Fetal Life and
Abortion: Human Personhood at Conception
____________________
Displayed Responses 2006
Displayed Responses 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010
2006
December 12th:
Legalized Abortion is a social problem
November 28th:
Did the Roe v. Wade decision define abortion?
November 15th:
WHY we focus on Roe v. Wade
November 3rd:
Partial-birth Abortion Revisited
October 24th:
Right and Wrong? -- Absolutely!
October 9th:
Roe, unfair to Fathers' Rights
September 27th:
What are stem cells?
September 11th:
To Students: On Ethics and Abortion
August 30th: World
= Cell?
August 11th: "We
the People" will have the last word on Roe
July 28th: Wake up
world! We are selling our future.
July 18th: What is
the total cost of embryonic stem-cell research?
July 13th: Does
Casey (1992) speak the truth?
July 6th: Ethical
considerations of IVF
June 27th: A
father's rights: Nature vs. Civil Law
June 12th: Nature
guides our thinking about abortion
May 30th: Abortion,
in light of Nature as the Measure of Reality
May 19th: Your life
began at conception - Not at implantation
May 11th: Does Roe
have jurisdiction to sanction the death of an innocent human being?
May 5th: Abortion is
unreasonable, therefore, unethical
April 20th:
Stem-cells and cloning revisited - moral
and biological concerns
April 13th: Roe v.
Wade on personhood?
April 6th:
unbornperson and innocence
March 30th: Global
ecology of persons
March 23rd: A need
for legalized abortion?
March 16th: Is the
Supreme Court establishing an "artificial decency?"
March 9th: Legalized
Abortion and Common Decency
March 2nd:
Partial-birth abortion and common decency
February 23rd:
Will partial-birth abortion challenge Roe?
February 16th:
The Supreme Court and the partial-birth abortion ban
February 9th:
Here is more on the crafting of Roe v. Wade
February 2nd:
Chief Justice Rhenquist's Roe v. Wade dissent
January 25th:
Will Roe be examined in terms of right and wrong?
January 19th:
Challenging partial-birth-abortion by exposing a flawed Roe
Court decision
January 12th:
Ethics and Logic 101 for Senate hearings with Judge Alito
January 3rd: Year
2006: Roe v. Wade tipping point
Reprinted from displayed responses November 12, 2002:
Editor's Note: It is encouraging to see that the international community is beginning to make a stand on respect for human life, with emphasis on the unborn of our community. Attempts at cloning humans is being vigorously debated and strong opposition has developed against it. The banning of destructive fetal experimentation is also a priority of many nations. It is hoped that these conscientious measures will prevent our culture of life from slipping into the culture of death.
We've muddied the waters; we've soiled the skies.
What else to destroy before the planet dies?
We've tattered the fringes; now for the heart!
We'll kill off the people; we've made the start.
We've sold our future to sustain abortion;
Cannibalized our unborn beyond distortion.
We'll replace the blueprint with one of our own!
Then await the harvest of the seeds we have sown.
Comment: Cultural revolutions, during the time of their development, go through cycles of emphasis, a basic direction, but zig-zagging on their lengthy way to their goal. Our pro-life movement, stimulated by moral persuasion, began with political action, aided by education, and with aid for those with distressful pregnancies. Declining success with political action gave way to public witness, culminating in Operation Rescue. The point of emphasis, up to this time, had been the life of the child waiting to be born.
With the absence of notable success in saving unborn babies, the child, inadvertently, seemed to have become secondary to a growing concern for the abortion-minded mother of the child. At this point, our pro-life effort, mistakenly, appeared to blend in with that of the pro-choice propaganda, the woman as victim, sorrowfully and thoughtfully, making her difficult choice. The reality, of course is that our pro-life intention was to save both the child and the mother, not to emphasize the mother at the cost of the child. The erroneous perception might have a comfort to the abortion-minded community but it was, by no means, a concession to their strategy.
And, so, points of emphasis mark the history of a social movement. Perhaps the zig-zagging is necessary, not only so that experience may be of profit to the movement, but that the stimulus of novelty might keep the movement going. Frustration and fatigue have a way of entering into any prolonged human effort. Points of emphasis eventually blend together and work simultaneously, since they are not in conflict with one another. Yet, at any moment, they color the movement in the eyes of the casual observer.
The above observation leads us to the probability that it is time for our pro-life movement to re-emphasize the child's dignity and worth, continuing quietly all the other good practices of our resourceful history.
A perspective: The bedrock of our pro-life position is the firm conviction that each human individual begins his or her personal life at conception and, therefore, has an inalienable right to life thereafter.
There are some citizens of the United States who, having a Supreme Court's decision to reinforce their position, disagree with our pro-life grasp of reality. How can we best persuade them to consider and, eventually, to embrace our brothers and sisters who are waiting to be born?
At the level of public opinion, in a time when mental and moral disciplines are in decline, it is our opinion that the best teaching is by way of lived-example. "Actions speak louder than words!" How, then, shall we teach respect for human beings living in the womb? We suggest celebrating the lives of our brothers and sisters currently in the wombs of their mothers, just as we do for all other members of our human community.
We propose that social consciousness needs to be raised to a higher level of awareness concerning that part of our community of human persons who are waiting to be born. At the present time, only the parents and their other children know, and rejoice, that a new member of the human community has come into existence. The family maintains this consciousness by mutual support and by joyfully anticipating the birth of their new family member.
It is suggested here that the whole world should know and rejoice at the conception of every human being and, enthusiastically, assist the new member of our society, and his or her parents, should there be need. That is because all of us are a family, in the plan of our Creator. We all feel the truth of the expression: "It takes the entire village to raise a child." But we know that, in practice, the scope of this beautiful saying encompasses only the child already born. Why not also the child waiting to be born!
The gist of this proposal is that respect for human life before birth could be taught to our society by celebrating that life on a daily and neighborly basis. We feel that when such appreciation will be in place, legalized abortion would be ended.
To implement the proposal, we suggest that the first "reaching out" beyond the immediate family could be contact with the family's church community. They could be invited to participate in the inter-uterine life of the newcomer to their community. The parents who would wish to be involved in this program would announce the conception, and whenever there is a special need, briefly report on the gestational progress of their child. The faith-community would respond with prayers of petition and thanksgiving for the welfare of the child and family, and with praise to our Creator who lovingly shares his power of creation with us, through parenthood.
It is reasonable to assume that practicing this proposal in the churches would help others in our society also to become aware of the unborn members of our community and of their rightful place of dignity among the rest of us. As a society, we could learn to practice respect for every unborn member of our community, our own and our neighbor's and, eventually, all who are waiting to enrich our society by their birth. The dumpster would no longer be needed as a "solution" to the individual's "problem," which had now become also the shared-responsibility and privilege of the community.
For those of our society who may not be persuaded by faith and religious practice, we propose a process of reasoning, leading toward awareness and acceptance of Natural Law. Natural Law is the promulgation of our Creator's will, through human intelligence, sometimes called commonsense. On behalf of the unborn, we invite all, believers and non-believers, to look over this web site into the reality of the human being's personhood, from the time of conception, and the consequent ethical obligation of respecting his or her right to life.
Perhaps it would be helpful here to recall the ancient Chinese custom of giving the child, at birth, the age of one year. We see here that the truth concerning the unborn members of our human society had prevailed in the past. It might well prevail again! We should be eager to lay the groundwork for that cultural revolution in our own time. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses October 28, 2000:
Question: In your "Notable Quotations" you have the Roe v. Wade court excusing themselves from facing what seems to me to be the key question in this case: When does human life begin? Even if it were true that no one else knows the answer, how could the Court feel free from, themselves, attempting to solve the problem? It does not seem right that they should have rendered their decision on such an incomplete foundation of fact.
Reply: It looks as though the Court did not feel competent to handle the matter by themselves. However, their "research" into written and hear-say sources could not be called adequate in light of the seriousness of the subject of their deliberation.
To paraphrase their statement: they said that they should not be expected to know when human life begins. For a court weighing criteria for a life-and-death decision, this is a curious statement. Be that as it may, it is even more curious that the Court, admitting their ignorance about the beginning of human life, felt competent to sanction killing the offspring of human parentage, from conception until natural birth.
I agree with you that their ignorance, or their state of doubt, does not excuse them from their ethical responsibility of not being instrumental in the killing of innocent human beings. The Court was ethically wrong in making their decision in the face of ignorance or doubt concerning substantive and essential fact. Moreover, the Court could not have claimed any ethical or legal urgency demanding that they hear this case at that time. They could have refused the case until they were more prepared to handle it.
Twenty-seven years later, the present Court is continuing the moral blindness which is intrinsic to legalized abortion. In the Nebraska case, the almost-completely-born offspring's death is approved by the Court, despite the twice-given judgment of the people, through their federal legislature, in the Partial-Birth Ban.
It has taken twenty-seven years for the schizophrenia of the Court to be clearly demonstrated. Examine the Nebraska case in light of this interchange between Justices Marshall and Stewart and Mr. Flowers (defending the state of Texas) during the Reargument (the second and final hearing of Roe v. Wade:
MR. FLOWERS: (citing a statute of Texas law:) "Whoever shall, during the parturition of the mother, destroy the vitality or life in a child in a state of being born, before actual birth - which child would have otherwise been born alive - shall be confined to the penitentiary for life, or not less than five years."
JUSTICE MARSHALL: What does that statute mean?
MR. FLOWERS: Sir?
JUSTICE MARSHALL: What does it mean?
MR. FLOWERS: I would think that-
JUSTICE STEWART: That it is an offense to kill a child in the process of childbirth?
MR. FLOWERS: Yes, sir, it would be immediately before childbirth, or right in the proximity of the child being born.
JUSTICE MARSHALL: Which is not an abortion.
MR. FLOWERS: Which is not - would not be an abortion, yes, sir. You're correct, sir, it would be homicide.
Gentlemen, we feel that the concept of a fetus being within the concept of a person, within the framework of the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution, is an extremely fundamental thing.
JUSTICE STEWART: Of course, if you're right about that, you can sit down; you've won your case.
You may refer to the entire Reargument. E.R.
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses May 28, 2000:
Question: You appear to concentrate overly on "Roe v. Wade". Remember that there have always been abortions and unfortunately probably always will be. Other countries that do not have the Roe v. Wade laws have easily procured abortions. Is it possible that the law itself isn't really that important?
It seems that the world's population growth, the inability of an international infrastructure to feed the hungry, social and governmental pressures to limit family size are insurmountable. Will reversing Roe v. Wade really have that much effect on limiting abortions on macro scale?
Reply: Many thanks for having raised this question about the significance of Roe v. Wade in our attempt to obtain justice for those waiting to be born. We appreciate your holding for the possibility that there is a significance.
We propose, as an historical fact, that Roe v. Wade precipitated a major increase in the number of abortions in the United States. We are inclined to believe that many of those abortions occurred because Roe v. Wade had given federal sanction for abortion, and because it prevented the states from protecting their unborn.
The federal sanction, of course, over-ruled the states, but it had also another effect. Approval, in fact, a "Constitutional right," made abortion quite acceptable. This, in the face of a long tradition of opinion that a government teaches through its laws, which, supposedly, are based on moral principles. The deliberate destruction of offspring by their parents has no moral principle to uphold it.
It is true that many other factors are involved in abortions, as witnessed in those states which had "liberalized" their abortion laws, prior to Roe v. Wade. It is significant to note that less than a third of the fifty states are among this number. It is also significant that the legislatures of two, large states, New York and Pennsylvania, had voted to repeal their previously enacted "liberalization," prior to Roe v. Wade.
As for the influence of Roe v. Wade on the rest of the world; we need only suggest the propensity of other countries for absorbing the "culture" of the "States" in so many areas of behavior, our "media" for example.
Our small voice speaks strongly against the injustices of Roe v. Wade (see Section 9 ) even though we know that the elimination of that decision is not the total solution for restoring justice to the unborn of our nation.
We are convinced that a return to moral principles on the part of the majority of our citizens is where the solution lies. But we are also convinced that morally good conduct is not likely to develop in the face of legalized immorality, such as is evident in Roe v. Wade. Therefore, we strive to remove that contaminating influence from our political environment. We do this by inviting our visitors to examine Roe v. Wade for what it is, an unwarranted and destructive intrusion upon the well-being of our nation. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses November 30, 2000:
Question: Just what exactly is the argument in favor of partial-birth abortion? And are those arguments valid? I'm thinking of some real medical problem. Or are the probabilities so remote that there is something else going on?
Reply: There is no medical reason for partial-birth abortion! The American Medical Association, along with countless obstetricians, and the majority of the American people speaking through state and federal legislatures, are opposed to it. However, we must keep in mind that some of the opposition is based, not on the fact that it is the killing of a baby, but rather that it is a barbarous and cruel manner of killing babies.
It might help your thinking to ask why anyone, or any group, favors partial-birth abortion. If I may express what I consider a fair judgment, let me direct your attention to those who profit from its legalization. Although the abortionist might be indifferent to his manner of killing, this method is "easier" than, say, a hysterotomy (a Caesarian-section, to deliver a dead baby, previously killed by the abortionist.) For the mother, it is also "easier," unless there are complications.
Again, judging from the statements of national abortion leaders, it is fair to say that they are the ones who profit most from the legalization of partial-birth abortion. For them, it is proof-positive that their control over the lives of the unborn, "granted" by Roe v. Wade, is absolute. If this "procedure" were to be outlawed, they would feel less secure in their assumption.
For the ordinary person, partial-birth abortion is infanticide, but for the proponents of abortion it must remain abortion. We append a diagrammatic sketch for your further study of this matter. Also we suggest a review of the Nebraska case. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses December 6, 2000:
Question: How do you respond to someone who says there are no absolutes, especially in the moral realm? The presumption is that everything is relative. This is a philosophical question, not a medical question. Can you demonstrate that moral absolutes exist?
Reply: We appreciate your question and its significance in a society confused and short-changed by the assumption that there are no absolutes. If someone proclaims that there are no absolutes, he or she proclaims a contradiction, because the proclamation is itself an absolute. It says, without equivocation or exception, that there are no absolutes. What could be more absolute than that!
It is strange that the proclaimer would insist on putting gasoline into the gas-tank of his automobile, whereas water might be what others would prefer. Would it be idle conversation to ask what the engine requires, according to the design of its builder?
G. K. Chesterton, in his thoughtful book, Orthodoxy, speaks to an art student who had assumed that the drawing of a giraffe with a short neck would constitute a denial of the absolute. Chesterton replied, simply: "If, in your bold creative way, you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. The moment you step into the world of facts, you step into a world of limits. You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature. You may, if you like, free a tiger from his bars; but do not free him from his stripes. Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump; you may free him from being a camel." (Chap. 3 - The Suicide of Thought)
The denial of moral absolutes is equally ridiculous. If "right" and "wrong" are to have any meaning, they would have to mean two different things. They could not be used interchangeably. Each, then, must be something unique, something "in itself" and "of itself," in other words, something absolute.
