Pro-Lifers and '08

I have a Current up about the Douglas Kmiec and Andrew Bacevich endorsements of Obama, and what, if anything, they tell us about the fate of the "Catholic vote." But I wanted to make another point on the subject as well. I'm an enormous admirer of Professor Bacevich, but I wish his Obama-endorsing piece hadn't stacked the deck so much; specifically, I wish he'd made a more detailed case for why issues of war and peace ought to outweigh the abortion issue for pro-life voters in '08, rather than claiming, implausibly:

... only a naïf would believe that today’s Republican Party has any real interest in overturning Roe v. Wade or that doing so now would contribute in any meaningful way to the restoration of “family values.” GOP support for such values is akin to the Democratic Party’s professed devotion to the “working poor”: each is a ploy to get votes, trotted out seasonally, quickly forgotten once the polls close.

You hear this sort of thing frequently from pro-lifers who have grown disillusioned with the GOP, and there's some truth to it: A lot of Republican leaders could care less about Roe and would prefer, if anything, to see it upheld, and even if Roe were overturned abortion would remain legal in most of the country. Nonetheless, it remains the case for all the pro-choice sympathies of leading GOPers, the Republican Party nearly succeeded in overturning Roe v. Wade fifteen years ago, and would have if one man - Anthony Kennedy - hadn't changed his mind about the issue at the last minute. It also remains the case that the Bush Administration has seemingly brought to Supreme Court within a single vote of undoing what Kennedy wrought in 1992. It further remains the case that while overturning Roe wouldn't magically restore us to some Ozzie-and-Harriet wonderland, returning control over abortion law to the hands of the voting public remains a necessary goal for any pro-life, socially-conservative politics that takes itself seriously as a change agent in American life. And it further remains the case that to vote for Barack Obama in 2008 is to give up on overturning Roe for at least a decade, probably for two, and possibly for all time. These realities may not require pro-lifers to vote for John McCain, but they deserve more serious consideration that Bacevich affords them.

Comments

And it further remains the case that to vote for Barack Obama in 2008 is to give up on overturning Roe for at least a decade, probably for two, and possibly for all time.

Only if you think Scalia or one of the other anti-Roe justices will retire during an Obama administration. My guess is that is unlikely given the ages involved.

Stevens will almost certainly retire in an Obama administration, and potentially Ginsburg as well, but that won't change the balance of the court on the abortion question. Kennedy, Breyer, and Souter are all at least 68 years old, so it would take an extended Democratic run in the White House to "defend" all those seats.

Posted by right | March 28, 2008 1:13 PM

Additionally, even in a McCain administration, the odds of successfully replacing Stevens with an anti-Roe Justice would be pretty unlikely given the likely Democratic majority in the Senate.

Posted by right | March 28, 2008 1:17 PM

The one pro-Obama, pro-life argument I find compelling (not neccessarily persuasive, but compelling) is this:

The pro-life cause is hurt by the polarization of our politics. This is because a bunch of people who are not strongly pro-choice and who - due to their faith or the fact that they have children of their own - are potentially sympathetic to the pro-life message, refuse to listen to the pro-life message because they hear it from "the enemy" on the other side of the aisle.

So if you buy the whole argument about how Obama will return civility to our national conversation, then you might be inclined to believe that letting some of the steam out of the boiler will give a bunch of people the psychological breathing room they need to listen respectfully to the pro-life message and many of them will change their minds.

Posted by sd | March 28, 2008 1:18 PM

"Could care less?" = they do care at least a little

You mean to say "couldn't care less." That means something different of course than "could care less."

Posted by hopeless pedant | March 28, 2008 1:48 PM

Conservative Republican Catholic scholar endorses Obama

Date created: 3/28/2008 1:42:46 PM
Last updated: 3/28/2008 1:43:31 PM

One of the nation's top conservative Republican Catholic legal scholars has endorsed Democratic Senator Barack Obama for president.Advertisement

Constitutional law professor Douglas Kmiec , who served in the Reagan administration and in Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, says he believes Obama can unite the country and inspire Americans to overcome racial and religious divisions.

Kmiec supports the Catholic teaching that abortion is a grave moral evil, but also considers the war in Iraq to be a life issue. Kmiec says the church was troubled by arguments for a "pre-emptive war" that has proven costly in both lives and treasure.

Kmiec, former dean of the Catholic University law school, now teaches at Pepperdine University.

copyright AP

Posted by Long Tall Texan | March 28, 2008 2:11 PM

Conservative Republican Catholic scholar endorses Obama

Date created: 3/28/2008 1:42:46 PM
Last updated: 3/28/2008 1:43:31 PM

One of the nation's top conservative Republican Catholic legal scholars has endorsed Democratic Senator Barack Obama for president.Advertisement

Constitutional law professor Douglas Kmiec , who served in the Reagan administration and in Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, says he believes Obama can unite the country and inspire Americans to overcome racial and religious divisions.

Kmiec supports the Catholic teaching that abortion is a grave moral evil, but also considers the war in Iraq to be a life issue. Kmiec says the church was troubled by arguments for a "pre-emptive war" that has proven costly in both lives and treasure.

Kmiec, former dean of the Catholic University law school, now teaches at Pepperdine University.

copyright AP

Posted by Long Tall Texan | March 28, 2008 2:11 PM

Conservative Republican Catholic scholar endorses Obama

Date created: 3/28/2008 1:42:46 PM
Last updated: 3/28/2008 1:43:31 PM

One of the nation's top conservative Republican Catholic legal scholars has endorsed Democratic Senator Barack Obama for president.Advertisement

Constitutional law professor Douglas Kmiec , who served in the Reagan administration and in Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, says he believes Obama can unite the country and inspire Americans to overcome racial and religious divisions.

Kmiec supports the Catholic teaching that abortion is a grave moral evil, but also considers the war in Iraq to be a life issue. Kmiec says the church was troubled by arguments for a "pre-emptive war" that has proven costly in both lives and treasure.

Kmiec, former dean of the Catholic University law school, now teaches at Pepperdine University.

copyright AP

Posted by Long Tall Texan | March 28, 2008 2:12 PM

Ross is right that it is entirely possible that we are close to seeing the overturn of Roe (that depends on whether Roberts and Alito prefer to hollow Roe out or overturn it outright) and that it almost happened in 1992.

But he's terribly wrong about the possibility of any sort of a socially conservative pro-life politics taking hold. The truth is, if there was any chance of that happening, we would have seen it in the 16 years after Casey-- pro-lifers were mad and energized; pro-choicers had an opportunity to become complacent, and with over a million abortions a year, pro-lifers would have been able to make whatever arguments they think were most likely to persuade the public that this is a horrible practice.

And yet, pro-lifers have made no headway at all. And that's because outside of the devoutly religious Christian communities, there just isn't a lot of support for banning abortion. There's plenty of people, to be sure, who are morally opposed or wouldn't have one themselves or who would like the government to do more to discourage it, but not a lot of support for bans.

So this is the pro-life high water mark. Overturn Roe and it will be the pro-choice community's turn to energize, and the media will soon fill up with stories of women who commit suicide or are beaten by their husbands or disowned by their parents as a result of the unavailability of abortion.

The reason all those Republican higher-ups don't want Roe overturned is because they know that pro-lifers have not even begun to be successful at persuading the American public to buy into a socially conservative politics.

Posted by Dilan Esper | March 28, 2008 2:16 PM

Would McCain really appoint justices who would overturn Roe? Remember, he wants the Court to sustain campaign finance reform, which rules out most of the obvious "conservative" names. Now I am sure there are potential justices who would both sustain campaign finance reform and overturn *Roe* but they are relatively few in number.

Posted by David T | March 28, 2008 2:33 PM

I know it makes no sense to a devout movement conservative like Ross, but isn't it just possible that sane pro-lifers take a look at the strong likelihood that a McCain presidency would involve the needless slaughter of a couple of million Iranians and reject that option out of hand?

When you place that up against the vague hope that somehow, some way, Roe v. Wade would be overturned, Kmiec's position isn't hard to understand even for a minute.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 28, 2008 2:44 PM

Dilan, that's because your allies have made it bloody impossible to persuade the American public. Did you know that it's illegal to pray or pass out pamphlets in the vicinity of an abortion clinic in Massachusetts? Hell, technically it's illegal for a passersby to _walk_ within a certain radius of the abortion clinic unless you work there or are trying to get an abortion. If the government tried to introduce an anti-abortion message into high school health classes, even with emphasis on contraception, many social liberals would be among the first to protest.

Posted by Hector | March 28, 2008 2:47 PM

If Kmiec were saying ONLY "This war is such a disaster, nothing is as important as bringing it to an end," I could understand him holding his nose and voting for a man he knows is his foe on every other important issue.

I can respect any conservative who believes that getting U.S. troops out of Iraq is worth losing ground on abortion, taxes, or ___ (fill in your favorite conservative cause).

My quibble with Kmiec is that he doesn't even acknowledge the importance of what he's giving up. If he's still a conservative, he has a duty to look us in the eye and say, "Obama is all wrong on abortion, but frankly, that has to take a back seat for now. Getting us out of that military quagmire takes priority. I KNOW he'll pack the Supreme Court with liberals, I KNOW he'll raise taxes and spending, I KNOW he'll be a disaster in all kinds of ways, but he's right on the one issue I care about most right now."

By pretending that Obama would NOT be a disaster for conservatives on all those other fronts, Kmiec makes be suspect that either...

1) He has some kind of personal animosity toward John McCain.

2) He's shifted leftward on a wide range of issues, not just the Iraq War.

3) He's delusional about just how far left Obama would try to take this country.

Posted by astorian | March 28, 2008 2:51 PM

Dilan,

Isn't there some tension between your argument that the public opposes bans, and your argument that in a post-Roe world argument women would commit suicide or face spousal and parental abuse arising from the unavailability of abortions? Returning the issue to the states would be unlikely to result in a ban in even the most conservative states, but it would allow differing levels of regulation in different parts of the country, and it would give greater political legitimacy to whatever legal framework was put in place in each state, because each framework would have been implemented through the normal workings of the democratic process.

I suppose your point might be that pro-choicers would be mobilized, and would seek to use relatively isolated anecdotal incidents to generate broad opposition to meaningful regulation of abortions. But from a pro-life standpoint, that's not much different than the status quo, except for that in the status quo the pro-choice side has the added benefit of being able to invoke Roe/Casey when challenging restrictions that have been enacted into law (meaning by definition that the restrications had a significant level of popular support).

Posted by legitprop | March 28, 2008 2:54 PM

One can't help but feel from the likes of Kmiec and bacevich - and I hate to psychoanalyze, since I really don't know their motivations - an eager desire to finally, finally latch on this wave of hope, to jump outside of the conservative box. It just seems that way. But perhaps I'm wrong.

Catholic moral teaching does not mandate a vote for McCain. It is not even clear what a President McCain would proactively do to further the cause of life, or even if he were so minded, what he could get past a Democratic Congress. But one thing is clear: you will get a maximalist pro-abortion position with Obama. For all the soothing rhetoric and likeable demeanor, it's extremely hard for me to give him a pass on his explanation for his vote against BAIPA given the uniform complexion of the rest of his voting record and positions on abortion and life issues. This is not to say there are no circumstances under which a Catholic could vote for Obama, only that his unbending position on this fundamental moral issue raises a high bar that has to be hurdled.

It would be nice to hear more from Kmiec and Bacevich taking seriously this problem.

As for which justices are likeliest to go, don't assume anything; Stevens and Ginsburg may be the likeliest departures, but on Inauguration day we'll have 7 justices over 70 years old, and at that age, even with the wonders of modern medicine, you just don't know.

Posted by Richard | March 28, 2008 3:02 PM

There's no guarantee that a Supreme Court justice appointed by a President Obama would vote to preserve the Roe v. Wade decision. In addition, there is no guarantee that a justice appointed by John McCain would vote to overturn Roe. After all, part of the current pro Roe v Wade faction on the Supreme Court consists of justices appointed by Republican presidents.

Moreover, a justice appointed by Obama is likely to have qualities of intellectual open-mindedness and skepticism toward the liberal and conservative orthodoxies displayed by many of the Court's current members. An Obama appointee could very well be a wild card on issues like Roe v. Wade. So while you are more likely to get an anti-Roe majority with a McCain appointment, it's possible that an anti-Roe majority could emerge with an Obama appointee also. A Clinton appointee on the other hand will probably preserve the pro-Roe majority on the Court.

In addition, while Obama has a strongly pro-choice voting record, there is no indication in his writings that he is a diehard Roe v. Wade supporter. Obama strikes me as someone who is cognizant of the main shortcoming of Roe v Wade, which is that it took an area that properly belonged to state legislatures and made it almost exclusively property of the federal courts. A President Obama would be disappointed by an overturn of Roe v. Wade, but would respect an overturn centered around arguments that abortion controversies are something for state legislatures to decide.

