|
|
 |
 |
|
--- Friday, March 31, 2006
Rome, Sweet Rome for Indicted Christ-Follower
The Afghani man on trial for being a Christian has now been released, in spite of vocal disapproval among many citizens of his nation.
An Afghan who faced the death penalty in his homeland for converting from Islam to Christianity said Thursday that he was certain he would have been killed had he stayed there, and he thanked Pope Benedict XVI for intervening on his behalf.
"In Kabul, they would have killed me, I'm sure of it," said Abdul Rahman, who was spirited out of Afghanistan to a secret location in Italy. "If you are not a Muslim in an Islamic country like mine, they kill you. There are no doubts."
He said his case was to serve as an example "to others who dared rebel."
Rahman's comments in a short interview to Italian journalists came hours after Italy formally granted him asylum, citing religious persecution, the Interior Ministry said. This turn of events is an incredible relief, of course, but it is hardly a shining victory for justice in Afghanistan. Rahman is being released for lack of evidence, or because he's crazy, or both -- spurious claims that would seem to reflect the pressure placed by the West more than anything else. Now that he is free and (one prays) safe, the battle must continue to show the Islamic world that we will not accept the slaughter of unbelieving infidels -- whether in our nation or theirs. But that part of the fight, it's safe to say, won't be won with bullets and bombs.
The Year After Terri
Father Robert J. Johansen at National Review reflects on the dangerous precedents set a year ago at the death of Terri Schiavo and suggests how the culture may have changed in the process.
One year ago this week, Terri Schindler Schiavo died. She had been starved and dehydrated -- at the request of her husband, and with the connivance of America's judiciary. The nation watched the tally of her days without food and water rise, and as the count grew higher, the ghoulish speculations began: How many days would she live? In defiance of common sense, we were treated to Orwellian Newspeak -- from the husband, Michael Schiavo, and his attorney, George Felos -- about the "peaceful," "quiet" "dying process" Terri was undergoing; she was simply going to "slip away." Some self-described bioethicists even rhapsodized about the "euphoric" nature of her death....
Terri's death was not the product of some nefarious conspiracy, but it was the result of a tragic confluence of currents within our culture. These currents -- in the law, in medicine, and in the organs of popular culture -- all came together in Terri's case, and what happened to her was the newest face of what Pope John Paul II called the Culture of Death. This new face was masked, as the old had always been, by error, half-truths, comfortable fictions, and outright deception. Those fighting to save Terri's life did not recognize what they were up against and were unprepared for its demands until it was too late. The shift in our culture that made her death possible began long before March 31, 2005, and the elements of that shift need to be identified if we are to learn from what happened. What Fr. Johansen seems to point out is that the tragedy of Terri Schiavo created -- or at least shed light upon -- a rather uncomfortable conflict between the inherent value of a human being and a conditional, qualitative assessment of human life. The same conflict exists, essentially, in the debates over cloning, stem-cell research, and abortion, but Terri Schiavo brought a much less abstract image of this apparently disposable life. Terri had a face and a body; she was more than simply a clump of cells or a picture on a screen. Yet in the end, her life, too, was cast into the wind, discarded because it didn't have enough "quality."
I'm not sure we know whether the death of Terri Schiavo was a chip in the cultural conscience, or a full tilt away from the reverence of life. But the risks remain great, and the stakes high.
--- Thursday, March 23, 2006
Two Times the Outrage over Afghani Trial
Perhaps surprisingly, the Times of both New York and Washington have expressed disgust at the lack of religious freedom being demonstrated in Afghanistan, both calling the actions "barbaric."
States the NY Times:
What's the point of the United States' propping up the government of Afghanistan if it's not even going to pretend to respect basic human rights? President Bush himself said it was "deeply troubling" that an Afghan man is facing the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity....
There appears to be a move afoot to declare Mr. Rahman mentally incompetent as a way to avoid the mess. That would be a cheap trick because the law would remain on the books. Afghanistan is not the only American ally that enforces cruel religious laws. But this is a country that was liberated from the Taliban by American troops and whose tenuous peace is enforced by those troops. If Afghanistan wants to return to the Taliban days, it can do so without the help of the United States. The Washington Times strikes a similar tone:
The case would be clear-cut even if constitutional questions were not in play. In theory the Afghan constitution protects religious freedom, but the document sets out that Shariah is the law of the land. Drafters intentionally drew this discrepancy because they wanted unity, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai has spent a great deal of his time in office avoiding a constitutional crisis. But it was only a matter of time before these ambiguities came to a head or, in this case, were forced to a head by radical judges. The goal now is to minimize the damage these divisions have created, while trying to save Mr. Rahman's life.