The correct application of the concepts, "right" and "wrong," to human behavior is the subject matter of Ethics. Ethics is the product of intellectual intuition and human reasoning, both of which must be assumed to be reliable sources of truth. To possess truth, said simply, is to know things as they are. So, those who deny absolutes also deny truth or, at least, the ability to possess it.
If I may suggest something for your further thinking, you might ask yourself why do some persons discard the absolutes. They seem to be content with saying that the circumstances surrounding the human act are what totally determine its morality, the proponents of "Situation Ethics, for example. They are partly right in their in their assumption, since circumstances must be weighed during process of making moral judgments. However circumstances can never make "right" something which is intrinsically (by its very nature) "wrong." It is here that the absolute must be reckoned with.
What if someone were to say that telling a lie, under some urgent circumstances, is not "wrong?" You might ask that person whether telling a lie is ever "wrong" and, if so, why. Eventually it will be seen that a lie is driven by the intention of one person to deceive another, which by its nature is contrary to justice and, therefore, "wrong." A lie deprives another person of what is due to him, an honest statement. Without the expectation of honesty in one another, a society could not function, and would soon collapse. The legal "taking an oath" (calling on God to witness to the truth of a statement) is a solemn "back-up" to implement the necessity of honest communication. So important is the need for truth, the lie-detector, despite its debatable reliability, is sometimes thought necessary for the maintenance of justice.
Pertinent to this web site, abortion is never "right" under any circumstances, because it is a deliberate, direct attack against the life of an innocent human person, which is always "wrong" by its very nature. Circumstances often influence one's judgment, by way of one's emotions, but morality does not rest on circumstances alone. If you note carefully you will observe that the double-effect principle, which is applied only under specified circumstances, does not, itself, resort to circumstances for its ethical justification. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses December 5, 2005:
Comment: Many countries around the world are experiencing internal conflict on the subject of abortion. Some are striving to clothe abortion with legitimacy by legalizing it, as in the U.S. Others are denouncing abortion as morally and socially unacceptable and are fighting attempts at legalization. Some are still looking for ground upon which to embrace both of these contradictory positions.
Concerning the United States, your site speaks frequently of the Supreme Court's decision of 1973 as a source of social unrest. I appreciate your coverage of that decision because it gives insight into abortion even as it exists in some of the other countries. What disturbs me about our country is the imposition of legalized abortion upon the people by a court of law, without oversight provision on the part of the people. One specific detail, completely beyond my understanding, is the Court's denial of a father's right to defend his child's life against the mother's choice of abortion.
Reply: You have struck upon some roots of resentment felt by a people who have been disenfranchised from their role in government, and from their individual rights. The individual states in the U.S. had spoken their minds against the practice of abortion, yet our Supreme Court over-rode their sincere and well-crafted legal enactments.
As for the disenfranchised fathers, your reaction is understandable. It simply doesn't make sense "to rob Peter in order to pay Paul." By "giving rights" to the mother, rights had to be "taken away" from the father of the child. This is but one of the many contradictions in the "logic" of Roe v. Wade. Imagine! A father wanting to fulfill his obligation to defend the life of his child, and being denied by our Supreme Court the exercise of his right to do so!
Similar resentments are shared by all thinking persons of good will in every nation where abortion has been legalized. The basis of that resentment is the insensitivity of their country's disregard for the humanity of the unborn and, therefore, of all humanity.
With regard to this insensitivity, I would offer a suggestion: The success of upholding human dignity in any one nation is contingent upon what the rest of the world holds, in practice, on the nature of human beings. Perhaps this has not always been so, but it appears as self-evident in our age of extensive and instantaneous communication. In exercising our prerogative of making choices, we humans tend to justify our own less noble conduct by the "approved" example of others. This, in the course of time, becomes a vicious circle or, more accurately, a downward spiral of social degeneration.
May I suggest that the Internet could become a forum for international discussion of human values. Such discussion, embraced by persons of all persuasions, could promote a sense of solidarity of people with one another in the pursuit of truth, justice and, perhaps, even peace. If this were to be accomplished in the midst of our present turmoil, the unborn of our confused society will not have died in vain. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses July 26, 2001:
Question: I am confused about stem cells. I would appreciate knowing why there are contradictory claims favoring one kind over another.
Reply: The name "stem" has been given to a cell from which a line of differentiated cells can be started. Its name, by analogy, is taken from the trunk, or branch, with reference to that which grows outward from the trunk or branch, such as leaves, flowers and fruit. In this discussion let us use the relationship of stem and flower, the flower being that which grows out of the stem. The stem seems to give rise to a diversity of structures, principally reproductive, in the flower. The relationship of stem to flower indicates that the flower, in some away, is present in the stem, even before it makes its appearance outside of the stem.
This, of course, is a simplification of a complex process of structure and function, attributable not to the stem, but to the entire plant of which the stem is only a part. The concept helps us to understand that some of the cells which are part of the stem will divide, not to increase the size of the stem, but to produce new cells, different from themselves. This is called differentiation. These new cells, in their turn, also differentiate as they divide, eventually producing cells which are petal cells, pollen and ova, or cells of pollen tubes and of other structures which form the flower.
I speak of my definition and example as a simplification because they do not explain how some cells constitute the stem and others, seemingly of the same kind, go on to produce the flower. It might help here to suggest some items for further thought: Cells come from cells. This raises the question of whether, in any given line of cells, the initial cell possessed everything which the end of the line possesses. The problem here is to have a sufficient cause to explain the effect, remembering that a thing cannot give what it hasn't got.
This production of flowers is but one example of how a cell can, in some manner, contain the "stuff" of cells more complicated than itself. The most radical example is seen in the single-celled stage (zygote) of any organism produced by sexual reproduction. It is both a stem-cell and an organism. During its very early development the cells which the organism produces have been designated as embryonic stem-cells, about which we center this present discussion.
In a very real sense, the zygote contains all of the "stuff" needed to bring itself to maturity. However, it proceeds toward maturity by producing, sequentially, the next round of cells, as required by its genetic information. In each succeeding "generation" of cells, the new cell will possess whatever is necessary for doing its own job and for equipping the next "generation" to do likewise. In this way the organism develops itself, through the production and proper use of its cells. The organism, of course, "fleshes-out" its original "stuff" by using the material of its environment, as needed, in its progress toward maturity.
It is important to note that the total process is not only under the control of the organism, directed by its genetic "blueprint," but that it is always influenced by the immediate environment in which the process occurs. Those environmental factors may be as simple as optimum temperature, adequate solvents for the reacting substances, electrical and magnetic, even gravitational, fields of force, along with the more complex factors, such as stimulus of neighboring cells, and the presence of compatible enzymes to act as catalysts for the chemical reactions.
The claim of capability to develop organs from embryonic stem-cells, such as heart, is even more unfounded. You may have seen a picture of muscle tissue "beating," but a functioning heart is more than its muscle.
If I may say, briefly, the living organism is not a machine, whose parts can be welded or bolted together, but rather a continuous whole whose "parts" are so interwoven, both in structure and in function, that none is independent of the others. The action of the "parts," whether cells or organs, is sequentially "programmed," so that what a cell can do in its embryonic environment, should not be expected from that cell when transplanted elsewhere. You must keep in mind that it is not the cell which is doing the acting. The actor is the organism which possesses, and function through, the cell. This might help you to understand why stem-cells of adult organisms are better than embryonic ones, when they are asked to serve mature tissues.
From our discussion, you can see that stem-cells are not limited to organisms in their embryonic stage of existence, called embryonic stem-cells. Even in your adult body there are stem-cells, just as in the flowering plant which may be several years of age. The red blood cells, active in your circulatory system, are the end product of a line of less-differentiated cells resident in the marrow of your bones. In older terminology the beginning of the line was called a "mast- cell." This example is not far different from that of the cells in the stem and flower of the plant.
Another source of adult stem-cells is body fat. It is also amazing that most organs of the body contain stem cells, which nature provides for regeneration and repair of their damaged tissues. Recent research shows that the "islands of Langerhans," cells scattered around in the pancreas (which produce insulin for metabolizing sugars) can be replaced by the action of pancreatic stem-cells, after the "destroyer" of those "islands" has been vanquished.
Although embryonic stem-cells have been thought to be superior to adult stem-cells for the purpose of "repair or replacement," there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim. In fact, embryonic stem-cells inserted into ailing, adult brain tissue have sometimes worsened the disability. Adult stem-cells, on the other hand, do show promise which is upheld by ample evidence. (See: displayed responses October 21, 2004)
In a previous Reply I have stated clearly that the use of human, embryonic stem-cells, even if they were of utility to others, would be unethical to "harvest," since that would involve killing the embryonic human who possesses them. This brief, overly-simplified glimpse into the biology of embryonic stem-cells adds a pragmatic reinforcement to that moral prohibition. Adult stem-cells, on the other hand, can be obtained without injury to the volunteer donor, and could be used ethically for research and healing. E.R reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses October 14, 2002:
Editor's Note: We wish to address students, world-wide, on the subject of legalizing practices which are hurtful to innocent human life and, therefore, morally evil. We will discuss what has already been legalized and that which is projected for the future. Abortion will be our first example. The purpose of our discussion is to alert students to the moral flaws of our society, whose future will soon be in their hands.
Elements of Discussion: Many years of teaching at various academic levels have given me a great respect for students who seek objective standards in their academic pursuits, and who also hold themselves to objective standards of human conduct. Most students with whom I have worked are of that moral fiber. On behalf of students such as these, I do not hesitate to affirm the distinction between good and evil; between right and wrong.
I would go further and affirm their acceptance of good and evil as objective realities and not merely as arbitrarily designated things to be done and things to be avoided, subject to change with social fancy. What is commended here is the unhampered human intelligence and the fully free exercise of choice: the intellect seeking and obtaining its proper object, that which is true, and the human will doing the same towards its proper object, that which is good.
To possess truth is to know things as they are. Being truthful demands objectivity. In contrast, knowledge which is colored by the individual, consciously or unwittingly, to suit his or her situation of the moment, is subjective fantasy and is not truthful. The same with choices and consequent actions; they can be good only insofar as their objects are objectively good.
As a definition of "good," it is sufficient to say that the design of our Creator is the measure of good. Any deliberate act which fits into that design is morally good. Any deliberate act contrary to that design is morally evil.
I suggest here that the object of an intended act may be good, such as giving financial help to a poor family, but that the act itself could be evil, as when the gift is stolen money.
It must be said now that the individual person, through human intelligence, after arriving at the age of reason, is able to distinguish right from wrong, commensurate with the person's age and experience.
Finally, it must be noted that the subjective elements of one's action influence the culpability of failure to measure up to the dictates of intellectual judgment, sometimes called "conscience." Uninvited obstacles to clear thinking and to freedom of choice are examples of such extenuating circumstances.
Looking at abortion objectively, that is, without prejudice, it would be seen as an unreasonable act, and one contrary to the pursuit of the good. Stated simply, it does not make sense for parents to kill their own offspring. Abortion is contrary to the tendency of nature, sometimes called the nurturing instinct. For humans, of course, there is more than instinct; there is a felt sense of obligation, called responsibility. Since abortion is contrary to nature it is, therefore, contrary to the design of nature's Author, constituting a moral evil.
Looking at abortion subjectively, as by abortion providers and, sometimes, by legislators and judges, abortion may appear as a "good," though only as "a necessity" or "a claim to compassion" or as "the lesser of two evils."
With the few elements of discussion mentioned above, I invite student viewers to comment on the legalization of abortion and its effects on the well-being of the nation which protects it by law. For students in the U.S. it would be helpful to review the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, followed by our comments, in Section 9, and the comments of others, in Section 5. Students from other countries may wish to examine the foundation of their laws which approve of abortion. Together we may be able to awaken our common, human society to the unjust, absurd and damaging practice of legalizing abortion. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from May 31, 2005:
Editor’s Note: With the increase of legalized euthanasia around the world, added to the sanctioned killing of the unborn, and in the midst of a growing disregard for the lives and the values of the “less than perfect,” where do we go from here?
Comment: We might start to answer this question by asking “Is the world no longer able to care for itself, except by scaling down its responsibilities toward its people? Do we feel it necessary to adopt the ethics of the overcrowded lifeboat at this time? If so, let us remember that we may throw overboard only the non-essentials, not the passengers. The question, then, becomes more specific: “Is our lifestyle extravagant?” “Have we a faulty system of priorities?” Or is it that we are no longer able to cope with the artificiality of our present culture? Or is it that we are not conscious of the problem? Or is it that we just don’t care?
In all of this there is an interesting analogy with cellular biology. If a cell expands beyond a certain size, it must either divide or die. That is because the cell’s volume increases by the exponential power of 3, whereas the cell’s surface increases by the lesser power of 2. There will come a time when the permeability of the cell membrane will be insufficient to transfer necessary materials into and out of the cell.
It is profitable to suggest that we may have transformed our current society into a “cell” that, sometime soon, might no longer be able to support itself. We could become a “cell” that had lost contact with reality measured by the world outside itself. The “cell” may be in the process of dying and, instinctively, attempting to save itself by dividing. Unfortunately, the basis of the division is individual autonomy. (Do your own thing!) The contemplated division could not save the “cell” because it would not be a beneficial reordering of its contents. Rather, such selfishness would be a shattering of the “cell’s” potential to survive.
The engines tending to motivate the division of our “cell” are the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death. Under the influence of these forces is a beneficial division likely to occur? Or would the condition merely be worsened, now having two worlds in conflict with one another, rather than one world in conflict within itself?
As another possibility, we might save our “cell” by promptly reducing our present volume of such non-essentials as excessive self-interest, to be replaced by interest in the common good. It could also be helpful to replace conflicting artificiality with the orderliness of nature’s original design. In this sense we might ask ourselves the old-fashioned question: “In our technological smartness, have we grown too big for our britches?”
The answer to our question is, perhaps, another question: “Where do we want to go from here?” E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Some questions for E.R.: First of all, allow me to say that I find your website interesting because it attempts to answer the significant questions: When does human life begin? What is a human person? What is legal personhood? What are rights and obligations? These are terms necessary for our government’s discussion of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness,” the core of our nation’s Declaration of Independence.
I hesitate to compare Roe v. Wade and its progeny as a cancerous growth, with progeny developing from the primary abnormality, which is the decision of 1973. So, then, let this be my first question: Are the decisions of the courts, insofar as they are following an erroneous model, namely, Roe v, Wade, aptly characterized as cancerous development? As a biologist, maybe you can answer that one. To advance this analogy further, a person might suspect that the juridical system’s dependence on precedents would be an avenue for the transfer of malignancy, from one decision to another.
