View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Daniel Clark |
February 1st, 2007
Abortion advocates like to say that young people are the beneficiaries of their activism, when really, they're the survivors of it.
While there remains no end in sight to legalized abortion, the annual March for Life continues to illustrate one trend that ought to alarm the pro-abortion movement. Not only have the crowds at the march grown dramatically larger over the past ten years, but they have grown just as significantly younger.
Whereas the March for Life has become increasingly populated by people in their twenties and teens, most of the participants in the NOW rally held that same day have probably got pet rocks older than that. At an anti-abortion event, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting somebody under thirty. At a pro-abortion event, they count the dead cat among the participants.
This runs counter to the conventional wisdom. Considering that polls consistently say America is equally divided on the issue, that the pop media support abortion overwhelmingly, and that there are obvious motives for young people to be pro-abortion, one might expect abortion advocates to have a virtual monopoly on America's youth. That analysis, however, would ignore the natural conflict that exists between Roe v. Wade and those who have been born since that ruling was handed down.
By sanctioning the killing of the "unwanted" human unborn, the Supreme Court, and all who have defended its decision, have determined that a new human being no longer has any inherent, objective value. Rather, it has only what value is subjectively assigned to it by others. If you haven't been born yet, and your mother doesn't want you, then you're worth nothing. The fact that she's not allowed to kill you after bringing you home from the hospital is due only to the fact that you're valued by
society. Your value still isn't inherent to you; it's merely a social construct.
This was illustrated by the very necessity of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which President Bush signed in 2002. Before this law was enacted, babies who had survived abortions were allowed to die of neglect while the authorities did nothing. The fact that these children had been born, and were therefore not only people but American citizens, did not force society to recognize their inherent value. The point was that they were still unwanted, and that they had not been assigned any social identities. Therefore, they were valued no more than when they were still inside their mothers.
Jesse Jackson used to encourage children to recite the words, "I am somebody." Since he has flip-flopped on the abortion issue, the message that he and like-minded liberals have for post-Roe children is that they aren't anybody, until someone else says they are.
The same was not true of the feminists who fought to legalize abortion. Before they were born, they were already protected by the inherent value of their humanity. Their mothers were not empowered to deprive them of it, on the basis that they were "unwanted." Ironically, it was they, the liberal activists of the "Me Generation," who had rebelled against their parents, and called them hypocrites. The last proposition they'd ever accept was that their parents had the right to decide whether or not they had any value.
It's no wonder, then, that so few post-Roe children will march alongside, and so many will march against, those pre-Roe activists who had deemed them expendable. Who are those rancid feminist relics to decide that America's youth have no value, other than that which is bestowed upon them by their benevolent elders? Who are those celebrity has-beens and never-wuzzes to say that the young have no right to life, unless they are wanted?
It cannot be lost on the post-Roe generation that the pro-abortion leaders who try to recruit them are old enough to be their parents, which also makes them old enough to have been their executioners. It must be exceedingly difficult to swallow a slogan like "Pro-Child, Pro-Choice" if you were a child who was eligible to have been "chosen."
Abortion advocates like to say that young people are the beneficiaries of their activism, when really, they're the survivors of it. About one in every four is killed by abortion. The expectation that the other three will thank the accessories to the killing is nothing short of perverse.
Much of the pre-Roe activists' rhetoric is so outrageous that it's doubtful they even believe it themselves. This is especially true anytime they pretend to act on behalf of somebody else. If they ever said what they really think, they'd simply amend Rev. Jackson's declaration to say, "I am somebody; you, I'm not so sure about."
dclark@thenma.org
Visit their website at:
Responses to "They Were Expendable: What Roe has told America's Youth"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
"If you haven't been born yet, and your mother doesn't want you, then you're worth nothing."
This is nothing more than the exercise of one person's property rights over another human being. This why the same arguments to justify slavery are now being used to justify abortion.
Comment by sedonaman | February 1, 2007
I strongly disagree with your characterization of abortion as "killing of the "unwanted" human unborn. I also disagree with comments
"unwanted": your assumption; there are other compelling reasons. And even if true, I believe it is the first, most basic right of a child to be raised by parents who love and want them. A parent who doesn't want to raise and nurture a child, shouldn't.
