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....
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.