Presentation on theme: "Religious Dimensions Common to Human Rights Abuses with Abortion as a Case Study Presented by Al Lemmo Building Bridges of Understanding Exploring Conflict."— Presentation transcript:
Religious Dimensions Common to Human Rights Abuses with Abortion as a Case Study Presented by Al Lemmo Building Bridges of Understanding Exploring Conflict and Peace In Religious Practice Henry Ford Community College April 5th-6th, 2013
The conference seeks to address the conflicts within and between religions, while simultaneously promoting freedom of and from religion. The conference also addresses specific major conflicts labeled ‘religious’ and will facilitate and offer conflict resolution methods. This session will focus on the conflict over abortion, a conflict often labeled ‘religious,’ both within the Catholic Church and between two competing philosophies which can be thought of as the foundations of ‘religions’ in contemporary America. Different traditional religions view these philosophies differently. A model for understanding this conflict, which can also apply to other conflicts, religious or otherwise, will be used.
Outline of Presentation Introduction The Model – Religious Dimensions Common to Human Rights Abuses Discussion of Principles – My perspective on this issue The Conflict Over Abortion Within the Catholic Church A “Crash Course” in the Constitution – Selected provisions Violations of the Just War Criteria and the Laws of War The Selling of Abortion – Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s Campaign of Lies Roe v. Wade – The Lies That Keep on Killing
Why I Am Doing This Original motivation – the nature of the act – still the only reason anyone has to oppose abortion – a matter of basic justice and morality. (Establish Justice?) This issue divides us like no other (Insure domestic Tranquility?) – We need to build bridges of understanding – Honesty is essential. We are a nation of walking wounded – physically, psychologically/emotionally, socially, spiritually --The spiritual damage alone is incalculable. (Secure the Blessings of Liberty?) All of us have been touched by this. It has done great damage to our entire culture. I am not your enemy or judge but I believe we have enemies that are not flesh and blood and will all face a final Judge some day. Other nations worldwide have also suffered great damage because of this. Our nation has great influence and is waging cultural imperialism. I want the damage to stop. I want your input as an informal focus group to evaluate and perhaps strengthen my model of conflict to hopefully recognize and extinguish the sources of future conflicts.
This session presents a model that demonstrates the common elements of virtually all abuses of human rights and how these abuses are related to each other in order to more easily recognize and stop them in their early and formative stages. It can also appeal to the conscience of the individual to recognize development of these elements in his or her own thinking so as to reconsider approaches to treating others and build bridges of understanding.
The model was originally conceived to strengthen the understanding of abortion as a human rights abuse by highlighting its similarities to other human rights abuses Applicability to other abuses and conflicts was readily apparent Name chosen to more effectively tie other human rights abuses to the most egregious abuse of our time: prenatal child-slaying The model is based on Western developments in philosophy, theology and political theory, including the Judeo-Christian tradition
Intrinsicism The United States is founded on the philosophical premise that our unalienable human rights are intrinsic with our human lives. This premise of Intrinsicism allows us to appeal to our Creator over the head of any tyrant or other would-be grantor or denier of our fundamental human rights for their recognition and protection. This premise has been called our “civic religion.”
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.” Thomas Jefferson
Intrinsicism (continued) The inclusive philosophy of Intrinsicism serves as a wall of separation between freedom and oppression or civilization and barbarianism. Once this barrier has been breached, all criteria for destruction then compete on an equal basis because they are justified in principle. Abandoning Intrinsicism can and often does result in carnage. The U.S. has some 55,000,000 ‘disappeared.’
Rejection of Intrinsicism – The Cult of Abortionism Rejection of the philosophy of Intrinsicism is the basis of a cult religion that has been at the root of virtually every abuse ever inflicted on human individuals or populations. I call this cult "Abortionism" to clearly associate it with the most egregious violation of human rights in our country and most of the world today. However, its principles apply equally well to nearly every other human rights abuse in world history. Its standard practices are three “abortions” or terminations:
The Physical Abortion The Physical Abortion of lives or liberties by some form of murder, enslavement, plunder or bodily violation is the final and most easily recognized and nearly universally rejected of the three abortions. It is enabled by…..
The Mental Abortion The Mental Abortion enables the Physical Abortion. It is the step by which the target population, however defined, is mentally relegated to some subhuman category such that anything can be done to it. This step is essential to overcoming the moral obstacles to committing the most egregious violations of other human beings that all human societies prohibit. Conscience is effectively removed from the picture by this process. The Mental Abortion is also widely recognized and understood. It is enabled by…..
