Posted on 10/26/2007 1:13:44 PM PDT by wagglebee
n a speech delivered in Atlanta over the weekend, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared that banning abortion "would have a devastating impact on poor women." Bader's suggestion, that abortion is a solution to the problems of poor women, is on a par with Jonathan Swift's long-ago solution to the Irish poverty problem in his essay, A Modest Proposal. But at least Swift was writing satire.
"Facts," as John Adams stated so clearly, "are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." Yet, conservative critiques of leftist policy proposals, no matter how carefully buttressed by facts, are swept aside lightly and dismissed as irrelevant by media, historians and biographers. Many distorted views go unchallenged in the public arena simply because so few have looked (or are willing to look) at the facts.
Worse still, when the actual facts don't agree with the left's latest political nostrum, they are drowned out by the claim that those "old" facts have been superseded by the results of some new study that purports to show that "up" is now "down." Nowhere is this encountered more frequently than in the left's assaults on any and all boundaries relating to sex, marriage, family and child rearing.
For example, the left is furious with George Bush for (among other things) reinstating the "Mexico City Policy," first instituted by Ronald Reagan, that makes the receipt of federal funds by non-governmental organizations conditional upon their agreeing that they will "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations." It is bizarre how the left can howl about how inhumane it is to use the interrogation technique of "waterboarding" (which does no lasting physical harm) to extract information from terrorists, but they are just fine and dandy with death by dismemberment of unborn babies in the womb.
To read their pious-sounding rhetoric about how essential the barbaric practice of abortion is to the health and well-being of women, one would be forgiven for thinking that abortion was the cornerstone of progress, that civilization only began to make headway when abortion became legal in this country. And naturally, feminists just want to share this priceless, newly-minted benefit with all the oppressed women of the world, who presumably have no other means of avoiding the Malthusian spectre: unending pregnancies and starving mouths to feed.
But what are the actual facts of the matter?
Figure 1. When we look at the birthrate in the United States beginning in 1900, we see a very different picture than the progress-began-with-Roe-v-Wade folks imply. From 1900 to 1933, the birthrate declined 44 percent without the pill and without legal abortion. The post-WWII baby boom of the 1950s aside, the birthrate today is only 15 percent lower than it was in 1933.
Does abortion then actually lower the birthrate? To test this idea, it would seem that if this were the case, the effect would show up most powerfully in the birthrate of unmarried women, who presumably would be most inclined to resort to abortion to escape the responsibilities of an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy. Here again, the facts run against the conclusion that the left would have us assume — without proof — to be the case.
Figure 2. The "legalization" of abortion initially produced only a very modest decrease in the unwed birthrate. Subsequently, the increase in non-marital, promiscuous sexual activity - promoted by the same folks who championed abortion as the panacea for unwanted births - produced a 93 percent increase in the birth rate of unmarried women from 1973 to 1994. The unwed birthrate in 2004 was the same as it was in 1994, despite the fact that the unwed abortion rate has been declining. (The abortion rate among unmarried women peaked in 1981 and has declined by 37 percent.)
It can be difficult to rid young children of the conceit that they are the center of the universe and that the only things of any importance are those that focus on them. This creates the propensity to look at life primarily through the lens of what they know from their own limited experience. Likewise, feminists from the Western World see through a gaze clouded by self-absorption. They are blind to the of history. They care nothing about how the birth rate changed before and after the legalization of abortion. They will allow nothing to sway them, to deter them from their tireless efforts through the U.N. to export to the third world the plague of death which has brought "demographic winter" to Europe.
The fact is, we could and should be doing more to help poor nations around the world by providing technology and resources for the things that are essential to life and health, things like clean, unpolluted drinking water. Funding abortion in third world countries, however, is another matter altogether. No amount of language twisting — calling it "family planning" or "women's reproductive health care" — will mask the true horror of abortion. The Scripture teaches us, "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death" (Proverbs 14:12).
And we need to start showing this horror for exactly what it is!
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Maybe poor women should practice abstinence. I’m a single not-hideous 22 year old male and I practice it just fine.
No progress, but the abortion ovens replaced those used by the Nazis in WWII. Of course, the procedures have been cleansed to some extent but the desired outcome of extermination is still the same.
“banning abortion “would have a devastating impact on poor women.”
And abortion has a devastating impact on poor babies.
One abortion == one dead + one wounded.
I wager this shriveled up old witch (Ginsburp) has never suffered the advances of even the vilest looking of men.
Why would they when the federal government has incentivized having more bastards?
Maybe they had a shred of morals left.
Yeah, progress towards 50M dead. Pretty words and euphemisms being painted around the American Holocaust.
Actually the extermination is just as gruesome and at a far greater pace.
Worldwide, there are nearly 100 abortions performed EVERY MINUTE, around the clock, 365 days a year.
Most abortionists prefer to wait until the fetus is formed because it is easier for them to make sure it's all out (they piece them back together). The abortuaries don't want people seeing the corpses, so they burn them in most countries. However, in the United States, they often use common household garbage disposers.
Scratch any pro-abortionist deeply enough and you’ll find some variation on the old “must control the mud people” argument.
Her mother obviously did.
Nope, government has made sure to get rid of those too.
The left has done everything possible to make sure the consequences of immoral behavior assert no negative pressure on the occurence of that behavior.
In other words, they use government to make the rest of us pay for the consequences, thus giving NO incentive to the individual to behave/choose morally.
Thought she has kids.
Ginsburg’s husband Martin is a multimillionaire tax attorney and law professor. And most shockingly, Antonin Scalia is one of her closest personal friends and they often go on family vacations together.
Ginsberg is a psychopath - who could have been stopped but was given a pass by our pathetic party leaders (Dole, Lott, Hatch).
Wow, how can Scalia stand the sight of this monster?
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
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.