The Changing Face of the Abortion Debate
Richard John Neuhaus discusses the changing face of the abortion debate at First Things:
What we do know for sure is that there are now almost no defenders of Roe’s legal or medical coherence, and that the abortion license it imposed by judicial fiat has not been legitimated by public acceptance. In whatever form after Roe presents itself, we can expect broad political support for the goal of becoming a society in which every unborn child is protected in law and welcomed in life. There will always be some abortions, as there will always be some rapes, robberies, and other forms of unjustified killing. Some states will probably permit abortion-inducing contraceptives, and others may make exceptions for the commonly-mentioned cases of rape, incest, and direct threat to the life of the mother.
But it would be a great mistake to underestimate the resurgence of moral reason and common sense in the aftermath of the demise of the Roe regime. The claim advanced by Justice Ruth Ginsberg and others that Roe simply (and recklessly) accelerated the movement of public sentiment in favor of abortion is false. As Joseph Bottum noted in yesterday’s posting, Russell Hittinger documented in Abortion Before Roe in the October 1994 issue of FIRST THINGS, that Americans were, in the years and months prior to Roe, moving in the direction of greater legal protection of the unborn.
As the late Justice Byron White said at the time, Roe was an act of raw judicial power that wiped off the books of all fifty states existing protections of the unborn. In the breadth and brutality of its sweep, it is worth remembering, the Roe decision greatly surprised also those who were pressing for liberalized abortion law. Before January 22, 1973, the position mandated by Roe was generally viewed as extremist.
Father Neuhaus dissects the issue brilliantly. Be sure to read the entire piece.
What we do know for sure is that there are now almost no defenders of Roe’s legal or medical coherence, and that the abortion license it imposed by judicial fiat has not been legitimated by public acceptance. In whatever form after Roe presents itself, we can expect broad political support for the goal of becoming a society in which every unborn child is protected in law and welcomed in life. There will always be some abortions, as there will always be some rapes, robberies, and other forms of unjustified killing. Some states will probably permit abortion-inducing contraceptives, and others may make exceptions for the commonly-mentioned cases of rape, incest, and direct threat to the life of the mother.
But it would be a great mistake to underestimate the resurgence of moral reason and common sense in the aftermath of the demise of the Roe regime. The claim advanced by Justice Ruth Ginsberg and others that Roe simply (and recklessly) accelerated the movement of public sentiment in favor of abortion is false. As Joseph Bottum noted in yesterday’s posting, Russell Hittinger documented in Abortion Before Roe in the October 1994 issue of FIRST THINGS, that Americans were, in the years and months prior to Roe, moving in the direction of greater legal protection of the unborn.
As the late Justice Byron White said at the time, Roe was an act of raw judicial power that wiped off the books of all fifty states existing protections of the unborn. In the breadth and brutality of its sweep, it is worth remembering, the Roe decision greatly surprised also those who were pressing for liberalized abortion law. Before January 22, 1973, the position mandated by Roe was generally viewed as extremist.
Father Neuhaus dissects the issue brilliantly. Be sure to read the entire piece.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:43 AM
2 Comments:
Thanks but I am tired of dealing with people who just want to commit cultural suicide.
What liberals don't even care to mention is that only in the United States is it permissible to kill an unborn child as late as full term nine months as is done in so-called "partial-birth abortion", otherwise known as infanticide. In most of the European countries there is a strict limit on how late you can have your abortion, usually something like the third month.
In addition, I think the advent of technology such as ultrasound, which is now ubiquitous must give even liberals pause as they watch their own baby (or those of friends or relatives) suck their thumbs, move, stretch, etc. in even the early stages of pregnancy. Having seen that only a really hard-hearted and jaded person could persist in calling it anything other than what it is -- murder of the unborn and most helpless among us.
Post a Comment
<< Home