The Theological Abortion The Theological Abortion is the termination of the authority of God to grant us our human rights. It is often disguised as a claim to having been empowered by God, but is ultimately a matter of substituting one's own judgment, values and preferences for God's. (God’s desires are that we have life and liberty.) This act of idolatry is at the heart of all sin (separation from God, failure to love). It can also be described as idolatrous worship of the human intellect as competent to choose criteria for who deserves the recognition and protection of the human community as persons under the law. This enables the Mental Abortion. The Theological Abortion is not widely recognized or understood.
The Sects of Abortionism The sects and subsects of this cult are characterized by their criteria for choice in performing the Mental Abortion and are named accordingly: Racist, Sexist, Creedist, Birthist, Classist, Utilitarianist, Functionalist, etc. Basically, Racist Abortionites and Birthist Abortionites, for example, share the same ugly ideas with other Abortionites. They believe it is up to them -- those who have power -- to grant or deny fundamental human rights to other human beings rather than that such rights are granted to all human beings by God. They differ only in their criteria for the choice of discriminating against others even to the point of rationalizing their destruction.
Summary of the Three Abortions Theological Abortion – terminates the authority of God to make the rules – activating principle: human will “My will be done” Mental Abortion – dehumanize the target individual(s) or population – activating principle: infatuation with human intellect or self-worship – worship of the faculty of reason to eliminate conscience The criteria for choice in conducting the Mental Abortion typically make perfect sense to the practicing Abortionite Physical Abortion – activating principle: might makes right – anything can be justified against non-persons All three “Abortions” are evils or sins
Is abortion a ‘religious’ issue? The controversy over abortion is sometimes thought of as ‘religious’ but at heart it is a conflict between this nation’s protective and inclusive founding philosophy of Intrinsicism (the basis of our “civic religion”) and the destructive, exclusionary and alien philosophy of Abortionism. We have become reluctant if not averse to acknowledging spiritual factors in our nation’s problems. There has been an unfortunately effective campaign to exclude religion from public discourse. This is a seriously ill-advised approach.
Some Proposed Alternative Terminology To Abortionism, Abortions and Abortionites Abrogationism, Abrogations and Abrogationites or Abrogationists Terminationism, Terminations and Terminationites or Terminationists Rejectionism, Rejections and Rejectionites or Rejectionists Separationism, Separations and Separationites or Separationists Would this model of how human rights abuses are rationalized be more effective when employed to counteract such abuses in general, if one of these alternatives were used in place of Abortionism?
Some examples from history of Abortionite sects in action Racist Abortionism American slavery, racial segregation and discrimination, the Indian Wars, the Nazi Holocaust, Japanese imperialism, the Rwandan genocide Creedist Abortionism Religious wars in Europe (Catholic/Protestant), India and elsewhere, Islamic wars of conquest, the Crusades Classist Abortionism Russian Revolution, Ukrainian genocide, Chinese Cultural Revolution Functionalist or Utilitarianist Abortionism Terri Schiavo case and euthanasia in general, refusal of treatment to handicapped newborns, Peter Singer utilitarian ethics, futile care Sexist Abortionism Sexual assault and discrimination, new restrictions on women in the Middle East, human trafficking, pornography Birthist Abortionism Prenatal child-slaying in this country and elsewhere
Lessons from the Holocaust The worst thing we can do to dishonor the memory of the victims of the Holocaust or any other genocide or other violation of human rights is to fail to learn and apply the lessons there are to be learned from these horrific historical events. If we do not do this they will be repeated over and over again in the future. (Remember Einstein’s definition of insanity.) Breaching the wall of separation between civilization and barbarianism (philosophy of Intrinsicism) – in the 1930s the German people accepted the Hegelian philosophy of rational utility: whatever solves a problem on the practical level must be considered as moral. Ends justify the means. Holocaust stories – e.g., Church choirs began to sing louder to drown out the noise when trains known to be carrying people to the death camps passed by. The moral is you don’t want to be like such morally defective people, even though they could have jeopardized their own lives by raising their voices in protest.
Principles of Conflict Resolution (Part 1) Define the conflict. Attack the problem. It is not you against me; it is you and me against the problem. The problem is the problem. List the relationship's many shared concerns and needs (common ground). Look for interests. Elicits facts, not opinions. Assure a fair process. Listen actively. “What I heard you say is..…” Use direct communication. Use of “I-messages.”
Principles of Conflict Resolution (Part 2) Start with what's doable. Accept responsibility. Develop forgiveness skills. Purify our hearts. Focus on the future. What do we want to do differently? Options for mutual gain?