This is why the Bush administration has been careful not to strike a harsh tone in demanding Mr. Rahman's release. Doing so could shake a carefully constructed nation and give propaganda opportunities to the ousted Taliban leftovers. Standing next to the Afghan foreign minister on Tuesday, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns asked for the trial to be conducted with "transparency" and reminded this critical U.S. ally that "people should be free to choose their religion."
This kind of talk is for the cameras. Behind the scenes, we expect the administration to use all the leverage it can, which is considerable, to set Mr. Rahman free -- and not only for Mr. Rahman's sake. American soldiers and their families, not to mention taxpayers, have sacrificed much to free Afghanistan. The execution of Christians simply because they are Christians is not what they had in mind. The papers also rightly criticize the judgment of insanity that may save Mr. Rahman's life, a strategy that is no doubt directly connected to the extent of press coverage given to the case. There is nothing to suggest that Mr. Rahman is anything but in his right mind -- indeed, he seems to be more sane than his condemners could claim at this point. While we would be grateful for such a loophole if it spared the man's life, the underlying ideology of his arrest would remain intact, thus we must use the opportunity to criticize in the harshest terms the abhorrent practices of sharia law.
Mr. Roe in the Waiting Room
Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby writes about a perhaps-burgeoning trend in which disaffected fathers want a bigger part of that "right to choose" defended so diligently on behalf of women carrying the burden of unwanted pregnancies.
Does Dubay have a point? Of course. Contemporary American society does send very mixed messages about sex and the sexes. For women, the decision to have sex is the first of a series of choices, including the choice to abort a pregnancy - or, if she prefers, to give birth and collect child support from the father. For men, legal choices end with the decision to have sex. If conception takes place, he can be forced to accept the abortion of a baby he wants - or to spend at least the next 18 years turning over a chunk of his income to support a child he didn't want.
All true. But it is also true that predatory males have done enormous damage to American society, and the last thing our culture needs is one more way for men to escape accountability for the children they father. Dubay wants more than the freedom to be sexually reckless - he wants that freedom to be constitutionally guaranteed. Truly he is a child of his time, passionate on the subject of rights and eager to duck responsibility.
The culture used to send a clear message to men in Dubay's position: Marry the mother and be a father to your child. Today it tells him: Just write a monthly check. Soon -- if this lawsuit succeeds -- it won't say even that. The result will not be a fairer, more equal society. It will be a society with even more abortion, even more exploitation of women, even more of the destructiveness and instability caused by fatherlessness. Jacoby does a fair job of getting to the heart of this supposed inequality and its exposing of men who are bound to consequences of promiscuity of which women now have a greater cultural approval to rid themselves. This is indeed a thoroughly modern -- and thoroughly backward -- means of approaching the questions of procreation sans matrimony.
Yet as Jacoby points out, the logic here does not seem to be off track. After all, if women are given blanket permission to dispose of their unborn babies, why should would-be fathers be forced to carry financial or personal ramifications when they are the ones lobbying for that "choice"?
In the end, this debate is not likely to go proceed very far. Feminist protectors of abortion will have no interest in granting extra leverage to promiscuous men -- however "fair" it might be. And conservatives will not be able to condone action that would both promote greater tolerance of abortion and give men a way of escaping the consequences of sexual immorality. However, perhaps this absurd push to grant fathers an equal right to abortion will shed some light on the blurred path that leads to death rather than life. Abortion, at root, is an escape (at least in theory) -- an escape from moral boundaries, an escape from consequences, an escape from shame. Yet for the sake of women, and men, and their offspring, our society would be far better served to regain a respect for the depth and power of sex and marriage, rather than seeking an escape hatch.
--- Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Keeping Christ in Kabul
Much of America seems, this week, to be second guessing our commitment to liberating Afghanistan from the grip of terrorist despots, now that it has been quite bluntly revealed that the concept of freedom in that nation has not quite taken hold. Michelle Malkin writes:
Abdul Rahman is a man of faith. "I believe in the Holy Spirit. I believe in Christ. And I am a Christian," he declared this week.
Unfortunately for Rahman, he was originally born a Muslim in Afghanistan -- and he has been forced to defend his religious conversion in his home country's court, where he now faces the death penalty for turning to Jesus. Despite the defeat of the totalitarian Taliban and the existence of a U.S.-backed "moderate" democratic government, it is a capital crime for Afghanis to openly embrace any religion other than Islam. Sharia law, embedded in the Afghan constitution, overrides its human rights provisions.
