Aborting Democracy

The abortion battle was decided centuries ago,” by Chad M Schuldt, tdaxp, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/01/16/if_that_isn_t_right.html, 20 January 2005.

(Apologies to anyone experiencing problems with the site. BlogSpirit is acting up again. But as its free, I shouldn’t be complaining. 🙂 )

Chad believes we should not go back centuries on abortion laws

The abortion battle was decided centuries ago. There are going to be situations where women want to end pregnancies. It is unfortunate. Should we put them in jail? Their doctors? I say we work to make this tragedy as rare and as safe as possible instead of attempting to legislate morality.

We should not go back centuries. We should rejoin the world and outlaw infanticide. Some Europe abortion laws.

Britain – legal up to 24 week
Denmark – legal on demand through the 12th week.
Germany – legal only after counseling, which may come from a church, the Red Cross, of the government
Ireland – illegal
Italy – illegal after 12th week
Poland – legal only for strict medical reasons
Romania – legal through the 12th week.
Spain – legal up to 12 weeks in cases of rape, deformed baby, or danger to the mother’s life or mental health.
Switzerland – legal only to save the life of the mother

There’s a difference between legislating morality and legalizing infanticide. I personally oppose the murder of human beings, and bank robberies, burglary. I also believe those actions should be criminal.

None of these countries have the hysterics on either side we have, because their laws are generally agreed on by the people through their legislatures. In the United States, we suffered under a judicial tyranny that it may take a century get over. I oppose South Dakota’s proposed law as such, but I understand that such counterextremism is a natural byproduct of Warren’s murderous recklessness.

6 thoughts on “Aborting Democracy”

  1. Roe v. Wade gave women total autonomy over pregnancy during the first 12 weeks — essentially forbidding state regulation during that time period. This is the idea to which European countries subscribe, as you note.

    The decision also gave states legal authority to regulate access to abortion during the second and third trimesters.

    The proposal considered in the SD Legislature in 2004 and will probably come up again would completely turn that around. Last years proposal effectively outlaws abortion in any form by defining life as beginning at conception. There isn’t even an exception for rape.

    This brings us back at least a century. When abortion was criminalized in the 1900s, it was based on the belief that women who would have access to abortion would be more promiscuous and that it was a dangerous procedure. Neither of these situations are true — the former can not be backed up by fact, and modern medicine has effectively nullified latter.

    A third underlying reason for criminalizing abortion is the state interest in protecting prenatal life. That reason still exists.

    However, the question remains: Are we going to go back to the days when the only access to abortion is from illegal, unregulated, and possibly unsafe sources?

    As I stated in my first post on the subject here, let’s focus on making abortion rare rather than making it illegal and pretending it won’t exist after we pass such laws.


  2. Chad,

    Thanks again for the great comment. Could you read (http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501240738.asp) and blog on it, either here or your site? I’d be interested in what you have to say.

    Here’s an excerpt:

    The abortion regime was born in lies. In Britain (and in California, pre-Roe), the abortion lobby deceptively promoted legal revisions to allow “therapeutic” abortions and then defined every abortion as “therapeutic.” The abortion lobby lied about Jane Roe, claiming her pregnancy resulted from a gang rape. It lied about the number of back-alley abortions. Justice Blackmun relied on fictitious history to argue, in Roe, that abortion had never been a common law crime.

    The abortion regime is also sustained by lies. Its supporters constantly lie about the radicalism of Roe: even now, most Americans who “agree with Roe v. Wade” in polls think that it left third-term abortions illegal and restricted second-term abortions. They have lied about the frequency and “medical necessity” of partial-birth abortion. Then there are the euphemisms: “terminating a pregnancy,” abortion “providers,” “products of conception.” “The fetus is only a potential human being”–as if it might as easily become an elk. “It should be between a woman and her doctor”–the latter an abortionist who has never met the woman before and who has a financial interest in her decision. This movement cannot speak the truth.

  3. As a Democrat opposed to abortion, I have the following logic to return to Dan, having been given it on numerous occasions.

    The Honorables being unable to cite specific cases or citing inflated numbers does not indicate non-existence of a problem.

    12 weeks is fine by me. Europe is probably on to something. I don’t think abortion should be a form of after-the-fact contraception.

    But I do have a feeling there are MANY on the right who would support complete criminalization. These are the irrationals I fear the most. (Dan is a tolerable Republican / Catholic. Many on his team are not.)

    Bill Clinton, who I have ever more respect for after reading Colmes’ “Red, White & Liberal” had the right idea, which I’ve quoted before:

    “Safe, legal, and rare.”

  4. A problem with the abortion debate is that so much is lumped together under “abortion.” In a certain early state, it clearly means “post-conception birth control.” Later in the pregnancy, it is infanticide. While saying “safe, legal, and rare” might make sense for post-conception birth control, how is that a moral idea for infanticide?

    Murder should not be “safe, legal, and rare.” It should be “dangerous, illegal, and nonexistent.”

    And then, somewhere in the middle, you have a great ambiguity. Is there where true “abortion” lies? Or is there some precise point (say, the quickening, as Saint Augustine said) where post-conception birth control gives way to infanticide?

    I cited the LA Times poll (http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/01/24/massacre_of_the_innocents.html), partially because I was surprised that there were more pro-infanticide extremists than anti-post-conception-birth-control extremists, even though Americans want abortion to be mostly criminal. This bodes well for abortion foes (because extremists are more easily marginalized). It also shows which side of the debate is home to more “irrationals.”

  5. Dan,

    When citing the LA Times poll, there is one flaw in your logic. To say the extremists at either end of this debate are irrational is quite an assumption. I would argue since the poll found a higher percentage of individuals at the far left as opposed to the far right, perhaps the far left isn’t as irrational as you would argue. Perhaps more people are found in that camp because it isn’t as irrational as you say.

    Perhaps there are fewer people on the extreme right on the issue because it is an irrational position.

    Maybe the only irrationals are found on the extreme right; maybe more of them are found on the extreme left.

    It doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that abortion is going to exist no matter what — you can’t legislate it away.

    But you can make it safe and rare.

    You tell me which position is more rational.

    Best Regards,


  6. “Extremist” is a better term than irrational. I quoted “irrationals” because I was addressing Aaron’s fears.

    Statistically, it is interesting that while the question is weighted rightist (most people oppose abortion), it is not a normal curve — there is a large bulge at the far left. I really don’t know what this means.

    I can’t legislate murder away, or bank robbery away. But I can make heinous acts criminal and dangerous. That seems pretty rational.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *