Abortion: To Protest or Not to Protest

Chronicles Magazine ^ | 12/5/2002 | Thomas Fleming

[JohnGalt]

As a conservative libertarian, I admit that my logic as a "pro-lifer" was always built around the pragmatism that government has a right to regulate the industries of death, in contemporary terms, abortion and euthanasia. (The culture has agreed for a thousand years that hiring someone to kill another person has to be regulated with the power of the law.)

I extended the argument into political terms that it makes no sense to me that abortionist should be allowed to operate laissez-faire while other industries are heavily regulated.

It was my nature to support the protestors, but Fleming seems to have revealed that position to be a weak moral stance in the face of the greater issue at large. I will think this one over...

[Notwithstanding]

1. Directly killing any innocent person is a grave affront to the human dignity with which all persons are created - a dignity so great that God calls us images of God. No compromise.

2. Scheidler does not compromise.

3. Rather, Sheidler is using Nero's legal system to ensure he is not afforded less legal protection merely because he is trying to save babies from being unjustly slaughtered (in accord with unjust - thus invalid - laws).

4. Because Sheidler is known to NEVER compromise on the issue of abortion, there is nothing the least bit troubling about his use of legal arguments that can help him achieve his just due even if there are better arguments that can be made. Here, the courts have already told him he cannot use his best arguments. It is the courts that have reduced him to pretending that the salughter of innocents is not the real issue.

[anniegetyourgun]

An interesting analysis by the author, though I disagree with the premise that no progress has been made. However, I won't go into that now. And regardless, there can be no end to the struggle for the rights of the unborn....no more than Wilberforce could have given up in his fight against the de-humanization of blacks. Within the historic Christian faith, there simply isn't an option to sit down and shut up.

On his point that this is an anti-Christian nation, I know I've been saying that for years. It's about time that it be acknowledged. It's not a Christian nation (although it was clearly founded by such and many today simply claim to be), it's not even a non-Christian nation....it's anti-Christian. But then, we are feeling the birthpangs of the endtimes and no Christian should be surprised by it. While I don't like it, I know that greater is He who is in me than he who is in the world. As believers we also know that we are overcomers - regardless of who and how many hate us. After all, they hated Him first.

[Bogolyubski]

Fleming is a very thoughtful writer, and this article really does cause one to think about the issues involved. I've always been a bit mystified about the pro-life side's use of Martin Luther King. King was overtly pro-abortion (he received a "Maggy" award from Planned Parenthood) and lived a completely immoral and depraved lifestyle much in the manner of Bill Clinton. I very much agree with Fleming's underlying premise about the nature of American society. The Christian Coalition, Dobson, and other Christian leaders still cling to the notion that this is a Christian nation despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[fone]

||| But the really horrifying part is not the hired killers but the mothers—the millions and millions of mothers, who choose to kill their own babies. |||

Yes, it is "horrifying", the surviving victims of abortion indeed suffer the consequence of their actions (be sure to read entirel linked article).

============

On the issue of "to protest or not to protest" I will weigh in with the following.

For the agnostic: "neutrality” is a deceitful pretense. In this case, to not speak out against evil, you allow it to advance.

For the Christian, Scripture is graphically clear:

Revelation 3:15"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot.
16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

Lukewarm = “neutral” = not taking a stand, and the consequences thereof.

[Notwithstanding]

annie and john,

You mention the roots of the USA.
They are ostensibly Christian.

However was it not always a Christianity focused on INDIVIDUAL freedom to consider Christianity to be whatever the INDIVIDUAL thought it might be? Thus Max is perfectly free to declare Act Z to be sinful, while Erma is free to declare the same Act Z to be godly.

I wonder if it was not inevitible that eventually the USA would become a society based on an absolute libertine view of personal freedom.

If one thinks that Christ's gospel can be interpreted correctly by every individual, then chaos is bound to result.

Churches based on episcopal hierarchies are not free from potential problems, but unity of belief and authenticity of doctrine is much more likely to occur when popularity does not determine doctrine.

[newgeezer]

"a great country in which the overwhelming majority of the population claim to be Christian but think that abortion is permissible in cases of rape, incest, birth defects—or potential low IQ or halitosis or who knows what other irrelevant reason—is not a Christian nation"

Any Christian out there who thinks abortion is permissible in cases of rape or incest, please feel free to reply with a defense of your reasoning. I understand how the politicians figure they have to include those exceptions in order to make progress but, I want to hear from anyone who thinks abortion must be permitted in these cases.

[Cicero]

There are some gratifying emotional statements made in the article, which might make a pro-lifer feel good, but it is flawed in any number of ways. Progress HAS been made. Abortion clinics have been closed down in many areas. Abortion rates are slightly down. Younger Americans are more pro-life than their mothers. The Supreme Court now knows that this is an issue that will not go away, and that it cannot simply change the moral landscape by fiat. Pro-life politicians now have an advantage at the polls in most parts of the country.

One reason the Democrats lost at the polls is that they are now seen by many people as the party of sleaze and dishonor. One major reason for the perception is clinton. Another is the close association of Democrats with NARAL, NOW, NAMBLA, and the abortionists. If the Democrats stand for anything, they are the party of abortion and sexual perversion, and handy as these privileges may be to some people, they are not morally attractive. Many people feel a deep repulsiveness in this whole agenda.

I also fail to see why comparing Roe v. Wade to the Supreme Court's earlier behavior on the slavery issue is irrelevant. Abortion is similar to slavery in that it takes a whole class of human beings and simply declares that they are not human. It is a similar moral atrocity. And the Supreme Court similarly supported it, until the moral fervor of the anti-slavery movement changed the country.

Sure it's a Christian issue, but it's also a Constitutional issue, and there's no reason not to appeal to both in our arguments.

