« I Smell Junk Science . . . | Main | The Redemption of Disney »
September 10, 2004
Is The Holocaust To Be Shortened Or Extended?
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader takes exception down yonder with my analysis of Cardinal Ratzinger's statement regarding voting for pro-abort politicians:
There is a logical error in the numbers presented. Even a pro-life candidate has a chance of preventing only a small portion of those abortions. For example, he could through support of information requirement laws require more women at abortuaries to know the full facts about their children in utero. That will probably prevent some abortions. But he can't overturn Roe v. Wade. That can only be done by SCOTUS and they are appointed, not voted in. And most judges with a pro-life stance are strict constructionists, not activists, and thus unlikely even in the case of unjust and illogical rulings to overturn the decisions of previous judges for fear of dangerous precedent. (Just think of the can of worms opened when judges can overturn each others rulings willy-nilly.) So the pro-life candidate is saving far few lives than the millions listed. The Six million over the course of a four year term will be the same, give or take a few thousand.
I appreciate the reader's thoughtfulness and the charity with which she wrote her post. However, what I wrote does not contain the logical flaw that she has in mind. Let me explain . . .
The reader is indeed correct that in the short term the death toll would only be reduced by a few thousand kids during a president's four year term. It also is true that the president cannot act unilaterally to end abortion but can only appoint Supreme Court justices who--in all probability--would not declare a legal right to life but merely overturn the legal right to abortion and re-allow states to legislate the question. We would then be facing a long, hard fight that would last decades in order to get legislation re-passed to protect the unborn. It would be long past the president's term in office before the abortion holocaust ended.
This multi-decade legislative fight is the most likely way that abortion in America will be ended. It is difficult to imagine any other practical scenario. Indeed, it will take decades to educate the moral consciences of voters to the point that they will be willing to elect lawmakers with the pro-life spine to enact the laws needed to protect the unborn. Though there are other scenarios which are theoretically possible (e.g., passing a constitutional amendment), the one described above is by far the most likely one.
The key to that scenario is having a Supreme Court willing to overturn Roe (et al.) and that will not happen until presidents appoint the number of justices sufficient to provide 5 votes to overturn. Barring the extremely unforeseen, that will not happen as long as a pro-abort president is in office. Thus each time a pro-abort president is in office, it effective extends the abortion holocaust by delaying the overturning of Roe.
If one averages the effect of presidential appointments to SCOTUS, the net effect is that the abortion holocaust extends by one year on average for each year a pro-abort president spends in office. If an average president has 1.5 terms in office (half the recent presidents having one term; half having two) then each pro-abort president will extend the abortion holocaust for an average of six years by delaying the time when Roe is overturned. With 1.5 million kids being murdered each year abortion, that's an average of nine million deaths attributable to the the actions of a pro-abort president due to whom he appoints to the Court.
Thus, if you look again at what I wrote, you will note that I spoke in terms of a pro-abort president extending the abortion holocaust, not of a pro-life president ending it during his term. Short-term, the number of deaths would not change appreciably, but pro-life presidents must be elected in order to get the SCOTUS appointments needed to allow the process of ending abortion to begin.
Each time a pro-abort president is elected, it extends the abortion holocaust by one or two presidential terms.
What I want to know is what the ostensibly pro-life people who voted for these presidents will say on judgment day to the souls of the nine million additional babies died because the abortion holocaust was extended because of their votes for pro-abort presidents.
Somehow I don't think that the babies will agree that it was justifiable for voters to allow their lives to be taken because the abortion holocaust was extended so that particular social programs and policies (e.g., regarding jobs, education, taxes, welfare, immigration) could be sought.
I suspect that, to borrow words from Our Lord, they "will arise at the judgment of this generation and condemn it."
[NOTE TO FELLOW BLOGGERS: This post makes the same point more concisely than the former one. You might consider linking it as well. Thanks!--Jimmy]
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Moral Theology | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/24994/1113131
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is The Holocaust To Be Shortened Or Extended?:
Comments
Right on Jimmy!
Right on.