Secondly, your website is a kind of inspiration to defeatists like me, because I never thought there would be a chance of reversal or annulment, given the finality of a Supreme Court decision. I must say that the Pro Lifers have distinguished themselves for their perseverance in this matter. In the fall of this year, a review of the partial-birth abortion ban, requested by the U.S. Justice Department has been scheduled. Might this signal an opening of the court’s exclusive judgment, at least on some radically profound subject matter, such as the right to life of the unborn?
My third question: Since the FDA is toying with release of the “morning after pill” for over-the-counter distribution, and various other substances already available, will chemical abortions make Roe v. Wade unnecessary to protect those seeking abortions?
All of the above can point to an ominous direction. You said once in response to a young person ( September 30, 2001) “In growing up you may learn that all of us have faults, along with our good points. Even governments can have faults. In a democracy, such as we are, these faults reflect the imperfections of the people of the nation. Legalized abortion is an example of such a fault in our own country.” Is this not a serious defect, that a government and people supposedly in charge of it, have cooperated in, or have ignored, the destruction of human life?
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson does not only proclaim the “inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.“ He continues, with this firm statement of an obligation of the citizenry to uphold those rights: “….whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right, it is the duty, of the people to alter or abolish it.” Although all of the colonists did not agree on the immediate application of this principle to their case at hand, the Founding Fathers risked their lives and their fortunes to apply it to the founding of a great nation, the United States of America.
I am aware of Abe Lincoln’s saying that you can fool all of the people some of the time but, once again, with reference to the right to life of the unborn, some of the people were not fooled any of the time, namely, those under the Pro Life banner. A person might speculate about the consequences, if Mr. Jefferson were wrong about people, or if Mr. Lincoln’s “some of them who can be fooled all of the time” should be the majority. Where would we go from there?
Reply: Many thanks for your favorable remarks concerning out web site! As to your first question, comparing Roe v. Wade to a cancerous growth on the political body of the U. S. government, I can see some merit in your analogy. A cancerous growth is a development within an organism, but not controlled by the organism. It is a development not in conformity with the natural plan of the organism’s structure or function but, rather, in opposition to its nature. The Supreme Court’s sanction of legalized abortion in 1973 and the consequent development of that malignancy until the present day, are not compatible with the American spirit of “justice and liberty for all.”
The interesting analogy you offer could be extended by noting that it was not the body politic, the American people, who initiated the legalized destruction of our brothers and sisters who are waiting to be born. It was only one organ of the body, the Supreme Court, whose revolt against the time honored institutions of that body, which brought down the healthy process of good government in the United States.
In reply to your second question, I think it quite likely that, sometime soon, any reference to Roe that comes before the Supreme Court will finally demand an examination of Roe v. Wade, and that decision will be found wanting. This October’s examination of the federal law banning partial-birth abortion could demand a review of the 1992’s Casey’s “undue burden” phrase, and other similar gratuitous expressions generated by the Court, beginning with the mysterious invention of “right to privacy.”
In answer to your third question, the chemical abortion is not completely a hidden process, nor one completely divorced from the assistance of pharmaceutical and medical professionals. Nor is the process totally without biological pitfalls, and it is not emotionally palatable for mothers to dispose of the dead bodies of their own offspring. And its end purpose is the same as the surgical abortion, an act of killing. No, there will still be a need for laws opposing abortion, and those laws, for the most part, would be enforceable. After all, it is the primary obligation of a government, to protect the lives of its members. Those laws will teach the people to respect one another’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We would not long be a nation, unless we had laws against killing one another
Your quotation from President Lincoln is thought provoking. What people do when they learn that they have been fooled or, even more so, when they learn that they have fooled themselves, is not always pleasant to witness. There is considerable resentment on the part of many early converts to the Women’s Liberation Movement, now that their childbearing days are over. Currently, a women’s group favoring abortion, is gathering names of women who will have their names published in a magazine under the title of having had an abortion. This strategy could backfire, by reminding a person of Shakespeare’s observation that “the woman doth protest too much.”
More recently, perhaps, the legislatures of South Dakota and Louisiana could be used to exemplify a reaction, however problematic, to having been fooled long enough already. Sometimes it takes the bottom of the barrel to remind us that there is no other way than up. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses November 20, 2003.
Editor’s Note: The U.S. legislature is currently formulating a proposed ban against any and all commercialization of fetal humans and body-parts of fetal humans, including federal patents on procedures pertinent to such manipulations. Some other nations have banned the use of embryonic humans for stem-cell research, and many more have banned attempts at cloning humans. This form of government action indicates a deepening conviction that human life begins at conception (fertilization) and that the human individual, having been conceived, has a right to life and human dignity. It also indicates a serious concern for the preservation of our human society as formulated according to the ancient laws of nature.
Comment: Several troublesome factors have accumulated in our customs and culture, making it necessary to protect the defenseless, by law, against the predators in our society. In our time, explicit laws protecting the unborn humans, from the time of conception, must be added to their counterpart on behalf of humans already born.
One of these factors is the misguided notion that misuse of the few may be undertaken for the well-being of the many. Embryonic stem-cell research is an example of that. The driving force here is the emotional, wishful thinking of persons who are ill or at least sympathetic with others who suffer from popularized illnesses, such as Parkinson’s disease. An objective perception of moral priority is blanketed here by the perceived sufficiency of emotion.
Another factor is the potential for financial gain and public recognition. There is money in biotechnology, fed by the incessant longing for freedom from illness and for longevity. As for fame, being the first to accomplish a “breakthrough” in biological experimentation is a strong motivation, sometimes over-riding the moral sense of the experimenter and investors in his research.
Need to protect our unborn is on a high level of social consciousness, but it does not exist in isolation. Nor can the need be fully satisfied without reconstructing the moral fabric of our total society. Individual responsibility for oneself and accountability to others must be an accepted norm for all who have the use of reason. This would contra-indicate the use of debilitating drugs, dishonesty, etc. and would indicate gainful employment, dependability, etc. For all members of our society who are dependent for their survival on the help of others, such as the unborn, the children, the ill or handicapped, their families should be their first line of support. Whatever reasonable needs remain, the society should assist in their welfare, through charitable groups and government assistance.
At a time in history when abortion is legalized, when family influence is being challenged by incongruous groupings of people striving to be recognized as “married,” and when “tolerance” includes the intolerant, when “Me first!” and “Do your own thing!” are the norms of conduct, it will be difficult to legislate respect for the rights of the unborn. However, the attempt must be made. The candle of human decency must be kept aflame, or there will remain nothing but impenetrable darkness. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from August 8, 2004. In our opinion, the substantial argument is still the same. (With the U.S. Legislature currently in session on the subject of funding stem cell research, we present this biological and ethical information for the guidance of our viewers.)
Editor’s note: Stem cells may be defined as minimally differentiated cells that, in their proper environment, may divide and produce cells that are further differentiated, according to the needs of the organism. The biology and the ethics of stem cell research can be summarized briefly in these few words:
As to the ethics, stem cells taken from mature human tissues (adult stem cells) and those from other sources, such as the discarded umbilical cord, may be used for purposes of healing, since the willing donor is not harmed by giving the gift. Stem cells may not be taken from embryonic human beings, since such taking kills the embryonic human. This includes all embryonic humans, even those “left over” from IVF procedures.
As for the biology, there are many examples of using adult stem cells for improving the condition of disabled organs and tissues of older human beings. Examples are being multiplied in current research. There are no examples of similar success, in adult tissue, through the use of embryonic stem cells.
It should be noted that stem cells, in multi-celled organisms, are natural instruments of development, repair and replacement, all through an organism's lifetime, as well as being the stuff of embryonic development. Cuts and abrasions of the skin are repaired with new cells, stimulated into existence by the presence of the damaged cells. The tissues of the body are continuously being renewed by the replacement of cells, old ones being discarded and new ones taking their place. Some of the new cells arise from simple cell division, the daughter cells being identical to the dividing cell. Others arise from less differentiated cells within the tissues of an organ, stimulated by factors of environment within the involved tissue. These cells, in proportion to the minimal degree of differentiation, could be called stem cells. Red blood cells, in the bone marrow, offer an example. Each one begins its history with a less differentiated cell. Several generations of development take place before the mature cell is released into the circulatory system.
As for embryonic stem cells not being effective in their interaction with mature tissue, a biologist attuned to the conditions prompting cell differentiation could predict this outcome. Aware of the purposiveness of nature, the biologist knows that cells, in multi-celled organisms, respond only to the needs of the entire organism, conveyed to the cells by the contents of their surrounding, lymphatic environment. They divide and differentiate as directed by a design proper to the species of the organism of which they are part. It should be noted that cancer is an exception, cells running beyond the control of the organism and, therefore, abnormal and destructive “growth.” is the nature of their malignancy.
It is reasonable here to suggest that a scientist must begin his research by questioning whether his objective is possible, then whether it is probable, and then whether it is ethically sound. It is the first of these questions that is pertinent here: Can embryonic stem cells interact favorably with mature tissue? Experience is showing that there is something like a “generation gap” problem in expecting embryonic cells, outside of their natural environment, to continue acting and reacting as though they were in their embryonic environment. It might be said here that the embryonic stem cell does not know the language of its, now foreign, environment and is unable to respond to it.
What is sometimes overlooked here is that the organism is not a machine. The internal combustion engine of an early automobile ignites properly oxidized fuel. So does the modern engine. A mechanic would not remove the carburetor from the old engine as a replacement for the fuel injector of the modern one. That is because the part has to be conformed to the design of the whole. The cells of organisms do not respond mechanically. They are guided into action and reaction by the principle of life, named by Aristotle, the “psyche” or soul, which maintains the natural integrity of the living thing. The soul works through material instruments within the organism, such as mentioned above, where the individual cell is “triggered” into action by the contents of its liquid environment.
Bio-engineering has given us many helpful modifications of the human body, noting that workable substitutions are always within the range of the possible. Scientists, however, should be willing to admit that everything desirable is not necessarily possible. Time and money and embryonic human lives are being spent, at the urgency of much “hype” and profit-seekers’ demands, but it still seems that an embryonic environment cannot be duplicated in mature tissue.
Much of the content of this web site deals, in considerable depth, with the over-looked aspects of biological problems currently engaging our scientific community. We invite the viewer to study the material and to use it for the advantage of all, the scientists and the grateful beneficiaries of their dedicated service to our human society. The Table of Contents and the listings of Displayed Responses will be of help to the viewer. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from September 30, 2002:
Editor's Note: The conflict in the U.S. Senate over
the filling of vacancies in the federal judiciary, in our opinion, is
rooted in the Supreme Court's
Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. Divisive from the beginning, that
decision and its key progeny, "Webster,"
"Casey"
and "Nebraska"
have disruptingly invaded the delicate process of justice throughout
our nation. Legalized abortion has become a classical example of "the
tail wagging the dog."
Reply: It seems ironic that justices, in rendering decisions
favorable to abortion, have put their counterparts who would have
succeeded them "out of business." The U.S. presently has fifteen
percent of its federal judiciary vacant. Justice in the land has been
made captive to the vagaries of political idealism.
Roe v. Wade has been characterized by Constitutional experts as bereft
of Constitutional foundation, fabricated as an instrument of social
engineering. The Court, themselves, in 1992, through "Casey," (Gov.
Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania) demonstrated
the weakness of its original decision, by defending Roe v. Wade with
two curious arguments. I phrase them here in my own words, followed
by the words of Supreme Court Reporter. I invite the viewer to
see the contrast between Casey, as presented by the Court
Reporter, and my own insights into "the facts of life" current in the
real world as a consequence of Roe.
1. The women of the country have become accustomed to having abortion
available for maintaining their lifestyles and as insurance against
contraceptive failure. The Court does not feel itself free to
deprive them of it. In this instance the Court is tooling a judicial
principle known as "stare decicis" to suit the case on hand.
Paraphrasing the expression, it means that what had been approved in
the past and is working well in the present should be let stand. In
other words: Don't touch "Roe." I will leave it to our viewers to
decide whether this instrument of law was applied fairly, in light of
the country's deep division on abortion, accompanied by the opposing
evidence of many women suffering from post-abortion syndrome. Add to
this, the immense volume of new, scientific information, since 1992,
concerning the unborn human person.
From Supreme Court Reporter: 10. Abortion and Birth Control -.50
Courts- 90(1) "Reliance on Roe v. Wade rule's limitation on state
power required reaffirmance of Roe's essential holding under doctrine
of stare dicisis; for two decades of economic and social developments,
people organized intimate relationships and made choices that defined
their views of themselves and their places in society in reliance on
availability of abortion in event of contraceptive failure."
From the Supreme Court Reporter: 13. Abortion and Birth Control - .50
Courts - 90(1) "Neither factual underpinnings of Roe v. Wade, nor
Supreme Court's understanding of it, had been changed to such a degree
that would warrant overruling decision; present doctrinal disposition
to reach
different result was insufficient to warrant overruling."
2. If the Court were to reverse themselves on Roe v. Wade, the
country would lose its confidence in its justice system, appearing as
though the Court had made a mistake in judgment. It could be hurtful
to the nation even for the Court to bring "Roe" up for review. Again,
I invite our viewers to measure this position of the Court by the
standards of American openness and courage in loyalty to their
nation. I offer, further, the citizens' traditional trust in their
country, even to the extent of forgiving its faults.
From Supreme Court Reporter: 14. Abortion and Birth Control - .50
Courts - 90(6) "Overcoming Roe v. Wade in response to divisiveness of
abortion issue would address error, if error there was, at cost of
profound and unnecessary damage to Supreme Court's legitimacy, and to
nation's commitment to rule of law; only the most convincing
justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to
demonstrate that overruling would be anything other than surrender to
political pressure and unjustified repudiation of principle." E.R.
reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses February 10, 2001:
Comment: I have heard that IVF (in vitro fertilization) occasions the misuse of embryonic human beings. Sometimes it is the deliberate destruction of "spare" embryos, other times, the discarding of those "less-suited" to the scheme of utility or experimentation. Many die in the process of transplantation. Stem-cell research is also related, in some way, to IVF. It seems to me that there should be some accountability and control over the practice of IVF, because of respect due to human life.
Reply: Guidelines, such as you suggest, are provided by human intelligence, codified in what is called Ethics. Society struggles to apply Ethics to the rapidly advancing "need" to use some individuals for the possible benefit to others. You might keep in mind that the extent to which ethical guidance becomes law depends on the moral temper of the times.
Permit me to expand your mention of stem-cell research: Starting with the fact that each of us was, at one time, a single cell, it is not difficult to see that all our other cells came from that first one. As that cell multiplied itself, and in successive cell divisions, the new cells were increasing different from the original one. Not only were the three basic "germ-layers" developed, but also a more refined differentiation stemming from each layer. The more chronologically primitive the cell, the more capability is has for differentiation.
Researchers would take primitive cells from an embryonic human being, usually conceived through IVF. Then they would attempt to develop those cells, in tissue culture, or in another human being, with the hope that they might multiply differentially to produce cells and tissues of a desired kind, for the benefit of other human beings. The ethical question should be obvious: Is this being fair to the embryonic individual, whose death is a consequence of the procedure?