"human unborn": wrong. A fetus is of human origin, potentially can develop into a human, but are not humans. Most abortions are done when the fetus is so undeveloped that there is no way it could survive outside the mother's womb. Embryos are also of human origin, potentially can develop into humans, but are not yet human.
No parent has any property right over their children, or over any other human. But an embryo or undeveloped fetus isn't human.
I am tired of men pontificating about abortion - when were you vulnerable to having your life changed for the next 18 years just becaus you wanted to enjoy a sexual encounter? I am also tired of having 5,000 years of male-written laws forced upon women under the theory of precedent.
Further, the statement that "Their mothers were not empowered to deprive them of it ["the inherent value of their humanity"], on the basis that they were "unwanted."" is untrue for much of the United States, for most of its history, because abortion was legal in most states.
"Pro Choice" means "in favor of choice" but you seem to think it means "in favor of forcing abortions", which is wildly inaccurate.
I feel the Supreme Court did a fine job with the Rope v. Wade decision. Nobody is forced to have an abortion; follow your own conscience for your own life and body. But everyone else should be able to do the same.
There will never be full agreement on this subject. But continuing to use inflammatory language on the subject appears to me to be liable to incite the weak - minded who think the correct solution is to murder doctors who parform abortions, or to bomb abortion clinics and murder or maim whoever happens to be within range og the blast.
Can't we be civil about our disagreement?
Comment by gz9gjg | February 1, 2007
I’ve often wondered what Charles Darwin would have thought of the Feminist Movement. Would he have dismissed it as just a passing cultural-political phenomena, or would he have seen it as having significance to evolution?
If you want to instigate a massive food fight among evolutionary biologists, innocently ask them what contributes to “fitness” in “survival of the fittest”. Although they hate that phrase, most evolutionary biologists would concede there is no precise explanation of how natural selection works in creating new species – too many potential variables, with each biologist assigning different weight or significance to factors such as “geographic isolation”, “climatic conditions”, “population density”, etc. However, it is possible to agree on what defines “fitness”. It’s simply having more children than those who are less fit.
As the theory goes, genetic mutations are passed down through offspring and the genetic mutation that increases survivability allows an animal or plant to live longer, have more children and more of their children, in turn, to grow to maturity, live longer, have more children, etc. The most beautiful, the fleetest, the strongest or the smartest, none of that matters if they don’t pass on their genetic factors, or if they’re overwhelmed in the breeding department by their uglier, slower, weaker and more stupid brethren. Who will inherit the earth? Why those with the most children of course.
So that brings us to the Feminist Movement. Is their collective aversion to breeding offspring just a passing cultural fad or does it have a deeper significance – perhaps a mysterious connection to natural selection and evolution? Nonsense, you say, it’s just politics and nothing more than that. But what can one make of a political movement that advocates cultural and genetic extinction? Would Darwin, if he lived today, recognize the evolutionary pattern and be delighted to actually witness natural selection in action?
Obviously, the Feminists are healthy, somewhat wealthy and capable of generating numerous offspring, so what drives them to think and act in a fashion completely contrary to evolution? A stubborn insistence on extinction? A perverse sort of evolutionary death wish? What?
If you’re thinking that human beings aren’t in any danger of extinction, you’re absolutely correct. But, extinction doesn’t mean we will all vanish in a puff of smoke some day. Paleontologists know with certainty that older parent species co-exist with younger, child species for centuries before the parent species fades into extinction. You can still find a few Great Apes in the wild, right? Of course, the Great Apes will be gone entirely in the not too distant future, with maybe small colonies artificially preserved in zoos and what was once the predominant species entirely supplanted by the newer, child species, namely humans. And, didn’t Neanderthals co-exist simultaneously with Cro-Magnons for a time – what happened to them, an early form of stone age Feminism?
If the Feminist Movement is strictly cultural without some undetectable evolutionary explanation, how do we explain the low birth rates in Japan – the Japanese are at the opposite end of the cultural spectrum from the highly individualistic Western societies. What we see are the third world cultures generating many more children per family than the supposedly more sophisticated, more advanced first world countries. As evolution predicts, those who have more children, those who are the “Fittest”, they will survive to inherit the earth.