Posted by eltoro | March 28, 2008 3:05 PM

P.S. I do agree that the majority of Americans are not in favor of banning abortion. But it is also true that most favor significant restrictions. More than obtain under the current, essentially unlimited regime. Many simply do not realize how permissive it is under Doe/Casey (even with the very tiny restriction on PBA of Carhart).

Which is another way of saying I'd happily take my chances with the electorates. We wouldn't get 100% of the pie. But we would save some lives.

Posted by Richard | March 28, 2008 3:09 PM

"There's no guarantee that a Supreme Court justice appointed by a President Obama would vote to preserve the Roe v. Wade decision."

Guarantee?

No. Only death and taxes are guaranteed.

But it's betting odds. Easily.

Justices can surprise you. But vetting has reached levels never seen before. And who is the last justice you can name who showed unexpected "growth" to the right in any real fashion?

Posted by Richard | March 28, 2008 3:15 PM

But we would save some zygotes

Fixed it for ya.

Posted by snarky | March 28, 2008 3:15 PM

"Justices can surprise you. But vetting has reached levels never seen before. And who is the last justice you can name who showed unexpected "growth" to the right in any real fashion?"

Richard,

You are making an assumption that it takes a right-leaning justice to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I argue that a left-leaning justice could also vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, particularly if that left-leaning justice possesses the qualities of intellectual open-mindedness and skepticism about political orthodoxies. There are pro-choicers out there who would argue that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, not because they oppose abortion, but because they agree that abortion issues should be decided by state legislatures.

Posted by eltoro | March 28, 2008 3:27 PM

The government has a far more direct responsibility for issues like war (and torture) than on abortion. The president and Congress could outlaw abortion tomorrow and it would continue. OTOH, the president could say the war is over tomorrow, and it would be.

It's not a matter of which is worse - abortion vs unjust war. It's a question of which issues our politicians are directly morally accountable for.

Until the government begins kidnapping women and sending them off to secret detention centers to undergo forced abortions, there's simply no equivalence between these issues as far as direct accountability of our politicians.

Posted by Peter Bautista | March 28, 2008 3:30 PM

Kmiec is in a snit about McCain's centrist moves and Bacevich about his strong national security stance on Iraq. Both of them have lost it as conservatives.

Should Obama or Clinton win, they would appoint at least two liberal judges that would unquestionably tip the Supreme Court well to the left on Roe-Wade among many other matters.

Even McCain could go wobbly and appoint wishy-washy legal centrists, though one can hope that he would have the backbone to appoint people comparable to Roberts and Alito.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | March 28, 2008 3:31 PM

Dilan, that's because your allies have made it bloody impossible to persuade the American public. Did you know that it's illegal to pray or pass out pamphlets in the vicinity of an abortion clinic in Massachusetts? Hell, technically it's illegal for a passersby to _walk_ within a certain radius of the abortion clinic unless you work there or are trying to get an abortion.

Um, Hector, the First Amendment exception that deals with protests in front of abortion clinics (I believe the cases are named Schenck and Marsden) is limited to court injunctions, based on actual proof that protestors are physically blocking abortion clinics, and it is limited to allowing a buffer zone so that women can access the clinic.

If the law that you claim exists in Massachussetts actually exists and says what you claim, it is clearly unconstitutional and unenforceable.

In any event, why do you assume that the only place to have an abortion protest is in front of the doors of an abortion clinic? As far as I know, you can protest across the street, or at the National Mall, or in a public park, or wherever. The point is the pro-lifers aren't persuading enough people, not that the only place for an effective protest is in front of a clinic.

Posted by Dilan Esper | March 28, 2008 3:58 PM

Returning the issue to the states would be unlikely to result in a ban in even the most conservative states, but it would allow differing levels of regulation in different parts of the country, and it would give greater political legitimacy to whatever legal framework was put in place in each state, because each framework would have been implemented through the normal workings of the democratic process.

What you are overlooking is that in the current world, there is no cost for pro-lifers to take a maximalist approach, and as a result, many states have passed abortion bans already which will automatically take effect if Roe is overturned. So if Roe is overturned, we don't start from a blank slate where public opinion can gel. Rather, abortion will suddenly be illegal in a lot of places and clinics will close down. So the suicides and abuse will happen.

Further, opposition to abortion is concentrated in the Bible Belt, and pro-lifers are savvy and will know how to write restrictions that seem anodyne but effectively ban abortion, so it is quite plausible that there will be regions in the country where abortion will be illegal for the long term.

Posted by Dilan Esper | March 28, 2008 4:02 PM

Ross: Nonetheless, it remains the case for all the pro-choice sympathies of leading GOPers, the Republican Party nearly succeeded in overturning Roe v. Wade fifteen years ago, and would have if one man - Anthony Kennedy - hadn't changed his mind about the issue at the last minute.

Or if the Democrats hadn't blocked Bork -- there's no way Bork would have changed his mind on Roe. Heck, if Reagan had succeeded with Douglas Ginsburg (a much stronger intellect than Anthony Kennedy), Roe probably would have been overturned as well. It's only because Reagan had to settle for his third choice . . .

Posted by John Doe | March 28, 2008 4:08 PM

Dilan,

This is from an 'amicus curiae brief' (it's all legal gobbledygook to me) filed by the Catholic Action League in 1999, in protest of a MA senate bill. (The current law expanded the no-loitering zone to 35 feet).

"Senate Bill 148 would prohibit, with limited exceptions, all persons from knowingly entering or remaining in an area within 25 feet of any entrance, exit, or driveway of an abortion facility, even if the area includes a “public right-of-way”. None of the exempted conduct would permit an individual to use the area in question for any expressive or non-expressive purpose other than for ingress and egress.
"In effect, the Bill would criminalize the act of stepping into and remaining within a section of any sidewalk or street abutting an abortion facility – regardless of who is involved, regardless of their intent and motivation, and regardless of the circumstances. Thus, the Bill would impose within designated areas of public property a total ban on a broad range of public conduct in an infinite variety of contexts....
"Chief O’Leary, who testified in support of the Bill, admitted that all individuals remaining within the zone, including those quietly praying, would be subject to arrest."

As I said: it's illegal to enter or remain in an area 35 feet around an abortion clinic unless you are conducting business there.

Posted by Hector | March 28, 2008 4:11 PM

It would not be politically advantageous to overturn Roe vs. Wade. To do so would energize the pro choicers enough to get a lot of office holders voted out of office.
However, I am, deeply concerned about Obama's stance. He voted to allow after birth abortions.
In Illinois, if the the abortion is unsuccessful, the infant is denied food, liquid or medical treatment until it dies.
I do not know, but I would venture that he is against the death penalty for murderers.

Posted by Stewart | March 28, 2008 4:27 PM

I am pro-life, but over time I have come to believe that the most effective way of saving lives is to have church outreach programs that convince mothers of the value of their unborn children; whether Roe vs. Wade is overturned or not has thus become secondary to me and perhaps even a distraction from what I consider the real goal, because it's something that many of us don't have much control over at this point(perhaps by simply being outnumbered by those who disagree with us). I also am concerned that many Christians like myself will falsely believe that we have completed our moral duty just by simply passing a law. I like Obama's idea of 'engagement'; I think we can make more progress by befriending young women in crisis, by being mentors to girls through programs like Big Brother/Sister, by giving them the moral support they need to make the right decision(ie. not getting an abortion). This of course takes more time and on-the-ground effort than many are willing to commit, but it's the right thing to do. Perhaps these Catholic leaders are starting to consider this strategy as more effective as well...just a thought.

Posted by kristi | March 28, 2008 4:41 PM

OK, Hector, I looked it up. The previous law prohibited blocking clinic entrances (news flash, Hector, it has never been constitutionally protected to block the entrance of a business) and required protesters to stand 6 feet away from people entering the clinic. That was upheld by the lower courts and not reviewed by the Supreme Court. I think that was actually constitutionally questionable, because without a showing that protesters are harassing women entering clinics-- as opposed to simply saying "please reconsider your decision" or the like-- I don't think Supreme Court precedents permit this sort of a buffer zone.

But that having been said, Gov. Patrick in November signed a law requiring all protesters to stay 35 feet away from a clinic. Here's a prediction, Hector: it's under challenge now, and it will be struck down.

In any event, you didn't address my main point, which is that there's no reason why you HAVE to have your abortion protests in the form of interference with the desperate women entering abortion clinics. If your message were really so compelling, you could present it in the town square or the public park or on television and newspaper advertisements and it would persuade people.

I happen to think protesting in front of a clinic is and should be protected free speech, and the Supreme Court caselaw supports my view in most instances. That doesn't make it an honorable protest tactic rather than a crude form of bullying that just makes the protesters look like jerks.

Posted by Dilan Esper | March 28, 2008 5:11 PM

There is no serious chance of abotion being outlawed in the United States. What is past is past. Turn the page.

Posted by Miande | March 28, 2008 7:03 PM

Reading Professor Bacevich's piece in The American Conservative made my heart break. This man-- who has a distinguished military career himself and sacrificed a son just last year to the Iraq War-- has more credibility on the issue of foreign policy than just about anyone else who has pontificated ad nauseam (Victor Davis Hanson comes to mind), except perhaps for John McCain, who also has a distinguished record and whose son is currently serving in Iraq. But let's face it, there are a number of neo-cons who've been beating the drums for war and calling the shots on strategy, who probably have no business serving in those roles. And it's also an interesting question-- why don't conservatives treat the war as a "life issue" every bit as important as abortion? Why do we find it more alarming to think of the unborn being killed than 19 year-olds being shipped to the Middle East to protect our oil? This IS a good question, and Bacevich is right to raise it.

But my answer to that-- and the reason why I will continue to accept the grand bargain with the neo-cons-- is that it's a safe bet, judging from experience, that we WILL be back in the Middle East at some point whether during Obama's presidency or shortly thereafter. The region is a powder keg, and Obama's election will not alter our policy there in the long run. McCain recognizes and accepts this; Obama seems oblivious. Contrary to Bacevich's argument, the TRUE realist here is McCain, not Obama. On abortion, Bacevich makes a number of flawed assumptions. There's no reason why, if another Alito is nominated to the Court, we cannot overturn Roe v. Wade; and this would be truly monumental because it would finally provide some protection to those among us who are indeed the weakest and most vulnerable. We DO need to pursue change through the law as well as practice-- a country as comfortable and prosperous as the United States has no excuse for sanctioning by force of law the murder of innocent babies? We need to provide better care for the mothers who believe abortion is their only option; but we also need to change the law of the land. Obama will set this effort back by decades, possibly.

Posted by MD | March 28, 2008 7:18 PM

'TRUE realist here is McCain"

McCain is too stupid to know the difference between Al Qaeda and Iran.

Posted by Mark | March 28, 2008 7:39 PM

Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, the vast majority of abortions occur early enough that they'll always be legal. The actual number of lives to saved by bans is probably less than the number of excess deaths in Iraq.

Moreover, there's a moral difference between a government that fails to stop wrongdoing and a government that is actively engaged in wrongdoing. The Dems with respect to abortion are the former, the GOP with respect to war, torture and greed are the latter.

Posted by Consumatopia | March 28, 2008 8:22 PM

"There are pro-choicers out there who would argue that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, not because they oppose abortion, but because they agree that abortion issues should be decided by state legislatures."

Eltoro,

Could you please name some prominent examples of these pro-choicers? I can't think of any, especially any in political leadership positions.

The assumption in some other comments here is that the Republicans are the only ones hiding their true feelings about abortion to get elected. I suspect there are cynical pro-life Democrats who make the right noises to get ahead in their party, but if they did not think they needed to cater to pro-choice groups, they would support more restrictive abortion laws.

Posted by Kevin Jones | March 28, 2008 8:32 PM

I guess my point is that God provides us with free will, regardless of man's laws. Thus, even though we may outlaw guns, people are still going to be tempted by sin and kill other people; they would just do it using other means instead. Temptation is a fact of life that no amount of laws can prevent. In fact, I think we as Christians need to be suspicious of government laws; God sets a much higher standard than man, and Gods laws, unlike man's, are immutable. We need people to always be wary of the govt's laws, lest someday the govt. decides to do a China and make forced abortions the rule of the day. Thus rather than trying to use the government as a bully-pulpit for our stance, I think we need to trust only God-given scripture to convince people of the value of unborn children. This means being more active in the trenches, where you can really witness the effects of your actions. Politicians and politics tend to twist things into perversion, no matter what good intentions some of us may have.

Posted by kristi | March 28, 2008 8:52 PM

Re: Would McCain really appoint justices who would overturn Roe? Remember, he wants the Court to sustain campaign finance reform, which rules out most of the obvious "conservative" names.

I fail to see the connection. A "strict constructionist" judge would (ideally) believe that he ought defer to the legislature's will in both matters (banning abortion; regulating campaign finance), since the Constitution mentions neither abortion nor campaign finance. Of course a rightwing activist like Scalia would be first and foremost concerned with what furthers rightwing causes, not with the Constitution.

Re: Did you know that it's illegal to pray or pass out pamphlets in the vicinity of an abortion clinic in Massachusetts?

Hector, the whole "Operration Rescue" gig helped turn people against the pro-Life cause. Heck, it almost did that to me back in the days when abortion protestors were blocking not just clinics but other medical facilities and sometimes roadways, and endangering their own children by jumping out in front of traffic with them shouting "God loves babies!" I am not exaggerating here. I don't know where you were in those days, but I witnessesed these appalling antics firsthand in Ann Arbor when I was in college. Those sorts of tactics are profoundly self-defeating and the pro-Life cause has yet to recover from the damage Randall Terry and his ilk wrought on it.

Posted by JonF | March 28, 2008 8:58 PM

Kristi,

I agree with you need to do more to support women and children before we can do anything about abortion rates in this country. Howvere, changing the laws is part of the solution too. The law is a moral teacher.

JonF,

Maybe, but given that it's a normal thing for labor unions to protest outside company HQ and pacificsts to protest outside military buildings then why shouldn't pro-lifers be able to protests outside abortion clinics.

I wasn't of age in Randall Terry days....I'm mid-20s now.

Posted by Hector | March 28, 2008 9:07 PM

Hello Snarky,

But we would save some zygotes

Fixed it for ya.

And what is a zygote?

A zygote has the same chromosomes that I or you have.

It is human + and it is alive = he/she is a human life. I don't have the luxury - or the right - of trying to pick an arbitrary point in time when it magically becomes "human."

hello Eltoro,

You are making an assumption that it takes a right-leaning justice to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I argue that a left-leaning justice could also vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, particularly if that left-leaning justice possesses the qualities of intellectual open-mindedness and skepticism about political orthodoxies.

I reluctantly employed the shorthand of right-left language, but I'm not comfortable with it. What is wanted is an originalist/textualist who knows and practices the virtues of judicial restraint - not in preserving unprincipled precedent, but in restraint from growing or affirming unsustainable aggrandizements in federal and especially federal judicial power.

I have no idea whether a McCain-appointed justice would strike down Roe/Doe/Casey. I hope so. I would like to think so. But I think it's betting odds it would never happen with Obama's or Hillary's nominees. It seems evident both would employ a litmus test, just as Bill Clinton did.

There are pro-choicers out there who would argue that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, not because they oppose abortion, but because they agree that abortion issues should be decided by state legislatures.

This is true - but there are very few of them. And I cannot imagine any surviving the vetting process at an Obama or Hillary Justice Department.

I'm not necesarily sold on McCain, who is certainly not a perfect candidate on Catholic moral principles - which must guide me if not all others here. But Obama consistently supports a position of intrinsic moral evil, and that presents a high bar to overcome.

Posted by Richard | March 28, 2008 10:19 PM

JonF writes: "Hector, the whole "Operration Rescue" gig helped turn people against the pro-Life cause. Heck, it almost did that to me back in the days when abortion protestors were blocking not just clinics but other medical facilities and sometimes roadways, and endangering their own children by jumping out in front of traffic with them shouting "God loves babies!" I am not exaggerating here. I don't know where you were in those days, but I witnessesed these appalling antics firsthand in Ann Arbor when I was in college. Those sorts of tactics are profoundly self-defeating and the pro-Life cause has yet to recover from the damage Randall Terry and his ilk wrought on it."

Those were the very least of their tactics. Lifers would follow counselors and other clinic personnel home. They would routinely vandalize building locks. They would grab and claw at women trying to enter the buildings. In Boston in the 80s these people were demented, violent, shrieking beasts - a long way from Hector's romantic notion of peaceful praying folk.

I volunteered as a safety escort at one clinic (my then girlfriend was working there) because the protestors and their aggressive tactics frightened a lot of women. I was told to wear long sleeves with thick fabric because the zombies (it fits) were quite capable of scratching me. It was far from unusual for them to commit legal battery, and I'm quite happy to say I wasn't shy about returning the punishment.

Hector again: "Maybe, but given that it's a normal thing for labor unions to protest outside company HQ and pacificsts to protest outside military buildings then why shouldn't pro-lifers be able to protests outside abortion clinics."

They can and they do. They just can't interfere with the legal rights of others, which they were doing constantly and egregiously, which is why buffer-zone statutes have been upheld.

Perhaps if the lifer movement hadn't been overrun with full-blown crazies in the 80s things would have been different.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 28, 2008 10:28 PM

Jon F: "A 'strict constructionist' judge would (ideally) believe that he ought defer to the legislature's will in both matters (banning abortion; regulating campaign finance)..."

Well, I didn't say it was *logically* impossible for a judge to sustain both restrictions on abortion and restrictions on campaign finance, only that there seem to be few judges who do so. On the current Supreme Court, I don't know if there are any--certainly the ones who are most vehemently against *Roe* are also the ones most vehemently against campaign finance reform. (And those who are suspected of wanting to overrule *Roe* but who for now are content to interpret it narrowly--Roberts and Alito--are also suspected of wanting to throw out McCain-Feingold but for now are content to interpret it narrowly.) Justices who are willing to be consistently deferential to legislatures seem to be very rare indeed.

One other point: It is often said that overruling *Roe* will just leave the question of abortion to the states. This is not necessarily true. Unless the Court narrows its current broad interpretation of the commerce clause--as reaffirmed in the medical marijuana case-- overruling *Roe* could mean that Congress could outlaw all abortions where (for example) the medical instruments used are in interstate commerce, etc. Not that Congress as currently constituted would outlaw abortion, but if a future Congress wants to, there will be no consitutional obstacle. So it is wrong to say that overruling *Roe* would remove abortion as an issue in *national* politics.

Posted by David T | March 28, 2008 11:05 PM

"But one thing is clear: you will get a maximalist pro-abortion position with Obama."

Exactly. There are things about him I find appealing, but that's a clear turn-off. He's not moderately Pro-Choice or in favor of some kind of compromise. He's intensely Pro-Choice and a darling of NARAL. A possible test of how far he'd be would be the Brownback-Kennedy "Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Condition Awareness Act." NARAL has deemed it acceptable so he can support it and still be Pro-Choice, but I'm not going to lay bets on him doing so.

"The actual number of lives to saved by bans is probably less than the number of excess deaths in Iraq." Consumatopia

In 2003 there were about 47,497 abortions committed after the fifteenth week. (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm) That number has probably dropped since then, but I think an estimate of 160,000 such abortions from 2003 to present should be fair. This is indeed lower than most estimates of Iraqi death count. However it's unclear if reducing Iraqi deaths is even Obama's goal and I'd argue that it's reasonable to assume his main goal is lowering US death counts. Going by that 160,000 is larger than the US death count by a large factor. (Between 30 and 40 times)

"Further, opposition to abortion is concentrated in the Bible Belt" etc Dilan

To an extent. However among "plurality Pro-Life states" you have Idaho, Indiana, South Dakota, and Missouri. The most Pro-Life state is Utah.

http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateAbortion0805SortedbyProLife.htm

There are two states Kerry won where over 40% of people identify as Pro-Life. (Pennsylvania and Michigan) The majority of Americans favor banning late-term abortion, requiring parental consent, and requiring husband's be notified.

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=119

You think any Democrat would get the nomination for President with those views? Do you think Roe v Wade would even allow all those things? Would you?

Posted by Thomas R | March 28, 2008 11:58 PM

Thomas R writes: "He's not moderately Pro-Choice or in favor of some kind of compromise. He's intensely Pro-Choice and a darling of NARAL."

So what? There isn't the slightest indication that the lifer movement is sincerely interested in "compromise." Most of them gag over a "life or health of the mother" exception."

Sure, you'll accept small compromises "for the time being," but the clearly stated goal of the lifer movement is and always has been the virtual elimination of abortion rights in this country.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 29, 2008 12:38 AM

"The majority of Americans favor banning late-term abortion, requiring parental consent, and requiring husband's be notified." Thomas R

Proof, please. Oh, and husbands (plural) not husband's (of the husband or husband is), please.

Posted by jc | March 29, 2008 1:41 AM

There is one obvious problem (other than the scientific aspects) in claiming that "life" begins as soon as fertilization of the egg takes place (which is, sadly, effectively the extreme pro-life position). If you claim, as this position requires, that all cells are living, it leaves you in the awkward position of not being able to clip your toenails without destroying "life". Obviously, one could achieve a degree of logic and realism by acknowledging that life is hardly present so early on, but then one would have to admit that early abortion is not, actually, destroying a life. Incidentally, it should also be noted that the Bible does not provide any direct warrant for considering abortion evil or immoral.

Posted by rossd | March 29, 2008 1:47 AM

Re: Maybe, but given that it's a normal thing for labor unions to protest outside company HQ and pacificsts to protest outside military buildings

I agree with you in principle. But the problem is that the abortion protesters back in the 80s crossed the limits of the acceptable (some of them by several miles) and so we now have these restrictive laws.

Re: It is often said that overruling *Roe* will just leave the question of abortion to the states. This is not necessarily true.

I agree. However I strongly suspect that in a post-Roe world the GOP would definitely not want to nationalize the issue further since it woudl work against them, but would remain content to let it be fought out at the state and local issue. The Democrats on the other hand would try to nationalize the issue, and if we had a Democratic Congress and president we might even end up with pro-Choice legislation enacted into law by Congress.

Posted by JonF | March 29, 2008 7:22 AM

Moe,

Of course I want abortion to be fully illegal, eventually, with a few exceptions such as for the life or health of the mother. WHy shouldn't I? I believe it's wrong. I'm sorry that you got scratched by the 'zombies', but look, it's better than getting your brains sucked out by a vacuum tube, isn't it? Or getting torn out of your mother's womb and flushed down the toilet. There was extremism in the anti-slavery movement, too, wasn't there?

RossD,

A toenail clipping will never develop into an adult, while an embryo will, therefore they aren't comparable. The _natural_ course of events for an embryo is to develop into a person. I would probably place implantation instead of fertilization as the beginning of 'human life' but even in that case the vast majority of abortions should still be illegal. As for the religious case against abortion:

--The 'Didache', which is apparently accepted as scripture by the church of Ethiopia, explicitly condemns abortion.
--Abortion was condemned universally by the early Church Fathers including Tertullian, St. Ambrose, etc. Tertullian equates it to murder.
--The date of Christmas was chosen to reflect the idea that Christ was conceived on Good Friday (and thus born on Christmas) to have exactly 33 years on earth. This means that life was viewed as beginning at conception.
--"I was a sinner from the moment my mother conceived me." Psalm 51:5
-- The apocryphal 'Apocalypse of St. Peter' which was popular in the early church, although it never made it into the Bible, describes the vision of abortionists suffering in hell.

Posted by Hector | March 29, 2008 9:56 AM

One thing no one has mentioned is that Bacevich's son died in Iraq, which probably colors his perceptions of which issues are more important.

Posted by Glaivester | March 29, 2008 9:58 AM

Hector, first, you haven't offered a single Biblical quote that denounces abortion. Do you serious want to offer apocryphal texts to support your position? The early Church fathers say many things, but they do not replace Scripture as a source of authority. if you want a respectable theological counter, Thomas Aquinas explicitly held that the human embryo did not possess a spiritual soul and was not a human being (homo) until forty days in the case of males or ninety in the case of females.

The date of Christmas actually reflects an riginally pagan festival, as, for that matter does Easter, but both are utterly irrelevant on the issue in hand. Finally, the quote from Psalm 51 is not anti-abortion, nor should it be read literally. It is simply a rhetorical way of talking about the inherent sinfulness of human beings.

As for toenail clippings and embryos - sorry, but you are ducking the point here. You have not shown any evidence that, immediately after the fertilization of the egg, the product of that fertilization is alive in any sense. Can you show that it is sentient or possesses any cognitive function? if not, it is, effectively as "alive" as the toenails which you clip on a regular basis.

Posted by RossD | March 29, 2008 10:44 AM

Seriously, RossD? Seriously?

Of course the embryo is "alive." What kind of moron would argue otherwise? The question becomes whether or not it is a "person" worthy of protecting. This is the question that Peter Singer and others ask. This is what you are asking by whether or not it is "sentient or possesses any cognitive function." Of course now you are in the tricky position of defining when the fetus magically becomes a "person." In fact, it becomes so difficult that you might just end up with Singer's position, i.e. it isn't a person until it is well outside the womb-- a proposition that many would argue is infanticide.

