The vast recognition of the astounding accomplishments of Apple’s Steve Jobs seems not much to have focused on the fact that — according to the moral views that have prevailed in the United States for most of his adult life — he, as the unintended issue of a young, unmarried couple of limited means, was a prime candidate for abortion, which the Supreme Court has determined to be a matter of a woman’s privacy and sole authority over her own body.
My purpose is not to reopen the vexed abortion debate, only the questionable reasoning behind the current state of the law, and the unrigorous philosophical selectivity of some leading jurists. The abortion issue depends on the point at which the unborn are deemed to have obtained the rights of a person, when their right to life supersedes their mothers’ right to control all that occurs within their own bodies. Perfectly good arguments can be, and have endlessly been, made for every option, from conception to birth at the end of term. Majority opinion in most Western countries is that it’s the point at which a baby is reasonably likely, with sophisticated medical attention, to survive: about five months.
Advertisement
The intensive activities of the pro-life faction, especially the Roman Catholic Church, have debunked the theory with which the pro-abortionists began, that it was exclusively a female-privacy issue of no more moral significance than disposing of a dishcloth. If Steve Jobs, who has been rightly claimed to have been one of the great commercial and marketing geniuses of world history, had been conceived ten years later, in 1965, or after, his parents would have been aggressively counseled to abort him. And that advice — and, if it were followed, the procedure itself — would probably have been government-assisted, even if only indirectly, by tax-favored treatment of the counseling agency.
The issue of disposing of large numbers of conceived but unborn people involves practical as well as moral considerations. At the time Steve Jobs was born, in 1955, concern was already rising about the world population explosion, and the need to seek Zero Population Growth. In this area, almost all advanced countries have been overachievers and have fallen into chronically low levels of demographic regeneration.
Instead of addressing abortion, as they should have done, Congress and state legislators waffled, abstained, and failed to do what legislators are needed, elected, and paid to do, and left it to the courts, a shameful abdication. It was a dereliction on all fours with Congress’s refusal to deal with immigration as millions of unauthorized and unskilled people poured into the country, and scores of millions of low-paying jobs were outsourced out of it.
There has been no serious public discussion of trying to promote — by incentivization, not coercion (as first India and now China have tried) — an optimal demographic policy, even as the population ages and the richest nation in history stares myopically at the impending bankruptcy of its public sector. America is being led into the slaughterhouse of insolvency by the Judas goat of unbalanceable social programs, as a shrinking proportion of earners creaks under the burden of an ever-larger number and proportion of medically expensive, elderly recipients of benefits.
As a historian of America, you make a fine Canadian journalist.
In fact, prior to 1973, state legislatures had made their feelings on the unborn well known. The Court's ruling invalidated statutes in 46 states. The Court did not relieve the legislators of a burden; it usurped their power and slapped their respective electorates in the face.
"and its most vocal current Roman Catholic member, swaddling himself in his faith, upholds the death penalty in contradiction to the popes, holds in pectore his views on abortion "
You might want to do a little reading up on the Church because this statement is categorically false. The Church does not condemn the death penalty. Her teaching on this issue is that it can be used in extreme circumstances or when there is no other recourse. The wording is such that, frankly, it's not at all improper for a Catholic to support the death penalty (though I personally do not). Abortion, on the other hand, is a crystal clear matter where the Church's teaching is unequivocal.
Long story short, your screed is based on a false assumption that Scalia's support for the death penalty runs counter to Church teaching.
"Her teaching on this issue is that it can be used in extreme circumstances or when there is no other recourse."
I would substitute "and" for "or" in this sentence. The Catholic Church does not approve of capital punishment in the scenarios that end up in front of Justice Scalia.
Mr. Black, I think you'll agree that one of the things we conservatives value in a SC Justice is adherence to the Constitution above all other things. When Justice Ginsberg said a few years ago that the Court should be expected to source from foreign laws and norms in making their rulings we conservatives blew our tops, and rightly so. Scalia is doing the right thing by making his rulings on the death penalty based on our Constitution and not on what the Pope has to say about it. What he did say at that commencement address about resigning if the church disagreed was silly, but his actions have been correct.
Also, the legislature did not shirk from abortion and leave it to the courts. They very clearly made abortion illegal. The courts stole the issue and way exceeded their mandate when they did it, almost entirely giving up the pretense of interpreting the law rather than writing it.
See Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995). However I take the point of Cardinal Newman's 'I wish there was less of fudge and humbug everywhere, one might shovel off cart-loads from this place and not miss it'.
Ditto Paul Zummo. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does NOT explicitly condemn the death penalty. There are weasel-words about "..if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor." Only a lawyer could love that statement.
With the death penalty, sometimes an innocent life is taken. With abortion, the percentage of innocent life destroyed is 100%.
