The March for Life and the Victory Against Despair
Excellent reply (with which I agree completely) to a comment left at this equally excellent post by Doctor Zero on the topic of abortion and the right to life: Victory Against Despair
A few points:
1) “. . . in fact, at most Planned Parenthood facilities, proper sex education accompanies every abortion.” Rather like bolting the barn door after the horse is gone, n’est-ce pas? According to many investigations, Planned Parenthood is indeed pro-choice . . . as long as the “choice” is infanticide. Oh, and what the hell is “proper” sex education? More to the point, who has been appointed to determine the answer to that question? Planned Parenthood? Clearly, in the opinion of many, parental input is optional . . .
2) “Or worse, will let a woman bleed to death during a ‘back alley’ procedure, simply because she’s immoral?” So does that mean that Society is guilty for every fatal heroin overdose because it has chosen to outlaw heroin use? When people choose to engage in dangerous and illegal behavior, the consequences are their responsibility . . . including the homicide of that person’s child.
3) “Make abortion illegal, and, like the wonderful anti-drug laws, abuses will still continue.” So we should quit making laws, because 100% enforcement is impossible? The point of law is only secondarily to punish the guilty; the primary purpose is to place the opprobrium of civil society on behavior that is detrimental to it, in order to discourage it and to stake out the boundaries of civil behavior. I don’t know what the penalty of law should be for the pitiable teenaged mother that is the liberal poster child for infanticide, although I have some ideas for the medical assassin involved. Even if the consensus of society is that it should be probation and counseling, similar to drug abuse, at least the penalty of law would demonstrate that we as a society place value on ALL human life.
4) “The same group that cries that government is ‘too much in our business’marches and fights for stricter laws and regulation as regards something that affects 2% of the population annually?” No, we’re arguing that law should be made at the state level. You know, like we do for murder. Is it your contention that, to be consistent, conservatives should consider legislation against murder to be “too much in people’s business”?
Oh, and my personal favorite . . .
5) “The same group that screams ‘right to life’ is also in favor of capital punishment, or silently applauds when an abortion clinic is bombed?” Yes, conservatives do hew to Locke’s formulation of the rights to life, liberty, and property. It is also an indispensable tenet of civil society that a possible consequence of violating the law is the forfeiture of one or more of these rights. Is it your contention that, to be consistent, conservatives must oppose the imprisonment of criminals because their right to liberty is absolute? Or that they must not be fined because their right to property is absolute? It is the contention of many conservatives (though not all; most Catholic conservatives are NOT in favor of capital punishment precisely because of your implicit criticism) that there are crimes for which the right to life itself is forfeited, usually for the deliberate and malicious deprivation of the right to life of another. Treason and child rape frequently come up as well, properly so in my opinion.
As for abortion clinic bombings, they also are a violation of the law. The principled pro-life conservative, I think, sees these in a similar fashion to the way that a principled abolitionist would have seen the crusade of John Brown. While the broad aim may be the same, the tactics pursued by Brown or by any of the abortion-clinic bombers (especially those that deliberately killed abortionists) damage the very rule of law that makes civil society possible. Civil society, in turn, is the only thing that makes judgements such as that which holds that infanticide is wrong possible.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.