection for the unborn and condone the murder of other developing babies. Indeed, one can’t be pro-choice and pro-life simultaneously. The statement that “I believe that abortion is murder and am personally opposed to murder but support a women’s right to choose murder” is an irreconcilable, confused, and utterly absurd notion that is totally inane.
And there is more. This is some of the best commentary I've seen on the subject, Gregg has done his homework and then some. If you are not familiar with Kevin and Gregg's radio show, please check out the archives.
Whether we believe that the right to life begins at conception or at some point over the next 270 days, we all believe, I hope, that it begins at some point along that line. We all agree, there is some point at which abortion amounts to murder…we just can’t agree on where that point is.
Gregg fires back:
This is utter nonsense. We should be able to agree on “when life begins” since it is an undisputed empirical biological fact that can be found in any first year medical student’s embryology textbook that life begins at conception when the human sperm fertilizes the egg-called the process of “fecundation.” Any other arbitrary demarcation of “when human life begins” contradicts this scientific fact. There is no debate on “when human life begins.”
I encourage you to read the whole post, it is tremendous. However his response to a readers comment deserves a post of its own:
Doug H, you say:
“If “everyone” agreed, there would be no Roe in the first place, and no abortions at all–or conversely there would have been no need for Roe in the first place.”
Of course not “everyone” agreed that abortion should be banned or heavily restricted, however all 50 states had laws on the books prior to Roe which either banned or heavily restricted the practice. The overwhelming majority of Americans opposed abortion until the activist Douglas Court decided Roe based on the infamous “penumbras and emenations” of the Constitution- some recondite “right of privacy” based on the Griswald discision in 1965. As Roger Pilon states in his article that I link to, even Ruth Bader Ginsberg admitted in her 1993 Madison Lecture at NYU Law School that Roe was not solid constitutional law and that a more “measured” opinion might have spared the nation this pain. The premise of your argument is flawed. To say there was a “need” for Roe because not everyone “agreed” doesn’t make any sense. The fact is that the activist Warren Court imposed their own social views on America by usurping the legislative authority of the individual states to decide abortion on their own. I encourage you to check out “Men in Black” by Mark Levin for a full history of Roe and the cases which preceded it. It is highly instructive to see how Justices Lewis Powell and Potter Stewart who voted with the majority in Roe were influenced by their own personal preferences. Potter Stewart, for example saw abortion as a reasonable solution for population control. Blackmun as well acknowledged similar policy issues at stake in the abortion debate including population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones. Unfortunately personal policy preferences have nothing to do with constitutional analysis. Liberals unanimously concur that Roe was justified on policy grounds and not legal grounds. Again, the judicial branch of our government only has the authority to interpret the law not to make it (legislate from the bench). Not only wasn’t there a “need” for Roe, there is never a “need” for any activist decision not founded entirely on the constitution of the United States of America. When people “disagree” it is for the people themselves to decide via the constitutionally proscribed legislative process. Although I do agree that when it comes to abortion, because of the proclivity of activist courts to overthrow and usurp the will of the people as communicated at the ballot box, in this case, as I mentioned, I believe a Constitutional Right to Life Amendment is necessary to protect every living human being regardless of what stage of development. Even the most defenseless human beings are protected under our Constitution.
To your second point:
“Obviously, reasonable (and unreasonable) people disagree, which is why the debate continues, probably without end, and why many pro-choice (NOT necessarily “pro-abortion”) people acknowledge the reproductive rights of those who believe differently than you do.”
First of all, people who claim to be “pro choice” are always “pro abortion.” Let me explain why.
Claiming that one is personally opposed to child abuse but in favor of his neighbor’s “right” to abuse his child is the same in that it recognizes and promotes the very legitimacy and social acceptance of child abuse.
Similarly, when an individual claims that he opposes abortion because he believes it to be the deliberate taking of life, he is, in effect, legitimizing and condoning abortion when he or she cedes that “right” to others. This is an untenable and illogical position which cannot be rationally justified. Individuals who make this claim believe that they have taken a “middle of the road” more “moderate” position in between the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” positions. However, one cannot have it both ways. Either an individual believes that all human life is sacred and deserves legal protection or he doesn’t. People who are “pro-choice” vote the same way that “pro-abortion” people vote. Both vote against conferring legal protection on the unborn.
The bottom line is that those who call themselves “pro-choice” oppose legal protection for the unborn and condone the murder of other developing babies. Indeed, one can’t be pro-choice and pro-life simultaneously. The statement that “I believe that abortion is murder and am personally opposed to murder but support a women’s right to choose murder” is an irreconcilable, confused, and utterly absurd notion that is totally inane.
And there is more. This is some of the best commentary I've seen on the subject, Gregg has done his homework and then some. If you are not familiar with Kevin and Gregg's radio show, please check out the archives.
papijoe 12:43 PM
|