Principles of Conflict Resolution Define the conflict. (There is little or no agreement in this area.) My perspective: Main two points: Individual human lives biologically begin at conception (fertilization). Innocent human lives may not be violated. (Intrinsicism, personhood) This is a human rights issue, not a religious issue. This is a religious practice, namely prenatal living human sacrifice to the idols this nation now worships, primarily the usual pantheon of money, power, image or reputation, and, above all, unrestricted sexual expression. The First Amendment does not protect this. Our human rights principles have deep roots in religion. Our national premise is the philosophy of Intrinsicism, i.e., we are endowed by our Creator with our most basic human rights. Human rights must begin with human lives. This issue is about how we determine the value of human life. (continued)
Principles of Conflict Resolution Define the conflict. (There is little or no agreement in this area.) (continued) No rationale has ever been offered for why Intrinsicism should not apply before birth apart from assertion of will (Theological Abortion) and intellectual conceit (Mental Abortion) We share only one characteristic on an exactly equal basis: that we are living members of the human species. Making any other characteristic a criterion for who matters puts people at risk. Any “right to choose” depends on what’s being chosen. All choices are not created equal. No one has a right to choose to take another’s life. There is no right to choose to have a prenatal child dismembered alive within oneself for any reason and at any time in pregnancy. Abortion is an “ends justify the means” approach to human problems.
Principles of Conflict Resolution Define the conflict. (There is little or no agreement in this area.) Opposing perspective(s): Women must have this right to have equality in our society. Every woman has a right to choose to have an abortion. This is a private matter that outside parties have no right to any say in. This is a very individual matter that may include religious considerations protected by the First Amendment guarantee to free exercise of religion and conscience. The characteristics of persons who are protected under the Constitution are not possessed by the entity in the womb.
Why do people support legal abortion? Genuine concern for women Health Equality – Social standing and advancement Opportunities – Economic, educational, etc. Freedom – Personal autonomy, religion, conscience, etc. There are also less admirable factors, e.g., evasion of responsibility But we will never achieve or even approach a just, compassionate and peaceful world if we are willing to abandon any part of the human family. The above laudable ends do not justify this means.
Principles of Conflict Resolution Attack the problem. It is not you against me; it is you and me against the problem. The problem is the problem. The problem is sin. Our whole culture is part of the problem. The sexual revolution normalized sexual sin and its consequences. The “this-world” and hereafter adverse consequences of sin remain unchanged. The problem starts with the Theological Abortion. Many people now believe they can make their own moral rules. Moral relativism arises from the Theological Abortion. Our political, ethical, moral, social and overall cultural environments have been seriously polluted. Major cleanup is necessary.
Principles of Conflict Resolution List the relationship's many shared concerns and needs. (common ground). Look for interests. Every person should have the ability to fully develop their God-given talents and make the most of them. Everyone should have access to necessary healthcare. Everyone should be accountable for their own actions. Things that are significantly harmful to individuals or society should not be allowed. We are entitled to safety. Everyone should enjoy freedom of religion and conscience. Everyone should enjoy equal protection of the laws. We all have an interest in cultivating virtue, responsibility and moral integrity in every individual.
Rabbi David Rosen Ideas from Jewish Law Intrinsic value of the child Duties and responsibilities towards the child Our obligations to protect the lives and dignity of all human beings He who destroys or saves one life destroys or saves the world Care for the vulnerable and marginalized The need to show compassion to (the) other which includes to know what pains the other Self-defense short of taking another's life Not only the ends but the means are a moral imperative Modernity's challenge to authority – individual autonomy
Principles of Conflict Resolution Elicits facts, not opinions. Individual human lives begin at conception (fertilization). Legal abortion has done and continues to do our people and our society a great deal of harm.
Principles of Conflict Resolution Assure a fair process. The major national media are dominated by opponents of Intrinsicism and the terminology they use is generally unfavorable to Intrinsicism. Abortion rights vs. Abortion “rites” or Legal abortion Abortion (euphemistic) vs. Prenatal child-slaying or Prenatal live dismemberment – both are more accurate and descriptive Abortions are committed vs. Abortions are performed Reproductive rights vs. Repro-destructive rituals or rites Viability vs. Intra-uterine viability and extra-uterine viability
Language Shaping the Battlespace Fighting on one’s preferred turf has been recognized as a key advantage in battle for millennia The battlefield and weapons in this struggle consist of words and ideas Language shapes thinking which shapes actions Actions shape thinking which shapes language How many people even know there is a correct, scientific term for a pregnant woman?
