Both Sides on Abortion Try a Youthful Drumbeat

The Washington Post ^ | January 22, 2003 | Sylvia Moreno

[MinorityRepublican]

As the deafening sounds of the band Last Tuesday boom throughout the basement of a Capitol Hill hotel, teenagers with electric-blue hair or pierced brows and tattooed arms mill about. One girl pogos alone in front of the stage; the slam dancers take over the middle of the room.

Just another Sunday night punk rock concert. But these kids are wearing bright red sweat shirts inscribed with the words "I Survived" on the front and "Over 1/3 Of Our Generation Has Been Wiped Out" on the back.

"Face it," reads the black T-shirt of a spike-haired dancer. "Abortion kills."

[MinorityRepublican]

I am 19 years old, and many of my generation is opposed to abortion.

So there is hope...

[MinorityRepublican]

I made a mistake, can you please delete most of the paragraphs in this article because I know what the rules are with WP and LAT.

[Support Free Republic]

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Thanks Registered

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I married a single mother. Both she and I are in the camp that thinks first-trimester abortion should be legal and late-term abortion illegal; and that the "Pro-choice" activists are pro-abortion.

Our daughter, who is now in her teens, hasn't said anything outright, but I get the distinct impression that she's pro-life (which I have no problems with). I think having all these pro-abortion activists saying, for all intends and purposes, that she should have been aborted.

There are a lot of children and young adults, born to single mothers, poor families, and in other difficult circumstances, since Roe v. Wade, who are hearing the message from the "pro-choice" movement that they shouldn't be alive. If the pro-life movement wins, the pro-abortion activists have no one to blame but themselves.

[CatoRenasci]

Abortion is indeed perhaps the most difficult issue of our time. When Roe v. Wade was announced and I read the decision, I thought it represented a reasonable attempt to fashion a workable compromise between prohibiting abortions entirely and allowing any abortion without limit. My own views are probably more pro-life than they were 30 years ago, but I think the fundamental compromise: that in the earliest stages of pregnancy the balance of interests weighs towards allowing the woman to decide whether to continue the pregnancy or not and in the later stages of pregnancy, when the fetus has become viable outside the womb, the state must protect the interests of the unborn child.

Of course, the hardest questions are where to draw the lines, and that's why no consensus has been reached by the courts or legislatures. I'd always permit first trimester abortions -- they should be legal if not morally desireable -- and perhaps somewhat later term abortions in cases of rape or incest, or where the fetus is known to be seriously diseased or defective. I would be inclined to prohibit most second trimester and all third trimester abortions (except to save the mother's life, etc). I would also try to increase funding for adoptions, and even orphanages, so that poor women who did not believe they could care for their children could have an alternative to abortion.

[MinorityRepublican]

There are a lot of children and young adults, born to single mothers, poor families, and in other difficult circumstances, since Roe v. Wade, who are hearing the message from the "pro-choice" movement that they shouldn't be alive. If the pro-life movement wins, the pro-abortion activists have no one to blame but themselves.

What I believe that would happen is that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe vs. Wade decision, that would not mean the end of abortion itself but rather the issue is delegated to the states. States such as Utah would have absolutely no abortion while states such as Rhode Island would have abortion on demand.

What should happen is that pro-life movement would be mostly focused on elimintating abortion in mostly New England and California.

The Federal government has no say on this issue unless there is a constitutional amendment to protect life (which I support, but it is unrealistic at this point)

[MinorityRepublican]

Our daughter, who is now in her teens, hasn't said anything outright, but I get the distinct impression that she's pro-life (which I have no problems with). I think having all these pro-abortion activists saying, for all intends and purposes, that she should have been aborted.

We came a long way since the hippies in the 60's and the 70's. I believe that within time, abortion will be ceased and that there will be some partial privatization of social security.

Our generation is probably more conservative because liberals would abort their young while Christian families would bear their young.

So when the hippies begin to pass away into the sunset, things will be much different.

[HumanaeVitae]

"This is a generation that has grown up not knowing the ravages of back alleys or botched abortions or how humiliated or degraded women were because of the lack of the right to choice," said Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, formerly known as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League."

" This is a generation that has grown up..."

Should read:

"One third of this generation has not grown up..."

RIH Kate Michelman

[MinorityRepublican]

Of course, the hardest questions are where to draw the lines, and that's why no consensus has been reached by the courts or legislatures. I'd always permit first trimester abortions -- they should be legal if not morally desireable -- and perhaps somewhat later term abortions in cases of rape or incest, or where the fetus is known to be seriously diseased or defective. I would be inclined to prohibit most second trimester and all third trimester abortions (except to save the mother's life, etc). I would also try to increase funding for adoptions, and even orphanages, so that poor women who did not believe they could care for their children could have an alternative to abortion.

One of the things that I do not understand is why is late term abortion allowed to this day? If a seven months old fetus can live on its own outside of mother's womb, isn't that a living human being?

That is just wrong to abort that baby, anyone with a conscience knows that.

What is interesting is that the law does not consider a seven months old fetus as a human being, but rather as it is the property of the mother. That sounds familiar to Dred Scott decision in 1857 in which the Supreme Court declared that slaves are not human beings but that they are property.

