Last week marked the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, possibly the most divisive and harmful of all the US Supreme Court’s majority opinions. A few places gave the moment its due recognition, but most news sites and blogs skimmed right over it, instead covering the juicier and more galvanizing drama between presidential hopefuls. That is a woeful indictment of both the American conscience and the priorities of public servants.
Abortion represents one of the most dramatic social revolutions in the history of the modern age. To those on the pro-life side, abortion is nothing less than legalized genocide, a symbol of moral decadence and self-obsession. Pro-choicers see abortion as having no less impact; very few other causes have inspired such a vocal and aggressive following and provided more rhetoric and quasi-religious fervency for the cause of “privacy” and “woman’s rights.” Abortion has been unifying if only in the sense that it has brought together citizens of equal emotion.
The legalization of abortion is the saddest, most aggressively inhumane principle that the United States has accepted. It is now common knowledge, to both pro-life and pro-choice advocates, that the Roe decision was saturated in poor science. Technology that is novel even in the 21st century has given the world unprecedented access to the life inside of a mother. Many women have testified that the sight of the clearly recognizable child (as early as 10 weeks) was a defining moment in a decision to choose life over abortion. Though some have callously and ridiculously referred to it as “emotional blackmail,” (the vitriol being a tad indicative of just how the word “choice” is defined within the abortion movement), it has led women with just as legitimate claim to audience as those who had abortions to re-evaluate what they believe about life.
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Modern polling data leads to little clarity and a lot of confusion when taking the American pulse on abortion. While some polls show pro-choice mindsets, others suggest pro-life trends. Newer data suggests somewhere around a 55%-45% split on the issue. While this may seem disheartening to pro-life crusaders, it is actually a relatively encouraging statistic when compared to the overwhelmingly pro-abortion factions in Europe. And pro-lifers have wielded considerable political presence of late, as seen in the “moral values” facet of the 2004 presidential election.
Actually, when 35 years of legalized abortion are considered, it is not surprising to see a slight majority favoring it. Moralizing legislation is something of an auspicious trend in America, with more Americans supporting a national smoking ban proportional to the amount of states that have enacted such laws. And abortion is a far more emotional and socially intrusive issue than possibly any other topic in today's public debate.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
To those on the pro-life side, abortion is nothing less than legalized genocide,
How can it be genocide when it doesn't single out any particular racial or cultural group?
It is now common knowledge, to both pro-life and pro-choice advocates, that the Roe decision was saturated in poor science.
The Roe decision was not based on science, it was
when 35 years of legalized abortion are considered, it is not surprising to see a slight majority favoring it.
Especially when after 35 years the benefits for society, for mothers and for children are so manifestly clear.
Moralizing legislation is something of an auspicious trend in America, with more Americans supporting a national smoking ban proportional to the amount of states that have enacted such laws.
Are you kidding? Legislating morality is about the worst and most destructive trend we currently face. I'd rather see you fighting against that than against abortion. Does anyone ask the fetuses if they want to grow up in a world where their rights have been taken away so that they can be born into slavery?
Several analysts see definite pro-life trends,
Damn, that's a horrifying thought. But more likely it's wishful thinking.
abortion remains a key, if not the key, to the modern feminist agenda.
Ah, sexist fearmongering. So charming. Perhaps you and Mike Huckabee can force all the women into 'covenant' marriages and keep them barefoot and pregnant.
It is frankly infuriating how little abortion has come into play this election cycle.
I actually find it a refreshing change of pace. There has been remarkably little pandering on pointless and trivial issues like Abortion and Gay Marriage this election and that's a very pleasant change from the last few. It's nice to see candidates actually discussing things that matter instead.
The Republican Party needs, if for nothing else than to preserve its identity, to recognize how much, as the party which chose life and constitutional authority, the pro-life cause means to their ideology.
The 'pro-life cause' has virtually destroyed the Republican party which survived for years on a general indifference to base moralizing. What the party needs to do is purge the religious demagogues who use contrived issues like abortion to drive an agenda of hate and fear. The GOP has suffered under their pernicious influence for too long and it's about time for them to go back to the backwoods hellholes they crawled out of.
Conservatives, on the other hand, see greater principles (such as liberty, religion, and capitalism)
Religion isn't a principle, it's a distraction and a delusion and should be largely irrelevant to government.
governing the population towards mutual benefit.
When it comes to mutual benefit almost nothing benefits the citizenry more than legalized abortion.
real conservatives should not be shy in holding the Republican party accountable.
Real conservatives realize that is is not the place of the government to ram a subjective morality or a religious agenda down the throats of an unwilling public.
