On ending Roe v. Wade
Megan McArdle is pro-life, but she believes that Roe v. Wade rests on such shaky legal grounds that it needs to be reversed and the decision left to the states. What’s more, she does not think that would constitute a disaster; she thinks it would finally spark a more meaningful discussion of the issue and more fine-tuned laws than under Roe. It’s worth reading the whole thing.
I wish I could be as optimistic as McArdle. I perceive each side in the abortion argument to have large elements that are so intense they brook no compromise and no allowances for the opposite side. The two sides can be summarized as abortion is always murder and abortion is a basic right that should be allowed at any time on demand.
Just as an example, WaPo columnist Jen Rubin (who seems to hold the latter view) recently got a lot of traction for some remarks about Trump press secretary Sarah Sanders needing a “life sentence” of being made uncomfortable. But that publicity actually obscured a statement she voiced concurrently about the right to abortion.
Here’s the quote, in which Rubin is referring to Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and stating what should happen if these two Republican female senators vote to approve Trump’s (as-yet-unnamed) pick for SCOTUS [emphasis mine]:
“The message to those two women by Democrats by pro-choice women in those two states — by the entire states of Maine and Alaska — has to be simple. You vote for this, Ms. Collins, Ms. Murkowski, you have voted to criminalize abortion — this is on you. And we’re not going to accept these nonsense excuses that, ‘Well, because he said he was in favor of precedent, this won’t count, you can vote for him.’ No! It has to be all-out, on the ground in those states.”
She then suggested that they may be “phony” in claiming to be “pro-choice” as she added: “Those women Have to be put under a glaring light so that they finally have to make a choice that actually does go against their party. Unless they were just phony pro-choice women all along — which is distinctly possible.”
Later in the show, after claiming that Sanders’s criticism of the press amounts to an “incitement to violence,” claiming that journalists’ “lives are on the line,” Rubin recommended that a million protesters should mobilize to intimidate Sanders as well as Senators Collins and Murkowski.
“Let’s get a million people to go to Maine or a million people to go to Alaska and start putting pressure on those Senators. So it’s perfectly civil to do that — no one is telling them to be violent protesters, but we’re not going to let these people go through life unscathed. Sarah Huckabee has no right to live a life of no fuss, no muss, after lying to the press — after inciting against the press. These people should be made uncomfortable, and I think that’s a life sentence frankly.”
“These people” seems to have included Republican senators Collins and Murkowski. The idea of Rubin (and others) is that there can be no turning back; no allowing states to decide. Even a Republican who would facilitate that process is so guilty, so beyond the pale, that that person should be harassed for life. She (and many others) does not believe an anti-Roe position is a legitimate position with which she happens to disagree, but rather that such a position is an absolute evil.
And of course many of those who believe abortion is murder would say the same of the opposition to their point of view. I see the clash of these two extreme groups as escalating the conflict in this country in the next few years, if a Roe challenge is successful. And I say this despite the fact that I think—as does McArdle—that the legal reasoning in Roe was abominable and that overturning it would be the correct legal result.
[NOTE: My own views on abortion can be found here.]
Isn’t Meghan “uneasily pro-choice”?
neo,
Murkowski or Mukarovsky?
MJR:
Oops! Can’t change it now because I’m on my cell. I’ll change it later. Thanks.
she had the choice not to allow that filthy penis inside her vagina. Once the baby is conceived sorry the baby’s right to live trumps her desire to abdicate her burden as a mother by murdering her child.
In the 45 years since Roe v. Wade (RvW) was decided, there have been 4 Republican Presidents serving for about 24 years compared to 3 Democrats who served for about 20 years. Not once in those 24 “R” years was RvW challenged.
The newest conservative Supreme Court Justice cannot, as many on the left seem to think (and apparently some on the right), just start proceedings to overturn RvW. I don’t think a Justice of the SCOTUS can bring a case before his/her own body. Somebody on the outside has to challenge it. Then it gets aired in lower courts, appealed and bumped up until it finally reaches the Supremes. (And it will end up there because no party to the challenge is going to accept a lower court ruling). Who knows, when it finally gets there we could have a liberal tilt to the SCOTUS.
A challenge could happen. But if so, why didn’t it happen in the previous 45 years? My guess is that Justices of the SCOTUS are extremely reluctant to challenge precedent set by their own body.
Everybody needs to chill. RvW will be with us for a very long time.
I just don’t understand why men are given only one choice of whether to ejaculate inside while the women can have two choices of whether to let a penis in and abortion in the whole process of pregnancy. I am fine with abortion if to be fair men are given the same authority to demand a woman to abort the child if the man has the desire not to keep the child.