For those of us who hold that the embryonic human is, indeed, a human being, there is an ethical problem, the obvious fact: Each human being is his or her own person and, never, a mere disposable object to be used for the advantage of another, or even of countless others. In a country which has legalized abortion, it could be difficult to protect, by law, the rights and dignity of any embryonic human being. But it is very much worthwhile trying, even for self-preservation, since the "logic" of Roe v. Wade which claims the lives of the unborn might well be applied to the other end of our earthly journey, or anyplace in-between.
You might be encouraged by knowing there is considerable evidence that suitable stem-cells are found also in adults, in the blood-producing tissue of bone marrow, and can be shared, with the consent of the individual, and without endangering his or her life. You might remember, though, that cell-differentiation occurring naturally, that is, in an organism, is not easily duplicated in the laboratory, because of its exquisite complexity. Nature, in its purpose, is not easily "fooled" by artful imitation on the part of mere technicians. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from August 19, 2002:
Editor's note: In our Response of Aug. 10th, we say that the Supreme Court went beyond its jurisdiction when they legally denied fathers the exercise of their natural right to defend their unborn babies. We would like to expand on that by asking ourselves a question: Do you think that the Supreme Court would accept our claim that nature has its own laws and that they are outside of even the Supreme Court's reach to modify or deny?
Reply: I can only guess whether the "Roe" Court would have given thought to the claims of nature, as being superior to their own. I fear that if the father's rights had come up for consideration, it would have been quickly settled by stating that the father of an unborn baby is, after all, "not a father in the full sense." And that would be the end of that, except nobody would ever know what they meant by that expression. It would be as fully mysterious as their claim that the unborn baby is "not a person in the full sense" and, consequently, may be killed by his or her mother.
Perhaps the present Court, or some future Court, would consider the question of nature's claim vs. man's claim, though it is not the kind of problem usually entertained by modern courts of law. "Laws of nature" evidently are not codified and registered in law libraries. However, they ought to be on the front shelves of every human being's intelligence, in a degree compatible with his or her developmental age.
In the following discussion I wish to limit my remarks to the case of married persons, husband and wife and their unborn baby. Other cases for which the Court has provided legalized abortion are to be excluded from this present writing.
The matter under question could be put quite simply: Does any court of human beings have jurisdiction over laws which are not of human making? In this instance, by the nature of marriage and family life, husband and wife have equal responsibility to protect the life of their unborn baby, since they are equally responsible for their baby's existence. Corresponding to the equality of their obligation, each parent has equal right to whatever is reasonably required for fulfilling his or her obligation pertaining to the welfare of their unborn baby.
In light of this long-standing understanding of nature, the "Roe" Court should be gravely faulted for saying to the wife: "You may kill your unborn baby." and to the husband: "You may not prevent your wife from killing your baby." For the Court to have ignored the partnership participation in marriage, they would have to be faulted either for an incomplete study of the question or for an inadequate sense of human values.
Is it possible that the Court may have looked upon the mother's role in childbearing as being greatly more burdensome than the role of the father, and then translated the comparison into the mother's right to rid herself of the "burden" as superior to the father's right to save their baby's life?
No one would deny that the "biological burden" of
parenthood is more physically demanding, on a
24-hour basis, for the mother than for the father. Over-all equality
of "burden," however, can be demonstrated by the father's daily job in
the workplace, supporting his pregnant wife and their baby, along with
other family responsibilities. Different jobs, but equal
contributions to the welfare of the unborn baby and the family! Why,
then, the unequal favoritism, in this case, the wife's total control
over the life and death of their unborn baby?
As for the hypothetical position questioning the full fatherhood of the unborn baby's father, let me suggest a simple fact of biology: It is the husband's contributing of a reproductive cell (sperm) actually fusing with the wife's reproductive cell (ovum) producing the zygote (single-celled stage of their offspring) that establishes the husband's fatherhood and the wife's motherhood. And this is fatherhood in the "full sense" of biology's careful presentation of reproduction as the workings of nature.
The wider working of nature in human beings, its psychological and moral aspects with respect to marriage and family, demands the equal dignity and rights of husband and wife. And it demands a nurturing environment for their offspring, not only during pregnancy, but during the entire process of maturing into adulthood.
It is interesting to note that, as I write this, a news service, called "Infonet," reports that a husband in China, starting on Sept. 1st, of this year (2002), will have a legal right equal to that of his wife, to decide the birth or non-birth of their unborn baby. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the alleged basis of this new law is what we have described above, the nature of marriage and family. Granting legal equality to husband and wife (in conformity with the dictates of nature) may be a step in the right direction. However, we must totally disagree with the "legal freedom" of husband and wife, both consenting, to kill their unborn baby. That is directly opposed to the purposive function of nature. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: Our previous posting suggests that legalized abortion is in opposition to nature and, as a consequence, is hurtful to those who subject themselves to it. We indicated a related incidence of breast cancer as a physical consequence, and post-abortion syndrome as a common psychological aftermath. Today’s posting considers the value of compliance with “the laws of nature,” and “Natural Law.” The former governs physical reality and the latter governs human behavior.
Comment: Without needing to discuss the origin and development of “the world of nature” as we know it today, most observers would agree that it is a system in agreement with itself and that it is purpose-driven in all its functions. Significantly, it should be added that its purposes, unless impeded, always attain their objectives. And, if impeded, the foiled purposes will be accompanied by unwelcome circumstances, called natural sanctions, penalties for violating “the laws of nature ” and “Natural Law.”
On a large scale of social consequences, legalized abortion has upset, worldwide, a natural system of economics. With many countries having aborted one-third of their pregnancies, there are no longer enough young people to support the elderly. The elderly, in turn, instead of being treasured to function as wise advisors of the youth, are offered legalized assistance to remove themselves from the society by suicide. Society cannot survive such an arrangement. It just isn’t natural.
There is another economic error in depriving the society of the aborted one-third of its membership: revenue, equal to the cost of goods and services not purchased for them, is missing from the current economy.
Legalized abortion has become a device for gender selection and endangers the natural balance of approximately equal numbers of baby girls and baby boys. As a result, society suffers the lack of an essential resource for the building of new families and, therefore, introduces a progressive decline of the society. A more subtle, because psychological, harm is hidden in gender selection and consequent aborting of the undesired child: Human dignity is lessened by using children as “things,” instead of recognizing them as our brothers and sisters in the human race. Selfishness is replacing the natural tendency of human individuals to support the common good.
To see legalized abortion as the destroyer of nations might seem far-fetched, but the declining population of many countries throughout the world is, at least partially, due to legalized abortion. And even if those countries are eventually replenished by immigration, they will have been replaced by a different culture and, therefore, will have lost their original identity as a nation. It should go, without saying, that the nation is a natural unit, just as is the family, of our human society. “Nation” and “nature” and “natural” are taken from the past participle of the same Latin verb “natus sum.” (to be born.)
It would be fair to say that legalized abortion deprives our society of talents and beneficial ingenuity, by eliminating the possessors of these social goods before what nature intended, their birth. Often abortion is presented in quite a different light, the cleansing of society from possible undesirable, unwanted and inconvenient members.
I suggest that the natural function of the human reproductive system, the introduction of new members into our human society, is more conducive to the common good than if it were impeded by self-centered judgment of the individual.
Legalized abortion has become an institution contradictory to the natures of two essential, social professions, namely, the legal and the medical. Courts, exemplified by Roe v. Wade, have taken to themselves the prerogative of redefining truth and justice, both of which pertain to our nature as human beings, and which we, intuitively, accept as objective, unchangeable realities. The medical profession, which is nature’s assistant for healing, have been invited, through legalized abortion, to wield their scalpels and their poisons against the most defenseless and most innocent members of our human society. Contrary to the nature of their profession, some doctors have accepted the invitation.
Further food for thought may be found in the history of other dehumanizing procedures following in the wake of Roe v. Wade, other deliberate attacks upon the human rights and dignity of the unborn child. Among these could be listed attempts at human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. In a less sophisticated area of human activity, the incidence of child abuse (of the already born child) should be included as a consequence of legalized abortion, which has been rightly called “the ultimate in child abuse.”
And what should be said of our place in history: “Legalized abortion turned one segment of human society against another, parent against unborn child, both victims of a degenerated sense of values.” It will be interesting to see where discerning historians will place the blame. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: In a recent posting, you said that abortion is not natural. Do you get that from the ratio of those who abort and those who don’t?
Reply: Nature, as a measure of reality, goes deeper than the mathematical analysis of what people do. Nature is an expression of what people are. In this sense, abortion contradicts the definition of the human being. It is in the nature of parents, even among the lesser animals and, especially among humans, to nurture their offspring. Abortion is in direct opposition to this dictate of nature, regardless of how many abort, or don’t abort, their offspring at any moment in human history.
To touch the extensive significance of nature, consider nature as the measure of reality. The term “measure” is used here as the identity or meaning or definition of a thing, the true knowledge of what the thing is. (To possess true knowledge, is to know things as they are.)
It is within our everyday experience to affirm that some material things are natural and some material things are artificial. A natural, material thing is always an integrated whole, both in structure and function, such as an organism, an atom and a molecule. A natural thing is characterized by its one-ness of being. An artificial material thing is an aggregate of natural things each of which has its own being and its own nature. An electric motor, for example, has an iron frame, copper wire, and some have carbon brushes.
Natural things are so called because they have natures. The nature of the thing is the source of its integrity and of its being a unique kind of thing. We speak of the nature of gold, or the nature of an amoeba. And we speak of human nature. The word “nature” comes to us from the Latin natus sum, the past participle of the verb “to be born.” The concept expressed by the word “nature” connotes the completeness of the thing, in its having a specific purpose and capability of attaining that purpose. When the term “nature” was coined, it was attributed only to living things, called “organisms” to emphasize their integrated completeness. Later, certain non-living things, the elements and compounds, were seen to be “things of nature,” as distinguished from artificial things.
A “completely packaged” thing, such as an organism, is said to have a nature, the source of its organization and the cause of its being the kind of thing that it is. Human beings are individual persons, but all have the same nature, namely, human nature.
It is necessary here to note that nature is not limited to material things, as generally implied in the expression “world of nature.” It is natural for a human being to think and, therefore, thoughts are realities and are natural. Nature, itself, is a reality, a source of unique being and of acting, as we see in our human nature.
This raises the problem of tracing the source of the natures which “things of nature,” or natural things, possess. Here we must not be content to say that their natures have been passed on to them by their progenitors. A clue to this quest is found in the integration of all things having natures, namely, “the world of nature.” The fitness of any part into “the world of nature” leads us to a completeness of the whole. Nature, then, is an over-all, organizing principle not only of individual things, but also of all reality resident within “the world of nature.” It is interesting that nature has been personified under the title “Mother Nature.”
The word “reality” is taken from the Latin: res, realis, which means “a thing.” Reality encompasses any individual thing and it encompasses all things. The essential connotations of reality are specificity and existence. Reality is sometimes extended to mean “things as they are.” A companion term “realism,” is used in Philosophy to say that universals have objectivity, as opposed to nominalism, and that material objects exist in themselves, as opposed to idealism. “Reality” is also used to express actualized potentialities, to distinguish between the existence of something and the mere capability of existing, such as the redness of a green apple before it ripens and becomes red.
One of Webster’s definitions of reality: is: “fidelity to nature.” This may correspond to the title of our discussion: Abortion, in light of Nature as the Measure of Reality. The word “measure” is used here as the identity or meaning or definition of a thing, the true knowledge of what the thing is. (To possess true knowledge is to know things as they are.)
Questions: Are thoughts always faithful to nature? Could an expressed thought be judged true or false by its conformity or lack of conformity to nature?
Question: Actions could conform to nature, or could lack that conformity. What is the practical advantage in using nature as a criterion, or measure, of truth and error, of good and evil?
Questions: Is nature the measure of reality? In the physical sciences, is there any criterion beyond nature? (Laws of Nature) In the part of Philosophy called Ethics, is there any criterion of human behavior beyond nature? (Natural Law)
Proposal: Just as the architect’s blueprint is the measure of the completed structure, so is nature the measure of reality. If reality were limited to things having natures, and if those natures are a participation in “the world of nature,” the question should be answered in the affirmative. If artificial things are included in reality, as they should be, nature would still have a role in their measurement, for three reasons: they are composed of natural things; they interact with natural things; they are brought into existence by natural agencies.
In testing this proposal, consider this question: Would ground glass and nitric acid be a suitable substitute for breakfast cereal and orange juice? The negative answer would be upheld by noting the incompatibility between the proposed diet and the ingesting organism. What necessitates this negative answer? Is it not the nature of things!
It should be noted that artificial things are not always “man-made,” but also occur in the normal workings of nature. A geode could serve as an example, a composite of stone, an amorphous substance, and of something else, a crystalline substance. It might be asked why these substances interacted without becoming one substance, as sodium and chlorine would have become under the same circumstances.
It might be concluded that some things act and react in predictable manners, because of their natures. This conclusion is an axiom of the physical sciences, not only of Biology and Chemistry, but also of Physics. In the first two sciences, the qualitative characteristics of things pertain to nature, with respect to their unique manner of being. In the latter, qualitative characteristics pertain also, but in different way, namely in their action, rather than in their being. (Qualities, in Physics, may be expressed in quantitative terms, as when a piece of iron is more or less magnetized, still retaining its nature as iron.) The kinetic theory underlying physical qualities, such as temperature, pressure and volume, could relate equally to vaporized substances having different natures, if allowance were made for incidental factors, such as the presence or absence of electrical charges on the vapor particles.
Question: What would be the hurtful consequences of neglecting nature in our attempt to understand reality and to manipulate the things of nature?
Question: What would be the consequences of denying nature, in terms of technology and social order?
Question: What are some of the possible consequences of discarding the natural and embracing man-made substitutes in technology and in the social order?
Proposal: There are some persons who assert that nature and the “things of nature” as we know them today, are the mid-product of an ever-changing reality. Other persons hold that nature is the changeless design imposed upon reality by an Intelligent Creator, to safeguard its beneficial operation. Some persons strive to reconcile both of these positions, to show reality as a harmonious system, where there is room for change, man-made or natural, within the system, so long as the changes are not contradictory to the system.
With the above guidelines in place, it should not be too difficult to understand that legalized abortion is contrary to nature and that hurtful consequences will follow in its path. In the physical order of reality, there is evidence showing an incidence of breast cancer accompanying abortion. In the area of the psychological, “post-abortion syndrome,” the problems of guilt and remorse, are frequently encountered as a result of abortion. These, and similar consequences, might well be the voice of nature asking for the discontinuation of legalized abortion. Are we wise enough to heed the warning! E.R
____________________
"The beginning of a human life is, from a biological point of view, a simple and straightforward matter - the beginning is conception." Dr Landrum Shettles, discoverer of male and female producing sperm
Reprinted from displayed responses December 26, 1999:
Comment: When I was a student of Biology, fertilization was defined as the uniting of sperm and ovum. Fertilization was clearly defined as the beginning of the new organism, whether of plant or animal, including placental mammals, such as we are. Recently I find, in defense of certain pharmaceuticals, the claim that humans don't begin to exist until the fertilized ovum is implanted in the lining of the uterus. It looks as though Biology is being distorted to serve the commercial interests.