Posted by Derrick | March 29, 2008 11:20 AM

Hello Ross,

Well, a) Aquinas was also wrong about the Immaculate Conception - not every single word he wrote is taken as doctrine; and b) Even so Aquinas still opposed abortion in the first 40 days.

Posted by Richard | March 29, 2008 1:27 PM

TheBannedMoe:

I volunteered as a safety escort at one clinic (my then girlfriend was working there) because the protestors and their aggressive tactics frightened a lot of women.

In other words: Operation Rescue harrassed women. Whereas you and your girlfriend helped kill women.

Posted by Richard | March 29, 2008 1:33 PM

However it's unclear if reducing Iraqi deaths is even Obama's goal and I'd argue that it's reasonable to assume his main goal is lowering US death counts.

Actually, Obama's main problems with Iraq are the opportunity costs (the resources we use in Iraq could save more lives elsewhere) and the institutional flaws in our foreign policy (the bad reasoning that got us tangled in Iraq could entangle us in future wars). I think, in both cases, the number of lives hanging in the balance exceeds 50K.

Moreover, I'm not sure it's such a foregone conclusion that progress (from your perspective) cannot be made on the abortion front with Obama as president. No, you won't get Roe v. Wade (not right away), but Obama did say this

I think there is a large agreement, for example, that late-term abortions are really problematic and there should be a regulation. And it should only happen in terms of the mother’s life or severe health consequences, so I think there is broad agreement on these issues.

The votes against specific bills people are talking about above seem to be because he didn't like some details or language in the bill. Maybe he's just being disingenuous about that, but it's no secret that some supposedly pro-life legislators intentionally put forward poison-pilled abortion regulating bills, refusing to offer compromise bills that would presumably improve the status quo from their perspective, just so they can gin up outrage.

Posted by Consumatopia | March 29, 2008 2:22 PM

Richard quotes and writes: "I volunteered as a safety escort at one clinic (my then girlfriend was working there) because the protestors and their aggressive tactics frightened a lot of women.

In other words: Operation Rescue harrassed women. Whereas you and your girlfriend helped kill women. "

The clinic in question only did first trimester abortions, chuckles - and I don't think any of the fetuses qualified as "women" legally or culturally or by any other rational measure.

I'd quite readily run over a thousand 1st trimester feti with a John Deere tractor in order to save the life of one 5 year old child. You know - children of the sort Dumbya Bush and John McCain have gleefully sacrificed in order to advance "America's interests" while the huge majority of "social conservatives" cheered.

If and when Roe v. Wade is overturned I'll be volunteering to drive women from Wombslave States to Free States. It'll be like the good old days.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 29, 2008 2:59 PM

Derrick, from your post, it seems the moron advocating the "it's a live" position is you. Define life, and explain how immediately after the egg is fertilized you have a living organism, rather than a collection of cells moving towards "life".

Richard, I agree that Aquinas was wrong or questionable about many things. My point in raising his name is simply to point out that big names, such as the Church Fathers, are not infallible, and that their positions do not trump scripture. Scripture simply offers no position on abortion, and people who try and argue from the tiny range of quotes (like Psalm 51.5) that mention conception are fundamentally glossing over this awkward fact.

Posted by RossD | March 29, 2008 4:29 PM

Well, RossD, it's been a few years since high school bio class, but I seem to remember some characteristics of life as feeding, growing, moving, etc. The fetus seems to fit that bill. When we speak of "killing" the fetus, even if we deny that the fetus has any sort of right to stay alive, we at least acknowledge that it WAS alive. No, RossD, please explain to me what, exactly, a cell or collection of cells is, if it is not life. But wait, you protest, how is that any different from a toenail?! Well, I think most sane people would, for example, see the difference between, say, a seed and a leaf, as far as their respective status as life goes. A leaf is not an independent organism, it will not grow into tree. As I stated before, you are confusing terms. What you are trying to argue is that the fetus is not a person, i.e., it is not sentient, isn't self aware. OK, fine, this is what Singer does. But this leads Singer to accept that infanticide may be morally acceptable. Are you OK with that? Or better yet, why doesn't RossD give us his definition of when "life" begins (whatever you even mean by this term)?

Posted by Derrick | March 29, 2008 4:54 PM

Re: Do you serious want to offer apocryphal texts to support your position?

The texts Hector cited are not Scripture, but they were accepted by the early Church as orthodox (that is, worthy of being read as they did not contain false teaching)

Re: The early Church fathers say many things, but they do not replace Scripture as a source of authority

For traditionalist Christians like the Orthodox, the copts, the Roman Catholics, the Fathers do indeed have authority similar to Scripture and in no wise inferior to it. Of course they are not infallible, and are not to be read with a rigid literalism (and neither is the Bible), but they certainly do provide us evidence of what the ancient Church taught and believed. On the topic of abortion you will find some equivocation about when in the process of gestation abortion becomes murder (and I think there's valid reason to debate that today too), but none of them ever located it past the 40th day.

Re: The date of Christmas actually reflects an riginally pagan festival, as, for that matter does Easter,

Both claims happen to be "urban myths". Easter is dated according to the Jewish Passover, period. I used to believe that Christmas took the date of the Saturnalia, but I've seen that debunked. In fact, the date of Christmas was worked out from the Jewish calenadr, based on the events described in the beginning of Luke (the high priesthood of Zechariah, John the Baptist's father). The ancient Church probably got the date wrong because they got the year wrong and the Jewish calendar does not accord well with the Roman calendar, but they were making an honest attempt to find the right date, not simply usurp the Saturnalia (which not a very imporant feast in those regiosn of the Enmpire where Christianity flourished).

Posted by JonF | March 29, 2008 5:45 PM

One can't help but feel from the likes of Kmiec and bacevich - and I hate to psychoanalyze, since I really don't know their motivations - an eager desire to finally, finally latch on this wave of hope, to jump outside of the conservative box.

Not all conservatives are neoconservatives or supporters of the war. Just because Bacevich doesn't adhere to mainstream Republican opinion doesn't mean he's no longer a conservative, in name or in fact.

Posted by pb | March 29, 2008 8:12 PM

Hector:

JonF-- arguing from the pro-life side-- basically gets the clinic protest issue right. I think the classy thing is to leave desperate women entering clinics alone, especially since your movement is constantly saying that these women are victims and shouldn't be punished if abortion is made illegal. There's something inconsistent between that and trying to harass a woman entering an abortion clinic.

But I would also say that the First Amendment protects many classless protests, and that includes a protest next to an abortion clinic, so long as the protesters don't harass the patients and don't block the entrances. If you want to pray, or have a candlelight vigil, or say (nicely) "please reconsider your decision", that's clearly constitutionally protected.

But the reason we ended up with these laws and injunctions is because that isn't the reality of abortion protesting as experienced in America. Rather-- and unlike most of the union protests you compared this with, which are peaceful-- abortion protests tended to attract a very hardline type of activist type who wanted to "save the babies", which meant using any means necessary, including blocking the clinic entrance, calling women and doctors murderers, following people home, threatening clinic workers, and, in some instances, even bombing the clinic. You can see this horrid and evil form of reasoning in Richard's posts, earlier in this thread-- he clearly thinks that the pro-life movement is justified in doing anything (or anything short of a clinic bombing) to stop abortions.

In response, legislatures and courts acted to protect access to clinics. Some of these laws and injunctions have been overbroad, but you should have no doubt that the reason that this occurred at all is because the protesters went way too far.

JonF is totally right about the effect this had on the pro-life movement. It gave it a bad name. And the reason is because-- as we have argued ad nauseum before-- the pro-choice movement contends that the pro-life movement is not simply pro-life but is also anti-feminist, and the pro-life movement denies that and says it is solely motivated to protect life. One of the pro-life movement's key positions is that women shouldn't be punished for having abortions because they are often vulnerable and desperate. And yet, these protesters, in their zeal to "protect life", were harassing these vulnerable and desperate women in their worst hours. You can imagine how this didn't exactly play well with the squishy American middle.

For this reason, the National Right to Life League and other mainstream pro-life organizations have never advocated these tactics. And they are very smart in this respect.

Again, I think you should have a right to have a protest at an abortion clinic as long as women and workers can get in and out and are able to go about their business in safety. But the classy thing to do is to have your protest somewhere else. There is a history here.

Posted by Dilan Esper | March 29, 2008 9:28 PM

JonF - I agree with you that the Fathers of the Church enjoy great respect among various denominations, but I do not see that they are considered as authoritative as scripture.

On the authority of apocryphal texts, I have to remind you that the early church accepted a remarkable variety of works that are no longer considered acceptable or orthodox. Consider the popularity of the Shepherd of Hermas, for example. Overall, if we went back to the early church, we would probably find a disturbing variety of positions that are no longer held seriously. Not all of them would be bad, but I think it's fair to say that people citing the Fathers of the Church and the early church in general tend to do so very selectively. This does not inspire much confidence in such interpretations as a guide for one's conduct.

On the dates of Easter and Christmas - there is much happy debate on why and how the dates were fixed. I should have been more precise and connected Easter with Eostre, a pagan goddess attested by Bede (yes, more dubious old church scholarship!). However, the date itself is fixed using the calculation of the Alexandrian church, which happens to link to the date of the Jewish passover, but is not calculated using it. Christmas takes December 25th from the Roman festival of the Dies natalis solis invicti, not Ssturnalia, although remnants of the Saturnalia may have been transferred into the 12 days of Christmas.

Going back to the definition of life: if one accepts motion, feeding and growth as the definition, and on that basis considers that the taking of life is murder, you have so minimal a definition that those who attack abortion on those grounds ought, to be consistent, to be anti-war, against the death penalty, and vegetarian. Are they? No, not usually. The key here is to define what constitutes human life, and for that you need more than a thinly veiled restatement of Aristotle's position (motion, feeding, growth). Such a definition, sooner or later, is going to demand some acknowledgement of consciousness as the dividing line - and that's where the issue of the egg/fetus/formed child becomes important. Many people would object vehemently to partial birth abortion as murder, but would find it ridiculous to consider a newly fertilized egg as possessing human life.

Posted by RossD | March 29, 2008 10:15 PM

"I wish he'd made a more detailed case for why issues of war and peace ought to outweigh the abortion issue "

is that a joke? can you possibly make that case? i dont think any rational human being could possibly make that case.

Posted by matthew | March 29, 2008 10:35 PM

matthew quotes and writes: ""I wish he'd made a more detailed case for why issues of war and peace ought to outweigh the abortion issue "

is that a joke? can you possibly make that case? i dont think any rational human being could possibly make that case."

That's because you're not a rational human being. Those of us who are are quite able to distinguish between stopping the development of a 20 week old fetus and delberately slaughtering walking, talking, and thinking human beings whose loss will affect family members and ripple out in any number of ways.

Our society, plain and simply, recognizes the distinction every single day and has done so traditionally. If parents lose an 8 year old child to murder people fully understand if they have long-term problems afterwards. Lose an 8 week old fetus to a miscarriage and people will think you're mentally ill if it renders you useless a week later.

That's how it is. That's the reality behind the weird, wacky, religion-based obsession of the fetus fetishists. Deal with it.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 29, 2008 11:36 PM

Christmas takes December 25th from the Roman festival of the Dies natalis solis invicti

To speak as someone who works in the field, this is exactly correct.

The god Sol Invictus or "the unconquered sun" was extremely popular in the Roman army, and his major festival was the day of his birth, December 25th. The selection of that day as the birth of Christ has to be understood as politically useful, after the conversion of the emperor, in bringing much of the army into allegiance to the new religion.

Posted by DivGuy | March 30, 2008 9:09 AM

Dilan,

First of all, I don't take part in abortion protests, at or away from clinics. There are enough people out there who do, that I don't feel like I need to. Second of all, your arguments are similar to those who would tell labor protestors or war protestors not to obstruct traffic etc. The point of a protest, in large part, is to make it difficult for society, or for some aspect of society, to function. The point of people protesting outside military recruiting center is to make it difficult for the army to conduct its business. And so it goes with abortion clinics.

You seem to be under the impression that a woman has a right to an abortion, and that no one should try and prevent her from getting one. On the contrary, no one has a right to an abortion, and it is no kindness to a woman in desperate straits to stand by as she puts her spiritual and emotional welfare in jeopardy.

I don't support violence against clinics or the people who work in or patronize them, because I think such people are for the most part motivated by ignorance and not by malice. But I think simply writing a letter to your congressman is about as silly and ineffective way to affect the incidence of abortion as anything else. I don't have a problem with people protesting outside abortion clinics or trying, as intensively as the law allows, to persuade women to reconsider their decision. Those of us who believe that abortion should be outlawed believe that this would pursue the ultimate good of the pregnant woman as well as her child- for her own good, not for ours, and not just for her child's.