I agree with Doug Purdie: people need to chill. Conservative judge don’t throw out a ruling like Roe v. Wade because it creates too much chaos. That’s not what conservatives tend to do.
That being said, I understand the hate. The political classes don’t have the power that they think is due them, and they are destroying sanity in public discourse in this temper tantrum. And if they lose in November, things are going to get much worse.
What kind of persons says this: “So it’s perfectly civil to do that — no one is telling them to be violent protesters, but we’re not going to let these people go through life unscathed?” First of all, that’s some definition of “civil”. As long as Rubin isn’t openly advocating violence, it’s “civil”. But then there’s this bit: “We’re not going to let these people go through life unscathed.” Literally, those that don’t agree with us will suffer injury, damage, or harm. Doesn’t sound very nonviolent to me.
Foolish people in public places are destroying institutions, undermining discussion, and advocating violence. They need to grow up. This may not end well.
Dave,
How do you know that the man doesn’t put lots of pressure on the woman? What would Harvey Weinstein do? Of course, there are also women who “forget” to take their pills to try to get the man to stick around. Relationships and responsibilities are hard.
I have real problems with very late abortions. These women must have had to buy maternity clothes. They felt the baby move. Why did it take 6 or more months to make a decision? I think the Euros who limit the time frame for legal abortion and require counselling are right. The pro-choicers who say “No big deal” are not trying to help women in a tough situation. They are saying that motherhood and children don’t matter.
Whatever the moral or ideological underpinnings of the abortion controversy, the left seems to have ventured into different territory as a result of their fear of Roe being overturned.
Susan Collins announced that she could not vote for a SCOTUS pick who might overturn Roe because it is settled law. So court decisions can only go one way, and once made, they are unalterable?
Then what of Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, or the Lochner case? These decisions were all settled law; they all set precedents; they were all overturned. How can stare decisis apply only to Roe v Wade and not to any other court decision at any level?
Once again, the left (yes, I include Collins) spouts a knee-jerk reaction without any concern for logic, consistency, or resulting ripple effects (why would we expect anything else?). Must we now overturn the overturnings of these prior cases of “settled law”?
Also, for anyone interested, William Vallicella (aka Maverick Philosopher) has posted a short essay regarding his take on the secular aspect of the abortion argument. (Posted July 4 @ 1:39 pm, scroll down past the more recent entries).
The link:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/
What about the death penalty as an similar situation? There are people who feel very strongly about both sides. There is no obvious agreement on it. But since it’s mostly in the hands of the states, it’s a lot less intense than the abortion debate.
Reducing the abortion debate to the level of the death penalty debate would be a positive step.
Evolution of human life from conception.
So, what do we call the elective termination… abortion of a wholly innocent human life for causes other than self-defense? Collateral damage?
Denying life that is deemed unworthy, torture from around one or two months with formation of a coherent nervous system, and summary judgment is extreme.
Selective-child is extreme? And one-child? Normalization vs single/central Planned Parenthood, that takes on a different character with advocacy, activism, and establishment of a Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, politically congruent Church.
Pro-Choice is two choices too late.
I do not believe that I have the right to impose my religious beliefs upon others and, while conception begins the process of what will normally become a human being, there is currently no independently verifiable proof that an embryo contains a human being’s consciousness.
Nor is there definitive proof of when consciousness enters a fetus.
That said, my strictly personal standard is that I cannot justify legalized abortion after 26 weeks from conception, i.e. twenty-eight weeks into the pregnancy.
That is when the baby’s eyes open and, if “the eyes are the window to the soul” then I intuit that is when our souls enter our bodies with consciousness now present… in fact, I suspect it is that presence which opens the eyes. We literally ‘awake’ at that point. Not having a language with which to construct ‘thoughts’, it’s pure awareness.
IMO, it is the soul that differentiates between a child of God and what would otherwise be a ‘zombie’.
But since I don’t know when consciousness occurs and am unwilling to assume God’s prerogatives, I personally do not believe that abortion is justifiable other than if the life of the mother is at risk. It’s a life to be and only God is justified in taking that life.
When my daughter was born, the doctor immediately handed her to me even before the nurses got her and I looked into her eyes. I saw recognition in her eyes and though I know that it is claimed that babies can’t see at that point, I also know that I did not imagine it. In fact I was surprised, given the experts assertion about newborn’s sight, which up till that moment I had unthinkingly accepted.