The supreme irony is that the Feminists dimly realize this and to their further disgust these third world, profligate breeders all share one salient characteristic – they’re religious, not secular. Is religion a survival trait then, rather than a baseless superstition? Evolution would say so in the only terms that really matter, the religious sub-species survives, the secular sub-species is headed toward extinction. The secular gene is somehow defective, the religious gene somehow promotes fitness. No wonder the Feminists are so cranky.
Comment by Pat Skurka | February 1, 2007
First off, it is most disingenuous for feminists to decide that because a man can't birth a baby he therefore shouldn't have an opinion. You graciously gave him permission to speak on it when it changes his life for the next 18 years? Excuse me? Uhh, I believe it's called CHILD SUPPORT that is forced upon them in spite of feminists strongest protests that you don't need no stinking man. Second, to demand that men stay our of your "personal" business, unless of course, it's a man doctor who you choose to abort your baby is also self contradictory. To further show how absurd the you're-a-man-so-you-don't-get-an-opinion" philosophy is…. since feminnazis can't get erections, then they are not qualified to offer an opinion on whether or not tax dollars should pay for such recreational drugs as Viagra or to pay for vasectomies. I guess since they're not astronauts they get no say so in how NASA spends federal tax dollars or whether or not we should continue our space missions. And since feminazis cannot play professional football, they don't get an opinion on football at all or the NFL or anything remotely associated with male sports.
Creating a botched up straw man semantics game to try to redefine a BABY by using words like "potential", "embryo" or "fetus" , just for the record "Fetus" is latin for LITTLE CHILD, so that turns the "not a human being' argument upside down. Even the ancient Romans recognized a child in utereo was in fact a CHILD. And just for the record, if we cannot declare something as "born" or "alive" prior to its birth, then why are sea turtle eggs protected??? After all, they are not TURTLES, they are just "clumps of cells", or " potential" turtles. Could it be that even the people running the EPA recognize the inherent life value of beings prior to their actual appearance in this world?
And finally, the ultimate irony here is that the same intrinsic evil used to make home-made baby killing legal, is the same evil that will visit at the end of your life. After all, you've decided that the right to be called ALIVE and to remain so, is only bestowed at the will of another. Only if you're WANTED may you exist and be protected. What happens when you are old and decrepit and not wanted by anyone? Who will protect you then? You decided that there is no value outside of being "wanted" or "useful"…therefore, you are not an old person deserving dignity, compassion and humanity at the end. You will be nothing more than a "clump of cells" that is not needed and will only burden someone else. Meet your monster Dr. Frankenstein.
Comment by Ironic isn\'t it? | February 2, 2007
gz9gig:
They are not human? I challenge you to look at these photographs and tell me they are not human: http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm#galleries.
If you choose not to look at them, I say you are afraid of the truth. If you do look at them and are unmoved, I say you are the one who is not human.
Comment by sedonaman | February 2, 2007
Pat - a very interesting perspective. But - please don't lump all women into "The Feminist Movement". Every women who makes the decision to have an abortion is making a very personal decision. And - if a woman's decision is easy for her, maybe it's better for society that she doesn't reproduce.
Ironic - I didn't say, "you’re-a-man-so-you-don’t-get-an-opinion" on the subject of abortion. What I object to is the way our legal system enshrines thousands of years of male points of view in legal precedents, that women are forced to live with. We only got the vote in the United States in 1920. And I don't know any women who think guns and bombs are an appropriate communication tool to register our feelings about abortion or any other issue.
Sedonaman - Do they walk, talk, or communicate ? I can make a blob of jello "look" human - but that doesn't make it so. An embryo is not a baby. It is of human origin and has the potential to develop into a baby. What the original Latin word "fetus" meant has no bearing at all.
Please try to be civil about this debate, and don't assume that yours is the only legitimate point of view.
Comment by gz9gjg | February 2, 2007
gz9gig:
"Do they walk, talk, or communicate ?"
Since when did these becaome the determining factors for being human? Babies can't walk, talk, or communicate until they are several years old, yet the law protects them.
By rationalization, you are inventing new requirements to be human, like the one who wrote that abortion was OK because the Bible said so. His rationale went like this: "God made man and breathed into him the breath of life. A fetus in the womb is not breathing air, therefore it is not alive and therefore cannot be human."