[HumanaeVitae]

It took 370 years--from the death of Christ to the closing of the Roman gladitorial games in the west in 404 A.D.--for the Church to enshrine the sanctity of life in Western Culture.

And that was starting with 11 guys and the Holy Spirit...abortion will eventually be defeated.

[goodnesswins]

DAY of SUPPORT....FLY your flags (US, a British one, Hungarian, Australian and Japanese one, too if you have them)....and put up your BUSH/CHENEY signs, (and the BIG W's on your SUV's) for the STATE of the UNION next Tuesday, Jan 28th, if you support the President, our MILITARY and the United States of America. PSST....pass it on.

[MinorityRepublican]

It took 370 years--from the death of Christ to the closing of the Roman gladitorial games in the west in 404 A.D.--for the Church to enshrine the sanctity of life in Western Culture.

I remember reading The Death of the West that one of the problems with the Western Civilization is that we no longer respect life. Usually women are more considered about advancing their careers than to have kids. It used to be a glorious thing to have a big family. Nowdays, having a family with three kids is considered to be big.

[CatoRenasci]

What you said. I agree.

The reasons, of course, are political. I don't think even most "pro-choice" people really relish the 9th month partial birth murder, but many women, women lawyers especially, understand the tenuous legal underpinnings of Roe in the right of privacy and are, with good reason I think, very nervous about a slippery slope problem: that one restricition will begin a slide towards an almost total or total ban on abortion. I'm not so sure the current court would do that, but one never knows who'll be on the Supreme Court in a decade or so.

Politically, it wouldn't fly, but I would like to see a constitutional amendment enshrining the compromise so that it would cease to be the subject of endless lititgation, much as the abolition of slavery required an amendment.

[CatoRenasci]

Interestingly, I think an almost equally great achievement of Christianity, little discussed, was the substantial reduction, if not virtual elimination, of the open and approved sexual exploitation of children, of both sexes, that was endemic in the ancient world.

Also interestingly, it has recently become fashionable in upwardly moblie upper-middle and newly-upper class suburbs for those who are earning high six and seven figure incomes to have four or more children and wives who do not work (they lunch, drive SUVs and play tennis or golf, while nannies watch the kids, but I digress) -- it's a status symbol: Look at me! I can afford to rear and educate a huge brood and let my wife spend my money!

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I think our view pretty well match up. I'd like to see the support for adoption and single mothers come more from private sources, but that's just my libertarian streak coming through.

[CatoRenasci]

While I would prefer to see the support come from private sources, I would not chafe at government funding if necessary: I find the notion of banning abortion and then essentially condemning the teenage mothers and unwanted children to lives of poverty and abuse as more than a little hypocritical. Indeed, it is irresponsible. Had there been better support for the alternatives to abortion, it would never have become so widespread as it has. In that sense, we in the "pro-life" camp have only ourselves to blame.

[HumanaeVitae]

Actually Cato, Christianity:

--Abolished abortion, intfanticide, and child exposure in 374 A.D. (Child exposure meaning it was legal to leave unwanted children exposed to the elements to die);

--Abolished gladiatorial contests in two steps, in the east in 376 A.D. and in the west in 404 A.D.;

--Stigmatized suicide;

--Repealed the Roman Doctrine of patriae potestas, a doctrine enshrined in the Twelve Tables of Roman Law that allowed a father life-and-death power over his children (still seen today in the Islamic world in so-called "honor killings")

--Dignified marriage: even the mostly anti-Christian Gibbon conceded that Christians singlehandedly re-dignified marriage. Under Roman Law, a man could cheat on his wife at will. A wife could not cheat on her husband, unless of course she went to the civil authorites and registered as a prostitute;

--Fought a long and successful battle against consanguinuity (cousin-marriage), which abolished a society based on clan-relations and paved the way for the nation-state (see the recent excellent article on cousin-marriage in this month's American Conservative.)

We always hear about all the "harm" the Christian Faith has done...wonder why we never hear about these facts...

[MinorityRepublican]

I find the notion of banning abortion and then essentially condemning the teenage mothers and unwanted children to lives of poverty and abuse as more than a little hypocritical.

I don't know about you, but I do not judge teenage mothers. If necessary, I would offer to help them. I believe that it was Jesus who once said "If none of you have ever sinned, then you are worthy to cast a rock aganist this woman who is guilty of adultery." As expected, no one would stone her, and she was free to redeem herself.

[MinorityRepublican]

Also interestingly, it has recently become fashionable in upwardly moblie upper-middle and newly-upper class suburbs for those who are earning high six and seven figure incomes to have four or more children and wives who do not work (they lunch, drive SUVs and play tennis or golf, while nannies watch the kids, but I digress) -- it's a status symbol: Look at me! I can afford to rear and educate a huge brood and let my wife spend my money!

You are right about that. I know a quite few families that would fit your description. Let's hope that this trend will continue....

Also, we are reminded that in the Death of the West that religious families tend to have many more kids than the secular families who would often have have a kid, maybe two, or maybe none at all.

[MinorityRepublican]

We always hear about all the "harm" the Christian Faith has done...wonder why we never hear about these facts...

Of course not, the Left is anti-Christian while they are pro-Islamist because they are trying to destroy the Western Civilization. The values of America can be destroyed only from within instead from the outside. As it says under the Constitution, we have to protect it from all enemies external and internal.