Rahman's family has denounced him as mentally ill. Afghan officials are thirsting for his blood. "We will cut him into little pieces," jail employee Hosnia Wafayosofi told the Chicago Tribune, as she "made a cutting motion with her hands."...
President Bush, who will defend Abdul Rahman's natural rights from being usurped and terminated by Afghanistan's Islamic executioners? Others, including Chuck Colson and Tony Perkins, have called into question whether America's role in Afghanistan can be considered a success if even the most basic democratic liberties are being ignored. Indeed, the U.S. finds itself in the difficult position of both freeing a nation to live how it chooses and dictating the terms of liberty. I don't know how such a balance should be obtained.
On the one hand, it must be remembered that the intervention in Afghanistan (and Iraq) was not primarily to free a nation from tyrants, but rather to protect American interests from the threat of terrorism. Thus the success of the mission is not based upon how closely aligned to U.S. democracy are the new governments we have helped to create.
On the other hand, President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and other American leaders should spare no expense, and no words, to express our displeasure and disdain for the actions of Afghanistan's sharia-inspired actions (Lord willing, before Mr. Rahman becomes a martyr for Christ). Play hardball if they must, not to define how the Afghani government should operate but to save the life of an innocent man and to make a public stand against such violence. It is not difficult to see that the worldview that threatens to cut a man "into pieces" for following Christ offers no real difference than one that would send planes into buildings to destroy other infidels.
--- Thursday, March 16, 2006
A Newborn Problem
Mark Earley at BreakPoint discusses a disturbing feature in the New York Times that considered the question of whether pregnant mothers should have the chance to abort potentially "defective" babies.
Unfortunately, "wrongful birth" lawsuits aren't limited to New York. Half of the states recognize such a "right." This reflects what the author of the piece, Elizabeth Weil, calls "contemporary expectations about childbearing." Technology has led parents to believe that they can exercise a kind of "quality control" over their unborn children.
These expectations wouldn't matter without abortion-on-demand. Prior to Roe, courts rejected the idea of "wrongful birth." As the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 1966, "the sanctity of the single human life is the decisive factor in this suit . . ."
Roe changed all of that. Abortion-on-demand combined with the expectations Weil described to create a "right" not to have a disabled child. And, as Weil acknowledges, "disabled" isn't limited to severe birth defects just like A. J.'s -- it could include deafness, blindness, and mild mental retardation. Any "defect" that can be identified through prenatal genetic testing is potentially the subject of a "wrongful birth" lawsuit. The Times piece presents fascinating observations about the moral, technological, and scientific components of such prenatal selection -- though remaining sufficiently ambiguous as to whether one should actually have moral reservation about aborting such a baby. In reality, though, it's a line that I don't think modern bioethics is qualified to draw. The obvious questions that arise are: How disabled is too disabled? When is it right to end a child's future suffering? A naturalistic worldview can only suggest that unnecessary trial be avoided -- on the part of an unborn child and his parents -- and that one should be given the personal freedom to make such a decision. Yet if human life, however "damaged," is not held sacred, it is not so much a slippery slope as it is an incidental argument that would allow anyone to be discarded who doesn't hold a sufficient quality of life.
--- Monday, March 13, 2006
An Apologetic for Atheism
A column in Sunday's New York Times suggests that religious belief does not hold any greater moral authority than atheism in preventing evil and promoting good.
More than a century ago, in "The Brothers Karamazov" and other works, Dostoyevsky warned against the dangers of godless moral nihilism, arguing in essence that if God doesn't exist, then everything is permitted. The French philosopher Andre Glucksmann even applied Dostoyevsky's critique of godless nihilism to 9/11, as the title of his book, "Dostoyevsky in Manhattan," suggests.
This argument couldn't have been more wrong: the lesson of today's terrorism is that if God exists, then everything, including blowing up thousands of innocent bystanders, is permitted -- at least to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, since, clearly, a direct link to God justifies the violation of any merely human constraints and considerations....
Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do. Is this also not our most elementary experience of morality? When I do a good deed, I do so not with an eye toward gaining God's favor; I do it because if I did not, I could not look at myself in the mirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God's existence. This analysis seems to offer one answer to two widely different questions - 1) Does religion produce inherently good deeds, with no capacity for evil? and 2) Is it possible to live morally without belief in God? By combining these two ideas, however, adherence to a religion, broadly speaking, is set against disbelief in any religion. That this doesn't work should be obvious, in spite of the not-so-subtle connection between "fundamentalists" in Christianity and violent radicals in Islam.
