This has been an interesting week. First, we had Martin Luther King Day. The next day, we had the inauguration of the first African-American president. Today, we have the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever issued. Given the convergence, I think that the following ad, from CatholicVote.com, is an appropriate way to wrap up the week’s occasions:
A commenter at YouTube says that this is “a fallacy known as ’special pleading’. They are showing a special case and wanting you to draw a general conclusion.” That may be. So how’s this for a much broader case: if Roe had never become the law of the land, there’s a good chance that Barack Obama’s margin of victory would have been several percentage points higher. While definitive numbers are hard to come by, African-American children have comprised anywhere from 23% ro 38% of children aborted each year since 1973, a far higher percentage than the population as a whole. Given that about 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama, it is far to suggest that he got at least 12 million votes fewer than he would have gotten if abortion rates had stayed at their pre-Roe levels. And that’s just one way to look at the losses to American society that have come about as a result of almost 50 million children being deprived of the same opportunities that Barack Obama has so marvelously enjoyed.
(Via Stand Firm.)
January 22, 2009 at 4:02 pm
The thing is, “special pleading” was the root of the effort to legalize abortion in the first place. Consider the case of the rape victim, or the 12 year old victim of incest, or the the woman who died from a back ally abortion. Some of this special pleading was revealed to be dishonest (see Norma McCorvey admit she was never raped, and has indeed come over to the pro-life side. see also Bernard Nathanson, a doctor who was at the forefront of the effort at legalizing abortion, who also admitted that the pro-abortion rights side simply lied when it claimed that “thousands” of women were dying each year from illegal abortions).
January 22, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Excellent and poignant little video! Thank you for posting it.
The “special pleading” argument at times has great validity, especially in the case of the value of all human life, even that of those who would disagree with me.
January 22, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Thanks David. It would be wonderful if Obama saw this and at least started thinking about it.
January 22, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Yeah, OK, the special pleading critique is valid enough I suppose … because the kid could have grown up to be Hitler instead, eh?
Whatever. I wouldn’t have wanted Hitler aborted either. It wasn’t what happened in the womb that made him Hitler, eh?
Anyway….
Let’s not put our hopes in Obama. He’ll be no more useful to the anti-abortion cause than a term of Ford, two terms of Reagan, three Bush terms, a decade of Republican Congresses, and a conservative SCOTUS. I stopped worrying about politicians views on abortion once I realized that they didn’t actually matter because they didn’t do anything to stop abortion, regardless of party.
If all politics is local, that’s even more true with stopping abortion, in my opinion. With all of this talk of hope and change, I hope those of us who want to end abortion will also find hope, and will find a way to change the country.
January 22, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Alan,
I agree with you to a point. Many Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have been tremendous disappointments regarding Roe v. Wade.
But consider the last two Presidents … Clinton and Bush 43. Both of Clintons’ appointees (Ginsburg and Bryer) undoubtedly uphold Roe v. Wade. That is a given with a Democratic President. But Bush’s appointees (Roberts and Alito) are counted as likely to vote to strike down Roe v. Wade if relevant case comes before the Supreme Court. That is one reason they attracted intense opposition (especially Alito). One thing for which I will always applaud Bush 43 is his Supreme Court appointment record (OK, Miers was pretty stupid, but at least he withdrew her). Bush’s appointments have definitely shifted the Supreme Court in a pro-life direction, the first time that has happened since … I don’t know when.
Even with the more mixed record of Reagan and Bush 41 (O’Connor, Souter and to a lesser degree Kennedy have been disappointments), would a Democratic President have ever nominated Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas?
In addition, the Hyde Amendment has prevented hundreds of thousands of abortions because of its strict limitations on government funding on abortions.
So, I think political party and national politics make some difference. All of the difference? No. Here in PA (and I think this is true in Michigan as well) there are a good number of pro-life Democrats, including our newly elected member of Congress, Kathy Dahlkemper. Two of the Democratic State Reps from this area are staunchly pro-life (only one of the Dems from Erie is not) And of course local efforts like crisis pregnancy ministries are incredibly important.
Ultimately, it does boil down to a change in the human heart. I think you and I agree on that. I would argue, however, that the law can have a didactic purpose as well (Mary Ann Glendon has made this argument pretty strongly).
January 22, 2009 at 9:06 pm
It really is hard to get legislative change to happen in the States, isn’t it? I really don’t think that the political will to end abortion is there either in the US or Canada. The best way to stop or reduce abortions I think is through crisis pregnancy centres that actually offer concrete help to women who are considering abortion – things like baby supplies, driving people to the doctor, parenting classes, stuff like that.
January 22, 2009 at 9:09 pm
a conservative SCOTUS — I’m afraid I don’t understand the reference?
January 22, 2009 at 10:38 pm
SCOTUS is shorthand for Supreme Court of the United States.
January 22, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Just what argument could one put before a conservative supreme court to reverse Roe vs Wade?
January 23, 2009 at 10:29 am
I agree John, it isn’t completely true that nothing has been done. But I think it rounds to nearly nothing.
How, for example, Republicans could let a single legislative session go by without introducing a bill to ban abortion is beyond me. Sure it’d probably get voted down, or if it passed overturned by SCOTUS. But it keeps the national debate going, keeps it on the front burner, and it makes people stand up and say what they’re for, and what they’re against. (It would also require some accountability for those who say they’re anti-abortion, but then do little to show it.)
I think Kate is right, that, unfortunately at this point, political means are probably not going to change things. I think there could be other political ways as well, but it would require significant changes in how we think about the issues, and I don’t think that’s that conservatives would go along with, unfortunately.
January 23, 2009 at 11:08 am
In Canada, it would be a lot easier to get a bill passed, if there was the political will to actually do it. I don’t think that there is a constitutional issue around it here, we certainly don’t have an equivalent to the Roe vs Wade decision. It would, however, take a majority government, something that we haven’t had for a while now.
No kidding. I have tried to point that out on Stand Firm and in other places. Folk are so upset about Obama being elected (and his abortion stand), but Bush Jr. didn’t do a whole lot either. (Or should I say the Republicans didn’t? My knowledge of your political system is still pretty hazy.)
January 23, 2009 at 7:59 pm
If I had the chance I would ask the President “Why shouldn’t every unborn Americam have a chance to be President?