Freedom has always been something that people desire. We revere those who stand up and fight for the rights of others. When Saint Joan of Arc rode into battle to free France from the English, she exhibited the indomitable spirit of independence that has subverted empires and freed slaves. Sometimes, however, the spirit of freedom can become warped and unrecognizable. In our modern society freedom has become inseparably intertwined with abortion.
This is a radical departure from the rich tradition of liberty that was handed down to us by the Founding Fathers. George Washington and his contemporaries wished to create a society that would respect the rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” They believed that these self-evident truths could be guaranteed in a God-fearing populace that was capable of self government. To Americans, true freedom was always bound up in a society that respected laws and adhered to virtuous codes of conduct.
Modern appeals to freedom sound more like those of the French Revolutionaries in 1789. The rapist, sadomasochist, and National Assembly member Marquis de Sade expressed their view of freedom by stating that “the freest people are those most friendly to murder.” In the language of moral depravity, he was correct. Those who were most unbounded by conscience and law would be the most free from restraints on evil, up to and including murder.
Our society certainly seems to have become sympathetic, or even outright supportive, of de Sade’s vision. Many now view freedom as the ability to suffer from gender delusions (and force others to recognize them), kill children in the womb, and teach kindergarteners about the wonders of LGBT liberation.
The most recent event to highlight this trend was the leakage of a draft opinion from the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization which has the ability to overturn Roe v. Wade. Despite many strong feelings on the issue it seems that the only argument that can be mustered by pro-choicers is the shallow “my body my choice” one-liner. One conservative commentator wryly remarked that adherence to this argument would mean believing that it is possible for a woman to have two sets of DNA and/or genitalia.
Perhaps the resurgence of this issue in public life will alert people to the legal and moral absurdities of abortion.
Beginning on the legal front, it is quite easy to see the lack of reasoning behind the Roe decision. Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade, used the 14th Amendment as his justification for his decision, claiming that it gave women a right to privacy.
His arguments were faulty on historical, legal, and logical grounds. As academic Robert P. George notes, “By 1858 a majority of states had statutes criminalizing abortion at all stages. By the end of 1868, the year the 14th Amendment was ratified, a good three-quarters of the states had them.” Thus, to claim that the 14th Amendment was designed to protect abortion is an outright lie. The Amendment reads that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” At the time the Amendment was passed “person” clearly included the unborn.
Ignoring the disregard of historical precedent, there is still no way that Justice Blackmun could have concluded that abortion was a Constitutional right. Blackmun relied on a previous case called Griswold v. Connecticut wherein Justice William Douglass argued that “the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees” which give citizens an extensive right to privacy. This was merely an eloquent way of saying that his opinion had no basis in the law. However, Blackmun used this gobbledygook in order to support his opinion in Roe v. Wade.
Even if we were to accept Blackmun’s faulty legal reasoning, the illogic of his decision is clear as day. Privacy does not extend to illegal actions. If you knowingly commit a crime and others aid and abet you, privacy is not an excuse.
What Justice Blackmun really meant was that he did not think abortion should be a crime. It was never in his authority to decide this issue in a society with a representative government. Rather than acting as a judge, he took on the role of a legislator in order to subvert the will of the American people.
Aside from the legal reasoning against abortion, there are also moral arguments that have much more force.
Although emotional appeals have obscured the arguments, the central question of abortion is whether or not huaman life has immutable value. After all, it is an undisputed fact that life begins at conception. Princeton University even has a page of references to reputable sources claiming that life begins at conception.
To argue in favor of abortion is to dispute the inherent value of human life. Complicating circumstances certainly arise, given the lack of viability of a fetus outside the womb. However, a baby isn’t more viable outside the womb in any meaningful sense. Someone must sacrifice both their resources and time to care for the child. If they refused to do so, they would be accused of infaticide.
Despite the preceived novelty of our society, the arguments in favor of abortion have been around for thousands of years. In the Roman Empire, famed historian Edward Gibbon commented on the prevalence of infaticide as a practice that people believed was both compassionate and economical. The early Christians made it their goal to stop this barbaric practice and give children a chance at life.
In the end, freedom requires accepting the legal and moral restraints that make freedom possible. The 60 plus million babies that have been aborted since 1973 have not been given a chance at freedom. Nor have the women who have been told that killing their child is an acceptable decision during difficult times.
Overall, abortion is perhaps the most regressive demand of the progressives.
The last two paragraphs sums it up perfectly!
Right on!! Thanks for putting it on paper