You seem to be under the impression that the kindest thing you can do to anyone is to let them do whatever they want. Not so. Oftentimes the kindest thing that you can do for someone is to prevent them from doing what they want, or what they think they want. When abortion is eventually outlawed again, it may become necessary to place a police detail in every hospital to keep them from carrying out illegal abortions. I wouldn't view that as a bad thing, but as a good thing.

Posted by Hector | March 30, 2008 9:53 AM

RossD,

The Didache, Apocalypse of Peter, etc. aren't scripture, but they were viewed as divinely inspired by many in the early church, and were popular documents among early Christians. This suggests that did in fact reflect the opinions of the early church. Moreover, many religious traditions in that part of the world also condemned abortion, including the pagan Greeks, the Jews, the Mandaeans and the Zoroastrians. If you believe that in the pre-Christian era God revealed Himself in different ways to different peoples, then there is good ground for believing that abortion is wrong based on the argument from shared morality.

My church (Anglican) believes that 'scripture, tradition and reason' are ways that we can arrive at the truth. The arguments against abortion rest primarily, of course, on natural reason (i.e. not pure reason, but reason informed by our understanding of natural human desires, inclinations, feelings, teleogical goals, etc.) But there is secondary support from both scripture and tradition to buttress the case from natural reason that abortion is wrong.

There's no necessary reason for those of us who oppose abortion to be against the death penalty, war, etc. For example, I think that _innocent_ life ought to be protected, to the extent that we are able to do so. I don't think that enemy soldiers, officials of a tyrannical regime, criminals, etc. are _innocent_ in the same way as an unborn baby is, and therefore I don't have the same problems with war and the death penalty that I do with abortion.

Regarding the date of Christmas, from wikipedia:
"This date is nine months after the traditional date of the Incarnation (March 25), now celebrated as the Feast of the Annunciation. March 25 was considered to be the date of the vernal equinox and early Christians believed this was also the date Christ was crucified. The Christian idea that Christ was conceived on the same date that he died on the cross is consistent with a Jewish belief that a prophet lived an integral number of years.[18]"

Posted by Hector | March 30, 2008 10:08 AM

Re: I should have been more precise and connected Easter with Eostre, a pagan goddess attested by Bede

You would be correct about the etymology of the English word, but incorrect in trying to expand your claim beyond that. In most languages (English and German are the main exceptions) "Easter" is not "Easter" but some local variation of the Greek "Pascha", itself derived from Hebrew "Pesach", meaning "Passover". The date of Easter is also determined by the ancient Jewish calendar and its dating of Passover. All of this was worked out in the ancient Mediterranean (where no one ever heard of Eostre) long before Vortigern the Saxon ever set foot in Brittania. Also, the Eastern churches still do use Passover as a determinant for the date of Easter, which is why Orthodox Easter rarely conicides with the Western feast day; this discrepancy was created by Pope Gregory's reform of the Western calendar in the 16th century. Does anyone wish to make the claim that the Pope was motivated by concerns over Anglo-Saxon goddesses?

Re: Christmas takes December 25th from the Roman festival of the Dies natalis solis invicti,

The Day of the Birth of the Unconquered Sun was the winter solistice, which is decidedly not December 25. Your claim relies on correlation (both holidays fall in the same week, more or less) and it's like claiming that the Canadians established their Dominion Day by using the date of our Indpendence Day (or of France's Bastille Day). Moreover the Dec 25 date arose first in Asia Minor (3rd century AD I think), not in Rome.

Re: Although remnants of the Saturnalia may have been transferred into the 12 days of Christmas.

The Twelve Days are the festal period between Christmas and Epiphany, the latter festival being set even earlier than Christmas was (In Armenia Christmas is in fact celebrated on Epipahny).

Posted by JonF | March 30, 2008 1:13 PM

Hector writes: "When abortion is eventually outlawed again, it may become necessary to place a police detail in every hospital to keep them from carrying out illegal abortions."

Um, Hector, that's remarkably stupid. I know that your brain stops functioning when the topic of abortion comes up, but have you ever been in a hospital? How exactly would having a "police detail" somewhere in a huge facility prevent a doctor from performing an abortion behind closed doors?

You might as well suggest that when SuperChristians once again outlaw sodomy in this country that a "police detail" be present in every apartment complex to prevent illegal sodomy from taking place. The mere suggestion marks you as some sort of hopeless idiot. Smarten up.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 30, 2008 1:20 PM

"Could you please name some prominent examples of these pro-choicers? I can't think of any, especially any in political leadership positions."

Kevin Jones,

I can't name any prominent examples. I do know that I and many other grass roots people would fit this description. We are aware that one of the greatest sources of discontent on the abortion issue stems from the Roe v. Wade ruling itself, since it took the abortion issue completely out of the branches of government directly accountable to the electorate. On the other hand, in European countries, where laws allowing abortion came as a result of a democratic consensus, the abortion issue doesn't generate anywhere near the level of controversy that it does in the US.

As a result, pro-choicers of my mindset would support an overturn of Roe v Wade, if the overturn were based on the concern that abortion should be an issue decided by legislatures, not the courts. I grant that we are not represented by our current political leadership, but it doesn't mean that we don't exist.

Posted by eltoro | March 30, 2008 1:25 PM

The precedent has already been established, and the likelihood of another case coming before the Court that could overturn are slim-to-none. Stare decisis.

BTW...I've always wondered how staunch "pro-lifers" can apply their arguments (taking a life is wrong no matter what) to abortion, but not the death penalty.

Posted by AKBY | March 30, 2008 1:53 PM

JonF, not to be unkind, but you really ought to rethink your assertion that Vortigern was Saxon. If you mean Hengist and Horsa who are the legendary Saxon leaders hired by Vortigern as mercenaries, that might help. You are also much too dogmatic about the significance of geographical origins for the impact of a given religious cult. You can't assume anything about a cult's popularity and diffusion from its point of origin - assuming that such a point is known. The Christian story illustrates this quite nicely - from Bethlehem to points as diverse as the USA, China and Iceland.

On Christmas and the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti - arguably the winter solstice might make more sense, but December 25th was the actual festival day, and the tradition can be traced back into Roman history. The Philocalian Calendar (compiled in 354)also notes the date as natalis Invicti. [You might also like to note that the was an heretical tradition of identifying Christ with Sol, the Sun God.] Cyprian remarks on how nice the coincidence is in the birth dates of Christ and the Sun, and sees it as the gift of providence.

Posted by RossD | March 30, 2008 3:29 PM

AKBY,

Maybe because very few people hold that 'ending a life is wrong no matter what.' The fetus is _innocent_ human life in a way that no other class of humans is, certainly not enemy soldiers, officials of a tyranny, criminals, etc. Therefore there is no analogy to killings in war, revolution, or criminal justice. Is that distinction really that hard to grasp?

Posted by Hector | March 30, 2008 3:42 PM

BTW...I've always wondered how staunch "pro-lifers" can apply their arguments (taking a life is wrong no matter what) to abortion, but not the death penalty.

Persons who are executed in the United States have generally committed heinous crimes and have been found guilty of such at trial and had the procedures followed reviewed again and again by appellate courts. Unborn children are guilty of precisely nothing.

Posted by Art Deco | March 30, 2008 3:51 PM

Hector writes: "The fetus is _innocent_ human life in a way that no other class of humans is, certainly not enemy soldiers, officials of a tyranny, criminals, etc. Therefore there is no analogy to killings in war, revolution, or criminal justice. Is that distinction really that hard to grasp?"

This is a perfect example of how lifers fetishize the fetus. There is no rational meaning to saying a fetus is more "innocent" than, say, a 4 year old child. Furthermore, fetuses are also destroyed during wartime, so the distinction is even more meaningless.

Hector's dream world would be a police state of unprecedented scope. I am glad I will never have to live there.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 30, 2008 3:51 PM

Funny how the pro-lifers get all hot and bothered about killing innocent cells, but don't worry about slaughtering animals or fighting wars. Just a touch of inconsistency, eh? Or does "Thou shalt not kill" have a new pro-life limiting clause?

Posted by morzer | March 30, 2008 4:00 PM

Re: Funny how the pro-lifers get all hot and bothered about killing innocent cells, but don't worry about slaughtering animals or fighting wars.

Believe it or not some of us are frothing-at-the-mouth mad as heel about the Iraq War, and associated fiascos engineered by the Bush administration. I will not be voting for Mr. "More Of The Same" this year either.

Re: Therefore there is no analogy to killings in war, revolution, or criminal justice.

Hector, it's true that the death penalty is a traditional license allowed to governmments (who are however to use it only at great need and always justly). Starting an unjust war however is a huge evil, worse, IMO, than abortion. After all, wars also kill children, and the unborn-- and many more people besides. Moreover war is the direct action and responsibility of a government (and by extension of its people) whereas abortion is purely an individual act whose culpability rests with those who perform and request it. I definitely put unnecessary and unjust wars much higher on my (political) outrage meter than abortion.

Re: You can't assume anything about a cult's popularity and diffusion from its point of origin - assuming that such a point is known. The Christian story illustrates this quite nicely - from Bethlehem to points as diverse as the USA, China and Iceland.

I'm not sure what your point is here, but when it comes to Easter/Eostre that's limited to the English and German languages, and it is a late development (relative to the formation of the Christian feast of the Resurrection). Suggesting that Christians in the 2nd century dated that feast accordingly to the feast of a minor goddess of a distant people they knew nothing about and who would not emerge in history for more several centuries is simply absurd. As for the date of Christmas, as I noted originally I used to belive something like what you are claiming, but I've seen that claim thoroughly debunked and an convincing alternate explanation provided. I'm going with that because it seems to me that more plausible account of things.

Posted by Jonf | March 30, 2008 4:34 PM

Maybe because very few people hold that 'ending a life is wrong no matter what.'

The modern pro-life movement has been primarily associated with Christian morality, and the ARGUMENTS that they use to defend the unborn DO use that precise line of thinking, that ending a life is wrong no matter what.

If people are going to use Christian morality as a basis for their pro-life arguments, then I would think, to be consistent, they would need to be pro-life in all cases. The Bible doesn't say 'Thou shou not kill, unless..."

Posted by AKBY | March 30, 2008 4:55 PM

AKBY writes: "The Bible doesn't say 'Thou shou not kill, unless...""

But of course it says precisely that. The message of the Bible in regards to killing is "Thou shalt not kill unless thou thinkest the LOAD wants you to." There's a reason why Dumbya Bush consults his sky fairy before authorizing murder.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 30, 2008 5:09 PM

Trump card:

The New Covenant is a covenant of life, not of death (2 Corinthians 3:4-11).

Posted by AKBY | March 30, 2008 5:46 PM

AKBY replies: "Trump card:

The New Covenant is a covenant of life, not of death (2 Corinthians 3:4-11)."

This trumps nothing. The buybull, as always, can be used to argue on multiple sides of any issue.

In John 18:10-11, when Peter draws a sword and cuts off the ear of a servant of the high priest, Jesus squawks at him for resisting only because he has decided to accept his fate. He doesn't command Peter to lay down his sword or castigate him for using violence.

Romans 13:1 begins the passage long viewed as granting the divine right of kings, including a comment about how rulers are to be a terror to "the evil." There's a reason why the buybull has been used through the centuries as an excuse for shedding blood. It was written that way.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 30, 2008 6:00 PM

Second of all, your arguments are similar to those who would tell labor protestors or war protestors not to obstruct traffic etc. The point of a protest, in large part, is to make it difficult for society, or for some aspect of society, to function.

Hector, maybe you need to go to some protests. Protesters that obstruct traffic can be arrested. Smart protest organizers will always tell the protesters not to violate generally applicable laws.

But more broadly, I don't think you understand the immorality of obstructing a desperate woman from getting to her doctor's office. And how badly it plays to people. You see, the ultimate point of protesting is to persuade people who didn't agree with you before. And that tactic-- justified by a Malcolm X-style "by any means necessary" belief about stopping abortions-- far from persuading people, turned them off.

You seem to be under the impression that a woman has a right to an abortion, and that no one should try and prevent her from getting one.

Well, Hector, women DO have a legal right to an abortion. I understand you disagree with that law, but it is the law, and your initial argument was that the buffer zone laws were unconstitutional. They may be, but you have to understand that you are rightly going to get no sympathy from the courts if you argue that protesters have a right to stop women from exercising what has been held to be a constitutional right.

Further, this is also true on a moral level. We really shouldn't allow protesters to stop people from exercising established rights. For instance, anti-Catholic protesters shouldn't be able to block the entrances of Catholic churches and interfere with worshippers' free exercise of religion, even though the Church's gravely evil actions in the sex abuse scandals might be thought by the protesters to justify such conduct. If you want to get a right disestablished, get the votes to amend the Constitution or persuade a court to overturn the decisions recognizing the right. But if something is a legally-protected right, then part of that is that the government can arrest protesters who are trying to stop people from exercising it, not through persuasion but through physical blockage, threat, violence, or harassment.