Reply: This would not be the first time when truth has been trampled on. (See our Theme Verse.) In our recent history, the Nazi experiment would furnish instances, not only of propaganda, but deceitful practice. History itself, upon occasion, has suffered modification to fit the convenience of the government. In our own day, we see attempts to manipulate the truth in the discussion of "Evolution vs. Creationism," by putting them in opposition to one another, rather than entertaining the possibility that, properly understood as coming from different sources of truth, they might actually supplement one another.
Though your concern specifies commercial interests, I would guess that you perceive a deeper level of deception in the motivation of those who promote and defend the use of those "birth-control" substances which, by preventing implantation, cause the death of the developing human person.
It might be helpful here to note that it is the developing offspring who does the implanting, providing that he or she already exists, prior to implantation. It is an axiom in Obstetrics that the entire pregnancy, once begun at conception, is under the control of the "conceptus," that is, the one who had been conceived. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses January 22, 2002:
Questions: The Court overstepped its jurisdiction with Roe v. Wade. No, I do not have a Law degree, nor a license to practice. But I do have some questions:
Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over the life and death of innocent human beings? Does any human being or group of humans have dominion over the lives of other human beings? Properly constituted governments can, with sufficient cause, demand the death of a criminal. This court did not make that claim against the unborn, as though they would ever be deserving of capital punishment. But the Court approved of their deaths, one and all, by mandating non-interference with their killing. I do not understand this.
And did not the Court, as a function of government, fail the primary purpose of government, which is to protect the lives of its people? The Court has made itself a willing accomplice to the deaths of all the human beings deliberately killed as a result of their decision.
Reply: Your questions, thoughtfully considered, contain their own answers. However, I invite persons with legal proficiency to comment on them for your need and for the interest of all our viewers.
On this 29th Anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision, I would like to reflect on one of the points you are making. It should not be a surprise to anyone that human beings have been killed, and are being killed, because of the Court's decision. Apart from anyone's position on the beginning of human personhood, there can doubt that each one of was a person at some time before birth. The Court's decision, in practice, prevails until the moment of natural birth. Would you not agree, then, that some human beings have been, and are being, killed by abortion?
As for whether these abortions would have occurred had the Court not made its decision, I merely refer you to the statistics accounting the yearly number of abortions in this country before and after 1973. Or look at your phone book, before and after 1973, to compare the numbers of advertisements selling abortions. Even without statistics, it would not be unreasonable to assume that, because abortion became legal, its numbers increased. From being prosecuted by law to being protected by law is a big transition, big enough to falsify the nature of abortion, even to the extent of making it acceptable as part of the culture.
It would be interesting to enquire whether the Court were aware that they were authorizing the killing of their fellow human beings. If so, to echo your question, did the Court pretend to have dominion over the lives of the unborn, so that those lives could be bartered to satisfy the demands of their parents? If not, shouldn't the Court be held accountable for their ignorance of something so fundamental to their decision?
The Assistant Attorney General of Texas had argued that "life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy." In the context of the verbal exchange with the Court, the Texan was speaking of human life, not merely of life in general. The Court responded with: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
The Court went on to say: "In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake."
The Court, as seen above, professed doubt concerning the beginning of human life. Then they proceeded to authorize the killing of the unborn, even though some or all of them, by the Court's own judgment, might be human beings. Is this good Ethics? Further, after denying the right of Texas to define the beginning of human life, as being "only one theory of life," the Court proceeded to "legislate" their own "definition." Is this good Logic? Justice White, in his dissent, spoke of the decision as "an exercise of raw judicial power."
I must agree with you here; there is no rational justification for the unethical behavior of the Court. After 29 years of having imposed injustice upon millions of individuals and upon a nation mutilated by those many deaths, Roe must go! These very words: "Roe must go!" were spoken by Justice Scalia in his dissent against the "Nebraska" decision of two years ago.
On this 29th Anniversary we have reason to hope that Roe v. Wade will go. The decision, flawed from the beginning, displayed its tattered fabric in the "Casey" decision of ten years ago, when the Court arrogantly attempted to protect its shaky foundation. Unwilling to examine the decision on its own merits, the Court took refuge in stating their inability to reverse the decision lest the country would lose confidence in its justice system, and that a reversal would be unfair to women who had become accustomed to having abortion as a necessary element of their lifestyle.
Further revelation of Roe's lack of authenticity came in the Court's decision, "Nebraska," when the "undue burden" clause proclaimed by "Casey" removed the ban against partial-birth abortion.
You may wish to read Roe v. Wade , verbatim, and/or our further comments on it, in Section 9. E.R reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses October 21, 2002:
Editor's Note: It is encouraging to note that most people who have thought about it, agree with our position, as presented in our last week's posting: IT IS UNREASONABLE FOR PARENTS TO KILL THEIR UNBORN OFFSPRING, SINCE ABORTION IS CONTRARY TO NATURE'S DESIGN FOR REPRODUCTION. Some persons, however, object to our position by claiming that certain circumstances present a reasonable choice of over-riding the nurturing inclination of nature, by abortion. We invite the viewers to examine this objection with us:
Comment: The objection presupposes that there are "goods" greater in value than the life of the unborn offspring. This supposition can take two forms, by under-valuing the life of the offspring, or by over-valuing the apparent "good." Both of these approaches are faulty, because they attribute only a relative value to the offspring's life. The human being has an absolute value, as indicated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal and have an inalienable right to life.
As for under-valuing the offspring, it should not be necessary to examine the claim of those who do not admit to the humanity of the offspring. Frozen embryos are protected by law, not only because they represent someone's "property," but because, when implanted, they continue to mature as do all other human beings and, so, should not have their humanity questioned. How much, more so, should embryos brought about by normal conception be recognized as human beings.
As for over-valuing the "goods" that are offered as justification for abortion, it should be noted that those "goods" usually "benefit" one, or both, of the parents, at the cost of the unborn offspring's life. In no instance can such "benefits" be equated with the right to life which is inherent in the human offspring. Even the mother's right to life does not exceed that of her offspring's. If anyone is confused on this point, I would suggest an examination of the phrase: "except to save the life of the mother." This exception is found in the laws of the individual states of the U.S. which were in force prior to 1973.
It should be observed carefully that this exception does not say that the offspring may be killed in order to save the mother's life. No innocent human being may be killed, even to save many lives. The exception covers difficult situations in which saving the mother's life will be the occasion of her offspring's death, as when a ruptured Fallopian tube containing an ectopic pregnancy must be removed from her body. There is no direct attack on the innocent life, even though the death can be foreseen. The surgical procedure is initiated as the only means of saving her life. At the moment of initiation, her offspring's life had not been in the process of being lost. The mother needed immediate help; her offspring did not. SEE the ethical principle "double-effect."
With these added elements of discussion in place, I invite students to continue thinking about legalized abortion as an example of a civil law in opposition to Ethics, which is sometimes called the science of reasonable behavior." I ask the students to keep in mind that this discussion is not merely academic; it pertains to the way things are. It is my feeling that the young people of the world deserve something better than the injustice and falsehood found at work in the society which they are about to inherit. I also feel that there will be no major ethical improvement in their generation, unless they, the students, are willing to bring it about. Fortunately there is a trend in that direction and, in that, there is hope. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
4-20-06 Despite a world wide history of total failure to clone humans, some American scientists have recently announced their intention to pursue that elusive goal. We present here our position, that human cloning is not likely, ever, to be accomplished.
Reprinted from displayed responses May 18, 2002:
Question 1. You have been advocating the use of adult stem-cells and proscribing the use of embryonic stem-cells. Is this a moral concern for you or a a biological concern?
Reply: It is both ethical and biological. Ethics prohibits the killing of a human being, even if it were for the advantage of many other human beings. As for the biological concern, you might have noticed that the success rate for using adult stem-cells is steadily increasing. With embryonic stem-cells, the success rate is still zero. As a biologist, I suggest that these results follow a simple rule of cell-differentiation: In multi-cellular organisms, cells differentiate when needed for the benefit of the organism, indicated to them by changes in their immediate environment. Put simply, embryonic stem-cells perform within the environment of a developing embryo, but not in an environment of adult tissue. Adult stem-cells, on the other hand, do interact with neighboring cells in suitably prepared adult tissue.
Question 2. There is a world-wide anxiety about human cloning. Some countries have prohibited it altogether. Some have agreed to cloning for experimentation and for the harvesting of stem-cells. So far, none has permitted reproductive cloning. In the U.S. legislature, the House has voted to outlaw all human cloning and our Senate is currently debating whether to do likewise. In the midst of all this concern is "unbornperson.org" still holding to its ORIGINAL CLAIM that human cloning is never likely to be accomplished?
Reply: Yes, that is our position. It might help you to see that our claim is not without credibility when you notice that, despite all the talk and political maneuvering, there is no adequate proof that human cloning has yet occurred.
Our position demands the recognition of a radical difference between the lesser animals, already cloned, and the human being. Cloners are able to manipulate the material components of the animal body, but it takes more than that to produce a human being. The human has a non-material dimension, arising from his or her principle of life, called by Aristotle "psyche" or soul. The human soul must come from outside the material contribution of the generators of the human being. And this is true whether those generators are natural parents, or body parts used by the cloners. See Section 3 E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses June 29, 2002:
Question: I have never seen anyone prove that the unborn is not a human being. How did the Supreme Court manage to do it?
Reply: The Supreme Court didn't do it either! Along with its many other defects, the Roe v. Wade decision rests, not on a foundation of fact, but on the absence of a factual foundation.
The Court clearly said that if the unborn were proved to be human persons, the Court would have no case on which to proceed. On the other hand, the Court decided against the unborn with no evidence that the unborn are not human persons. In so serious a matter as life and death, it is inequitable to demand proof from one litigant and not from the other. The Court challenged the unborn to prove their human personhood, but did not hold themselves to proving that the unborn are not human persons.
Prior to the moral collapse which made Roe v. Wade possible, the citizens of the United States, in their laws and customs, had held the unborn to be human persons. The Court's declaration of "not a person in the full sense," which in practice means "non-person" and which is a death sentence for the unborn, should have required proof from the Court. No adequate effort was made by the Court to prove that the unborn are not human beings and, therefore, not human persons.
Looking more deeply into the puzzle of the Court's decision, it can be seen that those defending the unborn (the state of Texas) and those deliberating the case (the Court) do not have a common subject of discourse. Texas talks about real, live human beings; the Court talks about legal persons. Yet, under the disguise of ruling against legal personhood of the unborn, the Court opened the way to killing the real, live human beings who are no different from ourselves, except that they are waiting to be born.
During this week France's highest court echoed the Roe v. Wade puzzle into the law of its land. The manner in which the story is presented on the Internet will help us to understand Roe a little better.
An Internet news service quotes Reuters, June 25, Paris: "France's highest court ruled on Tuesday an unborn foetus does not have the legal status of a living person, overturning a bid by a woman to sue doctors for the death of her child during labour. The decision by the Cour de Cassation means it is impossible to be found guilty of homicide for killing an unborn foetus. Lawyers of the woman, Sophie Potonet, said their only hope was for Parliament to change French law......"
The caption used by the Internet reporter of the Reuters' news story is worthy of study: "Top French court rules foetus not living person." As with Roe, the French court is not saying that the fetus is not a living human being, which in the common estimation of society is to say, a human person. But the court is unjustly establishing a limit to the moral and social prerogatives of the unborn person in reference to those persons already born.
For a glimpse into the legitimate, legal distinctions between the unborn person and ourselves, you may refer to Section 4.
You may examine Roe v. Wade, verbatim, to assure yourself of the Court's failure to have proved that the unborn, from conception, are not human beings. And, as you fault the Court for its many millions of dead, you might want to invite all who blindly follow that Court's decision to view their own complicity in those killings. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from June 13, 2001:
Question: I think abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent. Now I have heard the argument that "innocent" implies a person is a moral agent. And thus immediately after fertilization, can that person be a moral agent? If not, then the innocent cannot be a person. How can we counter this argument?
Reply: You have presented a helpful question, since it demands a definition of terms necessary for understanding what it is to be human.
In your first statement, your thinking is correct. ("Innocent" is taken from the Latin verb, "nocere" united with the Latin privative "in" to give us, literally, "not to harm" or, in better English, "not having harmed." Certainly the unborn child has not intentionally harmed anyone. Capital punishment might sometimes be justified, in the case of a fairly convicted criminal, but not in the case of an innocent person.
From this, you can see that "innocent" does imply a moral agent, as indicated in your second statement. Harming or not harming are moral realities and can be applied only to beings having a nature to which belongs intelligence and freedom of choice, namely, human nature.
The answer to your question is yes. Immediately at conception, a being comes into existence possessing a nature to which belongs intelligence and freedom of choice. This being has that nature from its human parents, given by genetic inheritance. It is in this manner that the "species-status" is established for all organisms brought into existence by sexual reproduction
Your final statement now becomes unnecessary. However, it leads us to a very important consideration which underlies your original concern. Permit me to state it clearly: It is not required that a being is actually thinking or making choices, in order to be a human being. All that is required is that he or she have a human nature. In virtue of that human nature, he or she has the innate capabilities to perform such functions, given suitable time and other circumstances.
It might help you to recall that any healthy human, under the upper age-limit for reproduction, can become a parent of human offspring. You will see that this statement is true, even if applied to three-year-olds, or to the human being at conception. Because he or she has human nature, he or she has the capability of parenting human offspring. The actual parenting would not be expected before physical (and, I hope, emotional and moral) maturity had been attained.
In your conversation with anyone having difficulty in granting the newly-conceived of human parentage the status of a moral agent, may I suggest that you refer such a one to Sections 2 and 4 of this website. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses November 12, 2002:
Editor's Note: It is encouraging to see that the international community is beginning to make a stand on respect for human life, with emphasis on the unborn of our community. Attempts at cloning humans is being vigorously debated and strong opposition has developed against it. The banning of destructive fetal experimentation is also a priority of many nations. It is hoped that these conscientious measures will prevent our culture of life from slipping into the culture of death.
We've muddied the waters; we've soiled the skies.
What else to destroy before the planet dies?
We've tattered the fringes; now for the heart!
We'll kill off the people; we've made the start.
We've sold our future to sustain abortion;
Cannibalized our unborn beyond distortion.
We'll replace the blueprint with one of our own!
Then await the harvest of the seeds we have sown.
