In Impromptus today, I touch on an untouchable subject: abortion. Two abortion-clinic workers in Philadelphia have pleaded guilty to murder. Why? Well, because they did the job after the babies happened to slip out of the womb. That’s a very fine line, don’t you think? Too fine for moral reasoning.
While discussing this subject — and not politely — I quote Wesley Clark, who, when running for the Democratic presidential nomination, said, “Life begins with the mother’s decision.” There’s a towering moral thinker for you — and a very American one. (A modern American one, I should say. The guy is with it.)
A reader writes, “Given the kind of kid I was, I’m glad that my mother didn’t subscribe to ‘Life begins with the mother’s decision.’ She would have been sorely tempted . . .” More seriously, he says,
On those rare occasions when I discuss abortion with adherents of abortion on demand, I have learned to ask one question first: “It has been estimated that, over the last 30 years, 160 million fetuses in Asia have been aborted for the sole reason that they are female. Do you object to this? And if so, on what principle?”
A stymier, to coin a word. (Is that a word?)
Well, it depends on what "decision" he meant. If he means the decision to have sex, I agree with him! We women have created the "market" for everyday abortion-on-demand these past several generations by falling for the "sexual revolution," i.e., agreeing to have sexual relationships outside the covenant of marriage. I fail to see one single thing that women or our culture gained by it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a very inane thing to say, as the decision to have sex only occasionally results in conception. I am pro-life to the core, but it is goofy things like this that allow us to caricatured into "every sperm is sacred."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've adopted three kids. One's mother was in prison. One's mother was unmarried, unemployed and homeless. One's mother was an alcoholic and his father was prone to domestic violence. It does tend to end the conversation when I ask liberals which ones should have been aborted.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know why it ends the conversation- the very easy and obvious response to'your question as to which one of your 3 adopted kids should be aborted is : "it was the mothers choice at the time she was pregnant and if she had chosen to abort one of them, fair enough."
But this is exactly why i want Romney to win- i think we need a fiscally conservative president who doesn't waste time or tax payers money creating an orgy of regulations about abortion or for that matter god, guns & gays .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFiscal conservatives are the ones who create giant new entitlement programs that bust the budget?
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo offence to your kids of course, who i am sure are wonderful.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, I'm sure they are wonderful. Of course, Expat is equally sure that their non-existence would be hunky dory, too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo "offence." As Ronald Reagan once said, I've noticed that all those in favor of abortion have already managed to be born.
so babies can just "slip" out of the womb unexpectedly??
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI imagine it is a relatively common occurrence during partial birth abortions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJay,
I'm surprised the questioned don't respond with "Yes, I object to aborting only female babies. Those who do are misogynists (hate women). I, on the other hand, believe in indiscriminate , gender-blind abortions out of my deep respect and love for equality. Their abortions are out of hate, mine are out of love - don't you see that?"
Gag.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's infanticide one minute before or one minute afterward. The defendants knew that full well, but they were good Germans.
Prosecute the ones you can.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWesley Clark is a wealth of proof that US military officers can indeed be Socialists. Just look back at his thoughts on what the US Founding Fathers had on their minds.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Clark is correct. Life does begin with the mother's decision - the decision to participate in the act of procreation - although I realize that is not the decision he was referring to. The study of biology offers no support for Mr. Clark's claim - and I thought Democrats worshiped science - nor does our legal system recognize such a decision. If an unborn baby is killed, whether accidentally or intentionally, the person who caused the baby's death is held legally accountable regardless of any decision the mother might have made to continue or terminate the pregnancy. The only exception would be if the person who kills the unborn baby is an abortion provider. In other words, if a pregnant woman on her way to an abortion clinic is hit by a drunk driver while crossing the street and she and the unborn baby die as a result, the drunk driver would be charged with two counts - not one - of vehicular homicide or manslaughter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If an unborn baby is killed, whether accidentally or intentionally, the person who caused the baby's death is held legally accountable regardless of any decision the mother might have made to continue or terminate the pregnancy." Exactly right! That's simply the state maintaining its "monopoly on violence". That's simply the state being the state. I fail to see the contradiction. If you want to murder a baby, the state must sanction it, just like if you want to murder a serial killer or a cop killer, the state must sanction it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBy this logic, if the State wanted to sanction the murder of anyone for whatever reason, you'd be cool with it. That's one of the dumber pro-abortion arguments I've heard in a while. .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe fact is, the state does sanction baby-murder (as abortion) and cop-killer murder (as the death penalty). My point is only that the state has the right to do so, especially in a democratic state such as ours because it has the monopoly of violence. The majority are "cool with" both forms of state-sanctioned murder. That's why the contradiction posed here is a false one. For example, a cop-killer can be murdered under state authority but if he's murdered by anyone else, that too is murder.
I never mentioned "the murder of anyone for whatever reason" and never would. Because that's just silly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI support abortion on demand. I say life begins at conception because…where else could it possibly begin? I say that the clump of cells that exists at conception is human life because…what else could it possibly be? I object to people aborting their babies just because they're girls because that's just stupid because girls are better than boys, just as women are better than men. Beside, who will raise our families if there is a shortage of girls? So I say that abortion is murder.
I also support the state's "monopoly of violence" (in Max Weber's immortal formulation) because "privatizing" violence is the same as feudalism, in which life was famously brutal and short. It's the same as anarchy, which is the system we have where I live—Mexico. Here, there is no legal death penalty and (almost) no legal abortion, but there is massive death and destruction by criminal gangs' vendettas, police, the military, lynch mobs, "traditional" Indian community justice, etc etc.
Therefore the state has the right to sanction murder, under its "monopoly" rights. It does so with the death penalty, which I also support. It does so when it permits abortion on demand. There are compelling reasons of state that make murder-as-death-penalty legal; there are compelling reasons of state that make murder-as-abortion-on-demand legal. The main reason is possibly a tautology: the state needs to maintain its monopoly on violence or else. Or else what? Or else we have a state like Mexico's.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I support abortion on demand. ....So I say that abortion is murder. .....Therefore the state has the right to sanction murder."
No state can sanction murder, since murder violates natural laws which are above civil or criminal laws. On the other hand, the state can carry out capital punishment because capital punishment isn't murder.
On the other hand, murkiness in thought and argument does help one to maintain a pro-choice position, as you have done.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're right: capital punishment isn't murder if you define it as the "unlawful taking of human life." By definition, then, any state-sanctioned taking of human life is not murder. This applies to abortion as well. It applies to self-defense; it applies to warfare. The state has the right to sanction deliberate killing of human beings, just because it's the state.
I don't think there's a natural law that removes capital punishment from the category "murder" but doesn't do the same for abortion. They are the same category: the deliberate, state-sanctioned taking of human life.
What moral reasons can you come up with that justify capital punishment and not abortion? I realize there are many practical reasons, but if you want to get into the morality of these killings, you'll find yourself in very murky waters. Maybe you can shine some of your luminescence of thought and argument in there. But I doubt it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not that terribly difficult. People who commit capital crimes have disqualified themselves from the right to life, as judged by a jury of their peers. Candidates for abortion have not; they are innocent.
For a statute to be "lawful" involves more than simply being "enacted by a government." Statutes that violate basic moral laws, such as "it is wrong to take an innocent human life," are not legitimate. As our Declaration puts it, they violate "the laws of Nature and Nature's God." Nothing "murky" about it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse