by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, January 25, 2008
The 35-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade occurs this month during a hotly contested presidential primary season. As of this writing, the field on both Democratic and Republican sides is open with no clear leader for each party’s nomination. The conditions seem ripe for issues to define candidates and one issue that has historically played a role in discussion is abortion. This year, however, the issue has yet to reach hot-button status. Perhaps, with the economy failing, a healthcare crisis looming and a broken foreign policy tarnishing our international standing, there are more important matters for American citizens to consider when choosing a leader. Or, perhaps, it is only because abortion isn’t the widespread birth control practice most conservatives would have us believe it is. In fact, statistics show that the abortion rate has steadily declined since 1981.
The fact is that even pro-life advocates are losing interest in the issue. Conservative blogger Dee Vantuyl is an ardent pro-life voice and champion of the cause. Though she waves the anti-abortion banner almost daily on her blog and on her weekly internet radio show, Vantuyl has somehow set aside her convictions during this election year. Her pick for the Republican Party’s man is pro-choice former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Her justification for voting against her conscience is Rudy’s strong pro-war stance. Apparently, for some conservatives, the willingness to kill women and children in foreign lands trumps the protection of fetuses at home.
I celebrate the 1973 Supreme Court decision and the protection it has afforded women since. I don’t believe that abortion has ever been practiced as a routine form of birth control. Desperate women, often the victims of rape or abuse, or guilty only of a lapse in judgement, find themselves with few options other than the emotionally traumatic operation to deal with a seemingly hopeless situation. In the absence of a safe and legal abortion, these women would be likely to attempt to abort the fetus themselves, turn to unsafe black-market abortions, or pursue more tragic measures, like suicide.
While I despise the term pro-abortion in the way that anyone should dislike being called pro-war, I don’t embrace the term pro-choice any more readily. I might agree with my wife when she asserts that abortion wouldn’t even be an issue if it took place in a man’s body. Certainly, patriarchal attitudes have had some influence on the debate with women often portrayed as callously putting to death unborn children. But abortion goes much deeper than a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body or her control over her reproductive system. Roe v. Wade empowered women to rise above the imprisonment of victimization. A rape victim can take back the power stolen from her by her attacker. A victim of sexual abuse can minimize the shame and anguish inflicted by a predatory family member. These matters go beyond freedom of choice to a woman’s emotional, psychological and physical health.
I have often been bothered by the apparent inconsistencies within the anti-abortion movement. The same conservatives who uphold the sanctity of all life when it is in its fetal stages seem to disdain its sacredness beginning at the moment of birth. The publicly pro-life George W. Bush found it easy to say “no” to life-preserving children’s healthcare funding when it was recently proposed by Congress. His hard line position against stem cell research has shown a disregard for medical research that would have a chance to prolong life and combat disease. His administration chose to send thousands of our soldiers to their deaths in its war of choice in Iraq, not to mention the many thousands of that nation’s men, women and children whose lives this unjust action has claimed. Conservatives often support the death penalty with a passion that contradicts a purported value on life. And, in the case of our discussion of abortion, provisions in the law that allow abortions to preserve the life of the women have long been under attack by the pro-life movement. Is a pregnant woman’s life so much less sacred than that of her fetus?