Posted by: Billy | Sep 11, 2004 2:42:38 AM
In addition to the logical deficiencies that you pointed out, I would also note that it's not even clear that effectiveness at saving lives necessarily corresponds with morality. For example, it is moral to be a pacifist even if fighting would save lives. It is moral to vote for a third-party candidate to indicate one's opposition to the platforms of both major parties, even though that vote is unlikely to change the outcome. It is moral to condemn the terrorism of Al-Qaeda and Hamas even though there will almost certainly be reprisals against Americans for doing so. The point is that the gravity of an evil can be so severe that it compels a stand on principle, even an ineffective stand, in order to keep our humanity. Abortion is something so horrible, so dehumanizing, so violative of right reason that one could never cooperate with it even in order to save lives. The only way such cooperation could ever be justified is in working toward reducing it.
Posted by: | Sep 11, 2004 8:11:25 AM
Abortions are tragic but not a Holocaust! When a woman decides to kill her fetus, she is not intending to destroy all children. Abortionists are not searching the streets rounding up infants for slaughtering. Osama Bin Laden, and his bunch would like to kill every non Muslem. Please remember that Abortions for convenience are MURDER, but not a HOLOCAUST! A pickpocket is not a rapist, and an arsonist is not a kidnapper.
Terry Schindler's case is tragic, and can lead to a Holocaust however. Hitler disposed of those people who were dependent upon others. The US Government, like Nazi Germany is now eliminating the disabled who become a burden to those people who find them to be an inconvenience. Schindler's case should be a warning to all of us before we start legally executing our elderly parents and grandparents.
When you are morally confused and use "off the wall" analogies, you lose all credibility.
Posted by: Chayal b'Hashem | Apr 1, 2005 9:03:39 AM
In response to Chayal: Referring to the millions killed by abortion as a Holocaust is just as appropriate (or more so) as arguing that Terri's death will lead to one.
It's been my understanding that people have used the term Holocaust to point out both the mind-numbing number of people killed by abortion as well as the way that it is justified: by dehumanizing the victims. If the unborn or severely disabled or whomever are are not really human or aren't capable of leading a "sufficiently meaningful" human life, their lives are forfeit.
Incidentally, at the Walk for Life in San Francisco this past January, I carried a sign that read "They're not really people? We've heard that before." I found it strangely gratifying when a protester on the other side of the fence (in this case literally - the city police had taken some safety precautions) screamed at me, "How DARE you compare abortion to the Holocaust?!" Because, of course, the funny thing was that she made the comparison with just a little help. (Legalized slavery is another good example that comes to mind.) I actually got several positive comments from the pro-abortion protesters that day. It was a great day.
(For the curious, the other side of my sign read "Fetus is Latin for child - It means the same thing in English.")
Posted by: Leah | Jun 13, 2005 11:10:19 AM
on and on into the valley of death rode the 6oo"
and the most boring of discussions continue into the next century and beyond. I don't say that to stir emotions on both sides and raise invective, but to set discussions in proper persepective.
There is no answer to this debate which will drag on - forever.
Yes, I know all the arguements, heard it all, seen it all, lived through it all. I shut down long ago. The screaming on both sides and insanity turned me off.
Like gun control, terrorism, and other no-win insane arguments, to which there is no permanent let's-make-everybody=happy solution, you may argue on into the deep blue sunset.
Count me out. I come from the generation where the "back alley" abortions were very real, and deadly. A quick flight to Puerto Rico got you 'well' fast. Infections, hemmorages and death follow like the Pale Horseman. Been there. I don't like either answer. I won't play.
I don't have the answer.
Neither do you.
Posted by: roger fulton | Jun 20, 2005 12:51:13 PM
Women still die due to backalley abortions, and it's legal and available.
Women die due to legal abortions, among other things.
Over 40 million children die yearly worldwide due to abortion.
Averaging the high and low of poll results, 45% of women felt coerced into aborting. A good number are physically forced to abort.
What sort of world is it where women and children are no more than dollar signs? Oh right, America.
Posted by: disenchanted | Aug 9, 2005 12:36:10 PM
"Yes, I know all the arguements(sic), heard it all, seen it all, lived through it all. I shut down long ago." "Count me out." "I won't play. I don't have the answer." It sounds like you don't have a backbone, either. It sounds like you're a moral coward.
Posted by: bill912 | Jan 31, 2006 4:02:23 AM
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae.
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 8, 2006 2:03:09 PM
There is no answer to this debate which will drag on - forever.
I don't know how there can be no answer to this question unless one deliberately blinds oneself to what is happening during an abortion --- the death of a totally innocent human being. I believe that history will judge the Culture Of Death far more severely than they will the Third Reich; a baby in the womb cannot even fight back no matter how hopelessly.