We all know the look of recognition in another’s eyes and I’m doubtful that it can be faked, certainly a newborn baby would be incapable of it.
That experience leads me to suspect that right after birth, babies can see for a very brief period. Certainly hours later when I once again gazed into her eyes, I saw no recognition. Her development from that point followed the normal progress we all know.
Great piece by Nat Hentoff — “My Controversial Choice to Become Pro-life”; here’s how it starts:
Out of the mouths of babes.
This is one of the reasons I’ve been pessimistic about the long term prospects of the right. I’m afraid the issue of abortion will cause a chasm on the right such as that which exists between the left and right where neither understands nor listens to each other.
Abortion is only a manifestation of a deeper philosophic divide which has to do with the foundations and source of a man’s freedom. Is a man’s freedom inherent in the nature of man, or is it granted by a creator? One’s answer defines the boundaries that are set on a person’s rights and freedom.
Given that the stakes in Roe v Wade are life and death I don’t see any room for accommodation or compromise. One side or the other must yield.
Ann Says:
July 5th, 2018 at 8:31 pm
Great piece by Nat Hentoff — “My Controversial Choice to Become Pro-life”; here’s how it starts:
* * *
..and here is how it ends:
In debates with pro-abortionists, I frequently quote a writer I greatly admire, Mary Meehan, who often appears in this publication of the Human Life Foundation. Mary was active in the anti-Vietnam-war and civil-rights movements, and wrote an article for The Progressive magazine, many of whose readers have similar backgrounds. For years, I was a columnist for The Progressive and, as far as I know, I was the only pro-lifer on the staff—and probably among the readers. Mary Meehan shook up both the staff and the readers when she wrote:
“Some of us who went through the antiwar struggles of the 1960s and 1970s are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. . . . It is out of character for the left to neglect the weak and helpless. The traditional mark of the left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak, and the poor. The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even in more need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient. The basic instinct of the left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves. And that instinct is absolutely sound. It’s what keeps the human proposition going.”
Whether you’re on the left or on the right—or an independent, as I am—it’s also vital to keep in mind what Barbara Newman has written in The American Feminist, the national magazine of Feminists for Life: “If it is wrong to kill with guns, bombs, or poison, with the electric chair or the noose, it is most tragically wrong to kill with the physician’s tools.”
Way back, a German physician and humanist, Dr. Christoph Hufeland, wrote: “If the physician presumes to take into consideration in his work whether a life has value or not, the consequences are boundless, and the physician becomes the most dangerous man in the state.” Once human life is devalued unto death, many of us born people who are sick and in need of costly care—especially as we grow older—can be left to die because our “quality of life” isn’t worth keeping us alive.
Having been out of step all these years, I have learned the most fundamental human right is the right to life—for the born, the unborn, the elderly who refuse to give up on life. My daughter, Jessica, recently sent me a button to wear to proclaim the essence of what she and I believe to be Constitutional Americanism: “No, you can’t have my rights—I’m still using them.”
* * *
Highlighting the fundamental hypocrisy of the left, which is occasionally noticed by their fellow-travelers.
Socialists only care about the weak as stepping stones to power, as we have seen over and over again.
steve walsh Says:
July 5th, 2018 at 9:22 pm
Given that the stakes in Roe v Wade are life and death I don’t see any room for accommodation or compromise. One side or the other must yield.
* * *
The same fundamental opposition that led to the Civil War– Lincoln: “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free”
When you get around to derussifying “Murkowski” you can also correct Meghan McArdle to Megan McArdle.
Glen H; M J R:
All fixed now (I think).
I was in a hurry because I had a dentist appointment and was running a bit late. As is so often the case, haste makes typos.
Les:
I’m pessimistic also.
“How can you stop the driving rain? How can you stop a runaway train? How can you stop the ripening corn? How can you stop a baby being born?”
The answer to the last question is murder.
Roe v Wade (introducing the dumbass legal concept of a “right to privacy” to protect taking human life) will eventually be regarded like Plessy v Ferguson (introducing the dumbass legal concept of “separate but equal” to protect institutionalized racism), if we ever regain our sanity as a culture.
That’s a big “if”.
These are decisions that demonstrate the problem with appointing academic intellectuals — who know the law but not much else — to the court. The worst ideas in human history have come from such people. Maybe a King Solomon type of figure should be our ideal, with a combination of both intellectual legal prowess and wisdom, and that last part is often lacking.
We need a way to provide a check on the crazy. The nine year old kid mentioned above understands.
