« Good Politicians | HomePage | Back to Hell »
Thursday, January 27, 20051106837700
Bankrupt Abortion
"Where's that religious fanatic we elected?," by Ann Coulter, World Net Daily, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42574, 26 January 2005 (from Sibby Online).
I'm a fan of many of Steve Sibson's comments over at CCK, but I disagree with him here. He quotes approvingly from a Coulter article
The only thing we need to do now is to start "changing laws." A culture of life cannot even begin – much less be sustained – until we change the law and repeal Roe v. Wade. Only then can we tally up how many hearts have been changed.
If, right now, pro-lifers had already succeeded in changing the hearts of every last person in America – including Hillary Clinton! – abortion would still be legal in every state of the union. It's a "constitutional right" – taking its place alongside all those other "sad," "tragic" rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as religious expression, free speech, freedom of assembly and so on. Who was it who said, "Free speech should be safe, legal and rare"?
After a certain point, abortion is infanticide. And if we call infanticide "murder" the moment after birth, then it is murder the moment before birth. But Coulter's wrong on two related counts.
She lampons the argument that there is a Constitutional right to abortion, noting how other rights aren't "sad," "tragic" or should be "rare."
But Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that Congress protect a right that in a better world would never be needed
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States
Even those who felt the Bill of Rights was superfluous insisted that Bankruptcy be protected by the U.S. government. Under British law, not paying debts meant one would be treated like a thief. Madison wanted to create a society in which bankruptcy was safe, legal, and rare.
Likewise, a culture of life can clearly begin without changing the laws, just as a culture of fiscal prudence can exist without the repeal of a certain clause in the Constitution.
Late term abortion is infanticide. Coulter is a demagogue. Both were true yesterday, and true today, and will be true tomorrow.
08:55 Posted by Dan tdaxp (Webmaster) in Abortion, Law | Permalink | Comments (2) | Email this | Tags: culture of life
Comments
After what point is abortion infanticide? Isn't the fetus human from the time of conception until the time of birth? And as a human baby, isn't abortion murder from the moment of conception on?
Posted by: Bets | Friday, January 28, 2005
"Isn't the fetus human from the time of conception until the time of birth?"
No. The quick answer is that there is no fetus (recognizable human) from conception on -- before that there is an embryo.
I have written before of the futility of trying to build a New Style Man (http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/01/22/aikokushin.html). Humans are an imperfect lot and the reason certain patterns have persisted in history is that they are the ways best suited for humanity. With abortion,we should look at the ancient traditions and see which ones have worked.
Biblically, we know that abortion is against the Law (Exodus 21:22 http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Exd/Exd021.html). But it is as serious as murder.
The Greeks and Romans had laws against destroying a fetus ("already formed"), but not against destroying an embro.
Saint Augustine believed abortion after the quickening was murder, but before that it was a firm of birth control (which he also opposed, but wasn't as serious).
Pre-Islamic Arabia did not believe infanticide was a crime, but murder was. Muhammed changed this ("Who hears the cries of the baby girl, buried alive? God hears."), outlawing abortion after around the quickening.
To this day Chinese culture considers infanticide to be a form of abortion.
My point is that there is a clear hierarchy. Wisdom of all background abhors infanticide and hates murder, while some oppose post-conception birth control out of concern for sexuality morality.
Our laws should reflect this. There should not be laws against post-conception birth controls. There should be serious laws against infanticide, both before and after birth. Denying this confuses the issues, and allows horrors like partial birth abortion to by defended, and "murderers" of infants to be sentenced so lightly it makes a joke of justice.
Posted by: Dan | Friday, January 28, 2005