As "ironic" posted above, the pro-abortion side is "creating a botched up straw man semantics game to try to redefine a BABY by using words like 'potential', 'embryo', or 'fetus' …", which is the SAME game the pro-slavery side used to define the humanity out of slaves; and you know in your heart that if you have to rationalize something, you know it is wrong.
P.S. Didn't look at the pictures because you didn't want to face the truth, did you?
Comment by sedonaman | February 3, 2007
Gz9gjg, thank-you for your comment and I understand and appreciate your viewpoint on abortion, but I didn’t write anything about abortion. I speculated on whether the Feminist Movement is an effect rather than a cause of declining birth rates in first world countries. Could we be blaming the Feminist Movement for the lower birth rates (among other things) when something much more fundamental is at work - and the Feminist Movement is just the leading edge, the most vocal participants in this biological phenomena?
Of course, that could be unsupported, possibly silly speculation, but I also think the rise of secularism has a lot to do with it. Is secularism philosophical, biological or both? I don’t mean that genes control your very thoughts from minute to minute, that’s nonsense, but is it possible a genetic mutation leads to a mental state where there is a tendency toward secularism?
We know secularism emphasizes our fundamental loneliness as human beings, whereas religion emphasizes our union with a Supreme Being and each other. Is secularism basically opposed to life and is that why it is so prevalent in cultures with rapidly declining birth rates?
With all due respect, your comments provide a case in point. From the oocyte, through fertilization to the zygote, to the blastula, to the embryo, to the fetus, life is a continuous series of changes. Even the terms for these observed stages of development are mere approximations of biochemical changes we haven’t begun to understand. After birth, the changes continue throughout our life; the genetic developmental signals that changed the oocyte before birth will recur again and again, ask any teenager about puberty. Even old age is the result of changes that never cease – the rate of change may vary, but a human being never stops changing.
No credentialed scientist could possibly support a legitimate scientific definition of when a human being is “officially” human; they can only explain the current state and where development will lead within the next stage. So, science can provide no philosophical guidance in determining when true human life begins. To scientists, it would be like following streams down a mountainside as they twist and turn and combine into ever greater moving bodies of water and then placing a stick in the ground somewhere and declaring “Here is where the river begins”. It would be a purely arbitrary definition and also useless for scientific purposes.
No one actually practices religion; people follow a specific faith and develop a very complex and personal relationship with a Supreme Being within that faith. Teachings among the different faiths vary regarding the sanctity of life in the womb, but religious faiths are amazingly consistent in affirming life and the miracle of birth.
The woman of the first world society is abandoned by both science and religious faith when choosing an abortion. Neither can provide comfort, justification or philosophical guidance. Secularism provides a convenient checkmate to religious objections, but is secularism just a philosophical rationalization or an outward manifestation of a more fundamental biological condition?
I agree that abortion is a very personal decision by a woman. But, I’m curious why so many women choose to make that decision and why the number remains so consistent year after year. If the decision is personal, why the amazing statistical consistency over the past decades?
Nor is abortion the only factor in declining birth rates within our society. Despite optimal conditions for large families, economic, medical, personal, increasing numbers of women are choosing to have no children, one child or stopping at two. We can rationalize causes involving personal fulfillment, career achievements, economic issues, etc. but what if the cause is actually genetic? The author of this article and conservatives in general hope that Feminism and declining birth rates are a passing fad, but I’m not sure I would agree.
Comment by Pat Skurka | February 3, 2007
A question for anyone: What ARE the determining factors for being human?
Comment by Katzen | February 3, 2007
Katzen, the factors which determine we are human may, in the end, be merely a matter of individual perspective. The fundamental rule in biology is the following: Life comes only from life. Meaning, of course, that we can’t create life from inorganic elements. Even embryonic stem cell cloning starts with living embryos; we can’t create a human embryo in a petri dish, although we can alter it.
Where the perspective part comes in is the realization that life is an endless (so far) chain of reproduction, growth, reproduction, death. The view from one perspective is that there is no beginning or end to life as a process (barring cosmic accidents); delineations over when we become human are purely arbitrary. A biology joke is as follows and emphasizes that perspective: “A chicken is merely an egg’s way of creating another egg.” So, is a human being merely the embryo’s way to create more embryos?