Comment: Cultural revolutions, during the time of their development, go through cycles of emphasis, a basic direction, but zig-zagging on their lengthy way to their goal. Our pro-life movement, stimulated by moral persuasion, began with political action, aided by education, and with aid for those with distressful pregnancies. Declining success with political action gave way to public witness, culminating in Operation Rescue. The point of emphasis, up to this time, had been the life of the child waiting to be born.
With the absence of notable success in saving unborn babies, the child, inadvertently, seemed to have become secondary to a growing concern for the abortion-minded mother of the child. At this point, our pro-life effort, mistakenly, appeared to blend in with that of the pro-choice propaganda, the woman as victim, sorrowfully and thoughtfully, making her difficult choice. The reality, of course is that our pro-life intention was to save both the child and the mother, not to emphasize the mother at the cost of the child. The erroneous perception might have a comfort to the abortion-minded community but it was, by no means, a concession to their strategy.
And, so, points of emphasis mark the history of a social movement. Perhaps the zig-zagging is necessary, not only so that experience may be of profit to the movement, but that the stimulus of novelty might keep the movement going. Frustration and fatigue have a way of entering into any prolonged human effort. Points of emphasis eventually blend together and work simultaneously, since they are not in conflict with one another. Yet, at any moment, they color the movement in the eyes of the casual observer.
The above observation leads us to the probability that it is time for our pro-life movement to re-emphasize the child's dignity and worth, continuing quietly all the other good practices of our resourceful history.
A perspective: The bedrock of our pro-life position is the firm conviction that each human individual begins his or her personal life at conception and, therefore, has an inalienable right to life thereafter.
There are some citizens of the United States who, having a Supreme Court's decision to reinforce their position, disagree with our pro-life grasp of reality. How can we best persuade them to consider and, eventually, to embrace our brothers and sisters who are waiting to be born?
At the level of public opinion, in a time when mental and moral disciplines are in decline, it is our opinion that the best teaching is by way of lived-example. "Actions speak louder than words!" How, then, shall we teach respect for human beings living in the womb? We suggest celebrating the lives of our brothers and sisters currently in the wombs of their mothers, just as we do for all other members of our human community.
We propose that social consciousness needs to be raised to a higher level of awareness concerning that part of our community of human persons who are waiting to be born. At the present time, only the parents and their other children know, and rejoice, that a new member of the human community has come into existence. The family maintains this consciousness by mutual support and by joyfully anticipating the birth of their new family member.
It is suggested here that the whole world should know and rejoice at the conception of every human being and, enthusiastically, assist the new member of our society, and his or her parents, should there be need. That is because all of us are a family, in the plan of our Creator. We all feel the truth of the expression: "It takes the entire village to raise a child." But we know that, in practice, the scope of this beautiful saying encompasses only the child already born. Why not also the child waiting to be born!
The gist of this proposal is that respect for human life before birth could be taught to our society by celebrating that life on a daily and neighborly basis. We feel that when such appreciation will be in place, legalized abortion would be ended.
To implement the proposal, we suggest that the first "reaching out" beyond the immediate family could be contact with the family's church community. They could be invited to participate in the inter-uterine life of the newcomer to their community. The parents who would wish to be involved in this program would announce the conception, and whenever there is a special need, briefly report on the gestational progress of their child. The faith-community would respond with prayers of petition and thanksgiving for the welfare of the child and family, and with praise to our Creator who lovingly shares his power of creation with us, through parenthood.
It is reasonable to assume that practicing this proposal in the churches would help others in our society also to become aware of the unborn members of our community and of their rightful place of dignity among the rest of us. As a society, we could learn to practice respect for every unborn member of our community, our own and our neighbor's and, eventually, all who are waiting to enrich our society by their birth. The dumpster would no longer be needed as a "solution" to the individual's "problem," which had now become also the shared-responsibility and privilege of the community.
For those of our society who may not be persuaded by faith and religious practice, we propose a process of reasoning, leading toward awareness and acceptance of Natural Law. Natural Law is the promulgation of our Creator's will, through human intelligence, sometimes called commonsense. On behalf of the unborn, we invite all, believers and non-believers, to look over this web site into the reality of the human being's personhood, from the time of conception, and the consequent ethical obligation of respecting his or her right to life.
Perhaps it would be helpful here to recall the ancient Chinese custom of giving the child, at birth, the age of one year. We see here that the truth concerning the unborn members of our human society had prevailed in the past. It might well prevail again! We should be eager to lay the groundwork for that cultural revolution in our own time. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: In many of the polls concerning abortion, there is evidence favoring some limitations on legalized abortion, more so in recent years. However, many of those polls show an unwillingness to forgo the legal option completely.
Comment: It would be interesting to know the reasoning of those who would like to limit access to abortion, yet wish to keep legalized abortion “on the books.” It would be unfair for me to suppose that most of those favoring retention of legalized abortion are thinking of themselves, or of someone they know, who might want to abort a pregnancy sometime in the future. But I think it is fair to assume that most who call for retention feel that there is a need, even an obligation, to keep legalized abortion available, for everyone. I would like to examine this assumption.
In modern obstetrical practice abortion is not indicated as a means of furthering maternal health. Indirect loss of a baby’s life, as in the process of saving the mother’s life from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy, is not an abortion. See: Principle of Double Effect.
Whatever other reasons may be offered for keeping legalized abortion as a last-ditch “safety net,” I would ask that those reasons be balanced against the baby’s right to life. It is well known that many polls and many discussions on legalized abortion concentrate on the plight of the mother, with no consideration for the prime victim of abortion, her unborn child.
In the early years of Roe v. Wade, the child was neglected, as being “not a person in the full sense,” as dictated by that decision. The child was further diminished in the sometimes irresponsible clamor for “women’s rights.” Today, in light of 3-D sonography, no one lightly denies the humanity of the unborn child. Yet, strangely, the focus of attention of those who would retain Roe has not shifted. If the unborn child were allowed to enter the spotlight, it is quite likely that no one would tolerate, much less desire, the retention of Roe, the lethal instrument of his or her destruction.
Roe v. Wade has blurred the line between legality and morality in the minds of many persons. This fact must be clarified, that no amount of law can cancel a human right, the most fundamental of which is the right to life. As long as Roe is “on the books,” confusion and misunderstanding and social upheaval will prevail. No one should want such a cancer to continue feasting upon the delicate structures of our national identity.
Although it may be considered rash for me to say it so bluntly, I wonder whether Roe must remain “on the books” as a fading symbol of the now declining movement which put it there, in 1973. In recent years, the women of our nation have excelled in many areas of freedom, apart from Roe. It is time now for every mother-in-waiting, and the father of her child, to reject the deceptive freedoms of Roe and be encouraged to share authentic freedom with their baby waiting to be born! E.R.
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses July 3, 2003:
Comment: In your last posting, E.R. speaks about common-decency and how the acceptance of partial-birth abortion would infringe on the dignity of a society, as unfitting to the human culture. I agree with that thinking. It is not only that we are human; it is that we know that we are human and have to live up to what we are. I would place legalized abortion in the same class as legalized homosexual behavior, if that ever comes about. Abortion doesn’t fit into the pattern of what has always been known by the majority of people as responsible, human conduct. It is a contradiction of reality and, because of that, pertains to the realm of artificiality and falsehood.
Reply: There is a long-standing tradition of people “setting the standard” of acceptable behavior for membership within the society of human beings. Sometimes the code of conduct has been written into law, but there is a deeper standard in the gut-feeling of each person about what it is to be human, and to be different from the lesser animals. In this common understanding of ourselves, abortion is seen as an indecency. In the original meaning of indecency, abortion does not “fit in,” as you have indicated, with our individual and social human nature.
It is interesting to note that much of the world’s literature focuses on the uniquely human characteristic of an individual, and on the struggle to preserve that aspect of his or her dignity as a person. In reading the literature we understand the person, because we understand ourselves. This exemplifies our common-ness, in fact, as well as in perception. History is a record of people striving to maintain their moral integrity.
Under ideal circumstances we could trust the words of even a stranger. Why? Because people are expected to be truthful. We have a right to the truth; otherwise the society crumbles. If dishonesty were to be “tolerated,” social and commercial mingling would become intolerable. And this cause-and-effect relationship is not of human making; it belongs to the very nature of things.
You seem to be saying that legalized homosexual practice would be unfitting to human society because it would be a falsehood to use the reproductive faculties for something other than reproduction. Your observation throws some light on the indecency of legalized abortion, the misuse of the product of reproduction, namely the killing, rather than the nurturing, of the child. The insult to the society is the legalization of such behavior. The question here is whether falsehood should be imposed upon a society that knows dishonesty to be destructive of its foundation. For government to sanction abortion is to falsify the harm accruing to both the baby and the mother, by attempting to label abortion as something good, and worthy of Constitutional protection. By attempting to protect the “good” of legalized abortion with a “law” that was invented for this occasion, the Court displays its dishonesty. It is against such deceptive violence to common-decency that the people are instinctively rebelling.
Truth, which is to know things as they are, is sometimes forfeited in favor of a court’s ambition to “mould” society according to their own vision. Using your example from homosexual practice, the clamor for same-sex “marriage” is a demand upon the society to accept, or at least tolerate, a falsehood. There is no homosexual union that can truthfully be called marriage. Marriage, in word and in fact, is a unique reality, incapable of attainment by such a union. To “grant” marriage benefits to such a union is an added falsehood. Marriage benefits are rightly recognized by society because of the contributions made by the family to the society, namely the reproduction and nurture of children. In the case of legalized abortion, the added dishonesty is found in the deprivation of persons and their talents, taken away from the society by the Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.
If I may add a closing note, let me suggest that we, as a people, must begin to care for ourselves. Erosion of human dignity has been taking place. The recent fad of “political correctness” has silenced our native instinct toward self-preservation through moral integrity. An artificial, man-made standard has been placed in substitution for the natural formula of truth and fairness, as the norm of human behavior. Truth and fairness have been derailed by the false notion of “toleration.” Toleration of what is evil has become a “virtue,” and the evil has become a “good.”
The old saying is true: “One thing leads to another!” Should we not pause to ask: “Where do we go from here?” You may refer to our Theme Verse to help you with your answer. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: The word “decency” signifies the appropriateness of human behavior, insofar as it is fitting to the circumstances surrounding it. Wearing beach clothing at a church wedding would not be decent behavior. Even the fast food establishments have clothing codes, though in our time, it is felt necessary to post them at the door of the place. The time-honored, unwritten code of men’s respect for women could be cited as an excellent example of decency. In fact, it is a good example of “common decency.”
Common decency is an unwritten, humanly instinctive code, shared by all human beings, affirming that certain behavior is acceptable or non-acceptable by the society of fellow human beings. Common decency is recognition of the unique dignity vested in the human being and in the society. Decent behavior, then, is measured as being commensurate with that dignity. Indecency is behavior incompatible with human dignity. In fact, it is an offence against human dignity, in the same sense that obscenity infringes upon the decent sensibilities of the human person.
Decency presupposes some sort of a standard, grasped intuitively by every human being, in proportion to age of development. Decency is part of the moral sense that distinguishes human beings from the lesser animals. This sense of what is fitting to human behavior flows from our human nature, which has been a reliable source of proper conduct, from the beginning of human history. Nature, then, is the “yardstick” for determining what is decent or indecent in human behavior. Although some refinements of etiquette and good manners have been added from time to time, it is not the arbitrary choice of human individuals but, rather, it is our unvarying human nature that is the promoter of common decency. To show how natural good manners are, someone has said that every once in a while you will meet a person who, if manners had not been invented, would have invented them.
As humans, we have contact with the “yardstick” through our faculty of intellect. In all matters essential to our well being, as individuals and as a society, we can distinguish between what is right and what is wrong, between what is fitting and what is not. Clarity of vision, of course, can be obscured by neglect of practice, by undisciplined emotion and by weakness of will power. However, if our natural endowments are in place, we can trust our capability of seeing the original design and its requirement of compliance with its simple, commonsense directives.
One fundamental demand of common decency is respect for persons, respect for our selves and respect for other human beings. Decency is a factor in recognizing the individual autonomy of the human being, that the individual is his or her own person, and not the instrument of another. Common decency demands honesty in dealing with one another, since society could not function without the presumption of honesty even for strangers. This presumption is nothing other than respect for our fellow human beings.
Although the human individual’s right to life can be deduced by a process of reasoning, it should be noted, again, that there is also an intuitive awareness of that right, and of our obligation to respect it. How, then, can legalized abortion be explained? Does decency no longer have a place in our modern culture! It is interesting that a simple test might be sufficient for answering this question. Being ‘tuned in” to common decency has a counterpart, called shame. If shame is either absent or depreciated in a culture, it is a culture lacking in decency.
I would suggest that attention to our moral sense is being neglected and, in extreme cases, its authenticity is being denied, at least in practice. That would be because nature itself is being discarded from “the world of nature.” It is unnatural for human parents to kill their offspring, yet this indecency has been given legal sanction. The unborn can no longer trust their parents or their government. Is this not a gross indignity? The situation is a prime example of indecency!
What other “yardstick” of human conduct will take the place of nature? Will the technologists replace it with a better one? It is extremely presumptuous to assume that they can.
The reality of nature, however, lingers on, in its own sanctions. One of these, with reference to abortion, is post-abortion syndrome. Those who have discarded nature from our culture have not protected us from its sanctions. Perhaps we should be grateful for that, so as not to become too far separated from the design that made us to be part of a world of nature, in the event that we should ever wish to return to what is decent. Or is it already too late for that?
To assist the viewer with this question, I suggest a consideration of the most natural aspects of our human society, such as gender differences, marriage and family. Our present society is rebelling against any and all efforts to replace them with man-made substitutes. This is an example of nature speaking for itself. This is my evidence that there is still hope for decency in our culture. But, I further suggest that it will not come easily. And it must be a shared responsibility for all. E.R.
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses November 13, 2003:
Editor’s Note: Now that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban has become law in the U.S. and has been restrained against enforcement by the federal courts, where do we go from here?
Reply: The Justice Dept. of the U.S. will defend the recently enacted law through the federal Appellate Court system, eventually in the Supreme Court if necessary. The claims of the restricting federal courts will be examined and will be allowed to stand or will be rejected. It is interesting to note that the three restraining judges mentioned in the media, spent very little time after the plaintiffs had filed their complaints before rendering their decisions.
As for the objections proposed against the new law, the “undue burden” of “Casey” and the “too vague” of “Nebraska,” should prompt a review of those two decisions. I could think it reasonable to ask why the killing of the baby by a less brutal means should be considered an “undue burden” for the baby’s mother. Does not the great good of human decency demand great burdens on the part of all citizens. Or should we say that the good of human decency is too costly for us to maintain and, so, we can disregarded it? The nation has already spoken in favor of suffering this “burden,” rather than relinquishing their prerogative of demanding human decency.