Posted by: Paul | Sep 11, 2006 12:35:46 PM
In 1972, how many women died from illegal abortions? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 39. In this article (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss4804a1.htm), look in the thirteenth paragraph under "Discussion." The number of deaths from illegal abortions decreased in the following years, however, those who bemoan the millions of women dying from illegal abortions should look at this article.
Posted by: TGP | Oct 9, 2006 6:41:54 PM
Speaking of morality, when is the church going to publicly excommunicate Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass) for his pro-abortion stance and dissolute life generally? He is an embarrassment and outrage to decent Catholics everywhere, and he is a major reason why the pro-life position lacks credibility.
Posted by: John | Nov 14, 2006 7:19:45 PM
The name is not "Schindler," it is "Schiavo."
I wish to make a comment in support of George Greer, the trial court judge in the Schiavo case. I am a lawyer, and I practiced in Florida for 18 years, and I had occasion to appear before him on several occasions. In all of those dealings, I found him to be a dedicated knowledgeable jurist who always did his best to listen to the facts of the case and to apply the law correctly. He was also very accommodating to the needs of lawyers, clients, witnesses, and other persons involved in the judicial process. He deserves the respect and admiration of all of us for being thrust into a very difficult position.
The lawyer for Terri's parents is, in my view, a right-wing Protestant Fundamentalist nut. I have listened to his radio program, broadcast out of Clearwater. I read the briefs he filed with the court. A person intending to insult the court could not do a better job than he did. There is only so much of an obnoxious personality that can be tolerated.
As it turned out, only about 30% of Ms. Schiavo's brain remained, and the rest had liquefied. In my opinion, she was dead.
I am also troubled by the role that the church played in this. According to news reports, there was an attempt to administer Communion to Terri by inserting the Host into the feeding tube. In my view, that is an absolute outrageous sacrilege. Doing that was not necessary to Terri's salvation, did her no other good, and it served only to bring the "Catholics" who participated in that antic into well-deserved contempt.
The differing positions of the Florida Bishops were also interesting to note. The Bishop of Orlando posted a ludicrous, intemperate rant on his website about Auschwitz and death cocktails. If he is going to cry wolf at every opportunity, and scream and yell that the sky is falling, when it is not, he will soon lose any credibility that he might have.
The Bishop of St. Petersburg, on the other hand, in whose jurisdiction this tragedy was occurring, merely lamented the need for the matter to be resolved by the judicial process, and expressed a preference that such matters be resolved by the agreement of family members. I think the Bishop of St. Petersburg took the more reasonable, rational, humane approach, and it is extremely instructive that he did not, by his comments or otherwise, condemn the judicial proceedings that were being conducted.
The behavior of President Bush was nothing short of shameless pandering. The death of a family member is a difficult thing, and there are many decisions that can only be made privately and by prayer to God. To think the President of the United States, and his Republican cronies have so little regard for the privacy and sensibilities of families that they would intrude the heavy hand of government into that situation is simply beyond my power of comprehension. Again, I wish to reiterate that there was no "killing" involved. Most of the woman's brain was dissolved, and in my view, she was legally and morally dead, and had been for some time.
For those of you who think that voting Republican is the solution to the Supreme Court's problem, you need to review some history. Roe v. Wade was a 7-2 decision in favor of abortion, and 5 of the 7 justices who voted for abortion were appointed by Republicans.
Thank you.
Posted by: ArizCalFlaLaw | Jul 26, 2007 8:02:09 PM
"Again, I wish to reiterate that there was no 'killing' involved. Most of the woman's brain was dissolved, and im my view, she was legally and morally dead, and had been for some time."
May God have mercy on you.
Posted by: | Jul 31, 2007 11:39:07 AM
The above is mine. Don't know why my name didn't print out.
Posted by: bill912 | Jul 31, 2007 11:40:18 AM
ArizCalFlaLaw,
"Again, I wish to reiterate that there was no 'killing' involved. Most of the woman's brain was dissolved, and im my view, she was legally and morally dead, and had been for some time."
I hope you realize it is not your opinion that matters. If there was no killing involved, there would have been no need to starve or dehydrate her.
Lord, have mercy on both our souls.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Jul 31, 2007 11:52:38 AM
I presume neither of us was there, so it is not appropriate for either of us to pass adverse moral judgment on the other or anyone else.