For me, there are three aspects of the abortion debate which, taken together, are utterly dispositive to me. They make me unable to avoid siding with pro-lifers.
The first is the simple statement of a principle: “It is always gravely immoral to deliberately kill an innocent human being.” Boston College philosopher Peter Kreeft likes to state it that way, and I think he’s on-target. Stating the issue this way, one avoids things like capital punishment, thereby avoiding distraction.
The second aspect is the way that uncertainty obviously requires us to err on the side of caution. Kreeft gives the following illustrations:
Suppose you are driving late at night, in rain, and ahead of you on the road, in a shadowy area, is a form that maybe a bundle of old sheets, or may be a person lying on the road. You are unsure which. Are you not morally obligated to err on the side of caution, and drive slowly around and past the bundle, and stop to help if it turns out to be a human? Who would argue that one’s uncertainty makes one free to just drive right over the bundle?
Or suppose you are hunting in the woods, and there is a rustling in the brush away to your right. You know a big buck went in there a few minutes earlier, but you can’t see the deer now. But you hear movement. It may be the deer; or it may be your fellow hunter. Are you not morally obligated to err on the side of caution, and not shoot that which you can’t identify?
Now, our philosophically-ignorant culture has left many folk unsure about when, developmentally, a living being is properly accorded the rights which accrue to a living being of that species. Very well: The fetus may be a value-free clump of cells; or it may be an innocent and defenseless person. You are uncertain which. What, given your uncertainty, is your moral obligation?
Uncertainty, then, argues for the pro-life position.
Taking these first two aspects, together, we already have a good pro-life argument: We know it is gravely immoral to deliberately kill an innocent human being. We know, scientifically, that an unborn child is a human being who is alive. We know that to abort them — not to save the mother from an ectopic pregnancy with the undesired side-effect of losing the baby, but to just deliberately kill them to be rid of them — is to kill a human being. And we know that they are innocent of any wrongdoing…certainly of any wrongdoing for which any society prescribes the death penalty!
We may, it is true, be uncertain about whether “personhood” and “rights” have yet “attached” to a fetus at such-and-such a stage of development. Very well: But uncertainty mitigates in favor of the pro-life position, not against it.
Those first two aspects are almost enough on their own.
But then there is the third.
The third aspect is the way in which the pro-choice side’s argumentation relies on avoiding the critical central matter of the debate.
Confronting what is central requires us to ask:
(a.) …what it means that the fetus is a developmentally-earlier, defenseless, and innocent living being of the species homo sapiens; and,
(b.) …what it means if we declare any living homo-sapiens to be “less than a person” on the basis of their non-utility or incapacity, and whose company we are keeping when we make such declarations.
But the left goes very far out of its way to avoid talking about these things. And how obvious they are in doing so! How very bald are the circumlocutions, the tendentious redefinitions of terms! How artless they are, how prone to Kafka-esque inanity!
Aren’t we all bored with the silliness of it? The way that the pro-legalized-and-subsidized-abortion side calls themselves “pro-choice,” and the anti-legal-abortion side responds with “pro-life.” Nobody is fooled by these word games.
The “pro-life” side, of course, would most-fully be called the “pro-outlawing-abortion-to-protect-the-lives-of-unrelated-persons” side. The “pro-choice” side, equally well-described, would be…what? “Pro-permitting-and-subsidizing-people’s-option-to-obtain-professional-help-with-ending-the-lives-of-their-family-members, if they choose.” But this is so dull. We know what the deal is.
Democrats used to say they wanted abortion “safe, legal, and rare.” Saying so, they were letting the cat out of the bag, weren’t they? Why “rare?” If it were the mere sloughing off of worthless cells, nobody would be concerned to keep it rare. Nobody worries about how menstruation and hair-loss are commonplace. The Democrats, like everyone else, know what the deal is.
It is all so tiresomely transparent, so very typical the left at their worst: They know they are engaging in propagandizing; they know we know it; everyone knows it; but they keep on doing it shamelessly.
The character, then, of how the left discusses the issue informs me that they are not on the side of light, and the bastards know it, and they don’t care.
Want to kick people out of your restaurant for being beyond the pale of polite society? You could do worse than excluding all pro-choice politicians.
Of course that’s churlish, and probably convinces no-one of the error of their ways. And we of the right are always (sigh) supposed to be the good guys. So we don’t do that. We keep civil. We keep civil even when they are not. (Sometimes being the good guy feels like being a bit of a sucker; one wonders about what game theorists would say.)
Still, at least we need not lie to ourselves, or insincerely play along with polite falsehoods from others, on this topic.