And what does the Court mean by their phrase: “undue burden?” So far, it is not evident that the Court has given any clear and reasonable definition of what is involved in their expression. What is the measure of their applying it in so serious a matter as human decency?
Again, as in past writings, I am struck by the absurdity of discussing whether one manner of killing babies is better or worse than other ways of killing babies. What we should be discussing and affirming is that no manner of killing babies is good. All killing of babies, for those who cannot see such behavior as unreasonable and unfair, should be clearly prohibited by the laws of our human society, for all time and in every place!
As for the Court’s expression of “vagueness,” it would be an insult to the medical profession to apply it here. Even a non-professional bystander would know whether the baby is inside or outside of the mother’s body. That is the unique feature of this manner of killing. For all practical purposes, the child is outside the mother’s body, so much so that many obstetricians call partial-birth abortion infanticide.
Should any of the plaintiffs claim that the new law is unconstitutional by standards of Roe v. Wade, a new era of justice will be introduced into the debate. “Roe,” in the clear light of unbiased observation, that is, the people of the nation, will not withstand the honest search for truth and justice in that decision. Let the full process of law begin! E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Republished from September 29, 2003:
Editor’s Note: The partial-birth abortion ban is in its final stages of enactment by the U.S. legislature. After enactment the law will meet its first challenge, a plea for an injunction against it, by the proponents of legalized abortion. It will be interesting to see whether Roe v. Wade is prepared to sustain that injunction.
Comment: The injunction plea must show that the ban violates the spirit and the wording of Roe v. Wade. Obviously, this would demand proof that partial-birth abortion is, indeed, abortion and not infanticide. The burden imposed upon the court would be to re-examine “Roe’s” definition of abortion. Does that definition, equivalent to “termination of pregnancy” specify acceptable methods, or impose limits on the manner, of accomplishing that “termination?”
The “Roe” court may be faulted for their disregard of the unborn’s right to life and for their neglect of the father’s right to protect his child’s life. And they may be faulted for their failure to have prescribed time limits beyond which the child may not be aborted (regardless of when his or her human life had begun.) So, also, they should be faulted for their blindness in not having specified limits to the manner of terminating the pregnancy.
Again, as I have often suggested in these writings, details such as these are important when we consider the thought-and-action process of human beings, especially in matters pertaining to the life and death of other human beings. I would not be dwelling on these details here, except to say that they must be considered by the court who will entertain the plea for the injunction mentioned above. And I say that these details should have been faced in the fabrication of the “Roe” decision. But however important such details may be, their importance pales in the face of the basic question of why the Court took it upon themselves to “legislate” the deaths of the unborn of our nation.
In a previous comment I suggested that a close examination of Roe v. Wade might be more than the decision can withstand. The concept of “its spirit” might well be found to be destructive of “its letter,” upon which the decision has been standing until now. Again, I ask: “What does the “Roe” court mean by ‘termination’ of pregnancy?” And, even more significant than that: “By what credentials does the Court assure legal protection to mothers who kill their unborn babies?”
When I speak of “the spirit” of “Roe” I suggest that its purpose was to give “freedom” to women for the sake of improving their lot in life, specifically, freedom to separate themselves from their pregnancies. One might rightfully wonder whether the Court was thinking that plunging a scissors into the brain of her child is encompassed by the freedom that they intended for the mother.
Regardless of what the “Roe” court might have been thinking, it is clear now that legalized abortion hurts women, as well as kills their babies. Post-Abortion Syndrome is a reality and it is in conflict with “the spirit” of “Roe,” the well-being of women. If the ban against partial-birth abortion were to be rejected by the Supreme Court, we will know that the Court is in contradiction with itself. Perhaps, for their own survival, they will put an end to “Roe.” E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses October 27, 2003: In response to viewers' interest, we offer this review of partial-birth abortion. Current interest is whether the Supreme Court will accept an appeal of the U.S. Justice Department to examine the rulings of the three lower courts that have declared the federal Partial-Birth Abortion ban unconstitutional.
Editor's Note: Now that the U.S. is in the midst of the Partial-Birth Abortion debate, in fact, at the peak of its almost eight-year, bitter history, we might ask what is being demonstrated by the conflict. The legislature, after two previous attempts, has enacted a ban against the procedure. At the time of this writing, the ban requires only the President's signature to become law. The proponents of abortion have threatened to obtain an injunction against the enforcement of the new law, which would move the debate into the federal courts. Again, the question: Why the struggle, for and against this limitation of legalized abortion?
Comment: A few of the protesters against the ban still claim necessity for Partial-Birth Abortion. Others see the ban as an interference with legitimate medical practice. However, the predominant cry is that the ban will erode the woman's absolute control over her own destiny, with reference to terminating the life of her unborn baby. The probable erosion of Roe v. Wade is the subject of their fear. Their driving force in the struggle is to preserve the absolute grip on what they call "choice," which extends to the unimpeded destruction of their offspring.
It is interesting to note that the most visible and most vocal among the defenders of Partial-Birth Abortion are not protesting on their own behalf, but for a generic concept of "women." The concept is ambiguous, but it seems to place women outside of the human race and into a unique category whose rules are not compatible with human nature. Human beings must nurture their offspring; "women" may kill theirs! "Choice" has become a symbol of "woman-power," a possession that will not easily be relinquished. Roe v. Wade, which arbitrarily established that power in women, must allow no exceptions, lest the terrible force of that symbol be brought into question. It is probable that the banning of Partial-Birth Abortion could shatter that symbol, and "Roe" also, in the process of honest examination.
In this brief, and possibly biased, analysis, may I suggest that the above concept of "women-power" is not entertained by the majority of American women, as shown in many recent polls. The cover-story of the New York Times Magazine, of yesterday, Oct. 26th, gives us an insight into that reality. For the majority, the criterion of women's influence on modern society can be expressed in the simple and thoughtful, time-honored words: "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." Among these women are some who have tried "Women's Lib." and came away disenchanted. Others among these women are enthusiastic teen-agers, driven by the practicality and beauty of chastity. And many are young adults, striving to keep their own lives in good order so that they might impart that sense of harmony to the troubled world.
It takes two to make a struggle, or even a debate, so we must now look at the forces behind the Partial-Birth Abortion ban. The battle-ground here has been the state and federal legislatures. In our form of government the elected legislators reflect, for the most part, the thinking and the will of the people who elected them. What are their objections against Partial-Birth Abortion?
Some of the people oppose all legalized abortion. Some, even allowing for various exceptions, abhor this procedure because of its obvious brutality. Some hold to the opinion that the procedure is not abortion but, rather, infanticide. Some have an additional objection, a dislike for Roe v. Wade, and that, for various reasons. Some of these are convinced that "Roe" has no basis in the U.S. Constitution; others see how women are misled by what "Roe" offers. "Choice" is rarely beneficial to a desperate woman, and never beneficial to her unborn baby.
The up-coming phase of the struggle, in the courts, will give all of us , on both sides of the issue, an opportunity to ponder the conflicting claims and to evaluate the evidence. We are all party to this process since in the U.S. it is "We, the People" who are responsible for implementing the need for justice and decency in our society. At this web site we will welcome any questions or comments from our viewers, as we work together to attain a just outcome from these deliberations. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses October 28, 2000:
Question: In your "Notable Quotations" you have the Roe v. Wade court excusing themselves from facing what seems to me to be the key question in this case: When does human life begin? Even if it were true that no one else knows the answer, how could the Court feel free from, themselves, attempting to solve the problem? It does not seem right that they should have rendered their decision on such an incomplete foundation of fact.
Reply: It looks as though the Court did not feel competent to handle the matter by themselves. However, their "research" into written and hear-say sources could not be called adequate in light of the seriousness of the subject of their deliberation.
To paraphrase their statement: they said that they should not be expected to know when human life begins. For a court weighing criteria for a life-and-death decision, this is a curious statement. Be that as it may, it is even more curious that the Court, admitting their ignorance about the beginning of human life, felt competent to sanction killing the offspring of human parentage, from conception until natural birth.
I agree with you that their ignorance, or their state of doubt, does not excuse them from their ethical responsibility of not being instrumental in the killing of innocent human beings. The Court was ethically wrong in making their decision in the face of ignorance or doubt concerning substantive and essential fact. Moreover, the Court could not have claimed any ethical or legal urgency demanding that they hear this case at that time. They could have refused the case until they were more prepared to handle it.
Twenty-seven years later, the present Court is continuing the moral blindness which is intrinsic to legalized abortion. In the Nebraska case, the almost-completely-born offspring's death is approved by the Court, despite the twice-given judgment of the people, through their federal legislature, in the Partial-Birth Ban.
It has taken twenty-seven years for the schizophrenia of the Court to be clearly demonstrated. Examine the Nebraska case in light of this interchange between Justices Marshall and Stewart and Mr. Flowers (defending the state of Texas) during the Reargument (the second and final hearing of Roe v. Wade:
"MR. FLOWERS: (citing a statute of Texas law:) 'Whoever shall, during the parturition of the mother, destroy the vitality or life in a child in a state of being born, before actual birth and before actual birth - which child would have otherwise been born alive - shall be confined to the penitentiary for life, or not less than five years.'
JUSTICE MARSHALL: What does that statute mean?
MR. FLOWERS: Sir?
JUSTICE MARSHALL: What does it mean?
MR. FLOWERS: I would think that-
JUSTICE STEWART: That it is an offense to kill a child in the process of childbirth?
MR. FLOWERS: Yes, sir, it would be immediately before childbirth, or right in the proximity of the child being born.
JUSTICE MARSHALL: Which is not an abortion.
MR. FLOWERS: Which is not - would not be an abortion, yes, sir. You're correct, sir, it would be homicide.
Gentlemen, we feel that the concept of a fetus being within the concept of a person, within the framework of the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution, is an extremely fundamental thing.
JUSTICE STEWART: Of course, if you're right about that, you can sit down; you've won your case."
You may refer to the entire Reargument. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
___________________
Editor's Note: We republish Justice Rhenquist's dissent against Roe v. Wade because it clearly demonstrates serious flaws in that decision. The American people have an obligation to study this initial abortion decision, and to react to it, by law and logic, as Justice Rhenquist did in his dissent. Opportunities to learn and to speak out will be forthcoming as Roe v. Wade emerges from the deliberated inscrutability of the federal courts' protection into the light of the American people's commonsense and their spirit of "liberty and justice for all."
REHNQUIST, J., Dissenting Opinion
Roe v. Wade
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
No. 70-18 Argued: December 13, 1971 --- Decided: January 22, 1973
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting.
The Court's opinion brings to the decision of this troubling question both extensive historical fact and a wealth of legal scholarship. While the opinion thus commands my respect, I find myself nonetheless in fundamental disagreement with those parts of it that invalidate the Texas statute in question, and therefore dissent.
I
The Court's opinion decides that a State may impose virtually no restriction on the performance of abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy. Our previous decisions indicate that a necessary predicate for such an opinion is a plaintiff who was in her first trimester of pregnancy at some time during the pendency of her lawsuit. While a party may vindicate his own constitutional rights, he may not seek vindication for the rights of others. Moose Lodge v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972); Sierra, Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972). The Court's statement of facts in this case makes clear, however, that the record in no way indicates the presence of such a plaintiff. We know only that plaintiff Roe at the time of filing her complaint was a pregnant woman; for aught that appears in this record, she may have been in her last trimester of pregnancy as of the date the complaint was filed.
Nothing in the Court's opinion indicates that Texas might not constitutionally apply its proscription of abortion as written to a woman in that stage of pregnancy. Nonetheless, the Court uses her complaint against the Texas statute as a fulcrum for deciding that States may [p172] impose virtually no restrictions on medical abortions performed during the first trimester of pregnancy. In deciding such a hypothetical lawsuit, the Court departs from the longstanding admonition that it should never "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied." Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S.S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33, 39 (1885). See also Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 345 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
II
Even if there were a plaintiff in this case capable of litigating the issue which the Court decides, I would reach a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Court. I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the right of "privacy" is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician on a plaintiff such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not "private" in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the "privacy" that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
If the Court means by the term "privacy" no more than that the claim of a person to be free from unwanted state regulation of consensual transactions may be a form of "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no doubt that similar claims have been upheld in our earlier decisions on the basis of that liberty. I agree with the statement of MR. JUSTICE STEWART in his concurring opinion that the "liberty," against deprivation of which without due process the Fourteenth [p173] Amendment protects, embraces more than the rights found in the Bill of Rights. But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due process of law. The test traditionally applied in the area of social and economic legislation is whether or not a law such as that challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 491 (1955). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment undoubtedly does place a limit, albeit a broad one, on legislative power to enact laws such as this. If the Texas statute were to prohibit an abortion even where the mother's life is in jeopardy, I have little doubt that such a statute would lack a rational relation to a valid state objective under the test stated in Williamson, supra. But the Court's sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court's opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one.
The Court eschews the history of the Fourteenth Amendment in its reliance on the "compelling state interest" test. See Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 179 (1972) (dissenting opinion). But the Court adds a new wrinkle to this test by transposing it from the legal considerations associated with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to this case arising under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Unless I misapprehend the consequences of this transplanting of the "compelling state interest test," the Court's opinion will accomplish the seemingly impossible feat of leaving this area of the law more confused than it found it. [p174]
While the Court's opinion quotes from the dissent of Mr. Justice Holmes in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 74 (1905), the result it reaches is more closely attuned to the majority opinion of Mr. Justice Peckham in that case. As in Lochner and similar cases applying substantive due process standards to economic and social welfare legislation, the adoption of the compelling state interest standard will inevitably require this Court to examine the legislative policies and pass on the wisdom of these policies in the very process of deciding whether a particular state interest put forward may or may not be "compelling." The decision here to break pregnancy into three distinct terms and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental," Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934). Even today, when society's views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the "right" to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn.Stat., Tit. 22, §§ 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth [p175] Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion.[n] While many States have amended or updated [p176] their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. [n2] Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857, [p177] and "has remained substantially unchanged to the present time." Ante at 119.
There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.
III
Even if one were to agree that the case that the Court decides were here, and that the enunciation of the substantive constitutional law in the Court's opinion were proper, the actual disposition of the case by the Court is still difficult to justify. The Texas statute is struck down in toto, even though the Court apparently concedes that, at later periods of pregnancy Texas might impose these self-same statutory limitations on abortion. My understanding of past practice is that a statute found [p178] to be invalid as applied to a particular plaintiff, but not unconstitutional as a whole, is not simply "struck down" but is, instead, declared unconstitutional as applied to the fact situation before the Court. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356"]118 U.S. 356 (1886); 118 U.S 356 (1886); Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969).
For all of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist b.1924 d. 2005
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses December 6 and December 14, 2000:
Question: How do you respond to someone who says there are no absolutes, especially in the moral realm? The presumption is that everything is relative. This is a philosophical question, not a medical question. Can you demonstrate that moral absolutes exist?