Early Christianity did not immediately end slavery, abortion, or other such customs in the ancient world because it had no power to do so. But as Christianity assumed a more commanding position, both abortion and slavery were outlawed. Slavery disappeared in Europe until it was reintroduced in the 16th century. Abortion sometimes occurred, but it was not legal or smiled upon.

So in the end, I fail to see the point of this article. It seems to be the work of some purist who refuses to admit that pro-lifers should feel free to use any legitimate and effective means to eliminate abortion, however long it takes.

[Notwithstanding]

Dittoes - especially your concluding paragraph.

[anniegetyourgun]

Of course, but you aren't saying anything that scripture hasn't already revealed: there is no private interpretation, AND many will go the way of the wide gate. Again...no surprises to those who know Him and His Word.

I love this country, but I've never labored under any imaginings that we are somehow favored by God above all nations. We certainly have experienced His blessings and bounty...but only as a result of the remnant within.

[Oberon]

It looks as though this author's bottom line is that the country has decided to allow unborn children to be killed, and that the only ethical choice for Christians is to let them.

I disagree.

[JohnGalt]

The problem is that I personally lean libertine and yes, I consider myself a Christian; I just happen to believe that life is a distinct DNA code and ending that code can not be considered anything but homicide.

A purely rational take on the subject, if you will. Fleming, on the otherhand, is a libertarian critic and a true conservative (thus I enjoy reading him and comparing it with my own set of beliefs.) My thoughts on the article were thinking that I leaned on the sides of the protestors simply for reactionary reasons, and overlooked, Fleming's well argued point that we are talking about the wrong end of the problem.

[JohnGalt]

Perhaps you missed the underlying claim of the author that the so-called 'civil rights' movement did far more harm than good. I agree with that belief, and thus am more open to his over-all argument.

[JohnGalt]

Perhaps we interpreted the article differently, however, I read that while the author (and my heart) may belong with the protestors, (and had I been alive-- I am a Northern Yankee-- I probably would have sided with MLK's protests against the state and overlooked the violence) the larger issue is ignored. The results of the so-called 'civil rights movement' were distinctly anti-American, anti-Christian with the disregard for property rights-- a fundamental staple of our law, and the American libertarian tradition.

The more I think about it, his take is dead on from the conservative-libertarian fusion point of view.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on tactics, then, without challenging our commitment to the issue, perhaps not.

[Polycarp]

I wonder if it was not inevitible that eventually the USA would become a society based on an absolute libertine view of personal freedom.

If one thinks that Christ's gospel can be interpreted correctly by every individual, then chaos is bound to result.

Churches based on episcopal hierarchies are not free from potential problems, but unity of belief and authenticity of doctrine is much more likely to occur when popularity does not determine doctrine.

Thank you, Notwithstanding. This is something I've always understood intuitively but never put into words.

Pinging (as usual, if you would like to be added or removed from my "conservative" Catholic ping list, just send me a FReepmail.)

[Lil'freeper]

, it's not even a non-Christian nation....it's anti-Christian.

This is so true. Last nite on FNC they ran a clip of some NAG (Gandy? Grady?) listing the grievances they have against those horrible, awful, barbaric (sarcasm) protesters. "They are still ... praying outside the clinics." Pat Ireland was looking on and nodding. Praying in public is a RICO offense?!!? Astounding.

[anniegetyourgun]

That's the NOW Prez - Kim Grandiose....as in pompous. Seriously, her name is Kim Gandy....but no one cares anymore.

[Lil'freeper]

< futility > < rhetorical question > I wonder when the national organization of women will realize there's more to being a woman than having an abortion? < /rhetorical question >

[Diamond]

I find Fleming's analysis flawed and contradictory in some respects. He seems to at times value property over life. The first thing he needs to do is get some of his facts straight

...Many of the demonstrators are affiliated with Operation Rescue, which has also staged less legal and less peaceful demonstrations in front of big-city abortuaries. This week, Operation Rescue and its head Joseph Scheidler..."

Joe Scheidler is not the head of Operation Rescue.

deranged activists will continue to degrade human life by waving fetuses and graphic photographs and show their contempt for Christian moral teachings by breaking good property laws in the vain expectation that good will come of it. St. Paul answered that one nearly 2000 years ago.

Since Fleming derides such people as deranged and as showing contempt for Christian moral teachings, I would like to hear Fleming's analysis of Romans 13 wherein Paul describes what constitutes LEGITIMATE authority, with reference to what the purpose of law is in the first place. And Jesus, referring to the purpose of law, asked the question of the Pharisees, "Which is lawful, to do good or to do evil; to save life or to kill?" To that profound question Fleming has no answer but, "... "The law is the law, and abortion is legal". But which is more deranged, to accept as law that which is contrary to justice, and actually therefore no law at all, or to display a photograph of an aborted baby ? Perhaps Fleming can walk by on the other side of the road and rationalize that the victim he refuses to help is not his neighbor, but if he himself were the one about to be taken into a building to be butchered, then perhaps he might have a different perspective on his "it is legal" argument.

But pro-life demonstrators who practice civil disobedience are making a fundamental mistake that is more grievous even than their ignorance of constitutional law

Fleming is is no position to lecture us about constitutional jusrisprudence. He is wrong about Jefferson's "self-evident" truths and his deist trinity of rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, because Jefferson actually took the ideas from Scottish Presbyterians. Fleming dismisses the comparison of abortion with slavery as entirely irrelevant and dangerous, and then implicitly repeats the same mistake of essentially accepting the categorization of human being as chattel by accepting what he himself characterizes as murder as "legal". Had he been there at the time, perhaps Fleming would have objected to the rescue of the baby Moses because it was "illegal".

Let him save his invective for the baby murderers, not those trying to save babies from the fire.

Cordially,