Posted on 05/01/2007 3:08:56 PM PDT by Politicalmom
The only reason we have abortion today is that liberals have perverted our understanding of the Constitution into something that defies the very words of the document.
We won't get back to the right understanding by succumbing to their argument, that life in the womb has NO RIGHT that deserves respect. We won't get back to the right understanding unless we demand our leaders respect that the unborn have the right to life, guaranteed by our Constitution.
You’re talking about what should be, but not about what is (or was at that time).
Are you conceding that innocent human life should be protected by the federal government?
Conceding?
LOL I have not disputed that.
When you get around to it, I’d appreciate an answer to #599.
This is a little long, but worthwhile to the discussion, I think:
The Anniversary of Roe: Blackmun’s History of Abortion
Although Cody already has addressed Justice Blackmun’s history of abortion in the West as it relates to the law, I would like to take some time to consider Section 6 of Blackmun’s opinion as history. Is the history of abortion he gives as complete an account as possible? Indeed, is it historically accurate? As part of this discussion, I also would like to consider the significance of what Blackmun is trying to do with his history.
Justice William H. Rehnquist in his dissent compliments Blackmun on the “extensive historical fact and…wealth of legal scholarship” he brings to the issue of abortion. In Section 6 of his opinion, Justice Blackmun addresses the history of abortion and its morality. His account is for all appearances a complete one, as he goes back to the very beginnings of Western Civilization (Greece and Rome). He also discusses our English forebearers’ and our Founding Fathers’ attitudes towards abortion (for the complete history, see ROE V. WADE). At the end, he concludes:
It is thus apparent that, at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today.
However, for all its seeming completeness, Blackmun’s history of abortion leaves a great deal to be desired. Did the Greeks and Romans practice abortion? Yes. Indeed, one easily could argue that no two cultures were more hostile to Infant Life than the cultures of Greece and Rome. Yet, as much as our art has been influenced by Greece or our law by the Romans, our system of morality has been influenced by Christianity. The Didache, an book describing Christian living from the 2nd Century AD, declares, “Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.”
In addition to the Bible and the Didache, there are numerous Christian texts addressing the practice of abortion and its morality. Several of these texts come from real “heavies” of the faith, such as Augustine of Hippo (author of the The Enchiridion), Jerome (the translator behind the Latin Vulgate), and Tertullian, the Church Father who famously declared “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” The position taken in these texts is almost always a negative one. Tertullian, for one, declared, “In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb.”
Indeed, the Greeks and Romans’ permissive attitude towards abortion was a cause for criticism on the part of the early church. Many of the Christian texts addressing abortion, in fact, were castigating Greeks and Romans for practicing abortion. Jerome in one of his apologetic works declared:
They drink potions to ensure sterility and are guilty of murdering a human being not yet conceived. Some, when they learn that they are with child through sin, practice abortion by the use of drugs. Frequently they die themselves and are brought before the rulers of the lower world guilty of
three crimes: suicide, adultery against Christ, and murder of an unborn child.
This hostility towards abortion did not end with the early church. As seen with the contemporary Pro-Life Movement, it has persisted to the present day.
Throughout his history of abortion, Blackmun for the most part makes no mention of Christianity or its historical position on the practice of abortion. While addressing the Hippocratic Oath (which also opposed abortion), Blackmun does suggest Christianity’s position on abortion, writing, “The emerging teachings of Christianity were in agreement with the Pythagorean ethic.” Apart from this, however, Blackmun makes no attempt to elaborate on the exact nature of Christianity’s position on abortion.
The arrogance of this omission is startling in light of the significant role the Christian religion has played in the development of Western Civilization. Yet, it also raises certain questions about what it is Blackmun is trying to achieve here. Why does Blackmun neglect Christianity? Or, to look at it from another angle, why does he bother to mention the attitudes of the Greeks and Romans at all? First, as Cody noted, Greek and Roman attitudes towards abortion are irrelevant to deciding whether or not a woman’s right to privacy includes the right to terminate an undesirable pregnancy. Second, as I said before, the foundation for much of Western ethics and morality is Christianity.
I believe the answer to these questions can be found when we critically consider a few key parts of Blackmun’s opinion. In Section 7 of his opinion, Blackmun discusses “three reasons [that] have been advanced to explain historically the enactment of criminal abortion laws”. Only the third of the three reasons Blackmun discusses is of any interest to us. Blackmun writes:
The third reason [for criminal abortion laws] is the State’s interest — some phrase it in terms of duty — in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. The State’s interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. (footnotes omitted)
In this paragraph, I think Blackmun encapsulates the arguments most Pro-Lifers direct against abortion. These arguments can be summed up in three points:
1. Human life begins at the moment of conception — in other words, a fetus is human.
2. The State has a responsibility to protect the life and liberty of its citizens.
3. Therefore, the State has the responsibility to protect the life of the fetus.
In order for the conclusion (point 3) to be true, then both its premises (points 1 and 2) must be true. The two premises of this argument to a degree are dependent on cultural, religious, legal, and historical factors. In other words, some sort of historical source, let’s say, must exist showing that there has been a belief that life begins at conception for it to be taken as truth. If you undermine these factors, then you undermine the premises; in turn, you undercut the conclusion.