Reply: We appreciate your question and its significance in a society confused and short-changed by the assumption that there are no absolutes. If someone proclaims that there are no absolutes, he or she proclaims a contradiction, because the proclamation is itself an absolute. It says, without equivocation or exception, that there are no absolutes. What could be more absolute than that!
It is strange that the proclaimer would insist on putting gasoline into the gas-tank of his automobile, whereas water might be what others would prefer. Would it be idle conversation to ask what the engine requires, according to the design of its builder?
G. K. Chesterton, in his thoughtful book, Orthodoxy, speaks to an art student who had assumed that the drawing of a giraffe with a short neck would constitute a denial of the absolute. Chesterton replied, simply: "If, in your bold creative way, you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. The moment you step into the world of facts, you step into a world of limits. You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature. You may, if you like, free a tiger from his bars; but do not free him from his stripes. Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump; you may free him from being a camel." (Chap. 3 - The Suicide of Thought)
The denial of moral absolutes is equally ridiculous. If "right" and "wrong" are to have any meaning, they would have to mean two different things. They could not be used interchangeably. Each, then, must be something unique, something "in itself" and "of itself," in other words, something absolute.
The correct application of the concepts, "right" and "wrong," to human behavior is the subject matter of Ethics. Ethics is the product of intellectual intuition and human reasoning, both of which must be assumed to be reliable sources of truth. To possess truth, said simply, is to know things as they are. So, those who deny absolutes also deny truth or, at least, the ability to possess it.
If I may suggest something for your further thinking, you might ask yourself why do some persons discard the absolutes. They seem to be content with saying that the circumstances surrounding the human act are what totally determine its morality, the proponents of "Situation Ethics, for example. They are partly right in their in their assumption, since circumstances must be weighed during process of making moral judgments. However circumstances can never make "right" something which is intrinsically (by its very nature) "wrong." It is here that the absolute must be reckoned with.
What if someone were to say that telling a lie, under some urgent circumstances, is not "wrong?" You might ask that person whether telling a lie is ever "wrong" and, if so, why. Eventually it will be seen that a lie is driven by the intention of one person to deceive another, which by its nature is contrary to justice and, therefore, "wrong." A lie deprives another person of what is due to him, an honest statement. Without the expectation of honesty in one another, a society could not function, and would soon collapse. The legal "taking an oath" (calling on God to witness to the truth of a statement) is a solemn "back-up" to implement the necessity of honest communication. So important is the need for truth, the lie-detector, despite its debatable reliability, is sometimes thought necessary for the maintenance of justice.
Pertinent to this web site, abortion is never "right" under any circumstances, because it is a deliberate, direct attack against the life of an innocent human person, which is always "wrong" by its very nature. Circumstances often influence one's judgment, by way of one's emotions, but morality does not rest on circumstances alone. If you note carefully you will observe that the "double-effect" principle, which is applied only under specified circumstances, does not, itself, resort to circumstances for its ethical justification. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
December 14, 2000
Question: In a recent reply you made it sound so easy for all of us to know what is right and what is wrong. If it is natural to our intelligence to furnish us with this ethical guidance, why is there so much dispute about abortion?
Reply: Your question is a fair one. My first suggestion is for you to remember that knowledge, even when it is true, is only one-half of what goes into our human actions. A person might have a clear vision of what is to be done or avoided, but lacks the necessary willingness to follow his intellectual judgment. Just as there must be a life-long effort to think and reason correctly, we must also discipline our wills. It is through the use of our free-will that we make choices, which is the other component of our responsible behavior.
Remember also that our clarity of vision and freedom of will can be dulled by neglect of discipline, and by emotional influences such as selfishness or fear.
As for abortion, it should not be difficult for most people to see that killing one's own offspring doesn't make sense. It openly challenges our generally accepted sense of responsibility for our actions. And it is so contrary to the natural instinct to nurture one's young, seen even in the behavior of the lesser animals. To use the reproductive faculties for anything other than reproduction doesn't make sense either. Yet, some people choose to act contrary to the guidance of "commonsense," which is the voice of their intelligence.
It is possible that some persons see abortion as something "morally right," but this is generally due to their unfair evaluation of their baby's life. They prize their own advantage more highly than that of their baby. This is a case in which both the thinking and the choosing are faulty.
Some who choose abortion confuse legality with morality. Our government, through Roe v. Wade, has declared that no one may hinder a woman from killing her unborn child, which makes abortion legal in our country. But this does not morally justify abortion, whose objective is always the killing of an innocent human being, which is always and everywhere morally wrong. It is wrong because it steals from an innocent human being not only his or her right to life, but life itself. This is a case of culpable ignorance, because any thinking person should know that a government's approval of something wrong does not change it into something right. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses September 21, 2003:
Editor’s Note: During this third week of September the U.S. Legislature is in the process of finalizing their ban against partial-birth abortion. Both houses have approved the ban, as they had done twice before, during the Clinton Administration. The Senate now wishes to add to the bill, a note of approval for Roe v. Wade A declaration of approval, though having no legal significance, is not acceptable to the House of Representatives.
Comment: Looking over the shoulders of the legislators, I see their activity as helpful for understanding the advocates of the “Roe” decision. Those who are seeking a declaration of approval for “Roe” have seen the political need to repudiate the barbaric practice of delivering a baby in order to kill it more easily, outside of its mother’s body. They know that most of the nation are opposed to partial-birth abortion. The passage of the ban would be a bitter defeat for them, but it would be only one battle in the total war, which could be won for them by the legislature’s approval of “Roe.”
The discussion also offers insight into the mentality of the legislators and other citizens who favor legalized abortion, except for this most atrocious form of its practice. It is acceptable to kill the unborn baby, but not in such a visible fashion, as in partial-birth abortion, because that is emotionally repulsive. It is possible that some of them reject this brutal manner of killing because of sympathy for the baby who suffers pain during the killing. If so, they should also reject the “saline procedure” in which the baby is slowly “eaten alive” by the concentrated salt solution, at a time in which the baby’s nervous system is already functioning acutely.
There was a time, in the midst of the long and sad history of legalized abortion, when some proposals were made to demand alleviation of pain with anesthesia, before killing the baby. The proposals were thought, by the abortion-minded, to be too bothersome and too expensive, and never were raised to the level of law.
As of this writing, the proposed declaration of approval for Roe v. Wade will be discarded and the bill banning partial-birth abortion will be ready for President Bush, who will promptly sign it into law. The new law is likely to be protested, as unconstitutional, in a final attempt to safeguard ‘Roe.” There could be some good coming from such a protest, the urgent need to examine “Roe” and to question its validity.
As I have suggested above, discussions of the legislature are necessary and, frequently, beneficial. However, the subject matter of these verbal exchanges rarely touch the core of the legalized abortion puzzle. There are key questions that are not being asked: “Why the killing?” Where did the “Roe” court find its authority to sanction the killing? And, “Who am I to permit the killing to go unchallenged?” E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses October 14 and 21, 2002: (These two articles on Ethics may be helpful to observers who are following current discussions between the U.S. Senate and Judge Alito, candidate for a vacant seat on the Supreme Court.)
Editor's Note: We wish to address students, world-wide, on the subject of legalizing practices which are hurtful to innocent human life and, therefore, morally evil. We will discuss what has already been legalized and that which is projected for the future. Abortion will be our first example. The purpose of our discussion is to alert students to the moral flaws of our society, whose future will soon be in their hands.
Elements of Discussion: Many years of teaching at various academic levels have given me a great respect for students who seek objective standards in their academic pursuits, and who also hold themselves to objective standards of human conduct. Most students with whom I have worked are of that moral fiber. On behalf of students such as these, I do not hesitate to affirm the distinction between good and evil; between right and wrong.
I would go further and affirm their acceptance of good and evil as objective realities and not merely as arbitrarily designated things to be done and things to be avoided, subject to change with social fancy. What is commended here is the unhampered human intelligence and the fully free exercise of choice: the intellect seeking and obtaining its proper object, that which is true, and the human will doing the same towards its proper object, that which is good.
To possess truth is to know things as they are. Being truthful demands objectivity. In contrast, knowledge which is colored by the individual, consciously or unwittingly, to suit his or her situation of the moment, is subjective fantasy and is not truthful. The same with choices and consequent actions; they can be good only insofar as their objects are objectively good.
As a definition of "good," it is sufficient to say that the design of our Creator is the measure of good. Any deliberate act which fits into that design is morally good. Any deliberate act contrary to that design is morally evil.
I suggest here that the object of an intended act may be good, such as giving financial help to a poor family, but that the act itself could be evil, as when the gift is stolen money.
It must be said now that the individual person, through human intelligence, after arriving at the age of reason, is able to distinguish right from wrong, commensurate with the person's age and experience.
Finally, it must be noted that the subjective elements of one's action influence the culpability of failure to measure up to the dictates of intellectual judgment, sometimes called "conscience." Uninvited obstacles to clear thinking and to freedom of choice are examples of such extenuating circumstances.
Looking at abortion objectively, that is, without prejudice, it would be seen as an unreasonable act, and one contrary to the pursuit of the good. Stated simply, it does not make sense for parents to kill their own offspring. Abortion is contrary to the tendency of nature, sometimes called the nurturing instinct. For humans, of course, there is more than instinct; there is a felt sense of obligation, called responsibility. Since abortion is contrary to nature it is, therefore, contrary to the design of nature's Author, constituting a moral evil.
Looking at abortion subjectively, as by abortion providers and, sometimes, by legislators and judges, abortion may appear as a "good," though only as "a necessity" or "a claim to compassion" or as "the lesser of two evils."
With the few elements of discussion mentioned above, I invite student viewers to comment on the legalization of abortion and its effects on the well-being of the nation which protects it by law. For students in the U.S. it would be helpful to review the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, followed by our comments, in Section 9, and the comments of others, in Section 5. Students from other countries may wish to examine the foundation of their laws which approve of abortion. Together we may be able to awaken our common, human society to the unjust, absurd and damaging practice of legalizing abortion. E.R.
Reprinted from displayed responses October 21, 2002:
Editor's Note: It is encouraging to note that most people who have thought about it, agree with our position, as presented in our last week's posting: It is unreasonable for parents to kill their unborn offspring, since abortion is contrary to nature's design for reproduction. Some persons, however, object to our position by claiming that certain circumstances present a reasonable choice of over-riding the nurturing inclination of nature, by abortion. We invite the viewers to examine this objection with us:
Comment: The objection presupposes that there are "goods" greater in value than the life of the unborn offspring. This supposition can take two forms, by under-valuing the life of the offspring, or by over-valuing the apparent "good." Both of these approaches are faulty, because they attribute only a relative value to the offspring's life. The human being has an absolute value, as indicated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal and have an inalienable right to life.
As for under-valuing the offspring, it should not be necessary to examine the claim of those who do not admit to the humanity of the offspring. Frozen embryos are protected by law, not only because they represent someone's "property," but because, when implanted, they continue to mature as do all other human beings and, so, should not have their humanity questioned. How much, more so, should embryos brought about by normal conception be recognized as human beings.
As for over-valuing the "goods" that are offered as justification for abortion, it should be noted that those "goods" usually "benefit" one, or both, of the parents, at the cost of the unborn offspring's life. In no instance can such "benefits" be equated with the right to life which is inherent in the human offspring. Even the mother's right to life does not exceed that of her offspring's. If anyone is confused on this point, I would suggest an examination of the phrase: "except to save the life of the mother." This exception is found in the laws of the individual states of the U.S. which were in force prior to 1973.
It should be observed carefully that this exception does not say that the offspring may be killed in order to save the mother's life. No innocent human being may be killed, even to save many lives. The exception covers difficult situations in which saving the mother's life will be the occasion of her offspring's death, as when a ruptured Fallopian tube containing an ectopic pregnancy must be removed from her body. There is no direct attack on the innocent life, even though the death can be foreseen. The surgical procedure is initiated as the only means of saving her life. At the moment of initiation, her offspring's life had not been in the process of being lost. The mother needed immediate help; her offspring did not. SEE the ethical principle "double-effect."
With these added elements of discussion in place, I invite students to continue thinking about legalized abortion as an example of a civil law in opposition to Ethics, which is sometimes called the science of reasonable behavior." I ask the students to keep in mind that this discussion is not merely academic; it pertains to the way things are. It is my feeling that the young people of the world deserve something better than the injustice and falsehood found at work in the society which they are about to inherit. I also feel that there will be no major ethical improvement in their generation, unless they, the students, are willing to bring it about. Fortunately there is a trend in that direction and, in that, there is hope. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: Will the year, 2006, be a New Year or only more of the same? I refer to legalized abortion. I pose the question more pointedly for the United States: Have we learned anything from Roe v. Wade? Or, better yet: Have we felt a need to extricate ourselves from under the tyranny of that decision?
Comment: If we, as a nation, have begun to see abortion for what it is, there is a possibility that this year will, indeed, be a new year. 2006 could go down in U.S. history as marking some major steps away from legalized abortion.
The nation’s vision, of course, must be founded on truth. Two questions must be addressed: 1. Does every abortion kill a living, human being? 2. Does the U.S. Supreme Court have the ethical competence to provide government protection for a woman and her abortionist, in opposition to her unborn child’s right to life?
Question 1:. I am of the opinion that the majority of persons involved in abortions know that every abortion kills a living, human being. Post-abortion Syndrome is evidence of that. It is fair to say that the days of ignorance and pretense are over. However, the many who are not involved in abortions might have never asked themselves this question and, so, are passive accomplices to the tyranny of the Court. If this year is to be different, these people must fulfill their civic responsibility of knowing what is going on under their passive endorsement and speak out, in opposition. I invite those wishing to upgrade their awareness of the issues surrounding legalized abortion to browse among the pages of this web site, as a starting point of their investigation.
Question 2: Is there anyone who hasn’t felt uneasy about the arrogance of the Roe court when they granted themselves the prerogative to sanction the killing our brothers and sisters waiting to be born? They tolerated no defense for the helpless unborn victim and asked no questions of the perpetrators. They allowed no voice of protest for the male parent of the unborn victim. They deprived our human society of the benefits that would have accrued to our common welfare had they not sanctioned the killing of what had been one-third of our population.
If year, 2006, is to be different, we must all begin thinking in terms of justice and compassion. Justice for the unborn deprived of his or her exercise of the right to life! For the father, the natural right to fulfill his obligation of protecting and nurturing his offspring! Compassion for the mother, who is beguiled by the Court into the absurdity of killing her unborn child as a solution for whatever problems she faces because of her pregnancy!
If year 2006 will be different, and it could be, we must turn our nation from the darkness of barbarism, not only with respect to our unborn, but also to all other brothers and sisters of our community needful of help from the rest of us. Hurricanes on the Gulf Coast showed us that we can rise to the needs of others. Let us make this New Year a major step in the direction of saving our unborn, the hope and the future of our nation and our world! E.R. reply@unbornperson.org