I don't support violence against clinics or the people who work in or patronize them, because I think such people are for the most part motivated by ignorance and not by malice.

This statement convinces me that you are a monster, Hector, because it implies that if someone DID judge the clinic workers or women obtaining abortions to be malicious, then it would be perfectly OK to assault or even kill them. Hector, the ONLY morally correct statement is "I don't support violence against clinics, clinic workers, or patients UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, whatever their motivations for their conduct might be." You should amend your statement, lest someone conclude that you actually are an advocate of assault and murder in front of abortion clinics. I might add that, again, this sort of hedged rhetoric doesn't help your pro-life cause; you might be shocked to learn that people don't look very "pro-life" when they feel it is justified (even in some circumstances) to stop abortions through violence.

But I think simply writing a letter to your congressman is about as silly and ineffective way to affect the incidence of abortion as anything else. I don't have a problem with people protesting outside abortion clinics or trying, as intensively as the law allows, to persuade women to reconsider their decision. Those of us who believe that abortion should be outlawed believe that this would pursue the ultimate good of the pregnant woman as well as her child- for her own good, not for ours, and not just for her child's.

Did I say you were limited to writing congressmen? How about a protest at a public park? Protest in front of the Capitol. Across the street from the Supreme Court. Run TV, radio, and newspaper advertising. There's tons of protests available.

Now it is true, you might bully (and THAT is the right word) some poor unfortunate woman into carrying her pregnancy to term. She might, of course, kill herself because she can't get the abortion, or become the victim of domestic violence, but I am sure your warped and ignorant moral calculus could come up with some phony religious reason based on your Imaginary Friend not thinking that the protesters would bear any responsibility for such an outcome. But in the real world, the blood would be on pro-lifers' hands.

The point is, protests are about PERSUASION, not bullying. Not blocking people. Not wearing them down and making it impossible for them to go about their business.

You seem to be under the impression that the kindest thing you can do to anyone is to let them do whatever they want. Not so. Oftentimes the kindest thing that you can do for someone is to prevent them from doing what they want, or what they think they want.

Hector, it is bad enough that you want to use the awesome power of the state and its force of arms and prisons to force what millions of women to do what you and your phony nonexistent Imaginary Friend want them to do. It's worse that you are arrogant enough to say that you are smart and they are dumb and that you know what's best for them.

Posted by Dilan Esper | March 30, 2008 6:10 PM

There's a reason why the buybull has been used through the centuries as an excuse for shedding blood. It was written that way.

Under the Old Covenant God allowed humans to kill other humans under certain circumstances. (and I might point out the excuses you refer to are, yes, used when they satisfy our own rationale of what's right and wrong. The Church's rationale of what's right and wrong...etcetera)

Which brings me back the New Covenant. Under the New Covenant a change occurred...and christians were told to no longer execute sinners, or wage war, etc. God is the only one who can give and take life, yaddy, yaddy.

Posted by AKBY | March 30, 2008 6:36 PM

JonF, what specifically convinces you that Christmas is not based on the dies natalis solis invicti? Do you have a source you could cite?

Posted by RossD | March 30, 2008 6:43 PM

AKBY,

Moe is right here, actually. There is little basis for believing that the New Testament forbids war, the death penalty, or coercion on the part of the state. John the Baptist did not criticize the soldiers who came to him for advice, nor did Jesus tell the Roman centurion to stop being a centurion, nor did Jesus condemn the death penalty. In the Christian era, the state and those organizations that take the place of the state do have the right and the duty to exercise coercion and even, when necessary, to take life in the interest of justice and charity. Please see St. Augustine's defence of coercion in the 'Commentaries on the Epistles of St. John."

No, Dilan, I don't have to amend anything. Well, OK, I'll amend this: the reason why violence against abortion clinics is wrong is for two reasons. 1) that people who seek abortions are acting out of ignorance, not malice, and therefore aren't equivalent to murderers and 2) perhaps more importantly, that we live in a country with a functional legal judicial system, so the monopoly of violence belongs to the state.

Now if the legal/judicial system had broken down, and there were people who we knew were _maliciously_ commiting acts of oppression or killing, then yes I think it would be right and justified to stop them by any means necessary. I think John Brown was right to take to the sword in Kansas, and I think that the French Resistance had every right to shoot collaborators in 1946. You're not much of a leftist if you don't think that there are times that it's legitimate to resist oppression by taking up the sword. If we lived in a society where Nazis or slaveholders were a powerful group that was actively oppressing and killing other people then we would have not just the right but the duty to resist them by violence if necessary- at least I hope you agree with me on that. For a variety of reasons, I don't think that abortionists are equivalent to Nazis or slaveholders, but I do think that they are engaged in something wrong and that various methods of peaceful protest can legitimately be used to try to dissuade them.

I mean, look, would you not agree that it would be legitimate to use violence against Nazis and slaveholders?

Posted by Hector | March 30, 2008 7:41 PM

Dilan,

OK, on further thought let me say this. We live in a society where the punishment of crime is a duty that belongs to the state. Short of a general breakdown of law and order and the social consensus, it can't be legitimate for individual people to start executing people, especially when the act If you're going to ask me to agree that violence is _never_ a legitimate response to injustice, or that there's _never_ a time when it's legitimate for the state, or for that matter non-state actors to execute people, or that the doctors who perform abortions are heroes that we should lionize, then no, I'm sorry, I can't agree.

And yes, I do think that women who seek abortions and doctors who perform them are ignorant, and the duty of the state is to rescue them from their ignorance. Their ignorance is what removes them from culpability. They're either ignorant or malicious, take your pick. I'm charitable enough to assume that most such people are ignorant.

Posted by Hector | March 30, 2008 8:02 PM

Dilan,

Well, on further thought I would have to say that I don't think killing a fetus is _quite_ of the same order as killing a child or adult. So that's another reason why abortion isn't _murder_ per se, and why violence against clinic workers is wrong. And I would say, yes, someone who commits seriously violent acts against a clinic worker is more morally culpable than the clinic worker. Was that the type of concession you're looking for?

It should still be illegal though. Something doesn't have to be murder in order to be gravely wrong. I won't back down from my conviction that the state needs to prevent pregnant women from acting out of their own ignorance and making a choice that will seriously endager their spiritual welfare.

Posted by Hector | March 30, 2008 8:20 PM

Hector:

I think that the issue of what to do about Nazis and slaveholders is subsumed within the issue of when it is legitimate to go to war or seek to overthrow a government.

If you were asking me whether it would be legitimate for a mass movement of people who were incensed by their government's imposition of liberal abortion laws that were vehemently opposed by the majority of the population to revolt against the government, I might argue that while such people were wrong on the merits of the abortion issue, that's the sort of call that they get to make.

But that's not really the issue here. The issue here is whether protesters who represent a minority (or even a majority, but one that doesn't care enough about the issue to seek to change the government) in a democratic society get to use extragovernmental force, i.e., criminal assaults, murder, trespassing, harassment, etc., to stop people from doing something that the legitimate government has determined that they have a constitutional right to do.

The answer to that can't be "yes'. It can't even be "yes under certain circumstances". It's "no". Period. Only a moral monster would say otherwise.

And as long as there are pro-lifers who can't bring themselves to just answer that question with a flat "no", your movement has NO chance of becoming more than a 30 percent minority in the United States. As a great philosopher once said about revolutions, "but when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out".

As for the ignorance vs. malice claim, claiming that women get abortions out of "ignorance" shows how anti-feminist the pro-life movement is, as it views women as poor stupid little creatures who know not what they do.

If you put yourself in the shoes of women seeking abortions, you might realize a third possibility-- not ignorance, not malice, but an intelligent person who SIMPLY HAS MADE A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION ON THE UNDERLYING MORALITY OF THE ISSUE THAN YOU HAVE. It isn't ignorance, because the person has thought it out and is just as smart or smarter than you are. It isn't malice, because the person isn't acting out of spite or hatred. It is simply that abortion is a contested moral issue, an issue that reasonable people disagree about, and therefore an issue where reasonable, smart people can come to different non-malicious conclusions than you do.

But then, perhaps you can't see this because you are so ignorant.

Posted by Dilan Esper | March 30, 2008 8:26 PM

Hector concedes: "I would have to say that I don't think killing a fetus is _quite_ of the same order as killing a child or adult. So that's another reason why abortion isn't _murder_ per se, and why violence against clinic workers is wrong."

So would you still have SWAT teams on standby in every hospital?

Prediction - If a Democrat takes the White House in November violence against clinics will ratchet up again and we'll see a return to the usual rhetoric from the right-wing along the lines of, "Yes, this sort of violence is wrong, BUT..."

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 30, 2008 8:33 PM

Dilan,

Re: The issue here is whether protesters who represent a minority (or even a majority, but one that doesn't care enough about the issue to seek to change the government) in a democratic society get to use extragovernmental force, i.e., criminal assaults, murder, trespassing, harassment, etc., to stop people from doing something that the legitimate government has determined that they have a constitutional right to do.

Not that simple, is it? What about slavery, and John Brown? Do you criticize him for killing those slaveholders in Kansas? Slavery was constitutional, too, even though it violated a higher law.

In the case of abortion, my answer would be No. For the three reasons I gave above, I don't think abortion is analogous to slavery. I don't think that violence against abortion clinics and their employees is justified, at all, any more than Raskolnikov was justified in killing the old usurer. Now if the state decided to make usury a crime and to use its coercive power against usurers than that would be quite a different thing and something I would support.

If you asked me whether I think that the US government should burn Mormons at the stake for preaching a corporeal God, I would say definitely no, and then I calmly would explain my reasons why. That doesn't mean I accept the premise that government should be secular or religiously neutral or that i completely reject the principle that the state suppression of certain religions can _ever_ be legitimate.

But as you suggest, if it ever does come to a civil war over the abortion issue, then I am going to have to say that the insurgents might well be right, and the defenders of the Sacred Unbreakable Constitution revealed to Jefferson at Philadelphia, would be wrong.

Posted by Hector | March 30, 2008 9:00 PM

Dilan,

To clarify again, I'll concede to you that _in the matter of abortion_, I think violence against clinic workers is wrong, and should be punished the same way we would punish, say, a Puerto Rican Nationalist for killing a bank clerk during a political robbery.
Abortion isn't the same kind of _self evident_ wrong that slavery was, and in the United States today the monopoly of violence needs to belong to the state. Do you mind retracting the moral monster claim now? after all, I've done you the charity of assuming that you are motivated by extreme ignorance rather than by malice.

Posted by Hector | March 30, 2008 9:13 PM

Moe/Hector:

Okay, I give. But I will remain eternally conflicted on this issue of being pro-life while supporting the death penalty. All of us rationalize when it "is" and "is not" okay to take a life in order to satisfy our own idea of what is right and wrong. Deeply-religious Christians rationalize this further to feel secure in their own salvation. And if you believe that the Scripture was written to *allow* us to formulate our own belief system about "thou shall not kill," then what was the point? Wait, don't answer that; I get it. But you see what I'm trying to get at here...

Posted by AKBY | March 30, 2008 9:45 PM

Re: I think John Brown was right to take to the sword in Kansas

Ugh. I disagree quite strongly on that. Terrorism is NEVER acceptable. Brown and the option of working within ther system. And at the extreme, he could have worked with the Underground Railroad to help slaves escape to Canada-- an illegal action to be sure, but not a violent one.

Re: JonF, what specifically convinces you that Christmas is not based on the dies natalis solis invicti? Do you have a source you could cite?

I posted this above, except, no, I do not have a web link. The article I read concerning the dating of Christmas using Jewish calendrical records for the high priesthood of Zechariah was on "dead tree"-- I know, how retro of me! And It was written by a qualified historian of early Christianity, not some Fundamentalist polemicist. I also noted that the dating was likely to inccurate because ancient Christianity got the year wrong. Beosdes which, how do you know that the dating did not go the other way, that the very late Roman cult of the Unconquered Sun did not "steal" its feast date from Christianity?

Posted by JonF | March 30, 2008 9:57 PM

AKBY writes: "I will remain eternally conflicted on this issue of being pro-life while supporting the death penalty. All of us rationalize when it "is" and "is not" okay to take a life in order to satisfy our own idea of what is right and wrong. Deeply-religious Christians rationalize this further to feel secure in their own salvation. And if you believe that the Scripture was written to *allow* us to formulate our own belief system about "thou shall not kill," then what was the point? Wait, don't answer that; I get it. But you see what I'm trying to get at here..."

I can, and of course the internal contradictions in Christianity are one of the many reasons I regard it as nonsense.