Yet certainly religion as a general category is no impediment to evil, either on the individual or societal level. An evil religion necessarily begets evil, and a righteous religion (if there is such a thing) begets goodness, even if some of its followers may betray that righteousness. Human history -- recent and ancient -- testifies of countless atrocities performed under the banner of a faith.
Not that atheism fares better, with millions of deaths ordered at the hands of godless despots even within the past hundred years. But experience further shows that one who rejects belief in the divine does not necessarily become society's villain.
Thus, religion (in the broadest sense) or irreligion do not appear to create sufficient identification to how good or sinister a person may be. Something is missing, however: By what, or whose, standard are we to judge whether a religion, or a person, is good or evil?
The author here offers no disclaimer in his willingness to place his own actions as morally purer than those of "fundamentalists" who purport to do God's will. Yet he appeals to no higher foundation than his own judgment about what is considered good and right. "Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn salvation," he says. "Atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do."
In truth, neither claim holds water. Atheism can boast no innate knowledge of the "right thing to do," because the standard of goodness rests in each man individually. As such, there is no immovable basis upon which to separate good from evil -- thus whatever one man decides is moral is as valid as what his neighbor decides. It defies logic, common sense, and even evolution to suggest that "religion" somehow distracts man from his natural understanding of righteousness.
On the other hand, if there is such a truth of morality ingrained in mankind, it must come from a source outside of humanity. And if such an entity is to proclaim the moral law for all of mankind, He must both abide by that law and transcend it infinitely. To that end, He has the right and perhaps necessity to demand moral perfection the moral beings of His creation. Yet performing good deeds merely as a means of payment to obtain God's favor is a futile effort that can satisfy neither God nor man. Some religions do, of course, claim that certain actions result in a guarantee of salvation, while others lead to imminent damnation. The God of Scripture demands perfect holiness, but man as a race has followed a path that departs from the law inscribed on his soul, Heaven is out of reach.
The God of the Universe offered the solution to man's fatal problem by entering the physical realm Himself, submitting successfully to His moral law and offering Himself as a sacrifice on its behalf. Subsequently, man is able to achieve the righteousness of the Most Righteous One, not by doing the "right thing," but by committing his life and soul to his Savior.
Atheism is not an answer, but only a much deeper problem.
--- Wednesday, March 08, 2006
The Right to Lose?
Whether it is just bad political strategy or the end of personal freedom as we know it, the South Dakota prohibition against abortion seems to have sparsely a good word said about it. Christianity Today summarizes the debate:
Abortion-rights advocates immediately and sternly denounced the ban, scheduled to go into effect July 1. Planned Parenthood operates the South Dakota clinic. Their president, Cecile Richards, said, "Planned Parenthood will fight these attacks in court, in the state houses, and at the ballot boxes, to ensure that women, with their doctors and families, continue to be able to make personal health care decisions without government interference."
Even some leading anti-abortion activists panned the South Dakota ban. National Right to Life released a matter-of-fact statement in response to CT's request for comment: "Currently there are at least five votes, a majority, on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade." Americans United for Life (AUL), a key architect of the incremental strategy, said the ban will boost fundraising for pro-choice organizations and politicians. Predictably, then, the defenders of abortion have foreseen the pending doom if Roe is destroyed. The San Francisco Chronicle's offers its dire warning:
The South Dakota challenge serves as a stark reminder of why these Supreme Court confirmation fights are essential. The threat to our basic privacy rights in this nation is real -- and growing. And columnist Molly Ivins suggests that South Dakota is "California-esque" in its radical move.
The state legislature of South Dakota, in all its wisdom and majesty, a legislature comprised of sons and daughters of the soil from Aberdeen to Zell, have usurped the right of the women of that state to decide whether or not to bear the child of an unwanted pregnancy. They will decide. Women will do what they decide. Meanwhile, William Saletan levels his criticism at supposed inconsistencies of the law's more "moderate" provisions.
