Expectations are a funny thing. Attending the hearing by a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Virginia’s partial birth infanticide law, I expected certain things. I came away with four impressions:
1. Isn’t this the same place where at least hundreds lined the streets to protest Michael Vick for killing dogs?
Killing dogs is horrible, but where’s the public outcry against a practice whereby babies almost ready for delivery get their skulls crushed and remains sucked out of a woman’s womb?
2. It doesn’t matter what the issue is, or even the venue — not even one as august as so high a court: liberal arguments are just as incoherent and their tactics just the same as during the hysteria of a protest rally — change the subject, ignore the central point, redefine established facts; heck, just make up stuff.
The pro-abortion lawyer, at one point, was so off base, intentionally mixing issues, attempting to make non-germane points link to her shaky premise, that even Judge Motts, who voted previously to strike down this law, said, “Now, you’re confusing me!” At another point, Judge Paul Neimeyer asked her a question, and the lawyer refused to answer it, instead pointing to something on the Commonwealth’s brief on page eight. Judge Neimeyer had to ask her at least three times to answer the question, his irritation increasing each time. By contrast, even when Judge Diana Motz and Judge M. Blane Michael disagreed with Solicitor General William Thro, it was on interpretation, not fact.
3. Use whatever description you want — painfully awkward, bizarre, or “Twilight Zone” come to mind . . .
But it was disturbing to listen to the solicitor general have to make the case — in order for the law to be ruled constitutional — that the law did not cover, nor would an abortionist be prosecuted in situations where he allowed a pre-viability baby born by accident (when born accidentally) to be put aside to die due to inattention. Maybe the word is sick.
4. How come individuals, politicians and organizations who claim they want abortion to be “safe, legal and rare” seem to ignore the “rare”?
I have never heard any pro-abortion advocate speak in favor of counseling for giving birth and putting the child up for adoption or any other option that involves life. It’s all-abortion-all-the-time. Exactly what qualifies as “rare” anyway? More than a million abortions a year seems a bit high for “rare.” If they are really for “choice” why not provide true counseling and information on the possible options and services available for women who carry the baby to term? Doesn’t true choice mean there’s another course of action available? Why, then, is it always straight to the abortion factory? Apparently, credibility is only a concept when defending the “right” to kill babies ready to live outside the womb.
Planned Parenthood likes to present itself as the voice of reason in the choice discussion. Normally being the largest abortion provider would present a conflict of interest. Yet a Candid Look at Margaret Sanger in her own words tells you a lot.
The Media was all over Michael Vick’s dog-fighting case. We learned more details about the practice than most of us cared to. One wonders why the lack similar curiosity when it comes to fetal pain and the details of what goes on in late-term abortions.
The move Amazing Grace, the story of William Wilberforce was compelling because it showed a consistent compassion that extended to man and beast.
The Family Foundation helps to create a climate in which abortion exists by opposing reasonable sex education in public schools. Abstinence is great–I’m all for it. But even kids who take abstinence pledges have sex, and they need to know how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STIs. Sure, in a perfect world parents would teach their children about preventing pregnancies through abstinence and/or birth control, but not all parents do. We’ve left that job, and probably many others, to the schools. So what’s more harmful: kids who’ve been taught that abstinence is the only answer, who then have sex without knowing how to prevent pregnancies; or kids who’ve been taught that abstinence is the best solution, but if they do decide to have sex, they’ve been taught how to prevent pregnancies and STIs?
And as a matter of perspective, I have NEVER heard or seen an anti-abortion activist advocate adoption. I would actually like to know how many employees of the Family Foundation have adopted children.
If someone were to come on school campuses with a program on Safe Smoking I don’t think anyone would be rushing to add it to the curriculum. There is only one way to avoid the health risks associated with tobacco — Abstinence! Since those in charge of the school generally agree, I don’t think we’ll see Safe Smoking anytime soon.
Would you put your kid [or yourself] on an airplane with a 70% chance of not crashing? I think not. If airplanes had a 75% chance of flying without crashing that’s still one plane out of every four that does crash. Look at the published statistics for condoms and other methods of preventing consequences and honestly the best answer for most parents would be to create a culture of abstinence. What’s worse, the condom’s failure rate in blocking viruses is usually worse since viruses are smaller than what condoms were originally designed to block.
Reasonable sex education would focus on building healthy non-sexual relationships and be quite honest about the potential health risks that protection methods do not entirely eliminate.
As to adoption, I see ministries such as Focus on the Family and Family Life Today devoting a lot of energy toward adoption. Perhaps you should listen to more Christian Radio.
This article from City Journal: Maybe It’s Time for Abstinence by Kay S. Hymowitz discusses a study published in the British Journal of Health Economics that certainly needs to be considered.
Here is the article mentioned above: Maybe It’s Time for Abstinence by Kay S. Hymowitz
Let’s deal with reality, which is that some kids are going to have sex, no matter how much you want them to abstain from having sex. Do we want them to be ignorant about birth control, thus increasing the chance that an unplanned pregnancy will end in abortion, or do we give them the knowledge they need to prevent pregnancy? I’d rather they knew how to use birth control than end up at an abortion clinic.