Principles of Conflict Resolution Assure a fair process. (continued) The Supreme Court’s intellectually bankrupt and morally unconscionable decision in Roe v. Wade made a fair process for resolving this conflict nearly impossible. This decision stands in the way of any significant progress.
Principles of Conflict Resolution Listen actively. “What I heard you say is..…” What follows is not active listening but active interpretation Innocent anachronisms of language – a real problem for communicating the Intrinsicistic position Evidence of the Mental Abortion: References to children “already here” References to children coming “into this world” Meaning of “have a baby” – to give birth
Principles of Conflict Resolution Listen actively. “What I heard you say is..…” (continued) What follows is not active listening but active interpretation Additional evidence of the Mental Abortion: - “A woman has a right to control her own body” - “It’s her body” No, it’s two bodies in a unique relationship - “If you’re against abortion don’t have one” - “I’m pro-choice” (I’ve conducted a Mental Abortion sufficient to absolve myself of all obligation to defend a prenatal life and/or I’ve substituted apathy for compassion) - “I’m pro-life (or anti-abortion) and pro-choice” - “I’m pro-choice and believe in the sanctity of human life” Orwellian doublethink – contradictory beliefs accepted
Some examples of Abortionspeak characteristic of the various sects Racist Abortionism Racial and ethnic epithets (no examples will be provided), equating with lower forms of life, etc. Creedist Abortionism Heretic, infidel, kafir, etc. Classist Abortionism Bourgeois, bloodsuckers, the 1 percent, the 99 percent, etc. Functionalist or Utilitarianist Abortionism Idiots, retards, useless eaters, vegetables, etc. Sexist Abortionism Sexual epithets (no examples will be provided), pornography as hate literature Birthist Abortionism Blob of tissue, mass of cells, products of conception, parasite, potential life, etc.
Principles of Conflict Resolution Use direct communication. Use of “I-messages.” I know the beginning of a new human life at conception to be a scientific fact and any challenge to this idea as being a matter of philosophy or theology is a matter of flaunting one’s ignorance. I regard the wisdom of the ages as reflected in Intrinsicism as vastly superior to the hubris of the present day as reflected in Abortionism.
Principles of Conflict Resolution Start with what's doable. - Continue to talk with those who don’t agree with us. - Change laws, customs and policies that make pregnancy, child- bearing and child-rearing needlessly difficult or burdensome for women. - Hold those who are harming women accountable for their actions. Acknowledge the harm we are experiencing and exporting.
Principles of Conflict Resolution Accept responsibility. - Legal abortion advocates (Birthist Abortionites) initiated this controversy. - In a democratic system we are responsible for the laws we live under. - I can’t not be involved in this.
Principles of Conflict Resolution Develop forgiveness skills. - Minimal interest in punishment – if any punishment is appropriate it can be left up to God. - The only punishment appropriate is the minimum necessary to deter the harmful act. - Those who have been involved in abortion need compassion and healing. Much help is available.
Principles of Conflict Resolution Purify our hearts.
Principles of Conflict Resolution Focus on the future. What do we want to do differently? Recognize and acknowledge the culture change that is necessary. Return to our roots: rule of law, both God’s law (Ten Commandments and love of neighbor) and man’s law (U.S. Constitution). Find a solution to the problem of human will that is behind the Theological Abortion. (Prayer and fasting have been suggested.) Human will is not amenable to logic and reason. Recognize the true meaning of freedom which includes obligations.
Principles of Conflict Resolution Options for mutual gain? - Recognize that our “interests” are more than economic but include development of moral values in all of us. - Recognize the critical importance of our founding philosophy of Intrinsicism and the need for its restoration.
The Conflict Over Abortion Within the Catholic Church My email to fellow Catholics attending a conference entitled “Promoting the Common Good in Michigan” in April of 2008 with their responses and my replies http://www.cul.detmich.com/lemmo_common_good/lemmo_common_good.html My fundraising letter for the 2012 elections http://rattlewithus.ning.com/profiles/blogs/defeating-obama-a-strategy-to-demoralize- his-supporters-by
Email from a very devout and loyal Catholic friend regarding the January 2013 conference entitled “Catholic Witness in a Nation Divided.” Good luck with "winning over wayward Catholics." As I have already related to you I have tried for literally YEARS to do that through dialogue etc. and my conclusion is that as a group they (generally) are the most close-minded and disobedient (vis-a- vis Church teachings) people that I have ever encountered. If minds such as these seem to be unable to reach/convince those folks, more power to you if you think that you may be able to do so.
