Posted on 10/08/2005 6:14:31 AM PDT by gobucks
Abortion policy must be completely secular. In 1797, America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency and approved by the Senate under John Adams.
The U.S. statutes against abortion have a nonsectarian history. They were put on the books when Catholics were a politically insignificant minority. Even the Protestant clergy were not a major factor in these laws. Rather, the laws were the achievement of the American Medical Association.
From early in the 19th century, Americans - even lay people - were exposed to enough information about embryology to enable them to make a critical and ethically significant distinction between contraception and abortion: the former practice did not terminate a new human life, but the latter one did. In 1827, Von Baer determined fertilization to be the starting point of individual life. By the 1850s, medical communities were advocating legislation to protect the unborn. In 1859, the American Medical Association protested legislation which only protected the unborn after "quickening."
A rational secular case thus exists for the rights of preborn humans. Individual human life is a continuum from fertilization until death. Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, adolescent, etc. are all stages of development. To destroy that life at any stage of development is to destroy that individual. The real question in the whole abortion debate is not the seemingly absurd scenario of giving full human rights to zygotes, but rather the thorny question of how to legally protect those rights without violating a new mother's privacy and civil liberties. And the right to privacy is not absolute. If parents are abusing an already born child, for example, government "intrusion" is warranted -- children have rights.
Recognizing the rights of another class of beings limits our freedoms and our choices and requires a change in our personal lifestyle - the abolition of (human) slavery is a good example of this. A 1964 New Jersey court ruling required a pregnant woman to undergo blood transfusions, even if her religion forbade it, for the sake of her unborn child. One could argue, therefore, apart from religion, that recognizing the rights of the unborn, like the rights of blacks, women, lesbians and gays, children, animals and the environment, is a sign of secular social progress. Writer and activist Jay Sykes, who once served as head of the Wisconsin ACLU, wrote: "It is on the abortion issue that the moral bankruptcy of contemporary liberalism is most clearly exposed," because the arguments used in support of abortion "could, without much refinement, be used to justify the legalization of infanticide." The Left is divided over abortion.
In an article appearing in The Progressive, entitled "Abortion: The Left Has Betrayed the Sanctity of Life," writer Mary Meehan concluded: "It is out of character for the Left to neglect the weak and the 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 more in need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient or the boat people on the high seas. The basic instinct of the Left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves - and that instinct is absolutely sound. It is what keeps the human proposition going."
Writing in the Tallahassee Democrat, pro-life feminist Rosemary Bottcher, cynically observed: "I had always thought it peculiar how the liberal and conservative philosophies have lined up on the abortion issue. It seemed to me that liberals traditionally have cared about others and human rights, while conservatives have cared about themselves and property rights. Therefore, one would expect liberals to be defending the unborn and conservatives to be encouraging their destruction."
Rosemary Bottcher criticized the Left for its failure to take a stand against abortion: "The same people who wax hysterical at the thought of executing, after countless appeals, a criminal convicted of some revolting crime would have insisted on his mother's unconditional right to have him killed while he was still innocent. The same people who organized a boycott of the Nestle Company for its marketing of infant formula in underdeveloped lands would have approved of the killing of those exploited infants only a few months before. The same people who talk incessantly of human rights are willing to deny the most helpless and vulnerable of all human beings the most important right of all. Apparently these people do not understand the difference between contraception and abortion," concluded Bottcher. "Their arguments defending abortion would be perfectly reasonable if they were talking about contraception. When they insist upon 'reproductive freedom' and 'motherhood by choice' they forget that 'pregnant' means 'being with child.' A pregnant woman has already reproduced: she is already a mother."
A national poll conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide on the evening of the 1998 elections found that 38 percent of all Democrats (and 40 percent of Democrat women) oppose abortion. A national poll released by the Center for Gender Equality (a women's think tank headed by former Planned Parenthood executive director Faye Wattleton), in January 1999, found that a majority of American women do not support legalized abortion on demand. 53 percent of female respondents to the poll said abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, to save a woman's life or not at all, up from 45 percent in 1996.
A Zogby International poll released in August 1999 found that the majority of Americans recognize that abortion destroys a new human life (52% versus 36%), oppose partial birth abortions (56.4% versus 32%) are opposed to tax-funded partial birth abortions (71% to 23%), and think parents should be notified if their minor child seeks an abortion (78%). On secular human rights grounds, the Left should take a stand against abortion.
The other was the whole Democrats for Life movement. I don't know how big or little it is ... but heck, its very existence is a good, really good sign. And from the pure leftist point of view, he does nail exactly how inconsistent today's demonrats are..
thanks for the inspiriation to hunt this down Crackingham...
Thanks for posting. To be fair, America was not founded based on the Christian faith. It was founded on the basis of deism, which is far less denomination specific. But it was also founded based on precepts which are fundamentally Judeo-Christian, and from its start has been influenced more by Judeo-Christianity, especially protestant and particularly evangelical Christianity, than by most other influences.