You may wish to look at a "Catholic living will" form:
http://www.icctampa.org/catholic_living_will.htm
which, near the end, admits the possibility that artificial administration of nutrition and hydration may be disproportionate and excessively burdensome, and therefore may be withdrawn. It leaves the matter to the judgment of the physicians. This seems to preclude the making of any hard and fast, abstract moral judgments.
If the Catholic bishops who endorse this form believe that physicians can make this decision, then there is no reason why I cannot designate someone in whom I have trust and confidence to make the decision for me. In fact, that seems preferable to having the matter decided by whoever happens to be my physician at the time.
By inserting a "clear and convincing" evidentiary standard into the document, however, the bishops are inviting civil litigation, and that is not the way this matter should be resolved.
Posted by: ArizCalFlaLaw | Jul 31, 2007 12:48:06 PM
"Lord, have mercy on both our souls"
and likewise on the souls of the priests who abused the little children and the souls of the bishops who knowingly covered up the priests' actions.
Posted by: ArizCalFlaLaw | Jul 31, 2007 12:50:23 PM
AzCaFl, gee I wonder what your brain would look like after two weeks of dehydration?
I don't have the time to look up from two years ago, but Greer allowed Michael Schiavo to not complete a treatment plan, allowed Felos who head of the board for the hospice, allowed irregularity of Terri's admission to that hospice, allowed Michael Schiavo to do "husband" role despite being in a situation which in my state would constitute a common law marriage.
At this point, combox debate won't change anything. However, Greer, Felos and Schiavo will one day have to give an accounting to God. That's what really counts.
Posted by: Mary Kay | Jul 31, 2007 1:00:35 PM
A living will is for someone who is terminally ill. One of the largest lack of understanding was the difference between severely disabled as Terri was, and terminally ill.
Posted by: Mary Kay | Jul 31, 2007 1:02:36 PM
ArizCalFlaLaw,
which, near the end, admits the possibility that artificial administration of nutrition and hydration may be disproportionate and excessively burdensome, and therefore may be withdrawn.
Terri was not near the end until that judge order her to be starved and dehydrated. She was not terminally ill at all. No amount of legalese will change that simple fact. None of us can be ok with the murder of a helpless disabled person.
And if you are then God have mercy on your soul and before you say it on any priest or bishop who has in any way harmed children.
Bringing up the sins of other in no way changes your obligation to be completely pro-life.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Jul 31, 2007 2:29:58 PM
which, near the end, admits the possibility that artificial administration of nutrition and hydration may be disproportionate and excessively burdensome, and therefore may be withdrawn. It leaves the matter to the judgment of the physicians. This seems to preclude the making of any hard and fast, abstract moral judgments.
My understanding is that nutrition and hydration may be withdrawn when they no longer serve (and in fact may frustrate) the purpose for which nutrition and hydration are intended. For example, if the body will no longer process the nutrients, there is no requirement that they still be given. If to give them in that situation is exceedingly painful, the requirement, if any, would be to withdraw them.
That provision is not a license for anyone to determine that feeding or hydrating this or that person is simply too burdensome, and does not apply at all to the Schiavo situation.
Posted by: Esquire | Jul 31, 2007 3:14:00 PM
The doctors and lawyers responsible in the Schiavo case not only removed the feeding tube, but prevented anyone from trying to feed Terry or give her drink BY ANY MEANS AT ALL, natural or un-.
The feeding tube is a red herring. They determined to starve her to death by any means necessary, and they succeeded.
I don't believe I ever heard the term "morally dead" before. Someone care to expand on that? IMO, the morally dead ones were the husband, his doctors and lawyers.
Posted by: Tim J. | Jul 31, 2007 6:50:34 PM
ArizCalFlaLaw,
I see I miss read your post. I thought you were quoting the document. Now that I have carefully read the document it in no way supports your position. Here is the entire portion you referred to:
3) that nothing should be done with the intention of causing my death.
I believe nutrition and hydration are generally not excessively burdensome or disproportionate, whether being administered orally or artificially. Therefore they are not to be withheld or withdrawn from me unless there is clear and convincing evidence, in the judgment of my physicians, that they would cause me harm, cannot effectively sustain life or are excessively burdensome to me.
You cannot intend to cause death. Period. They were not harming Terri at all. Removing them was murder plain and simple.