A pro-life conservative is a given. Nothing less should be expected.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Meddling in the private affairs of mothers and families and determining how people live their lives and when they must have babies is the ultimate in statist/leftist social engineering.
I can't think of a more important task for the government than to protect her citizenry.
Fetuses are not citizens. They cannot vote or exercise any of the other rights of citizens. They even lack the ability to engage in basic activities which define human existence. The courts have recognized a limited legal status and limited rights for children for hundreds of years, and the same should apply even moreso to fetuses.
Dave
2 - Pablo
Since you are proclaiming that legal abortion is genocide, which by definition is murder of multiple human beings. I cannot help but ask you this question. I am making a big assumption here, because in my experience the vast majority of "pro-lifers (a term that makes me want to gag) are for the death penalty for murder, do you support women who get an abortion receiving the death penalty? I doubt that you will honestly answer the question, but I will ask it anyway. Oh and if you should decide to answer please be honest.
As I am not a woman, I cannot possibly know what it must be like for some young buck to impregnate a woman, then run off and leave her holding the fetus. Can you?
I also wondered over to your article on same sex marriages. It doesn't strike me as odd that YOU would want a constitutional amendment to prohibit other adults who MAY not have the same sexual orientation as you do to marry. That being said, I suggest that you take a good hard look at the amendments to the Constitution, with the exception of the 18th amendment (outlawing liguor) virtually all others were made to increase freedom and liberty in the land not restrict it. Like I said I am not surprised you advocate this, considering some of the other political opinions I have seen you voice.
I suspect because you seem to have numerous articles written on this subject, perhaps you knocked a girl up, and she didn't want the kid. Just a hunch.
Also I read somewhere that people that seem obsessed with homosexuals, often have latent tendencies themselves. Oh I am straight, and I do not want to watch guys kiss in public (not that I would make a law prohibiting it), I frankly could give a horses ass if they want a paper proclaiming their love, and commitment to each other, that is honored by the State.
I for one wish that there were MORE male homosexuals, as I would find it easier to find available women who want to have sex for no other purpose than ENTERTAINMENT. Snicker
Just my two sense worth there fella
3 - Jet in Columbus
I'd love to hear how some woman in Timbucktoo having an abortion DIRECTLY effects your life.
It doesn't and never will.
All you want is to be powerful by proclaiming what "morality" is, because it's all you've got in a powerless life of yours.
It's none of your damned business what another woman does with her life.
That's between her and her God.
You have no business whatsoever in defining morality.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
4 - Baritone
Sam,
First: This was a very well written article.
Second: I don't agree with any of it.
Dave and I don't agree on much, but we do apparently agree on this issue. When you claim that it's a given that conservatives oppose abortion, you are overstating the facts. I suppose it's true of most "social conservatives." But the term "conservative" has a much broader application when used in the political sense. Economic or fiscal conservatives may or may not be anti-abortion.
It is so condescending and self-righteous to assume that the pro-choice position "inevitably lead[s] to chaos and enslavement." What chaos? What enslavement?
I would think a life brought into this world which is unwanted by a woman who is unable or unwilling to take on the roll of parent has far greater potential for chaos and a sense of enslavement for all involved.
I also think it at best disingenuous of supposed "pro-lifers" to have such compassion and concern for a mass of cells, yet don't give a rats ass for living, breathing human beings. Once a fetus leaves wombworld and slides down the birth canal, all bets are off. You're on your own kiddo!
Your charge regarding supposed "bad science" simply holds no water. What a court decides has little if anything to do with science. In Roe V Wade the courts decided that a woman has the final control of her body as long as she is otherwise considered to be mentally sound. That it is NOT the business of government to enter into that decision.
Certainly, it is a difficult decision for most (though not all) women faced with an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason. Any woman in that situation is free and should be encouraged to seek, if not guidance, then information, to enable her to make an informed decision. But, in the end, the Supreme Court back in 1973 had the wisdom to understand that the decision must ultimately lie with the woman, not the state. If a woman has the power to give life, she must also be given the option not to.
The belief that the sexual act is to be reserved solely for the purpose of procreation is puritanical nonsense. People "do it" because it is great fun. Giving and getting such intimate pleasure is perhaps the greatest thing we have as human beings. In this day and age very little sexual intercourse has anything to do with making babies. It should not be considered a "guilty" pleasure. Regardless of the circumstances, if a pregnancy occurs as a consequence, it is and should be the woman's, and only the woman's decision whether to see the pregnancy to term. She is effectively, in this instance, god.
Baritone
5 - Dave Nalle
If Baritone, Pablo and I actually agree on an issue, that's a pretty strong argument that anyone opposing us is really, extra wrong.