In light of this, the reason for Blackmun’s inclusion of a history of abortion in his opinion becomes clear. It is designed to do nothing other than undermine the legitimacy of the arguments of abortion opponents and depict them as people acting on a misconception of the facts of history, faith, law, and culture. In short, it is intended to destroy the historical, legal, cultural, and religious factors on which points 1 and 2 — particularly point 1 — are founded. The omission of any meaningful mention of Christianity furthers this purpose by making it appear that beliefs such as those held by Pro-Lifers are somehow alien to Western Civilization.
Rather than Christianity’s standard, Blackmun supports a position where abortion’s legal status depends on the “viability” of the fetus. He argues that Western societies generally have regarded abortions occurring before the fetus showed signs of animation (called the “quickening” in the common law) were not criminal in nature. Once animation occurred of course, Blackmun argues, the State has the right to intervene to stop unnecessary abortions. As part pf this discussion, Blackmun mentions the belief first forwarded by Augustine of Hippo that animation occurs 40 to 80 days after conception (depending the gender of the child). There are few problems with this interpretation, however:
1. The belief that life begins with conception dates back to the times of the Hebrews. Remember the injunctions against abortion contained within the book of Exodus? The belief that abortions before the first signs of animation were not criminal, on the other hand, was not formally codified till the 1100s. It was not until 1140 when the monk John Gratian finished
Concordia discordantium canonum (Harmony of Contradictory Laws), the first authoritative collection of the canon law, that this standard found any sort of legal expression, at least in Christian Europe. I am sure all of us would agree that the older belief that life begins at conception has the superior claim both because of its greater age and its origins. Whereas Gratian’s standard was the fruit of pagan philosophers, the belief that life begins at conception was the fruit of the divine mind of God.
2. Even when it supposedly was accepted, the standard that Blackmun endorses was far from settled as a matter of law or doctrine. Blackmun concedes that there was some uncertainty about when animation occurred. However, he clings to the argument that abortion committed before animation occurred was not regarded as a crime. This argument is disproved by a few key facts. In 1395, the Lollards denounced abortion in toto in The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards. In 1588, Pope Sixtus V echoed similar sentiments, denouncing abortion as a crime against marriage and a sin against God.
Justice Harry A. Blackmun never states anything that is an out-and-out “lie”. His facts are largely correct. Rather, the issue is with his interpretation and his presentation of those facts. He both fails to place his facts in their correct historical context and omits details that do not coincide with his vision of things, muddling matters when he ought to be clarifying them. Perhaps it is appropriate that the confusion that results from Blackmun’s history has been paralleled in the decisions that have followed Roe. Yet, if anything is to be established by the study of abortion in the West, it is this: While varying interpretations about abortion at times have been forwarded, the Pro-Life Movement’s campaign against abortion is consistent with the best traditions of Western Civilization.
http://ledux.blogspot.com/2006/01/anniversary-of-roe-blackmuns-history.html
Then I guess Fred is wrong.
FRED THOMPSON, R-U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE: I do not believe that the federal government ought to be involved in that process.
ROFL
I’d like take this opportunity to express my admiration for the quality of your posts here, especially in the last couple of weeks. You’ve been a real force in helping defeat Giuliani.
Thanks much.
My personal opinion is that Mr. Thompson's views at this point very much represent the status quo, in practice.
You’re welcome.
I guess I must have had you mistaken! ;-)
Well, Roe changed the world. Time to put it back aright, for good. All that is needed is a simple declaration from all three branches of government that unborn babies are persons, and it’s over, without the 50 state bloodbath continuing in any of them.
Without such a declaration, we’ve solved little.
Did you all hear what that ingrate Dick Morris had to say about Fred Thompson? What an absolute @#$)#$)@*#$.
Folks need to remember that 7 of the 9 current sitting members of this SC were appointed by Republicans. And all we could get was a very flawed 5-4 ruling against infanticide, for goodness sakes.
And lastly, Senator Thompson himself, no matter his stated POSITIONS, hates talking about this. He's quite averse to it, in fact. Notwithstanding his nearly perfect party line voting record, I don't see a political wound on his body that came from protecting the lives of the innocent.
>> That pretty much blew it, as I’m sure he finally understands. <<
Naw, the pathetic thing is he STILL doesn’t understand, and he never will. The Bush family is a perfect paradox: infitinely pig-headed domestic appeasers.
Amazing how they can pull linguistic cartwheels and be so stupid. If he asserts that Bush “knows” that the war is lost, then he asserts that the war is lost; you cannot know something that isn’t true; you can only mistakenly believe it.
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.