In the last conversation about abortion (at my personal blog) my frequent interlocutor, Jewish Atheist (JA), depends in part on arguments drawn from the Violinist question. This is odd, because JA himself finds the Violinist argument poor. In that discussion however, I’d like to concentrate on the reasoning the pro-choice/pro-abortion community uses to deny the father any say in the matter, with a blanket excuse “it’s the women’s body.” I’m going modify my narrative around the violinist argument to highlight why I think setting the father out of the picture in a point blank fashion is a violation of common sense contractual ethics. For the story, duck below the fold: Read the rest of this entry

In a conversation on Sunday, the question was raised (which is not new but certainly pointed),

“We believe that abortion is murder of innocents. We would not stand quietly and non-violently attempt by political action or consciousness raising to stop the Holocaust. Why should we not be bombing abortion centers? When we are called to account before the dread judgment seat of Christ how will be judged for not letting using violence to stop this?”

I’d like to attempt to answer this question. Before we jump before the fold, I’d like to remark on one thing. Holocaust is a thing which is in the common imaginary, the common symbol for things of this nature. One might ask, why not Holodomor? 4 million died in the Holodomor which number significantly in the 20 million killed by internal purges and famine enacted purposefully just as 12 million were killed by Hitler in the Holocaust (of which just over 6 million were Jewish).

The World went to war to stop Hitler, we in America crossed the Atlantic to voluntarily take part to end his evil. Stalin and Lenin’s evil was occurring en mass prior. If there was a moral imperative to go to war to stop Hitler because of Holocaust, was there not the same need to stop Stalin, Lenin, Mao and so on. Should we put an end to the regime North Korea? Now!? But one thing these things share, which they don’t share with local abortion clinics is that the political process works intra-state, not inter-state.  Read the rest of this entry

So often in our world today, we grind up against those who have strongly held positions that we cannot understand. For myself, at this time, I fail to understand how anyone could hold a pro-abortion or even pro-choice point of view. The arguments “for” seem so weak as to be almost non-existent. Now this might be because I fail to enumerate or see the key insight behind a particular argument. So, below the fold, I’m going to attempt to enumerate all the arguments I know for the silencing of the lambs and summarize briefly why they are fundamentally unsound. My request for any readers of this would be to point out what I’m missing, why my critique misses the point, or to pass this on to someone who might be able to do so. Read the rest of this entry

Abortions are down to the lowest level in decades.

A new report by an organization affiliated with Planned Parenthood finds that the number of abortions nationwide have fallen to their lowest point in 30 years and have declined 25 percent since 1990. Pro-life groups point to laws limiting abortions, the effectiveness of pregnancy centers and abstinence education as the reason why.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute report finds just over 1.2 million abortions in the United States in 2005, down nearly 25% from their high of 1.6 million in 1990.

The number of abortions are now at their lowest point since 1.179 million in 1976.

Additionally, the report shows the abortion rate (the number of abortions per 1,000 women age 15-44) down to 19.4 per thousand — the lowest since 1974. That was the first full year following the Roe v. Wade decision.

The Guttmacher report speculates that the lower abortion rates may be due to “more women carrying unintended pregnancies to term,” implicitly acknowledging that attitudes toward abortion and pregnancy may have substantially changed.

When Planned Parenthood opposes any and all restrictions on abortion, you just gotta follow the money. A more informed public is their worst nightmare, in spite of their PR to the contrary.

Dr. Randall O’Bannon, the director of research and education for National Right to Life, told LifeNews.com the new figures are welcome news.

“Today’s numbers confirm what we have known for years — if women seeking abortion are fully informed about the risks surrounding abortion, the development of their unborn child, and public and private assistance available in their area, they are more likely to reject the idea of abortion,” he said.

“Women’s Right to Know laws, parental involvement laws, bans on partial-birth abortion — all of which continue to be enacted by the states — not only help women facing crisis pregnancies, they also raise the public’s awareness about abortion and the humanity of the unborn child,” he said.