Here's the problem you're having as I see it - you think Christianity should live up to what modern, rational people see as the best aspects of the religion. Peace, love, brotherhood, forgiveness, non-violence, and so forth. The problem is that Christianity has always been a coercive religion - be a Christian or get tortured in hell forever! That is in fact what the mainstream teaching of most of Christianity has been all along. Modern "liberal" Christians will run away from that fact in various ways, because it is a revolting idea - the most revolting in human history - but it's still a fact.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 30, 2008 10:03 PM

you think Christianity should live up to what modern, rational people see as the best aspects of the religion.

Well I think they should live up to the shit they shove down other people's throats.

The dogs should eat the dog food.

Posted by AKBY | March 30, 2008 10:23 PM

Ross has highlighted the strangest part of this pro-life critique of the GOP, and outlined exactly why it's crazy. I'm a pro-life Democrat and yet I have to admit that the GOP is doing just about what any pro-life party would have done after Casey. Bush did sign a partial-birth abortion ban that no Democratic president would have signed and which leading Dems in the Senate voted against. He signed a born-alive legislation that Hillary has attacked. And yet people still say that he has "done nothing". Done nothing except pass restrictions on abortion that stood great chances of being upheld by the courts and which are consistent with the views of significant electoral majorities.

So I'd love to believe this rhetoric from my fellow Democrats that the GOP is all talk and no walk. But they've walked just about as much as one could expect them to.

I'm frequently a bit resentful when some of my conservative friends and people like Ross throw cold water on my Obama enthusiasm by pointing out how bad he would be for the pro-life cause. I vote with a kind of angst they know nothing about (not a condition to be admired or envied, to be sure). But they're still right about Obama.

Posted by Colatina | March 30, 2008 10:45 PM

JonF, how about a citation for your deadtree source? The sources I am aware of (which include Cyprian and the Philocalian calendar) do connect the dies natalis solis invicti and the birthday of Christ, and the connection seems a strong one. It is odd that they do not seem to use the connection you suggest, which would probably have suited them better. On the whole, not having seen your deadtree source, I am inclined to accept the ancient sources on this point. However, I should like to see the article you cite.

As for the Unconquered Sun cult taking its date from Christianity, this seems unlikely in the extreme. The cult became prominent under imperial sponsorship in the 3rd century, when Christianity was very much underground and illegal. Why would Sol Invictus take on a day associated with a much mocked and socially unacceptable group? There is also abundant evidence for Christian borrowing from paganism, not much for the reverse process at the level of cult.

Posted by RossD | March 30, 2008 11:06 PM

To clarify again, I'll concede to you that _in the matter of abortion_, I think violence against clinic workers is wrong, and should be punished the same way we would punish, say, a Puerto Rican Nationalist for killing a bank clerk during a political robbery.
Abortion isn't the same kind of _self evident_ wrong that slavery was, and in the United States today the monopoly of violence needs to belong to the state. Do you mind retracting the moral monster claim now? after all, I've done you the charity of assuming that you are motivated by extreme ignorance rather than by malice.

Hector:

Although it is heroic that John Brown opposed slavery, there is still a difference between a violent act of protest and fighting a war (as eventually had to be fought) to end the practice.

What I don't get is the need to make all these categories and distinctions and comparisons rather than to simply say that clinic violence is wrong, period. I suppose you aren't a monster if, in the end, you come out against clinic violence, but it sure sounds to me as if you don't really want to condemn these criminals in the sense they really deserve. Eric Robert Rudolph is simply not John Brown.

In any event, my broader point is that this sort of hemming-and-hawing hurts your movement. If you expect to make progress bringing people around to the pro-life cause, looking for ways to minimize the horror of clinic violence, seeking justifications for people who harass women at a point that might be the darkest in their lives, etc., is not the way you do it. And I suspect you know this in your heart-- the pro-life movement has been careful to express various sympathetic statements (I would call them "lip service") about what women must be going through when they have abortions. You've heard these statements; we all have. The confrontational politics of the radical wing of the pro-life movement throws that compassionate pose out the window. Which is why the National Right to Life League and other mainstream pro-life groups want nothing to do with it.

Posted by Dilan Esper | March 31, 2008 3:10 AM

@Hector: Really, you think that not being allowed to pray in front of abortion clinics is what's keeping y'all from disseminating your message? Here in Princeton, it seems that protests are commonplace -- perhaps if honest appeals to morality, rather than garish one-story placards of dead fetuses, formed the centerpiece of the pro-life movement, it would get a bit more traction.

@legitprop: I think the argument is more along the lines that many states would enact draconian abortion bans, resulting in widespread displeasure among all but hard-line pro-lifers. After decades chomping at the bit of righteousness, I'd bet many legislatures would be none to happy with the idea of temperance. The gulf between the moral high of 'protecting the unborn' and the reality crash of 'my daughter's life is going to be a Lifetime movie parody' is immense.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | March 31, 2008 4:12 AM

Maybe because very few people hold that 'ending a life is wrong no matter what.' The fetus is _innocent_ human life in a way that no other class of humans is, certainly not enemy soldiers, officials of a tyranny, criminals, etc. Therefore there is no analogy to killings in war, revolution, or criminal justice. Is that distinction really that hard to grasp?

As you're so fond of quoting early Christians: according to St. Augustine, who became so trenchantly pessimist in his later years (a sort of Renaissance of Manichaeism in his second youth, perhaps), there is no grounds for judging the sin of a fetus as less or more than that of a tyrant or criminal. Moral equivalence wins the day.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | March 31, 2008 4:52 AM

As for the date of Christmas, as I noted originally I used to belive something like what you are claiming, but I've seen that claim thoroughly debunked and an convincing alternate explanation provided. I'm going with that because it seems to me that more plausible account of things.

Considering Constantine's fetishism of the Sun, it seems logical to associate Christmas with the solstice occurring at the same time under the then-current calendar. While your alternative theory may sound neat and plausible, ole Occam would probably not side with your interpretation.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | March 31, 2008 5:02 AM

MD - And it's also an interesting question-- why don't conservatives treat the war as a "life issue" every bit as important as abortion? Why do we find it more alarming to think of the unborn being killed than 19 year-olds being shipped to the Middle East to protect our oil? This IS a good question, and Bacevich is right to raise it.

1. Because the soldiers are not helpless, passive participants, but active volunteers who are dying in small numbers killing the enemy. Only Lefties see an honorable death doing duty to country as a "senseless waste" and even they back off when asked about the "senseless waste of 420,000 lives in WWII".

2. If you believe that every fertilized cell should be considered a full human life with all rights that affix to born citizens, and I don't, Bacevich and other "menu Catholics" such as Teddy Kennedy must square their phony "personal Catholic beliefs" with their open wailing over 800 or so soldiers killed by Islamoids against 3500 dead in motorcycle accidents and 1,200,000 abortions if they believe all life is valuable. Which of course they don't.

Additionally, even in a McCain administration, the odds of successfully replacing Stevens with an anti-Roe Justice would be pretty unlikely given the likely Democratic majority in the Senate.
Posted by right

Then you have a Constitutional crisis.

There is no requirement if the Senate abuses it's advise and consent role to reject well-qualified Executive appointments in an attempt to legislate their politics into appointments
why McCain would to bow to the Senate and appoint who they want. He could just refuse to appoint another person to the Supreme Court if he thought the Senate was dictating and violating its Constitutional sphere - and extend the war with the Senate and the Constitutional crisis into other matters and let voters decide who was blocking many areas of the nations urgent business.
Republicans got many lessons from the wars with their candidates while Dem candidates like the ACLU's Ginsburg were given a pass. Stevens, Kennedy, Souter....and their Base says never again back down and give us another turncoat like Souter or Stevens there for 30 years.

Posted by chris ford | March 31, 2008 5:02 AM

Re: JonF, how about a citation for your deadtree source?

Not knowing I would someday be asked this on the test, I did not take notes. Look, I don't ask you to be satisfied with my say-so, but I do expect you to accept that I am satisfied with what I read and to agree to disagree.

Re: The cult became prominent under imperial sponsorship in the 3rd century, when Christianity was very much underground and illegal. Why would Sol Invictus take on a day associated with a much mocked and socially unacceptable group?

Christianity was illegal, but not underground. The 3rd century was when it became a mainstream element in Roman culture (in some cities at least). Especially in the latter half of the century it was neither mocked nor socially unacceptable. As to why the dating shift could have gone the other way the Sun cult was something of an imperial artifact, not a popular innovation. I can easily see the Roman government trying to diffuse the growing popularity of Christianity by borrowing elements of it for the official religion set forth by the Emperor.

Re: There is also abundant evidence for Christian borrowing from paganism

Yes, but not necessarily the sorts of things being alleged here. People like to focus on those claims and ignore the 900 gorilla of borrowings. The really big thing Christianity took from Paganism was philosophy, mainly neo-Platonism, but some Stoic ethics as well.

Re: Considering Constantine's fetishism of the Sun, it seems logical to associate Christmas with the solstice occurring at the same time under the then-current calendar.

The dating of Christmas goes back to the mid 3rd century, before Constantine was born.

Re: While your alternative theory may sound neat and plausible, ole Occam would probably not side with your interpretation.

Odd, I would say Occam's razor applies against your argument instead.

Posted by JonF | March 31, 2008 6:51 AM

Dilan,

Now that you bring up Eric Rudolph, yes I'll go further. No, Eric Rudolph isn't John Brown and none of the other violent abortion protesters is. You've actually made all the concession that I was looking for when you agreed that the right of civil war could conceivably be justified against a government that tolerated abortion. So I will also concede that, given that we aren't in a civil war or even on the threshold, individual terrorism against abortion clinics cannot be justified, period. I would go even further and say that I don't think that abortion clinic workers are typically acting out of malice, rather out of ignorance, and therefore that makes violence against abortion protestors even more wrong.

Posted by Hector | March 31, 2008 7:58 AM

Dilan,

You have a good point that being soft on clinic violence hurts the pro-life cause. i also agree with you that it's wrong. Actually, I haven't said anything to the contrary in this thread. I started by saying that I didn't support violence against clinics and then explained _why_ I thought it was wrong. Perhaps that condemnation was too qualified for your taste, but since I don't agree with you that violent protest and revolution are always unjustified, I felt compelled to explain _why_ I thought abortion isn't the same as slavery and _why_ violent protest _in this case_ is not legitimate.

To use an analogy, I know some people (I'm not one of them) who are qualified ideological supporters of the Boricua People's Army, which is (like abortion protestors) considered a domestic 'terrorist' group by the US government. If I was arguing with them, I wouldn't start by saying something like 'violent protest acts are _never_ justified' or something like that. I would start by accepting that I agree with some aspects of their ideology, including their opposition to capitalism and imperialism, and then go on to explain why I think the actions of the Boricua Popular Army are wrong, on the basis that they aren't the French Resistance, the Viet Cong, the Sandinistas, or John BRown, and why the situation in the US today is entirely different.

Are you satisfied now with the degree to which I reject abortion-related violence?

By the way, sure a woman going into an abortion clinic is probably at the darkest moment of her life. All the more reason to try and dissuade her (peacefully, politely, and backing off at once if she fails to respond positively) from making a decision that could make her live the rest of her life torn apart by guilt and remorse. Yes it's a tragedy when a woman commits suicide or is beaten to death because she was not able to have an abortion. Anyone who commits domestic violence ought to be punished to the full extent of the law. However it's quite an equal tragedy for a woman to live the rest of her life riven by a guilty conscience. And make no mistake, even if God forgives her, which He will, and society forgives her, which it should, many such women will never forgive themselves, at least not in this life.

Posted by Hector | March 31, 2008 9:57 AM

The dating of Christmas goes back to the mid 3rd century, before Constantine was born.

Wrong. Christmas was adopted as a fourth century Christian tradition.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | March 31, 2008 10:18 AM

If there is actually a ban put in place on abortion, how could it possibly be enforced? I'm sure there are certain poisons that a woman could take to induce a premature birth. Would every woman who miscarries be a suspect in a murder investigation? I do think that abortion is taking a life, but the things we would need to do to actually enforce that kind of a law would be shockingly inhumane.

Better to do as Kristi suggests. Make it so that people don't feel that they have to choose between ending a life, and financial and social ruin.

Posted by Tel | March 31, 2008 12:40 PM

With all the hand wringing over the possibility of Roe V Wade being overturned if a conservative majority court was achieved: it is important to note that the United States has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world. This is the case even when compared to abortion laws in western Europe. This is demonstrated when one contrasts the differences between the American solution and the European style solution. The American version resulted from the Supreme Court deciding the issue while the European solutions were formed by their legislatures. The exact circumstances that a overturn of Roe would garner if it enfranchised the democratic process rather than continued to rule by Judicial fiat.