Monday morning, Gov. Mike Rounds signed into law a ban on nearly all abortions in South Dakota. He called it a "direct challenge" to Roe v. Wade. But the ban also poses a direct challenge to the pro-life movement, and to itself, by permitting the destruction of what it calls unborn human beings....Welcome to world of ambiguity, pro-lifers. Out of compassion for women in tragic but medically non-threatening circumstances, you agree that unborn life, up to a certain stage of development, may be aborted. I find it hard to believe, however, that Saletan's biggest concern is that the law is "inconsistent." And certainly, it is much less ambiguous or arbitrary than Roe v. Wade and its accompanying pseudo-laws written by the Supreme Court.
Yet few will dispute that South Dakota's action is a bold measure in the current culture. Not surprisingly, this is enough to make even conservatives squeamish. The pro-life National Review editors remain unconvinced that now is the time to put forth such a law.
We have mixed feelings about these laws. We share the pro-life objectives that animate them, but we doubt that they actually advance those objectives. Those objectives number three. The two ultimate objectives are expressed in the pro-life slogan that every child should be "welcomed in life and protected in law." That slogan recognizes the dual injustice of unrestricted abortion: Killing unborn children is almost always unjust, and laws that treat that killing with indifference are also unjust. The more immediate pro-life objective is to create the conditions that would allow the achievement of those two goals. The chief precondition is the overturning of Supreme Court edicts on abortion. Those edicts mandate that abortion be legal throughout pregnancy. The reasonable question seems to be, will a moment's victory result in more future defeats? A fair debate, perhaps, but setting aside my pragmatic cap for a moment, I'm not prepared to chastise lawmakers for being too bold in doing something that is right -- even if it's radically so. And frankly, it may take such startling action to keep American society from sliding into a state of callousness over the terrible atrocity that abortion represents (if we are not numb to it already).
Maybe chipping away at the abortion culture by attacking its most grotesque forms -- namely, partial birth abortion -- is the most promising tactic to at least restraining the Pandora's box opened by Roe. Yet I think it may be more honest and, I hope, more effective to demonstrate to the culture that opposing abortion is neither an "extreme" position, nor one at odds with personal automony, nor one ignoring the needs of women.
--- Monday, March 06, 2006
R.I.P. (Roe in Pieces)
As South Dakota's governor signs into law a bill to effectively ban abortion in his state, William Saletan suggests in a Washington Post column that the time has come to let go of the societal stranglehold on Roe v. Wade (but not, however, to remove the right to abortion).
The impending legal battles put us on the verge of repeating the last two decades of the abortion war: anti-abortion victory, abortion rights backlash. At the end of the cycle 20 years from now, we'll be right back where we are today. Unless, that is, we find a way out.
And that means moving beyond Roe.
Politically, legally and technologically the 33-year-old court decision is increasingly obsolete as a framework for managing decisions about reproduction. But only the abortion rights movement can lead the way beyond it. The anti-abortion groups can't launch the post-Roe era, because they are determined to abolish its guarantee of individual autonomy, and the public won't stand for that. It must be up to reproductive rights supporters to give the public what it wants: abortion reduction within a framework of autonomy. Saletan's willingness to depart from Roe seems based more on pragmatism, than conviction, as though the ruling is more of a symbol for abortion rights than their appropriate defender. He seems to think that the culture is -- mature? -- enough now to sustain the appropriate limits of abortion without its hallmark legal backing. This may be the case (South Dakota and Mississippi notwithstanding), but I find it unlikely that American society is truly on the verge of obtaining a peaceful resolution to this debate. Politically, it has unfortunately become a defining issue between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, who are ever eager to distance themselves from their opponents' "radical" position.
Even more significantly, however, is a mistaken assumption that taking a middle-ground stance on the issue is somehow a more reasonable and "moderate" position. Sure, the majority of Americans might now hold to a compromise -- i.e. that abortion should be avoided except in the instance of rape and incest, before the second trimester, or when the mother's life is in danger. But other than (perhaps) extreme cases of the latter circumstance, no form or version of abortion is fundamentally different when the unborn child is correctly viewed as a human life.
Still, certainly I am not going to dispute the idea that the Roe decision needs to be put out of the nation's misery. As law, as policy, and as ethics, it is a stain on the conscience of America that should be discarded as thoroughly and quickly as possible.
Hamas Tightens Reign (or Noose?) on Palestinian Government
Asserting its newly established authority, Hamas has taken hold of the Palestinian leadership and diminshed the role of President Mahmoud Abbas. A sign of things to come?
For the most part, Hamas and Fatah have spoken of each other in respectful tones since Hamas's parliamentary election victory in January that toppled Fatah, the secular, nationalist movement that dominated Palestinian politics for decades.
Hamas has invited Fatah and other factions to join the new Palestinian cabinet that is still being assembled.