From the perspective of biology, the more we learn the less likely we are to completely rely on ancient or modern philosophical definitions that attempt to define what makes us human. For example, in Charles Darwin’s time, the best scientific minds saw cells as simply undifferentiated blobs of protoplasm. There was no knowledge of DNA, protein folding, genetic developmental signals – in short, cows produced cows, fish produced fish and humans produced humans. It was ordained that way.
Language and facility with language have stood the test of time and the cumulative discoveries in biology regarding what separates humans from animals. Even the talking gorilla, I believe her name is Koko, couldn’t master the abstractions created by the human mind. Despite a sign language vocabulary of 500 to 1,000 words, her conversations with her trainer focused on simple matters; “I’m hungry”, “I’m cold or warm”, etc. She couldn’t grasp humor, didn’t get the joke, had trouble with our concept of time, etc.
There is a rich heritage from philosophy and theology regarding your question and I’m sure you’re familiar with the various schools of thought. But, I don’t think we’ve progressed to a point where biology can answer your question, except in purely mechanical terms.
Comment by Pat Skurka | February 5, 2007
Ironic: I am not a "Feminist or a "Feminazi". I consider the term "Feminist" to be a mild pejorative; but the term "Feminazi" is an outright insult. There are emotionally neutral terms that are proper for discussions, and emotionally-loaded words which are not. "Feminazi" is not acceptable. Please stop using this extremely rude word.
I am an adult female citizen of the United States of America. I believe I have the right to privacy in my personal life; to choose my profession & my life partner; that nobody but me owns my body; and that nobody else has the right to make decisions about my body and my life.
Sedonaman: "Didn't want to face the truth" - what truth is that? A photo of something is just that - and in these days of digitally-altered images, who knows how truthful any image is?
I am not inventing new qualifications to be human; I am using emotionally neutral terms to describe the difference between something which is of human origin and something which is human. For example, human hairs are of human origin; so are skin cells, nerve cells, and human egg and sperm cells. Each of these is discarded by the bodies of humans in natural processes every day. So are many embryos and fetuses - nobody knows the proportion of failed embryos to full-term babies. Are those unborn embryos and fetuses human too, and if so, who is to blame that they don't all survive to be born and to mature into adult humans?
If all cells of human orgin are human, isn't it just as wrong for a man to have a vasectomy, as it is for a woman to decide to abort an unborn fetus? Wouldn't it then also be wrong for a man to have an ejaculation without the intent of causing a pregnancy, because the sperm are discarded if not put to use in fertilizing an egg? These statements seem to me to go way too far - as does your assertion that an unborn embryo or fetus which cannot live outside the mother's body is human.
Pat: The Feminist Movement is in essence a rebellion against 5,000 years of women being unable to have a legal voice in the public and private affairs of their countries, having no right to vote, being considered property, and unable to legally own property. The same issues that lead people held in slavery to rebel.
Why are abortions so common? Some are due to women believing they cannot guarantee a good life for a child, for whatever reason; and some no doubt from personal selfishness. In any case, if a woman sincerely believes she cannot provide well enough for a child, why shouldn't others respect that decision? And if she is a cold, selfish person who makes the decision to have an abortion easily, I contend she probably would be a lousy mother. We should applaud that she doesn't bring into the world yet another neglected, unloved child.
There has been a tension between science and religion since, maybe forever. Certainly since the religious became aware of Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution. I predict arguments will continue about evolution, abortion, birth control, the "morning after" pill, and many other subjects for, well, forever.
But, all, let's please have these arguments politely, without name-calling, and with words, not guns or bombs.
Comment by gz9gjg | February 9, 2007
Gz9gjg, I think you missed or ignored the fundamental points of my comments and would prefer to argue abortion. In one of your comments to another article you indicated that this is supposed to be the “intellectual” site, so let’s debate the merits of your argument using an “intellectual” approach. Ironically, like the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973, you are arguing the same two points the justices debated. First, does the government have an overriding interest in a woman’s decision to have a child or have an abortion? The justices could have ruled solely on the narrow grounds of privacy which argues the government has no such right and let it go at that. But, like you, the justices strayed into the question of whether a fetus deserves constitutional protection as a human being and does that right override the rights of a woman to an abortion.