“What the pro-life movement has done, and continues to do, has saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” O’Bannon concluded.

There’s some good news for ya’.

[tags]abortion,Planned Parenthood,Alan Guttmacher Institute,Dr. Randall O’Bannon[/tags]

That’s an odd line for a presidential candidate, but that’s the message in my ears from this article about Hillary Clinton trying to bounce back from Iowa’s 3rd place showing.

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire, January 7, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Following her crushing defeat in Iowa, Hillary Clinton has decided to attack Barack Obama on different ground: she is claiming that he is not as committed to abortion as she is, hoping to cast doubt that Obama is pro-abortion enough to make an acceptable Democratic president.

In a recent mailing to voters in New Hampshire, Hillary criticizes Obama for voting “present” instead of in favor of pro-abortion legislature on seven occasions. The mailer claims Clinton is a person who will “stand up for women’s right to choose.”

I read this and hear her say, “More babies allowed to live? Not on my watch!” Just remember this when she tries to reach across the aisle on this issue, a move she’s feigned before.

But regarding being more pro-abortion than Obama, that may be hard to do.

Obama has received a rating of 100% from Planned Parenthood, based on his voting record as an Illinois senator.

Maybe Hillary should demand a recount.

[tags]Hillary Clinton,abortion,Barack Obama,Iowa caucus,New Hampshire primary[/tags]

Now that normal skin cells can be made to mimic embryonic stem cells, you’d think that the big push to keep destroying embryos and the ethical considerations that accompany it would pretty much die out. You’d be wrong. Michael J. Fox, one of the more vocal and visible players advocating embryonic stem cell research, will have none of that.

MENOUNOS: Tell me what that does to Parkinson’s and how exciting that was for you?

FOX: Well any of these breakthroughs are fantastic. And it’s just thrilling. And at the same time too we don’t want to discontinue the embryonic stem cell research that’s being done because one begat the other and, and it all becomes part of a broad canvas that we want to continue to work on.

In the name of some ephemeral “broad canvas”, Fox simply won’t let go of his emotional tie (how else to explain it) to actual embryos. Science could very well get rid of the need to deal with the ethical and moral entanglement, but Fox won’t cut the umbilical cord.

MENOUNOS: Do you think that this will end the whole hot button issue of stem cell research?

FOX: Well I want to make sure that we, that, that doesn’t happen. But I think that the bottom line is whatever happens in the next election, the chances are very good that there’s gonna be a new attitude towards science.

Sounds to me like it’s Fox who needs to new attitude. Science is progressing, George W. Bush’s stand against destroying embryos has been vindicated, but Fox is stuck in his ways and his politics.

FOX: Well just about everybody’s in favor of it with the couple of exceptions on the, on the Republican side. But, but what I did in the last election in the midterm was not about parties but, but about who was in a race where they supported stem cell research and, and were, were opposed by someone who’s not in favor of stem cell research.

MENOUNOS: Who are you backing this election?

FOX: Whoever the most pro-science candidate is that comes out of either primary.

Turns out that Dubya’s faith in science — that it would find a way around destroying embryos — is the most pro-science of them all. Too bad he’s not running for re-election, eh Michael?

[tags]embryonic stem cells,science,Michael J. Fox,abortion[/tags]

The 35th anniversary of Roe v Wade is coming on January 22, 2008. How much do you really know about the decision? This web site will as you 12 questions about it and see how well you can do. I only got 7 out of 12 right (43rd percentile, apparently). Take it and post your scores here.

And this is a “closed book” test. No Googling while taking it.

[tags]Roe vs Wade,abortion[/tags]

Mike Huckabee, candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, says that states shouldn’t be given the chance to determine their own abortion views.

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee rejects letting states decide whether to allow abortions, claiming the right to life is a moral issue not subject to multiple interpretations.

“It’s the logic of the Civil War,” Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. “If morality is the point here, and if it’s right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can’t have 50 different versions of what’s right and what’s wrong.”