Thank you; you phrased my response in a much shorter form that I would have. (I see that Paul Zummo responded much more comprehensively that I could manage, too -- External Link )
The only thing I'd add is that it's ironic that he chooses to attack the Justice's knowledge of the Popes' authority on this issue, while apparently being ignorant himself.
This column could only have been written by a European. Justice Scalia has never suggested that states may not permit abortion--in fact, he's stated the exact opposite--which gives the lie to the claim that he's just indulging his moral/religious views. And his statement on the death penalty is a model of how an officeholder should behave when his official duty (i.e., to say what the law is) contradicts his personal morality.
Conrad is usually a reasonably sound, logical author. But this article is some of the most confused and mis-informed tripe I have ever read on this site. Maureen Dowd? Please.
Mr. Black writes plenty of mis-informed tripe on this site. Remember when Mr. Black wrote that the revolutionary activities of our Founders was "essentially a masterly spin job on a rather grubby contest about taxes"?
I commented on Ms >Coffen's post stating I hadn't read Black's comments.
Now I have. This is the most woefully unimpressive rambling I've read in some time.
How can it be said that "legislators didn't deal with abortion"? 21 states outlawed abortion at the time of Roe. 29 did not. At the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, all but 1 state outlawed it. So, at some point between 1868 and 1973, a lot of states repealed their abortion bans, save 21.
They dealt with it. And it was hoisted on the Court by those who didn't like the legislative action taken in the remaining 21 states.
Why it should be a federal issue is beyond comprehension, in a republic of 50 separate sovereigns.
Justice Scalia's jurisprudence, which does not follow the Catholic Catechism, allows for the states to deal with life and death issues, as our fundamental charter, our history and our traditions advise.
"Swaddling himself in his faith"? That's absurd. Perhaps with extra time on his hands, Mr. Black wishes to point to the clause in the Constitution which permits abortion.
I point him to the first clause of the Fifth Amendment, which outlines a procedural requirement for the imposition of the death penalty.
To pick up a hatchet job by Maureen Dowd and to run with it a few extra miles is one thing. To do so in a woefully more confused fashion than she did does not instill confidence in Mr. Black's sleep patterns form his current residence.
Read the Constitution, Mr. Black. That would be a good place to start. Hopefully for your sake, that would clear up much of your confusion.
I hope that the NRO editors are a little more on-the-ball next time, and will shortstop Mr. Black's material if it is as poorly written as this was. Disappointing.
"Instead of addressing abortion, as they should have done, Congress and state legislators waffled, abstained, and failed to do what legislators are needed, elected, and paid to do, and left it to the courts, a shameful abdication."
Others have covered most of the mistakes of fact and the erroneous thinking within this statement. I would just add: a shameful abdication for *Congress* not to have done anything about abortion? Done what? With what power? Where in the Constitution would that power be located?
"The vast recognition of the astounding accomplishments of Apple’s Steve Jobs seems not much to have focused on the fact that — according to the moral views that have prevailed in the United States for most of his adult life — he, as the unintended issue of a young, unmarried couple of limited means, was a prime candidate for abortion, which the Supreme Court has determined to be a matter of a woman’s privacy and sole authority over her own body."
Why the hell would ANY focus be on an alternate universe scenario regarding Steve Jobs? How out of left field can you get?
"My purpose is not to reopen the vexed abortion debate..."
Sorry, I could get no further into this idiocy. That was EXACTLY your purpose, you hypocrite.
Only to Conrad Black could Gates' parentage be considered "of limited means". And calling a couple who married four years before Bill's birth as "unmarried" at the time is, frankly, bizarre. And that's just the opening paragraph.
If this (not to mention the mush of absurdities that follow it) is representative of the editorial standards of the National Review, you should consider putting the "Review" in Comic Sans.
Sir,
you are lacking knowledge of Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church does not teach against the death penalty. You have a deep misconception of how the teaching authority of the Church works. Just an fyi.
Christopher
Virtually all popes, Fathers and Doctors of the Church have supported capital punishment, until now.
To be pro-life and Catholic is to be pro-capital punishment.
This has been the constant Judeo/ Christian teaching for 3,000 years. It has only been in the last 40 years that this teaching has been challenged. Death penalty opponents, whether they be pope, priest poet, patriot or peon, simple ignore the traditional teaching of the Faith and base their opinions on personal feelings and emotions. They have no traditional Catholic sources to quote so they talk back and forth among themselves referring to only those sources whose opinions mirror their own. They have no where else to go. Opponents, especially clergy, should stop falsely charging that the 65% of Catholics who support capital punishment are not in accord with the traditional teaching of the Faith. It is the opponents who have deviated from tradition and accepted modernist thinking. It is the height of arrogance and pride to believe that the beliefs of the age in which you are living have supplanted all that has gone before.
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.” - G. K. Chesterton