In the years before Roe v. Wade, women who had fallen prey to misfortune had few options. In desperation, they imperiled themselves and sought drastic measures, which only worsened their plight. The January 22, 1973 ruling placed a value on the lives of those women and allowed them to make a difficult yet important decision. As a man and an outsider, I can only begin to appreciate the magnitude of the provisions of Roe v. Wade. However, as this historic case nears a milestone, I feel it is vital that we continue to protect women and preserve their rights.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Your argument here is deceptive. You are trying to pull the reader away from the significance of the issue by playing politics. Regardless of whether you or any candidate out there (Democrat or Republican), feels that the issue is of any relevance is of little concern. Why? Because man does not define morality, the Word of God does. So for you to appeal to a candidate’s apparent loss of interest on the abortion issue is pointless. It makes little difference to God, the One we are actually accountable to. We are not accountable to the shifting sand of man’s autonomous conclusions. The beauty of following the true living God of Scripture is that I am not blown about by the wind from one generation to the next. I know what the Word of God says about life, the Scripture says that everyone of us was fearfully and wonderfully made. The Scripture teaches that before there was time and space for us to exist, our Father in heaven knew the number of hairs on our head. I understand however that your presuppositions are based upon the idea that man is the standard vs. God as the standard; however, it makes little difference. It’s like an illustration I heard from Gary Demar’s book War of Worldviews where he talks of a student who is working diligently at his campus library, he leaves to walk home when suddenly he comes across a big burly man with a knife; he threatens his life with it. The student remembers that he is carrying a 45mm Smith& Wesson revolver, he reaches for the revolver and says to the man with the knife “Stop or I will shoot!” The man with the knife laughs, “Ha, ha, ha, I do not believe in your revolver!” And the man lunges forward to stab the student while the student promptly fills him full of lead. The point of the illustration is to say that regardless of whether you believe in the Sovereignty of God and His Word does not make it any less true. I recently heard Doug Phillips of Vision Forum mention that “every battle is won or lost in the definitions.” The thing that devastates your very argument is that it is based on mere man’s ideas. The reason that is devastating is that every single man on the planet is fallible. Our very nature is sinful; you would have us believe that man’s problem is not within his heart, but within his intellectual prowess. You would teach the fallacy that man just hasn’t come far enough along intellectually to understand the real issue. Fortunately for us, God’s Word is self-authenticating, “In the beginning God…” That’s it! You are left with in the beginning man, which we know can’t be true. Satan appealed to man by appealing to his autonomy, wanting the knowledge to be like God by saying to Eve “Surely God did not say…” This is the very thing you are doing in this article. The problem is that you have no foundation to proclaim such a thing except autonomos (self-law). You can continue to do whatever seems right in your own eyes, as for me and my family I will serve the Lord.
oops...we will serve the Lord.
Yah, I'm glad Gordon gave me the heads up that you mentioned my name in this. You have grossly mis-characterized how I have gone about picking Rudy and coincided it with my pro-life views.
The war on terror is extremely important to me because if we lose it, we won't be alive to worry about all the other issues. BUT, for me it does not supersede the importance of the abortion issue.
Since, I am engaged in the political debate constantly I have become aware of where the rubber meets the road on various issues. While I would greatly prefer my President to be personally pro-life, the biggest arena where that comes into play is Supreme Court Justices.
Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest pro-life presidents we've ever had but he personally wasn't able to do much to stop abortion and 2 out of the 3 Supreme Court Justices he picked failed miserably in that area.
The field of Republican candidates this year is very dismal. The fact that I would be forced to pick someone who was pro-choice was very difficult but when I looked at all their records, Rudy seemed to be the most honest and real to me. He said he would pick strict constructionist judges and since he has been real about most issues I had a bigger trust factor with him.
When it comes to Mike Huckabee and John McCain (both who claim to be pro-life) I have HUGE trust issues with them because of numerous things they have done which IMHO, prove them to be untrustworthy.
So ironic as it may seem, I trust Rudy the most to protect the sanctity of life via Supreme Court Justices more than the other candidates. It is a gamble but it is with any other candidate as well.
All that said, it would not be fair to say that war on terror is more important to me than abortion. It simply isn't true. I wish many could see that overall Rudy is much more conservative despite the pro-choice stance than many others running. But it all may be a mute point since Rudy may soon be out of the running. If he doesn't pull out a strong performance in Florida I may be forced to settle for Romney, we shall see.
Dee,
First of all the War on Terror is a slogan, not an actual war. Like the War on Drugs, the War on Terror only serves as a banner beneath which politicians can rally support of an agenda. In this case, the War on Terror satisfies several for the current administration, and apparently for many of those who sought the presidency. For Bush, he was able to use it to maximize executive power, dismantle civil liberties, launch us into a preemptive war and occupation of a sovereign nation, and commit torture in our nation's name.
If you make the assumption the war can be lost, you must therefore make the assumption that the war can be won. Do you believe this is a winnable war? And if it is what would Rudy's plan have been to achieve that victory (moot point now that he has withdrawn)?
Regarding those 'constructionists' that Rudy would have appointed: would reversing Roe make them the same type of activist judges that conservatives have been railing about every time something doesn't go their way in the Supreme Court? Or does it only work that way if the justices make rulings that elevate us progressively?
Just curious,
Keith
Keith,
How do you justify saying that the war on terror is just a slogan, are we not fighting terrorists as we speak? Personally speaking during my two trips to Iraq, I didn't find any lack of evidence that I was fighting against terrorism; the almost daily sounds of explosions were a constant reminder of the evils that lurked (They weren’t our munitions that were exploding by the way). Maybe you would like to tell the family of Captain Josh Byers, whom I escorted through the city of Ramadi as his gunner, that he was fighting against a figment of the Republican's imagination. Perhaps you’d like to explain to Fox Troop 2nd Squadron 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment that the IED that killed him during a convoy from Ramadi to Fallujah was merely a figment of their imagination. Perhaps you’d like to tell that to Sergeant First Class Lockhart who was critically injured during that same explosion, who woke up in Germany in an Army hospital and didn’t recognize his own wife, that it was all just make believe. I have to believe that you are wise enough to realize that there are many real enemies of these United States of America and of freedom in general. It seems to me that you propose the kind of freedom that would essentially justify the actions of terrorists everywhere. Your brand of freedom is the kind that says everything is acceptable. I am not quite sure how you would justify the killing of American Soldiers who are essentially peace keepers, the ones searching out those that would intend to kill, not only Americans, but their own native Iraqi brethren. I am at a loss as to how you justify the actions of the killers that so easily get off the hook. The "agenda" that these politicians are working toward includes keeping you and your family safe; perhaps you could use a little perspective. What do you suppose we Soldiers do on a daily basis? The way you portray our presence is that of barbarians. You have no idea what goes on in a Tactical Operations Center on a daily basis. You have no idea what it must be like for a commander on the ground to have to restrain his assets in consideration of collateral damage. You have no concept of driving in a convoy when suddenly an RPG flies into the side of your Bradley Fighting Vehicle and completely demobilizes you; meanwhile you are pined down by enemy small arms fire. You have no idea what it is like to be flying an Unmanned Aircraft System in support of a patrol in Baghdad at 8 in the morning on Christmas day and watch an IED disable an M1 Abrams, watching the crew of that Abram tank scrambling to put out the fire that has erupted because the fuel tanks have caught fire, meanwhile since the turret of the tank is traversed to the rear pulling security the driver’s hatch is blocked off so that the driver is trapped burning to death. Tell me what was that Soldier doing to the initiator of that IED? Were the members of that convoy responsible for some kind of wrong doing? No! The Soldiers in that convoy were conducting a patrol to ensure that the streets of Baghdad were safe and secure so that the rest of the population might sleep peacefully. You make it sound as if we wield the sword without any regard to the innocent.
While I'm not willing to say that President Bush has been a stalwart of conservatism, nor would I agree with his pluralistic approach to religion. I am not,however,willing to go along with this idea that the current administration is seeking to create some kind of tyrannical dictatorship as you seem to tout. I don't believe any of my civil liberties have been affected perhaps you could give me an example of one of your civil liberties that you have lost because of this "slogan".
What is your definition of torture? How is it that you can even think about bringing into this discussion the topic of torture in the context of Roe v. Wade considering your support of a woman's "right" to murder in the name of "choice"? I can't understand how you can reconcile that it is perfectly humane to kill out of inconvenience and yet can't grasp a simple concept as the state’s God given right to defend its country from those that wish us harm.
Eric
Eric,
I never said terrorism didn't exist. I just said the War on Terror is not a war with a strategic end point. There will never be a point when we can say we have won the war on terror, because we will always be confronted with terrorism. This is not a winnable war or a losable war.
And there is a difference between "a war" as I would describe it and "warfare" which is what you are describing. I would have to be an idiot to deny that soldiers are in peril each day over there. I just think that the declared war on terror has afforded the administration a great amount of latitude. I haven't experienced any personal effect of a lack of civil liberties, but if we continue to sacrifice our freedoms for a promise of security, what will be left of the America so many have fought and died for?
K
Keith,
Since all wars inevitably have warfare in them, I fail to see your point. All I am saying is for you to act as if this is all some fabricated hatred that didn't really exist until we willed it to exist, is garbage. In order for you to understand this however you have to have some absolutes in place, which you admittedly do not. Therefore you are blown about by the breeze of whatever trend is popular today.
Eric
Post a Comment