Esquire,
Your explanation was spot on.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Jul 31, 2007 9:34:03 PM
that nothing should be done with the intention of causing my death
Death may be an inevitable result of removing the feeding tube, but what exactly was the intention behind removing it?
Posted by: Rick | Jul 31, 2007 10:04:09 PM
A thought/question I have for all of you, and that seems best to go with this particular discussion:
In recent years, I have been thinking that perhaps our real situation here with a "Schiavo-like" case is that our medical knowledge to save a life has gone beyond our wisdom to know when to use it. This may not relate to Terri's case since I don't know what her medical status was when she was first brought into the hospital.
I want to explain a bit better what I mean. Are we sometimes using our medical technology to "save" someone when we have no possible hope of doing anything other than keeping them artificially alive, or alive by machines? Once we are keeping someone alive by technology, the thought of "pulling the plug" is abhorrent. But, are we, in some of the cases, beyond our knowledge of when the technological avenue to save should, or should not, be used? Not trying seems abhorrent though also - because we just don't know who we might be able to bring back to the point of at least being aware.
This seems to me that we are bitten again by the "fruit of the tree of knowledge" - in other words, human knowledge that we cannot hope to have enough wisdom to use well at all times. We are just a sad lot that must do our best by praying for the right answers and looking to the Church for guidelines.
I have no idea of any "answer" here. I am very interested to hear others' thoughts about the idea of whether there are times when our error is actually to start the machines in the first place.
Posted by: Renae | Feb 26, 2008 11:22:24 AM
Renae, I couldn't agree with you more. Getting back to the origin of the blog though, has anyone else considered the fact that the real fight isn't whether abortions are legal or not? Maybe we should be concentrating on reaching out to women and explaining to them WHY abortion is wrong. If all women believe abortion is murder as I do, it simply won't matter whether it's legal or not because women won't be seeking them out either in the clinics OR the back alleys. So the next time a co worker, neighbor or family member goes on about how they're proud to be pro-choice speak up instead of sitting silently (as we conservatives are supposed to)I for one, am tired of sitting silently so as not to be thought of as "judgemental" or "intolerant". We CAN end abortion, one woman at a time.
Kristin
Posted by: Kristin | Mar 24, 2008 5:44:46 PM
I don't think anyone has the right to say whether abortion is right or wrong. That is why it needs to be legal, so people can make that choice for themselves. Religion is irrelevant to this discussion, because politics should not be about religious moral standards.
Abortion is not murder. Legal abortion has saved a huge number of lives, and prevented women in a number of compromising situations from having to be shamed into adoption or into back alley abortions.
Pro-lifers still get abortions when the chips are down. Then they have the audacity to think their situation is different and that abortion is wrong for everyone else.
Posted by: Hannah | Apr 14, 2008 10:37:42 PM
Hannah, it's easy to be pro-choice when you're not the one being killed.
Posted by: bill912 | Apr 15, 2008 5:29:18 AM
I don't think anyone has the right to say that killing Hannah is right or wrong. That is why killing Hannah needs to be legal, so people can make that choice for themselves.
Sounds a little different from that angle, doesn't it?
Posted by: bill912 | Apr 15, 2008 5:33:35 AM
"Abortion is not murder." That would be true only if life did not begin at conception. The science of biology says otherwise.
"Legal abortion has saved a huge number of lives..." Legal abortion has killed millions of lives and devastated millions of souls.
"...shamed into adoption..." "Shamed" into making a heroic decision and giving life?
"Pro-lifers still get abortion when the chips are down." Isn't that an oxymoron?
Posted by: bill912 | Apr 15, 2008 5:45:11 AM
Hannah, God loves you, forgives you, and wants to heal you. All you have to do is turn to Him. A lot of us will be praying for you.
Posted by: bill912 | Apr 15, 2008 5:47:50 AM
Pro-lifers still get abortions when the chips are down. Then they have the audacity to think their situation is different and that abortion is wrong for everyone else.
This is an unsubstantiated personal attack. One who engages in such attacks forfeits the debate, because is reveals that one's position is so unstable as to be untenable, and therefore can be backed up only by personal attacks.
Posted by: David B. | Apr 15, 2008 9:40:23 AM
I think everyone should read Peter Kreeft's "Three Approaches to Abortion" Awesome book. And Kreeft is the man.
