Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Forty Years After Roe v. Wade


    Today marks the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the controversial Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion throughout the United States. In many ways it was a watershed event, a turning point in our nation's culture and mores. It changed, perhaps forever, what we are as a nation.
    The crusade for access to legal abortion is a cornerstone of the modern feminist movement. Feminists see it as a women's rights issue, a matter of "reproductive freedom." The theory is that if women are to achieve economic equality with men, they must be able to pursue careers without interference from unwanted pregnancies. Thus access to abortion is a necessary part of individual freedom and self-determination.
Berthe Morisot, The Cradle
    There is, however, the nettlesome moral question about the life within the womb. In days gone by this would have been thought of as a "baby," the mother's child, and it was the woman's destiny and privilege to care for that child and raise it to maturity. Might not abortion involve the taking of an innocent human life?
    Feminist writers have a variety of semantic dodges to evade the obvious difficulty. The fetus is not a human being; it is only a "potential" human being. Or, even worse, it is only a clump of cells. And besides, it is inside the woman's body, an imposition on her, disrupting her life against her will. She has a right to control what goes on inside her own body, does she not?
    All of which misses the point. If the woman carries the pregnancy to term, a human being is born. At what point did it become human? What differentiates it five minutes after it was born from what it was five minutes before it was born? The mere change in physical location? Its dependency upon the mother? Isn't the newborn still dependent upon the mother for its care? Isn't this still an imposition? Why not infanticide? The feminist cannot answer these questions, but to her none of it matters. It is the woman's rights that are at issue, her need for "reproductive freedom."
    What this amounts to is nothing less than a massive cultural shift. For centuries the western world believed that there was something fundamentally wrong with taking innocent human life. This belief, in turn, was rooted in something deeper, a belief that we live in a rationally ordered universe that was created and governed by a Supreme Being. That Supreme Being has given us a moral law, and among the precepts of that law is the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." Human life was created in the image of God and is therefore sacred. No one is allowed to take it at will.
    The Supreme Court decision, then, was a repudiation of one of the basic pillars of western civilization. "Enlightened" progressive thinkers now call the older viewpoint an "outdated morality."
    The underlying assumption of modern feminist thought is that we exist in an impersonal universe as autonomous individuals, and that it is up to us to determine our own destinies. Abortion, indeed all of morality, becomes a matter of "personal choice." There are no moral absolutes. Feminism is nothing less than nihilism in a skirt and blouse.
    Martin Luther King, Jr. was the end of an era; Roe v. Wade was the beginning of another. We have entered a starkly different world – an amoral world of radical individualism. Or perhaps we should say, we have reentered the old world, the pre-Christian world, the world that existed for thousands of years before the Advent of Christ. It was a harsh and cruel world, a world of brute force and ruthless tyranny, a world of cruelty, barbarity and oppression.
    "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually, and it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart" (Gen. 6:5,6). 

For an analysis of the Supreme Court's decision, click on this link:
Should Abortion be Legal? 
For an example of a Feminist "Pro-Choice" argument, click on this link:
Jill Filipovic on Roe v. Wade 
For a doctor's perspective on abortion, click on this link:
Ron Paul on abortion 

7 comments:

  1. Feminist writers have a variety of semantic dodges...

    You are telling me "Just trust me on this".

    You are framing the discussion with the only point of reference as...well...you.
    If you want to respect your reader, then you must offer more than just your say so.

    First, why feminist writers?
    Why are they your sole port of call?
    Think about it.

    Feminists don't secretly control your Supreme Court. Feminists don't secretly control the medical community. Feminists don't secretly control other religious theologians that don't happen to go to your brand-name church.
    Before you start mentioning "feminist writers" you have to justify zeroing in on them to the exclusion of all else.
    Second, don't try and represent the thoughts of "feminist writers". It's a blank cheque that you are writing for yourself to create a strawman. Presumably, these "feminist writers", y'know, write.
    So quote them.
    In context. In detail.
    Don't tell me they've dodged issues.
    Just fairly and honestly quote them dodging.
    If they really have dodged then I'm smart enough to figure it out for myself.
    I don't need your help in "interpreting".

    The underlying assumption of modern feminist...

    No, no, no.
    Don't tell me second-hand.
    Give me quotes. Real quotes. In context and detail.
    I'm a big boy and I can figure out the underlying assumptions of feminists by myself if you give me half a chance.
    If you don't quote directly then you force me to rely on just your say so.
    You show contempt for your readers when you do that.
    It's not honest scholarship.

    Further, this does not mean that you should now google some fundy website filled with lurid "feminist" quotes all carefully pre-packaged for you and then palm it off onto me as original scholarship.
    Nope.

    The idea is to represent feminist thinking in the same spirit of inquiry as you would have them represent you.
    If they wanted to know your thoughts on abortion it would be fair and reasonable to use primary sources, right? You have a blog, right?
    It's easy to skip the middlemen and go straight to the source, right?
    Then do so. Be diligent in your research. Demonstrate your diligence. Do as you would be done by.