Letters from and to the founding fathers reinforce this perspective. While they themselves are deist, and founding this new republic to be so, they are also clearly building on a base whose foundation was set by Judeo-Christianity. Moreover, those who ignore the fact that America has been heavily protestant throughout most of its history (though there has been almost from the start a rather large Catholic minority, and a very small, but very significant Jewish minority), are missing key facts.
Also, the article's points about abortion from a leftist perspective are valid. It's amazing these don't get trotted outmore. Moreover, as you said, they do nail how inconsistent today's Democrats are.
Actually, the average Democrat seen on TV and in Congress are the pro-abortionists' best arguments to justify abortion on demand.
Here's a link explaining it. It's usually taken out of context by those hostile to Christianity.
The US government was negotiting with Muslim pirates and Muslim run governments of North Africa who had routinely kidnapped Americans, mostly off of Libya.
This diplomatic rhetoric (ie: Lie) was told to the Muslims to make them easier to deal with.
If they thought that America were an officially Christian nation (just 300 years after being kicked out of Spain by force by 'officially' Christian Spain no less), they would have just killed the hostages, or certainly have just kept kidnapping them and kept demanding ransom.
They weren't opposed to abortions, only to letting non-physicians do them.
Oh, the left does a lot of contradictory stuff nowadays.
They extoll the first amendmendment while promoting McCain-Feingold.
And they praise democracy while actively undermining confidence in elections when they lose.
And they support freedom for the oppressed of the world until the United States actually does something to remove despots.
And that's just for starters.
If this kind of thinking should ever become prevalent in the Democratic party, it might just make me think about changing.
Well well well ... the legacy of an grand master evolutionist extends to find historical documents, and posting them, which refutes the notion that America has primarily Christian roots.
This is quite revealing. Stephen would be proud.
PH, in the spirit of completeness, and Freeper good will (which I am too short of at times, but I just had good coffee and good breakfast ... pork suasage w/ eggs), I really think you should add this to your list of links.
Many thanks for these links....
Abortion is more a symptom of other social ills. A woman who would kill her own sprout is a cold individual, indeed (with extremely rare exceptions, of course). The coldness is the problem.
from the link:
"The Treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli and renegotiated in 1805 after the First Barbary War, at which time Article 11 was removed."
Article 11 was removed? Why, that wasn't on SJG's list of links as I recall... interesting omission.
I just posted the link in response to your statement:
"one is this Tripoli reference. I had never heard of it. "
That's quite a leap to assume I'm an 'evolutionist'.
(pssst! I'm not)
While I believe it shouldn't be totally secular - the secular side of the pro-life must be strengthened - people are put off by the life movement because they see it as being too religious, and indeed many people have difficulty accepting that you don't need to religious at all to believe that abortion is murder!
:-)
I agree. But the solution to that problem? Coldness in a woman is not by any means a natural feature of her. She is born warm. She is made cold.
And without exception, the origin of that coldness is her biological Dad.
If a spiritual Dad doesn't come along to fix the mess, abortion, along w/ a lot of other maladies will appear in her. The nonsense grows and grows no different than when you unplug the fridge and leave it sit for a few weeks.
This is the field absent/neglectful fathers sow ... mold fields....
I know a Dad who is full aware of this. He takes his 12 year old daughter out on date nights routinely. She is not cold - she is very warm ... and I fully expect that she will remain so long after her Dad dies. Even more so, I would be amazed if she ever married a man who would neglect her such that coldness would grow within her....
Oh, sorry. I figured that if you knew where to find that info at that particular site, you would be. I have met SJG btw about 10 years before he died.
He was a very short man...not much taller than Al Franken.
Btw, for the sake of curiosity, how did you find that link?
And the best example is seen in their approach to the issue of fetal pain. Read it here Warning: it will make you lose your breakfast!
Thanks for posting the Wiki reference. How very interesting.
It is coldness coupled with selfishness unfortunately. Often times, these women are willing to believe and rationalize the sort of crap they hear from the infanticide wing of the Dems -- "it's MY body", "it's NOT a human being yet", etc... A lot of times they are pushed into it by their "boyfriends". Of course the feminazis will gladly ignore this part of the equation.
And of course Planned "Parenthood" (oxymoron huh?) does NOTHING to stop you when you come in. It's treated like an oil change I'm sure. "Sign here, here and here. Give us an hour and you'll be all set!"
The pushing of things like abortion pills (see Italy) will just serve to make abortions more of a commodity, and even more like contraceptives.
Fortunately with medical technology, people either know of or have seen relatives take ultrasounds and that even at 7 weeks of life you can see the heartbeat. And the further you go through the pregnancy, the more you see even a budding personality in your child.
But I hope the left continues to hitch itself to these wackos. Like most of their activist causes it's a losing one in the long run.
Huh?
I didn't know a new life started after an egg is fertilized.
I always thought a new life started when the child is able
to fend for itself without parents supplying its' needs.
(sarcasm off)
It is more amazing to me that it took that long for someone
on the "left" to actually see through the bogus ideation that
an embryo is not human. Actually it is a part of the human
life cycle. Biologists describe the life cycle of insects,
and no one ever says, that the larvae or pupa is not an
insect, they say it is part of the "life" cycle...Why didn't
they see that the human embryo is "alive"??