Posted by: Brady W | May 1, 2008 1:29:54 AM
Those who oppose abortion fail to recognize an inescapable fact of life, namely that women will seek and obtain abortion whether they are legal or not. And if they are too poor, they will try to abort themselves, with the inevitable disastrous results.
There is far more abortion in poor countries where it is illegal than where it is legal.
Consider, Brazil, the world's largest Catholic nation. More happen here every year than in the US. Contrast this with the prosperous Netherlands, which has the World's LOWEST abortion rate. That's right. In the supposedly godless, hedonistic wealthy countries of Europe,
you find the least abortion. Why? Because there is far less poverty here. Women who have the means to take good care of children are far less likely to have abortions.
And contraception is easily available. To make
it illegal in America would be insanely foolish.
Abortions would only INCREASE markedly, and a
black market in contraceptives would be created.
Posted by: robert berger | Jun 15, 2008 8:12:56 AM
Please stop saying drivel, pal. I'm Brazilian, and is a very well known fact here that it just isn't possible to estimate the real number of abortions done here, for lack of reliable statistics, which only got worse when the pro-abortion lobby started to lie ridiculously about the subject, to the point where a branch of WHO said officially that "Lamentably, it's not the first time that one takes the name of WHO and/or Pan-american Organization of Health to give informations that don't emanate from these institutions. And lately our socialist government started also lying about the number of deaths due to illegal abortions, which according to official statistics had its highest point in 1997, with 163 deaths, not several hundredes of thousands as it has been spread lately.
Beyond that, truth is that even if science couldn't prove that the fetus is a human being, abortion would still be an act which has a 50% probability of being a murder, and no decent person (and certainly not a Christian)should want to be involved in it.
Posted by: Matheus | Jun 15, 2008 8:44:44 AM
When life begins and whether a fetus is "human" or not are just red herrings constantly being set up by anti-choice people.
Abortion cannot be stopped,period. There is simply no way to do it. You can rail at it until you are blue in the face, and protest all you want at places which provide it, but nothing will stop it. It's not that I WANT abortions to happen. I merely recognize that they are going to happen anyway.
There is absolutely no way to enforce laws against abortion, except in isoltaed cases in which women are caught having one. If it becomes illegal here, how will the government stop women who can afford it from going abroad for them?
Will they put up blockades at borders and airports,and examine every woman of childbearing age for pregnancy? How will they stop poor women
from trying to abort themselves? Put up surveillance cameras in every home and arrest them? Come on. Conservatives are always saying
get the government off our backs. But this sounds more like Orwell's 1984 to me.
Posted by: robert berger | Jun 15, 2008 10:04:33 AM
"When life begins" is at conception, as the science of bilogy teaches, inconvenient as that fact might be to some who wish to justify evil.
Posted by: bill912 | Jun 15, 2008 10:20:06 AM
Meditate on this: Someone says, "I'm personally opposed to killing Robert Berger, but I don't want to force my opinion on anyone who thinks differently."
Posted by: bill912 | Jun 15, 2008 10:23:12 AM
When life begins and whether a fetus is "human" or not are just red herrings constantly being set up by anti-choice people. Abortion cannot be stopped,period. There is simply no way to do it. You can rail at it until you are blue in the face, and protest all you want at places which provide it, but nothing will stop it. It's not that I WANT abortions to happen. I merely recognize that they are going to happen anyway.
Murder, infanticide and rape also can't be stopped. There is simply no way to do it. You can rail at it until you are blue in the face, but nothing will stop it. It's not that I WANT murder, infanticide and rape to happen. I merely recognize that they are going to happen anyway.
So what's your point?
To say that laws have no effect on abortion (or murder or infanticide) is disingenuous nonsense. Anyone who talks that way is probably not yet ready to have a sincere discussion about reality, and anyone who comes to a site like this to talk that way probably brings a truckload of obstacles to dialogue that would take a very long time to sort through.
What do you think should be done for infants born alive after surviving a botched abortion? Do you think (with Barack Obama, say) they should be killed, even if there are families willing and able to take them in and care for them?
What do you think of ethicist Peter Singer's thesis that new parents should have a 30-day "trial period" after their baby is born during which they can decide, legally, whether to keep it or kill it?
If you're against either of these, it would seem you've suddenly attributed some sort of significance to red herrings about "when life begins" and whether a little one (English for "fetus") is "human."