But I agree that we need to teach (and model) healthy relationships to kids…hetero- and homosexual.
Let’s deal with a bigger reality. Our culture has failed in that it has allowed sexual behaviour to be reduced to a mechanical form of recreation. In the book Modern Sex, Liberation and Its Discontents by Ivan R. Dee this case is presented eloquently in a series of essays.
My Safe Smoking analogy stands. In the 1950′s when I was a child, everybody smoked. Through a consciensous effort, that culture has been largely changed. Everybody is not smoking anymore. Yes, many do, but the culture of media does not shamelessly promote it.
In a Culture of Abstinence the yound people who remain chaste obviously benefit, but those who fail benefit as well, since the spread of disease is mitigated by the general behavior. As Hymowitz points out in 1984, when a court case temporarily restricted teen access to family planning clinics, teen pregnancy rates actually fell in Britian.
Let’s deal with a reality closer to home. Anyone who has kids knows that they don’t always wear their helmet when snowboarding, bicycling or in-line skating. Yes, you remind them over and over to do so but I can vouch for the fact that they don’t. Given the normal irresponsibility of youth, some activities such as handling explosives or semi-automatic weapons are rightfully deferred until later.
The kid you have to repeatedly remind to take her vitamins…. well, you get the idea. It makes so much more sense to fill one’s youthful life with human relationships that are rich in human relationship. I tried to teach my children to enjoy the company of beautiful people [of both genders] without possessing them. Healthy relationships require the restraint of sexuality. Don’t we owe it to our children to model discretion?
Of course we owe it to our children to model discretion & restraint. I wish more parents would! But I still contend that for pregnancy prevention, sex with a condom is better than sex with no condom. Teaching ONLY abstinence does NOTHING to prepare kids who choose to have sex how to prevent pregnancies. That should be OBVIOUS.
Citing Hymowitz’s observation of the situation in 1984, do we really encourage anything by perpetuating the myth that children can bypass parents and obtain ‘consequence free’ sexual freedom? The mere existence of consequences [and I DO promote teaching the fact that there are consequences] serves as a more effective deterrent. It is appropriate to present true failure rates. When one in four airplanes crashes, we change our travel patterns.
What does the 1984 research prove? It could simply mean that kids were more careful since they realized they couldn’t anonymously access the clinic. More careful is a good thing, but in this case it was not directly related to more access.
Sure, kids need to be taught consequences and that condoms can and do fail, though not at the rate of one in four. Still, sex with a condom is better at preventing pregnancy than sex with no condom.
Bob, by your logic, since kids are going to disobey their parents anyway, they don’t need to be taught to wear helmets or other protective gear while pursuing potentially injurious activities like bicycle riding or snowboarding. Of course they shouldn’t be pursuing those activities anyway, since they’re potentially dangerous. But if they do, helmets may not protect them from injury, so why bother with a helmet at all?
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
David2,
By your logic, Who NEEDS parents anyway. Let’s send them off to state indoctrination centers [oops, I mean schools]. It worked great in the old Soviet Union, didn’t it?
“At Planned Parenthood you can also get birth control without the consent or knowledge of your parents. So, if you are 14, 15 or 16 and you come to Planned Parenthood, we won’t tell your parents you’ve been there. We swear we won’t tell your parents.”
– Planned Parenthood employee lecturing students of Ramona High School, Riverside, Calif., April 21-22, 1986
Bob, perhaps you haven’t noticed, but I think one thing we CAN agree on is that more parents need to be more involved in their kids lives. In other areas we must agree to disagree.
I would go on to say that for most parents, deferring sexual gratification is about much more than preventing pregnancy. I have not even begun to bring up psychological and develepmental reasons for abstinence. There are plenty. What is to be gained by negating good parenting by circumventing it?
As a kid gets more proficient at the snowboard, he begins to realize that the helmet is a good idea. Sports activities provide enough consequences at low speeds to make the point. Even at 20% risk, does your child really want to deal with the consequences of HIV or Chlamydia?
If you want more involved parents it is important to affirm their relevance, not negate it. Thus I would maintain my arguement that we can and should create a Culture of Abstinence in our world beyond the home. I hear you saying parents should be more involved. I believe you mean it. I would simply ask what is gained by opposing their message in the larger community?
I understand your arguement that some kids will always do it anyway but would cite Hymowitz [above] in disagreeing on how best to serve them.
[...] to move forward to achieve their stated goal of advancing science? As noted before on this blog, the insincerity of the “safe, legal and rare,” crowd gets exposed when asked what policies they advocate to preserve unborn life. How they [...]
[...] partial birth abortion ban. Read our summary of the hearing in early November here, as well as more impressions we had after the oral arguments here. (On those threads are links to legal opinions and audio of oral arguments in other key pro-life [...]
[...] Four Thoughts, One Theme: Credibility [...]
[...] although he recently accepted the job as university counsel at Christopher Newport University. He was bombarded with questions by judges Blane Michael and Diana Motz (see previous commentary). Those two were the majority on the three judge panel (see previous commentary) that heard [...]