Let’s consider the second point first, which was the weaker logic in the Roe decision. Scientifically, we know that after fertilization the zygote begins to pass through various stages of development toward eventual emergence from the birth canal. We know that after birth these stages of development and change continue unabated until the end of our lives – childhood growth, puberty, maturity and reproduction, loss of reproductive ability (for women) and finally old age and death. The entire point of abortion is to stop this process; to end the process of development and change before the birth of a human being. Abortion is a painful, mildly risky and somewhat humiliating surgical procedure, so what would be the point of undergoing abortion if not to completely stop the further development of a human being?
There is no scientific logic in denying that a fetus is human, what else would it be? And abortion is not surgery similar in outcome to having an ugly mole removed. Creating an arbitrary line after which a piece of non-human tissue magically becomes human is nonsense scientifically and, so far, science has wisely declined to support such an argument. Obviously, theology provides no support for abortion, which leaves what as the basis for the pro-abortion argument other than a personal rationalization?
And, the basis for this rationalization is to emotionally avoid the negative social stigma related to society’s view of motherhood and the traditional role of women. Men kill other men during war and society approves the deliberate destruction of human life as long as the rules of war are followed. The soldier doing the killing has no knowledge of whether he is killing a “bad” man or a “good” man, but society gives its approval since the soldier is insuring the survival of the society of which he is a member. We deliberately de-humanize the enemy to minimize the emotional impact on the soldier doing the killing (and ourselves for supporting the soldier). For women having an abortion, society doesn’t extend this concept of collective approval and a de-humanized enemy. Women have had to do this individually and have done so by rationalizing the fetus to be an “it” rather than a person.
Emotion plays a strong part in this rationalization process. Ann Coulter has pointed out that while women prefer a female gynecologist, the majority of abortionists are men. Additionally, pregnant female doctors generally won’t perform abortions, both for the patient’s and their own peace of mind. Obviously, there is both a simultaneous realization and a denial of what an abortion actually does.
Your other argument is the stronger one, namely having an abortion is a personal decision in which neither the society or the state has an interest. Abortion is strictly a women’s issue, a man can’t have the child for the woman, bears no risk in child birth and lacks the unique personal bond a woman has with her child. Women completely support the right to abortion; the law would have been changed years ago if the majority of women didn’t support abortion.
What the anti-abortion forces object to is that the “personal decision” argument puts the woman above the collective interests of society. If the woman owes no responsibility to society in making the abortion decision, then what responsibility does society owe the woman? Specifically, our modern society has been constructed primarily to protect and promote the interests of women related to pregnancy, child birth and rearing children. In the United States, we’ve tamed the wilderness, brutally exterminated any beings, animal or man, hostile to us and developed a life sustaining technology all for the benefit of reproduction and child rearing. The right to abortion attacks this process at a fundamental level. If women owe no responsibility to society regarding reproduction, then what responsibility do men owe women regarding protection during an extended pregnancy and while rearing children?
Both men and women benefit greatly from a healthy marriage and family life, so I doubt men will stop loving their wives and children and refuse to protect them. This responsibility to society argument is admittedly esoteric, but the effects of the abortion controversy are undeniable in relation to societal norms over the past 30 years.
Women intuitively understand this argument, although they can’t admit it politically. Even tough minded women become slightly hysterical over the domination and brutalization of women in other societies, certain Muslim societies come quickly to mind. They understand that a weakening of our society militarily can lead to disastrous consequences for women and men are expected to provide the military might to stave off such disasters.
So, are the military and protective responsibilities assigned primarily to men a “personal decision” by each man and if so why? After all, war affects their bodies and don’t men have a right to decide what affects their bodies? Should men only be required to fight based on their personal decision? Is this male role of protector passé and is it reasonable and fair to let women take their chances under the domination of foreign men? If women owe no responsibility to society in regard to reproductive issues, what responsibility do men owe society in regard to war and military service?
The reality of world events has a way of rapidly reducing intellectual rationalizations to irrelevant nonsense and the unraveling of societal bonds is moving us in this direction. Abortion is an enduring controversy precisely for this reason.
Comment by Pat Skurka | February 11, 2007