“For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can’t simply have 50 different versions of what’s right,” he said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

As much as I like Huckabee’s positions, I have to take issue with this. Government’s job is not to say what is right, but what is legal. Sometimes those two coincide, and sometimes they don’t.

I don’t believe that government should be the leading indicator of what’s right and wrong. It is very unfortunate that, for too many people, if it’s legal then it’s right. However, we can’t use that situation to then say that the government should pass laws against all that is immoral. This may sound funny to some, coming as it does from this evangelical Christian, but there are a couple of ideas at play here.

First is the idea that any set of rules made by men as to what is right and wrong is, by definition, going to be flawed. We can’t do it, and that’s taking on a job that God has exclusive rights to. Passing a low solely because it fits my moral code is, therefore, not a good idea. (Bear in mind that I’m emphasizing “solely”. We’ll come back to that.)

Second is the idea that my personal morality can inform what I want government to do. So based on my reading of the Bible, I may be against state-run gambling. My concern over taxing the foolish and government-sponsored co-dependence are moral stances, and they contribute to my opinion of laws regarding them. The Civil Rights laws of the 1960s were largely informed by a religious view of equality among people, equal in the sight of God. The laws were both morally right and a proper use of government in that they promoted liberty, equally, for all. For example, gambling promotes slavery to an addition.

So, while writing a pure moral code into a man-made document is doomed to fail, there is still a place for the Christian (and any religious person) in the creation of laws for the state or country. And while I appreciate Gov. Huckabee’s stance on the issue of abortion, I’m a little leery of him suggesting that the federal government should do it solely because it is right. That suggestion opens the door to abuses by more well-meaning politicians, and can result in less liberty as the government encroaches on the individual.

Now, having said all of that, I’m going to spin you in further circles and say that I do agree that the matter of abortion should be decided at the federal level. The reason is that protecting the right to life is a primary function of government, and without the right to life, no other rights can be enjoyed. Further, the Roe v Wade decision did nothing but muddy the waters as to what the Constitution really says about privacy. So yes, I think it should be overturned, and indeed I think abortion, as a matter of liberty, should be a matter of federal legislation.

But to do it because it is “right”, from a political standpoint, invites abuse. Government has a specific purpose and it should be used accordingly.

[tags]Mike Huckabee,abortion,gambling,church and state,morality,liberty[/tags]

Russ Neglia of “Pro-Life Pro-Logic” has a post up about the church — Catholic and Protestant — and its reluctance to take a public stand for life. Aside from its own teachings to the faithful, Russ sizes up the church in general and finds it generally missing from the public square. As to why this is, Russ believes that “non-offense” and “tolerance” — that is, modern day political correctness — have seeped into the message and the preachers.

Calling something “wrong” is inherently offensive and intolerant. Can the church still do this?

[tags]abortion,pro-life,Christianity,Russell Neglia[/tags]

Erick, a fellow Georgian at Redstate, runs the numbers.

In May of 2005, Georgia’s “Woman’s Right to Know Act” went into effect. As Senate President Pro Tempore Eric Johnson explains, “The law required that doctors explain to women the medical risks of abortion and the status of life in their womb. They then had to wait 24 hours before proceeding with this critical decision.”

Two years have now passed since the Act went into effect. Again, from Senator Johnson

According to the Senate Majority Leader, Tommie Williams, we have already seen significant results in passing this critical pro-life legislation. Since it went into effect in May of 2005, the DHR reports that between 32,500 and 40,500 women have talked to their doctors about an abortion. After that conversation and the information provided to them by this law, approximately 10,000 chose to carry their babies to term. In addition, 2,300 minors considered terminating their pregnancy and only 500 did so. So we saved about 11,800 babies so far. Pretty neat, huh?

Much, much more than just “neat”, in my estimation. Erick credits the election of pro-life legislators with turning the tide, and I’d agree. Your vote counts, and your vote matters.

[tags]abortion,pro-life,State Senator Eric Johnson,Georgia,State Senator Tommie Williams,Woman’s Right to Know Act[/tags]