    Third, you have to have some fair and open system of choosing a representative sampling of feminist thought on the issue.
    We live in the age of the dishonest quotemine and the slick sound-bite.
    The feminist movement is a hetrogenous and fluid community that has no set orthodoxy. To represent them fairly, you owe it to me and to others to go that extra mile and represent them fairly. Otherwise, you can be accused of putting words in people's mouths or deliberately concentrating on a bad apple.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are correct in saying that "the feminist movement is a heterogeneous and fluid community that has no set orthodoxy." You are also correct in asserting that the U.S. Supreme Court is not secretly controlled by Feminists -- in fact, I don't even think that there were any women on the Supreme Court when they made the decision. They were, in fact, influenced by certain theologians, most notably an Episcopalian named Joseph Fletcher who won widespread notoriety for his work on "Situation Ethics" (The Episcopal Church is the American branch of Anglicanism).
    I have inserted an extra link at the end of the blog post to an article on Roe v. Wade by a feminist -- you can read if for yourself and tell what you think.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You are correct in saying that "the feminist movement is a heterogeneous and fluid community that has no set orthodoxy." You are also correct in asserting that the U.S. Supreme Court is not secretly controlled by Feminists -- in fact, I don't even think that there were any women on the Supreme Court when they made the decision. They were, in fact, influenced by certain theologians,...

    It's comments like this that separate you from your typical fundy type over the internet.
    Thank you.
    It's refreshing to have someone openly acknowledge a point and even add to it rather that gloss over it or ignore it entirely.

    I read the link and, in my opinon, she makes a strong case for abortion rights for women.
    I find the history of abortion very disturbing.
    I find the whole history of how modern western society treated women in general to be incomprehensible.
    Women did not have a good time in the past. They did not have it easy. (Even now, there's a long way to go.)
    They were victims whose choice in life, both economically and socially, were very limited soley because of their genitialia.

    A woman today has much greater control over her own life. She can vote, she can own property, she can eat by herself in a restaurant, she can get a job, she can decide not to have children, she can serve in the armed forces, she can get an education, she can even become (gasp) a doctor, she can wear comfortable clothes, she has legal recourse to stop people from sexually harrassing her at work so she can work safely in peace, she can lead the country etc.
    (It's not perfect but it's better.)

    Yet these are...new.
    Very new. New to 50% of the population.
    It's shocking when you think about it.
    Further, these rights are fragile. They are limited by geography and constantly under attack by various interests.
    Say what you like about feminists. Without them, not of these vital reforms would ever have happened.
    We all benefit from them as a society; both men and women.

    Christianity has been around for a long time in Western society yet it was definitely not Christianity that gave women everything they should have had in the first place in a neat little package as quick as you like. Women had to fight for these things. Every step of the way they had to fight. Every step of the way, "the establishment" resisted any changes.
    Kinder, Küche, Kirche.

    Anyone who is an anti-abortionist should have a good, hard look at the "good old days". They were a nightmare.
    Rich people always had the option of flying their daughters quietly out of the country for a "Swiss summer holiday" no matter what the laws on abortion were in America. Other people were not so lucky.
    (Here's a link that sums up my attitude on the issue. Apologies in advance if I've already shown it to you before.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Before I wrote this blog post I did a little bit of background reading in "The Second Sex," by Simone de Beauvoir. Writing in 1949 she described the experiences of French women seeking abortions, and it was similar to the kind of thing that Eleanor Cooney described in her piece.
    I added another link above to Ron Paul's website. Notice how he described his experience watching an abortion being performed while he was a medical resident.
    It is noteworthy that neither Filipovic nor Cooney wanted to deal with the moral issue involved in the taking of the life of the infant. Cooney actually went so far as to defend the practice of "partial birth abortion." I believe it was during the Senate debate on the subject that Rick Santorum challenged his opponents (I think it was either Barbara Boxer or Deborah Feinstein) to state at which point during the fetus' descent down the birth canal does it become a human being, and therefore protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment? Both Filipovic and Cooney defended legalized abortion on pragmatic grounds, and focused on the wellbeing of the woman, while completely ignoring the child. This implies something about their conception of morality -- and that was the whole point of my blog post.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is noteworthy that neither Filipovic nor Cooney wanted to deal with the moral issue involved in the taking of the life of the infant.

    Spot the inbuilt assumption.

    Both Filipovic and Cooney defended legalized abortion on pragmatic grounds, and focused on the wellbeing of the woman, while completely ignoring the child.

    Spot the inbuilt assumption.

    Further, how do you address the wellbeing of the woman?
    Even better, what would you do with a woman who has an abortion in a future where abortion is illegal?

    You are the lawmaker. Before you is a woman guilty of having an abortion. Abortion is a crime, right? So how many years does she get?
    Think about what an ugly future you would create.

    Abortion in the past was illegal. It was illegal for a very long time. There were consequences.
    The law changed. Not just in America but in almost all modern, industrialized nations to one degree or another.
    This change was not dominated and controlled by "big feminism" or even "big atheism".
    If you want to turn back the clock, then you need to ask yourself how many women are going to end up bleeding to death needlessly.
    How many women are going to have no choice but to have a rapist's baby?
    How many women are going to struggle with the poverty for the rest of their lives with a family that has too many childen?
    How many women are going to die because the pregnancy has gone horribly wrong and will kill the mother?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Illegal abortions sometimes kill the mother. Abortion, legal or otherwise, ALWAYS kills the child!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Illegal abortions sometimes kill the mother.

    Which is why abortions should be safe, free and available.
    Societies that have access to safe, free and avilable abortions don't have an issue with illegal abortions.

    Abortion, legal or otherwise, ALWAYS kills the child!

    Inbuilt assumption. The same one as before.

    ReplyDelete