Dave
6 - Jet in Columbus
Mental note to self: Conservative used to mean "Fiscal" conservative... you know less government, less spending, less taxes-the Mantra of the Republican Party.
Since that no longer is true, nowadays the religious right has hijacked the term and now Conservative is a term having to do more with religion than politics as it appears that you must be religiously "born again" or at least convincingly act like it in order to be able to call yourself a "conservative"...
7 - Dave Nalle
Only if we let the scumsuckers get away with it, Jet. We already let them get away with redefining what 'liberal' means. Let's not let them pervert the meaning of 'conservative' too.
dave
8 - Sam James
Two notes:
1) To the idea that conservatism MUST be inherently pro-choice in order to avoid "meddling" in the private affairs of citizens is only true IF ABORTION IS NOT MURDER. If it is, no serious self-respecting worldview, whatever you call it, can defend it. That and that alone is the issue.
2) Dave, calling critics of the modern feminist movement "sexist" displays the aggressive intolerance fundmaental to the feminist ideology. A look at where modern feminism originated, Europe (documentation of this in the Netherlands has already been accomplished), reveals that feminism inevitably dispenses more hate and bigotry than it proposes to fight. Feminism, at least in the tangible sense of the word, is more about political power and less about the sexes.
9 - Doug Hunter
Dave's right about abortion, killing fetuses is very convenient. Now if we could only get rid of those damned crippled and the mentally handicapped life'd be even that much easier!
It's convenient but it's not right, especially late in the term. Birth control, then morning after, then early term abortions if necessary.
10 - Doug Hunter
"I'd love to hear how some woman in Timbucktoo having an abortion DIRECTLY effects your life."
Or a serial killer in the same place? Something never matters until it happens to you. We're all a little past the point of being aborted so we way say 'fuck you, we got ours'.
11 - Baritone
Abortion is NOT murder.
Now that that's settled we can go on to determine that the termination of a pregnancy is the woman's choice.
While a number of women have dutifully fallen into line behind their male masters and taken up the anti-abortion gauntlet, it's interesting to note how the most vociferous pro-lifers are MEN making their self-righteous pronouncements from pulpits and state legislatures and in Congress. It's the men who screw the women, get their rocks off and walk away who then turn around demanding that the now impregnated women stay the course - but, hey, don't be expecting ME to take any financial hit. Such women are sluts! It's the woman who should have just said no, should have kept her legs crossed. It serves the whore right. It is her penance to bear and raise the little bastard. Men have important things to do.
B-tone
12 - Arch Conservative
That's a tired argument you make Bariton...the one that says anyone who is opposed to the killing of babies is somehow responsible for the welfare of those babies throught their lives.
If someone were to shoot you neighbor in the head, killing him for no good reason you would probably say that that is wrong and should not be done right Baritone? Does that mean you are responsible for his every need? Or does it just mean that you think takign his life for no good reason is the wrong thing to do?
13 - Ben Shepard
I just have one question for everyone here: Do you think abortion is the only alternative, or would you rather see adoption take its place if possible? And do you see abortion as a viable option for resolution in cases such as incest and rape?
14 - Baritone
You are talking about murder. I am talking about terminating a pregnancy. They are NOT the same thing. It matters not if the argument is tired.
So, too, is the argument that an abortion is killing a baby.
If you're an old testament, fire and brimstone godster, how many unborn babies did your god kill in the slaughter at Sodom & Gomorrah, or those he commands be carried out in his vengeance numerous times elsewhere? Oh, wait. I forgot. It's all right if god does it. I mean, after all. He's god for christ's sake. And he loves us all.
B-tone
15 - Lee Richards
#7:
Dave,
The scumsuckers NEED the issue of abortion to continue their hijacking of conservatism. Haven't the majority of recent presidencies and congresses been Republican, and the majority of SC Justices appointed by Republicans? Couldn't they could have overturned Roe v. Wade by now, or substantially gutted it, if that were truly their goal?
They want, need and use it, instead, just as it is, as a potent political weapon, to turn not only against "liberals" but even more against conservatives as well, to bring them into the fold.
"Pro-life", indeed!
16 - Les Slater
Sam,
“…American people who, since 1973, have continually been fed bad science, slippery-slope rhetoric and far-left feminism.”
Bad science?
“Human beings, born as United States citizens, are being denied their God-given right to life…”
‘beings, born’ Not only do you claim that fetuses are citizens, but now you claim, think?, that fetuses have already been born. Nobody in their right mind could take you seriously. Not only bad science, on your part, but completely muddled thinking.
Under the cowardly guise of a conservative, you spew nothing but a plain old bigoted reaction.