Posted by: SDG | Jun 15, 2008 10:25:05 AM
Laws against murder,rape and other crimes
are enforcable. Laws against abortion are not.
What about my points about blockades at borders
and airports,or surveillance cameras at homes?
Will you please tell me how we will enforce the law? And how will we provide for those who ARE born? You scream about the"right to life".
What about the right to decent food,shelter,clothing,education and medical care?
Conservatives don't want the government to do
more to see that children get these things.
That's socialism,they cry, and we don't want that here,do we? What a bunch of hypocrites?
Posted by: robert berger | Jun 15, 2008 10:43:28 AM
Those who oppose abortion fail to recognize an inescapable fact of life, namely that women will seek and obtain abortion whether they are legal or not. And if they are too poor, they will try to abort themselves, with the inevitable disastrous results.
Those who oppose murder fail to recognize an inescapable fact of life, namely that people will seek and obtain hit contracts whether they are legal or not. And if they are too poor, they will try to commit the murder themselves, with the inevitable disastrous results.
Posted by: Mary | Jun 15, 2008 10:44:00 AM
Laws against murder,rape and other crimes
are enforcable. Laws against abortion are not.
What about my points about blockades at borders
and airports,or surveillance cameras at homes?
Will you please tell me how we will enforce the law? And how will we provide for those who ARE born? You scream about the"right to life".
What about the right to decent food,shelter,clothing,education and medical care?
Conservatives don't want the government to do
more to see that children get these things.
That's socialism,they cry, and we don't want that here,do we? What a bunch of hypocrites!
Posted by: robert berger | Jun 15, 2008 10:46:06 AM
We can't catch all the rapists; we can't catch all the drunk drivers; we can't catch all the burglars.
Posted by: bill912 | Jun 15, 2008 10:53:09 AM
Laws against murder,rape and other crimes
are enforcable.
Then why aren't they being? Why are rapes, murders, and other crimes occuring by your definition of enforcable?
Posted by: Mary | Jun 15, 2008 10:54:00 AM
Who mentioned socialism(other than you)? Is calling us "hypocrites" the best you can do?
Posted by: bill912 | Jun 15, 2008 10:54:27 AM
"hypocrite (n). a person who pretends to have desirable or publicly approved attitudes, beliefs, principles, etc., he does not actually possess."--Random House College Dictionary
To whom are you referring that that word would apply?
And, yes, we expect you to back up your answer logically.
Posted by: bill912 | Jun 15, 2008 10:59:37 AM
Conservatives don't want the government to do
more to see that children get these things.
That's socialism,they cry, and we don't want that here,do we?
Conservatives earn less money than liberals do but give one-third more to charity.
Liberals don't want children to get decent food, shelter, clothing, education and medical care unless someone else pays for it and a third party actually does the work -- which is to say, they claim they want it but they will do nothing to make it happen.
What a bunch of hypocrites!
Posted by: Mary | Jun 15, 2008 11:02:07 AM
Laws against murder,rape and other crimes are enforcable. Laws against abortion are not.
Why can't providers of illegal abortion be prosecuted just like any other criminals?
And how will we provide for those who ARE born? You scream about the"right to life". What about the right to decent food,shelter,clothing,education and medical care? Conservatives don't want the government to do more to see that children get these things. That's socialism,they cry, and we don't want that here,do we? What a bunch of hypocrites?
Here we get to the heart of the issue: You aren't attacking the pro-life position per se, you're attacking a particular form of "conservatism" that you identify with a particular socioeconomic agenda.
This is a Catholic blog. The Catholic Church does more than any other NGO to provide for just the kinds of needs you mention. And plenty of Catholics are in favor of the kinds of government programs you speak of. So you get no mileage out that that argument here.
Posted by: SDG | Jun 15, 2008 12:27:30 PM
And how will we provide for those who ARE born? You scream about the"right to life". What about the right to decent food,shelter,clothing,education and medical care? Conservatives don't want the government to do more to see that children get these things. That's socialism,they cry, and we don't want that here,do we? What a bunch of hypocrites?
This is silly. The morality (or lack thereof) of abortion has nothing to do with the straw man lie that so-called conservative Christians aren't concerned with life after conception. Why do they have so many kids, then? Why do they give more to charity than atheists, etc?
P.S. Off Topic: Being opposed to big government has nothing to do with abortion or not caring for the poor. It's a political belief, not a form of hatred for others.