But today's stormy session pointed to the likelihood of a tense, confrontational relationship, and seemed to rule out the already-remote prospect that Fatah might join the cabinet.
Today's events also did not augur well for Mr. Abbas, the Fatah leader. He remains the Palestinian Authority president and will have to work with the Hamas-led cabinet on a regular basis. What remains to be seen, though, is whether Hamas will act in the real interest of its constituency and abandon the pursuit of terrorism with the intent of destroying Israel. They are wisely distancing themselves from al Qaeda, at least in the public view, yet there doesn't appear to be any strengthened commitment to peace.
--- Wednesday, March 01, 2006
The Right to Rethink
And in another analysis of the increasingly heated debate over abortion, Newsweek notes that the shape of the debate -- and, perhaps implicitly, the mindset of society -- may be shifting toward a more honest appraisal of the significance of the issue.
The procedure left Baker relieved, but sad enough to seek out counseling. What she found, though, were mostly judgmental pro-life Web sites and religious groups. Even when her search led her to volunteer at CARAL, the California affiliate of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, she didn't find many sympathetic ears. The battle to keep abortion legal left no room for emotional turmoil. Neither side of the polarized political debate really spoke to her. "Abortion is either tragic or a simple choice," Baker says. "But I had a lot of complicated feelings about it."...
Now, Baker and other grassroots leaders will finally have a chance to translate what they are hearing for the national leaders of a pro-choice movement grappling with how to counter what they see as recent gains by the pro-life movement. (Just last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on whether to ban so-called partial-birth abortions. And in South Dakota, the state legislature voted to outlaw all abortions except to save the life of the mother.) This week, on March 3, the liberal think tank Center for American Progress is hosting an unprecedented summit in Washington, D.C. on abortion and morality in hopes of jumpstarting a new strategy. Many activists argue that it's time for pro-choice leaders to talk about abortion not just as a legal right but as a necessary evil.
Technology has made it nearly impossible to talk about the fetus as just a clump of cells. Medical euphemisms like "cardiac activity" just don't fly when patients can see a heartbeat with a sonogram at six weeks into a pregnancy. The Reproductive Health Technologies Project has been doing focus group studies for a couple years now. "Women who are thinking about ending a pregnancy are not asking, 'Is this a life?' They know that it is. They are asking, 'Can I take care of this baby?'" explains the Center's Kirsten Moore. If the cultural dialogue over the issue is truly moving in this direction, it would seem that society's conscience is at the very least conflicted over the morality of abortion. Whether this will lead to widespread policy changes or merely smaller compromises remains to be seen, but it's a step in the right direction. And a necessary one, if our society is to survive. Abortion is an incredible affront to justice, mercy, faith, law, and human life, and if we become numb to the pervasiveness of the "choice," justification is created for all kinds of evil.
Pillars of Liberty Crumbling with Roe?
USA Today suggests that the bold steps by legislatures in South Dakota and now Mississippi toward eliminating abortion defy the Constitution (at least as the Supreme Court has seen it) and threaten American rights.
For 30 years, polls have found the public overwhelmingly rejecting an abortion ban.
The Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, also opposes a ban. The court has repeatedly said abortion is a private matter, subject only to reasonable regulation.
How could it say otherwise? No matter how sincere the beliefs of abortion opponents, a ban is, in the end, an attempt to impose one group's faith on others....
The stakes extend far beyond abortion. The notion of a constitutional right to privacy is also the barrier that prevents government meddling in other areas where sex intersects with religious belief. Before that doctrine was established, states commonly dictated what forms of sex are acceptable, even between consenting adults, and criminalized the sale or use of contraception.
Unless checked, the process South Dakota is starting could lead to the most draconian rollback of personal liberties in U.S. history. If "imposing" a belief is the definition of unconstitutional, then every law in the United States will likely need to be revoked -- for inherent in creating law is placing one understanding over another. Few rules, if any, are unanimous in their approval. Thus, the mere fact that some people think abortion is fine while others disagree does not, de facto, inhibit the legality of a law that bans it.
But, claims the rebuttal, abortion is unique because it is a religious issue. Yet that is even more absurd a position -- while there is plenty of overlap between Christian believers and abortion opponents, the correlation is hardly perfect, and the debate is rarely couched in strictly religious terms. The emphasis may be on "life," but biology and ethics and the foundations of American democracy seem to scream for the protection of the unborn -- though certainly it is no small matter that each developing child is molded in the image of God.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