Les
17 - Jet in Columbus
To refer to a microscopic bundle of cells as "Unborn" is about as rediculous as refering to a used car as "Pre-owned" and just as misleading.
In order to bring power to your otherwise powerless life, you've taken it upon yourself to judge others.
typical
18 - Jet in Columbus
Would you refer to a bag of flour as an "unbaked" cake?
would you refer to a glob of molten plastic as an "unbuilt" car.
Is an egg in a grocery store an "Unborn" chicken?
Is a hand full of sand an "Unborn" microchip?
19 - Les Slater
Jet,
“Is an egg in a grocery store an ‘Unborn’ chicken?”
That’s closer to Sam’s conception than the other examples.
Les
20 - jackie
I believe that he is right. i understand that well sometimes women don't want thier children. But it's good for us to help those women out and make them to start thinking about adoption. that is another way out. I'm not saying to think "well since I don't want my child I should sell it". I'm not saying that at all, but well there is hospitals that ask you if you want your baby and if you don't then they just put the baby for adoption. We always have to try to tell then that maybe they don't want the baby but there are other women out there that can't have babies and well, they would be happy with thier baby. It's not fair to take the abortion totaly of, because well sometimes its important for someone to abort, but like Obama said we should try to make it less common and adoption more common. It's not fair that many babies dye just because of women not thinking about other options.
21 - Doug Hunter
To those who seem so excited about rampant abortions, when exactly do you believe life begins?
Is there some magic that occurs down the birth canal (part of some late term abortions) ? What about c-section. What about early delivery or late delivery. Is life determined by an amount of time, an amount of development? Is a 2 week old baby really 'alive'?
I agree with positions like those of Obama, legal yet minimized. I mostly end up arguing the pro-life side online because of the sheer callousness and annoying attitudes of pro-choice types.
Is it that fucking much of a stretch to imagine that someone might consider a fetus with brainwaves, all it's sense, a heartbeat, etc 'alive'?
That doesn't mean a person is evil, or hates women, or is stupid, or defective. They simply disagree on a question that doesn't really have as much a scientific answer as a philosophic one.
22 - Jet in Columbus
When you agree to put your money where your mouth is and to take into your home two "unaborted" children, care for them, nurture them, and send them through college, then I'll agree with you.
Until then you're just another one of those that say "Oh, all right... but not in my back yard."
It's called hypocracy. You'll merrily pass judgement on anyone to make yourself feel high and mighty, but would you participate in the solution you propose and the effects thereof?
23 - Les Slater
Doug,
“To those who seem so excited about rampant abortions, when exactly do you believe life begins?”
Human life? Life has been continuous but can maybe be called human a couple million years ago. Life does not begin at conception, it just takes on a new form.
“Is there some magic that occurs down the birth canal (part of some late term abortions) ? What about c-section. What about early delivery or late delivery. Is life determined by an amount of time, an amount of development? Is a 2 week old baby really 'alive'?”
No, it’s always been alive.
“Is it that fucking much of a stretch to imagine that someone might consider a fetus with brainwaves, all it's sense, a heartbeat, etc 'alive'?”
Of course it’s alive. This does not mean it is a citizen with rights, or even a person. By definition it is not a baby.
Les
24 - Pablo
Baritone:
You said:
"Abortion is NOT murder.
Now that that's settled we can go on to determine that the termination of a pregnancy is the woman's choice."
I happen to agree with you, however this issue is not settled as per the author's contention that abortion is genocide. Just because you have an opinion that I too share, does not make the issue settled. This is why I have asked the author to clarify his position. Since he does think that abortion is murder, I want him to respond to my previous post and call for the death penalty, which I am quite sure that he will not do. I did this for one reason, to show the absurdity of his argument, and to discredit his position due to hypocrisy. Not to mention the fact that almost all people that are opposed to legalized abortion are pro death penalty. This one fact never ceases to amaze me.
25 - Baronius
Sam, I want to disagree with you about the influence of the abortion issue on this election. On the Democratic side, there is no discussion of it, because (as always) all the major candidates are in complete agreement. But on the Republican side, the issue remains strong.
The social conservative vote is the only thing keeping Huckabee in the first tier. Giuliani's pro-choice stand is the only thing keeping him out of the first tier. The other two major candidates aren't particularly trusted by the pro-life voter, which is why neither has been able to emerge as the front-runner.
The pro-life movement carries as much weight as it ever did in the Republican Party. It just hasn't exerted that weight in favor of any particular candidate. And looking at the choices, it's understandable why. So I guess there's your proof of the movement's strength. When it fails to coalesce around a candidate, the entire party fails to coalesce.