America - No regulation of abortion permitted for the interest of preserving the life of the fetus until viability at 18- 24 weeks (i.e. 6 months)

Europe - All of the western countries reviewed allowed regulation in the interest of the fetus beginning around 10-12 weeks. Sweden latest at 18 weeks

America - No waiting period permitted, even 24 hours is interference with women's freedom of choice.

Europe -Brief waiting period before request for for abortion and the procedure.

America - No alternatives to abortion will be given to women as part of abortion process.

Europe - Women will be informed about alternatives to abortion, including #1. adoption. #2. maternal assistance provided if the women chooses to bear the child.

Europe - Does not have a large private, profit- making abortion industry Abortion procedures are carefully regulated. One of the regulations is a limit to the percent of abortion procedures at any given site.

America - The courts speak about a "constitutional right" to abortion. The U.S. is the only country that states its a "right" to have an abortion. The values advocated are #1. individual privacy. #2. woman's sovereignty over her body

Europe - Statutes start by stating an affirmation of sanctity of human life, but state an abortion is freely available in "distress" (France), or "hardship" (German) in early pregnancy. The values advocated are #1. respect for human life #2. compassion for women in vulnerable circumstances

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

Posted by Fitz | March 31, 2008 1:23 PM

Hector:

I think we should put this to bed. Yes, I think you've made your condemnation of abortion related violence more clear.

In terms of protesting in front of the clinic, as I said, I think pro-lifers have a constitutional right to do it, and if they really were just praying, lighting candles, and saying, nicely, things like "please reconsider" and "abortion stops a beating heart", and not blocking women from getting into the clinics, it might even make an effective protest that persuades some people.

But the problem is, the reality of clinic protests is that they have always attracted whatever-means-necessary types that think the stakes are so high that harassing the women and the workers, blocking the clinic entrances, and even threats and violence are OK because they might stop abortions. So in the real world, that peaceful abortion protest in front of the clinic hasn't really existed. For that reason, mainstream pro-life organizations have determined that the clinic isn't the right place to hold a protest, and that strikes me as a smart decision.

Posted by Dilan Esper | March 31, 2008 1:49 PM

Dilan & Hector.

"But the problem is, the reality of clinic protests is that they have always attracted whatever-means-necessary types that think the stakes are so high that harassing the women and the workers, blocking the clinic entrances, and even threats and violence are OK because they might stop abortions. So in the real world, that peaceful abortion protest in front of the clinic hasn't really existed. For that reason, mainstream pro-life organizations have determined that the clinic isn't the right place to hold a protest, and that strikes me as a smart decision."

Dylan. I'm not sure you really know what your talking about.

Protests outside abortion clinics are a regular part of mainstream Catholic life every parish. They usually envolve a group of protesters praying and holding signs within a respecfull distance from the clinic entrance but positioned so anyone obtaining the services cannot miss them.

Sometimes the march from one clinic to the next. These types of events are listed in Church bulletins and are as regular as ice cream socials and Friday Lenten Fish Frys.

None that I now of (or have participated in) entail blocking entrances or berating women.
They do include sidewalk counseling however. One need a certification to participate at this level and the councilors (usually women) can be very effective.

They usually give pregnancy aid, prenatal care & adoption services.

Yes the early 80's showed the rise of the "operation rescue" type protest. However this was and is not the norm. It’s really a question of tactics. But I can assure you that you statement that "mainstream pro-life organizations have determined that the clinic isn't the right place to hold a protest, and that strikes me as a smart decision." Could not be further from the truth.

These protests in and around clinics are a regular everyday occurrence in the mainstream pro-life community. The involve Catholic, mainline protestant & the evangelical community.

Rarely do the elicit media attention of even the involvement of local law enforcement.

Posted by Fitz | March 31, 2008 2:09 PM

Dilan,

All right. It looks like you've retracted your implication that I support or tolerate abortion related violence, which is all I was really asking for. There's enough ground for disagreement without needing to micharacterize each other's motives. I've probably mischaracterized yours, too, at one point or another, and I'm sorry for that. I do think that violent acts against abortion clinics should be treated like other forms of domestic terrorism.

On more consideration I do see your point that protests outside clinics tend to attract radical elements and, moral considerations aside, that does tend to dissuade people in the mushy middle from supporting the pro-life cause. So yes, I think I would agree with you now that even peaceful protests outside abortion clinics are probably ill advised.

What about introducing anti-abortion messages into high school health classes? Suggestions that, whatever the legality of the practice, it's something _morally_ wrong that should be avoided whenever possible, and that tried to inculcate a vague sense of revulsion in students. Would that be something that you might be willing to compromise on?

Posted by Hector | March 31, 2008 2:20 PM

Perhaps you should put away your "consideration" and the advice of the staunchly pro-abortion Dilan and actually take part in a abortion protest.

These protests tend not to attract radicals but rather the deeply religious. Any radicals are effectively weeded out and/or made to heel. Like I said above the actual councilors who approach the women are about as genteel as one can imagine and they are studied in the most effective docile tactics.

The rest of the groups just stand around at a respectful distance holding tame pro-life signs and saying prayers. The amount of honking and encouragement from the drive by public is amazing. Often people park and join in prayer.

The fact is this civil protest movement is one of the most effective tools the pro-life cause has. Don’t be mau-maued into thinking that this is a fringe or politically detrimental tactic.

What is truly is (If you went a joined such groups) is excellent Christian witness to the importance of human life.

Thousands of women on route to abortions have reconsidered and bore their children because of this witness. Its enough to know that people care about the "choice" you are making. It enough to know that other choices are available.

Rather than subscribe to the misinformed views of Dilan, just go see for yourself. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that someone who is pro-abortion would want to help the pro-life cause by (seemingly) encouraging MORE effective tactics?

Posted by Fitz | March 31, 2008 2:48 PM

Sorry - The above post is addressed (respectfully) to Hector.

Posted by Fitz | March 31, 2008 2:55 PM

JonF, I am entirely happy to agree to disagree, but it is completely reasonable for me to want to read the article you cite. This doesn't imply disbelief in you, or sources, rather, it expresses a wish to see what the other point of view is in detail. Please, be a bit less defensive. Can you remember the author's name, or the journal in which it appeared?

On Christianity being underground in the late 3rd century,it might be worth recalling that both Decius and Valerian persecuted Christians, while the Great Persecution ran from 303-311. It's quite possible that church historians exaggerated its impact, but there is no doubt of the shock it caused.

Posted by RossD | March 31, 2008 3:20 PM

RossD:
It is entirely proper and reasonable that you would want to read this source yourself and I apologize that I do not have it for you. As I said, I do not expect anyone to change their opinion based on second hand information from me.
For 3rd century Christianity in general however I will recommend two books: Robin Lane Fox "Pagans and Christians" and Rodney Stark "The Rise of Christianity". Neither deals with the dating of holidays, but both make the same point about the 3rd century: it was the changeover era when Christianity ceased to be seen as a bizarre cult with suspicious and perhaps pernicious beliefs and rites, and instead became familiar to the average (urban) Roman since s/he probably had acquaintances or relatives who were Christians. The persecutions were nasty, but sporadic-- and by the end of the century, they were generally unpopular with the public and even municipals official. One reason the latter persecutions produced so many martyrs is that in many areas Christianity had become fully tolerated at the local level and Christians (and their leaders) were well known as such. The religious experimentation of the era seems to have been a sort of last ditch effort by the imperial government to create an alternative to Christianity, something fully under imperial power and serving its ends, until Constantine realized that he could seduce and co-opt the Christian church to the same ends.

Posted by JonF | March 31, 2008 5:01 PM

Fitz:

Your anodyne description of "sidewalk counseling" is far from the reality of the situation. Yes, pro-life groups do not condemn, in principle, peaceful protests in front of clinics. But they certainly discourage it, because even they concede that these protests often turn into counterproductive chaos. Here's a representative statement about the issue from one pro-life group:

http://www.prolifeaction.org/news/2002v21n2/controversy.htm

I would also say that I don't buy your description of "sidewalk counseling" as an effective form of "persuasion" of patients at clinics not to go ahead with their abortions. That may be what the protesters tell themselves, but in reality, women seeking abortions have already resolved the moral calculus in their own heads, and it is harassing tactics, and not moral persuasion, that pro-lifers use in front of clinics to stop them from getting abortions.

(I might add that the term "sidewalk counseling" is an Orwellian load of crap. Abortion protesters are not therapists and should not have delusions of grandeur about what they are doing in front of a clinic. This is "counseling" that the recipients never sought.)

The truth is that pro-lifers have not made a serious dent in public support for abortion rights over the 35 years since Roe was decided. And if clinic protests were so effective, you'd see some movement in that number, rather than simply wearing down some women who decide that your side has made it too much trouble to exercise their constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

One thing I agree with President Bush on; before anyone can achieve a ban on abortion, pro-lifers have to change the hearts and minds of the people. You haven't done it. And your clinic protests don't help matters, because they are about placing physical and psychological barriers in front of desperate women rather than persuading the public that abortion is wrong.

Posted by Dilan Esper | March 31, 2008 6:10 PM

Dilan

I don’t know what you’re talking about. You seem to not like these protests. Such is your right.

But you cannot show me were Right2Life groups have condemned or abandon this witness.

The movement has grown and (believe me) is VERY disciplined down to not showing pictures of aborted fetuses (people look away, as compared to Living fetesus that give women pause)

Yes it is 'counseling" in as much as they offer them literature and alternatives to abortion as well as prayer and someone to talk to.

Apparently you are not at all familiar with the pro-life movement. This form of protest occurs regularly with no real problem.

I know- I have been their. Every single day in every State in the Union these protests and counseling continue.

I understand you are pro-abortion but I just find it strange that you are that misinformed in thinking that this is somehow marginal or rare. On the contrary its part of the everyday work of pro-life groups across the country.

You are either intentionally misrepresenting the facts or are misinformed.

Posted by Fitz | March 31, 2008 6:34 PM

But you cannot show me were Right2Life groups have condemned or abandon this witness.

Witness my foot! Acting like a petulant 6 year old who can't get his way and blocking the door is not "witness". It certainly isn't "witnessing" the desperate circumstances these women face that cause them to go to the clinic. It's more like covering your eyes and refusing to see the real effect of one's actions.

The movement has grown and (believe me) is VERY disciplined down to not showing pictures of aborted fetuses (people look away, as compared to Living fetesus that give women pause)

Fitz, I've seen plenty of news footage where people ARE holding photos of dead fetuses. Like this one:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fKbsTBwpNmo

Or this one:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BZ5IbLyXQo8

Or this one:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AAu2tTMe20Y

Yes it is 'counseling" in as much as they offer them literature and alternatives to abortion as well as prayer and someone to talk to.

How arrogant you jerks are! It isn't "counseling" to go up to someone who you don't know, stick your nose into THEIR private business, and purport to tell them what is good for THEIR mental health.

I am sure you would LOVE it if some people you didn't know walked up to you and started telling you whether YOU should have children or not. I can think of many words you would use to describe it. One of the NICER ones would be "busybody". I can think of many such words that wouldn't be appropriate in this comments thread. But "counselor"-- GET OVER YOURSELVES! You guys REEK of self-importance. You guys aren't pro-life-- you are pro-your own gigantic, majestic, godly egos!

Fitz, as for the rest of your assertions, suffice to say, I have seen plenty of clinic protesting. And if it were really as calm and nonviolent and nonradical as you portray, there wouldn't be court injunctions and access to clinic laws and everything else.

You might look at the two Supreme Court cases upholding buffer zones, Marsden and Schenck. Read the statement of facts, and appreciate the reality of clinic protesting. It's killing your movement.

And it is clear you know this-- you didn't respond to my point that your movement hasn't been able to move public opinion 1 inch despite all these protests.

Posted by Dilan Esper | March 31, 2008 11:59 PM

Dilan to Fitz: "I am sure you would LOVE it if some people you didn't know walked up to you and started telling you whether YOU should have children or not. I can think of many words you would use to describe it. One of the NICER ones would be "busybody". I can think of many such words that wouldn't be appropriate in this comments thread. But "counselor"-- GET OVER YOURSELVES! You guys REEK of self-importance. You guys aren't pro-life-- you are pro-your own gigantic, majestic, godly egos!"

I wonder how Fitz would react if a secular group started "counseling" outside of Catholic churches before and after Mass by approaching parishioners and showing them material (including pictures) dealing with the massive child-rape scandals that Church has been involved with over the past few (at least) decades. He'd probably be among the Catholics reacting with their fists.

I'd be against those protests, too, but by Fitz's own stated standards he'd have nothing to complain about.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | April 1, 2008 1:35 AM

I'm against war, abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty for any reason under any circumstances. Many right-to-lifers feel this way.

Posted by Jerry | July 29, 2008 9:28 PM

I'm against war, abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty for any reason under any circumstances. Many right-to-lifers feel this way.

Posted by Jerry | July 29, 2008 9:28 PM