Posted by: David B. | Jun 15, 2008 4:34:57 PM
I don't deny that Catholic charities have done
a lot of good. I'm all for them. But what charity
provides all the needs of poor children?
Who will see to it that poor children get good nutrition? Children who do not get this are
doomed to stunted mental development and lowered
intelligence. This shouldn't be happening in
America, the world's richest nation.
And why shouldn't the US government do more to help the poor? This isn't socialism,but compassionate government. And to improve education by building new,state of the art schools, and renovating existing ones. Increasing teacher pay to attract people of high
caliber to teaching. This would certainly
reduce poverty greatly, and therefore abortion.
Look at the Scandinavian countries. Yes, taxes
are sky high. But it has its benefits. You
don't see people who are out of work losing
their
homes as is so common in the US, and struggling to support their families.
Yes, I know,these countries certainly have
their problems. They aren't paradise. But in many
ways, people are better-off and more secure than
many Americans. A system like these would not be feasable in a country the size of America,
but we certainly could learn from these countries, just as they could learn from us.
Posted by: robert berger | Jun 16, 2008 10:51:46 AM
"...to improve education by building new,state of the art schools, and renovating existing ones. Increasing teacher pay to attract people of high
caliber to teaching. This would certainly reduce poverty greatly,"
Except that we have proved - are still proving - that this doesn't work. We have been following that program for 50 years, yet education continues to grow worse and worse, and we have not made a dent in poverty.
The problem is in the culture, not in the number or condition of textbooks or buildings. Increased funding and teacher salaries has produced diddly squat.
Education did perhaps help to reduce poverty for a little while, but we are not the people we were then. Then, we desired education partly because it would help bring prosperity out of our labor. Now, we want to skip the education and the labor and go straight to the prosperity part, because we think it is some kind of birthright.
Our schools - including large chunks of our college campuses - are now basically government subsidized daycare canters, though there are a lot of good teachers who do what they can to impart some learning.
The problem isn't the mechanism, it's the atmosphere of the society. China and India have for some time been poor by our standards, but their kids kick our kids' butts in the classroom. They still understand what education is and have a genuine appreciation for its power.
Posted by: Tim J. | Jun 16, 2008 11:17:04 AM
I don't deny that Catholic charities have done a lot of good. I'm all for them. But what charity provides all the needs of poor children? Who will see to it that poor children get good nutrition? Children who do not get this are doomed to stunted mental development and lowered intelligence. This shouldn't be happening in America, the world's richest nation.
And why shouldn't the US government do more to help the poor? This isn't socialism,but compassionate government. And to improve education by building new,state of the art schools, and renovating existing ones. Increasing teacher pay to attract people of high caliber to teaching. This would certainly reduce poverty greatly, and therefore abortion.
All of that is as may be. Some pro-life Catholics, like Tim J above, may argue these points. Other pro-life Catholics would agree with you. So that's not an essential dividing issue. My main contention is that it's a separate question from the travesty of murdering unborn children regarding which that you came in here with both barrels blazing.
Posted by: SDG | Jun 16, 2008 11:29:46 AM
Well, and yes, as SDG points out, the two are separate issues.
We need to do all that we reasonably can to help the poor, but we might start by not killing them in the womb.
That has the added advantage of not saddling young mothers with the guilt of abortion for the rest of their lives, which leads many young women to self-destructive behavior.
Abortion is not compassion.
Posted by: Tim J. | Jun 16, 2008 11:47:38 AM
But what charity provides all the needs of poor children?
But what government program provides all the needs of poor children?
Posted by: Mary | Jun 16, 2008 7:46:18 PM
We need to do all that we reasonably can to help the poor, but we might start by not killing them in the womb.
We also want to not kill them afterward, and you've got to admit, it's the conservatives not the liberals who want to discourage that by locking up people who commit murder -- which discourages the people around and definitely discourages those who are locked up.
Posted by: Mary | Jun 16, 2008 7:47:35 PM
I'm afraid I didn't get your point, Mary. Can you rephrase it?
Posted by: Tim J. | Jun 17, 2008 5:54:46 AM
Not to speak for Mary, it sounds like she's making a law-and-order point to the effect that being tough on violent crime is effectively "pro-life."
Posted by: SDG | Jun 17, 2008 6:21:01 AM