Oh, well,...
Sadly, my experience has been that it is completely nonexistent. There is always a caveat, and it is usually something like this:
"Yes, I am a liberal but I am pro-life. I believe that life begins at conception. I believe that all life has value. I believe yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda. But I could never tell a woman what she can do with her own body."
That is the caveat that I always hear the so-called pro-life libs recite. They just don't get it.
Check out: "The Pirate Coast: Thomas Jefferson, The First Marines, and the Secret Mission of 1805" by Richard Zacks.
Well said, and saves me the trouble of replying myself.
I don't get what is "pure leftist" about this article, except the repeated and rampant self-deception. The fact is, leftwing ideology is anti-human--always has been and always will be. When a 'rat renounces his idiot enthusiasms for abortion, euthanasia, and "death with dignity," he may still be a 'rat but he will not be a leftwinger anymore.
This is a facinating voice in the abortion issue. It brings historical perspective to the abortion debate occuring right now, and points out how advances in medical technology have influenced public opinion in the past and present.
Being fair is nice, being accurate is better. There were only two clear deists among the founders, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, and neither one had anything to do with the Constitution. Even Jefferson, who praised Jesus for the world's "most benign philosophy"(that's right, GW Bush was not the first president to consider Jesus a "philosopher") identified himself as a Christian.
The overwhelming majority of the signers of the Constitution were traditional Protestants--church-going, Bible-believing, Jesus-worshipping Christians.
When you do the homework and actually read some history you will find that Deism was a sort of trendy epiphenomenon of the Enlightenment at the time but was not a unified force in the colonies.
Christianity was. Probably that's why the motto of the Continental Army was "No Other King but Jesus,"
Some deists we turned out to be, whatever we said to mollify the savages in Tripoli notwithstanding.
American history is fascinating. Try reading up on it sometime. You'll love the nation even more.
I must disagree. I was being accurate. Nor do you contradict what I actually said, but rather support me, when you assert "The overwhelming majority of the signers of the Constitution were traditional Protestants--church-going, Bible-believing, Jesus-worshipping Christians."
Furthermore, I do study history. And I do the homework. I do intend to get a doctorate in history after all.
You are setting up and burning a straw man argument. America was not founded to be clearly Christian, although Protestant Christianity is unarguably one of the biggest influences on the American culture, psyche and history.
Moreover, the fact that "Deism was a sort of trendy epiphenomenon of the Enlightenment at the time but was not a unified force in the colonies" is besides the point. It was a trendy phenomenon, especially amongst educated elite, which inarguably held some sway amongst the senior founding fathers. And through them, it influenced the nation. Though the only serious, committed Deists in their personal lives were Jefferson and Franklin (and about five others, as it happens), nonetheless it was a familiar subject to the founding fathers. And it has clear influences on their works. And the founding documents. And is referred to in speeches. And letters. For, you'll notice that the documents do not say under the Church, or under Christ, but 'under G-d', which is much more general.
You will also have noticed the separation of church and state. This, contrary to liberal belief, actually is a pointed barb at the Church of England, and the idea of a state religion, but it -is- intended to preserve the right of men to worship as they please. This is a fundamental precept of deism as a parlor philosophy.
I am not arguing that Christianity was not an influence on America. Nor am I arguing that deism was a unified force in the colonies. Nor am I being inaccurate as you claim, since none of your counterarguments actually contradict what I am saying. You either did not read what I wrote, and were just set on proving me wrong, or were just set on writing your screed. In which case there was no need to involve me or accuse me of inaccuracy.
America was founded on the basis of deism, combined with principles of Judeo-Christianity, and has been since seriously influenced by Protestant and especially Evangelical Christianity, and other strains of Judeo-Christianity, such as Catholicism and Judaism; I wrote this in my earlier post, and I stand by it. Don't insult me by assuming that I have not done the homework, or read the history.
And don't set up straw man arguments, and then try to lord it over me with a bunch of misleading 'counterarguments' that do not actually go against anything I said.
Texas has a big bunch of Democrats for Life. They approach protection for the unborn from centralized, powerful government, with lots of tax-funded entitlements, but their objective is to save lives. I believe that crisis pregnancy centers and private family contributions can and do just as much, without tax money.
But, take a look at the 95-10 initiative:
http://www.democratsforlife.org/
It is liberals that find the need to grant the liberty to kill children. The need to kill children flows from another popular liberal cause, the free sex movement. In order to make whole the liberty of having procreational (or unprotected) sex without procreation, liberals had to find a "constitutional" liberty to kill children in the womb.
The problem with secular liberalism is that the moral restraints they willing place on the boundaries of liberty almost always cost someone else their liberties. In my opinion, the real reason many liberals insist on remaining secular nonbelievers is that they desperately want to defend the very liberties that cost others their liberties. Here are a few examples of liberal causes that cost the average citizens: higher taxes, ever expanding government, abortion on demand, eroding property rights, gay marriage, and an activist judiciary shamelessly undermining our constitution.
The effects of exercising the moral teachings in the bible are ALWAYS positive for everyone involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.