An email response to my fundraising letter for the 2012 elections from a Catholic woman Hi Al - I guess I am one of your "fools" because I already voted for Pres. Obama. My decisions on who to vote for goes far beyond the single issue topics of abortion and birth control. While I don't agree with abortion, I feel it is not my place to judge the women who make this extremely difficult life decision. Also, abortion is legal in the US and, seriously, Mitt Romney's plan of action will not include making abortion illegal, for one because he will never get the entire Congress to agree to reverse a Supreme Court decision. I am continually amazed by the number of men who have not borne children, nor raised children when their finances were strained, nor have families and haven't experienced first-hand the difficulties of raising children, who continue to feel they are the people who should make tough decisions for women. Believe it or not, all of the women I know are very capable of serious thought about their reproductive lives and no woman I know has every taken the decision to have or not have children lightly. Some of my woman friends continue to suffer the consequences of their decisions and will forever. I am repulsed by scare tactics showing aborted fetuses and mandates that require women to view abortions before they make their decisions. Life is hard enough for many, many women in the US and all countries without piling on unnecessary guilt. A better plan of action, I think, would be to work for equality of ALL people in ALL areas of life and an increase in education funding in this country including sex education. Clearly, sex education given by parents is not enough nor is it accurate. Now this would be an issue I could support. In my opinion, people should consider that the President represents the United States of America and all of the diversity of culture, religion, political views, etc. that this entails.
Email response to my fundraising letter for the 2012 elections from a Catholic friend of long standing Dear Al -- As a pro-life advocate I want to promote candidates for political office who actively support life. To be pro-birth is not enough. If a candidate wants to cut support that enables young women to choose life for their unborn children, how is this nurturing life? Is that what Jesus would do? If a candidate wants to cut programs that mentor young fathers-to-be so they can recognize and meet their responsibilities, how is this nurturing life? A recent EWTN speaker pointed out that the abortion rate for those in poverty is 300% higher than for those above the poverty line. To slash the budget for programs that offer counseling, food, shelter, alternative education, job training, and health care is often to slash the lifeline that enables the most fragile in society to choose life. Finally, would the same Jesus who told us: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you…” choose to expand our military force by trillions of dollars in the next few years—not even requested by the armed forces—when our nation has poured more money into defense than the next 20 nations combined? Where is the trillion dollars for peace academies, conflict resolution programs, diplomacy training and a host of life-affirming methods that would greatly diminish the call for violent force? We need courageous men and women to affirm life every step of the way.
My email response to my friend Thank you for your response. What most people don't understand when it comes to all these federal programs is that our Constitution prohibits the government from being involved in nearly all of them. Yes, they do good things for people, but failing to abide by our supreme law, which was written to restrict the power of government, is failure to abide by a still higher law: to love our neighbor as ourselves. Charity belongs at the state or local level where it is closer to the people. This is what the Church's teaching on subsidiarity requires. And apart from government action, charity should be our responsibility as individuals, as church and as members of whatever organizations we choose to associate with to deal with particular issues. Passing off our responsibility to the federal government, which has no legitimate powers to conduct social programs, has corrupted our whole society in many ways, building a culture of dependency that has wrecked families, and distorting our government functions. I'd love to sit down with you or anyone else and show them exactly where in the Constitution the restrictions I'm speaking of exist. I know you and many others have the best of intentions, but empowering an evil agenda -- and I don't use the word evil lightly -- to accomplish things that have no justification under the law to begin with, is no way to exercise responsible citizenship or Christian charity. You're one of my most cherished friends and I'd hate to see you do something terrible with your vote. Maybe we can talk some before Election Day. I know you're always busy but feel free to call me when you have a chance. In His love, Al
Key Provisions of the U.S. Constitution (Part 1 of 3) Article I (legislative branch) Section 1. All legislative powers vested in Congress (p.14) No such powers to make laws are vested in the executive or judicial branches Article III (judicial branch) Section 1. The judicial Power – not defined (p.26) Only the jurisdiction of the judiciary is defined in Section 2 (p.27) Congress empowered to regulate the Supreme Court – Sec. 2 clause 2 (p.27) “Court stripping” is a legitimate power of Congress Article I Section 8. Enumerated powers of Congress (p.19) The enumerated powers are very specific - only those thought to be necessary for the central government to exercise – all else left to the states Much of what the federal government does today is not legitimate under the Constitution’s list of enumerated powers, including healthcare, education, welfare, transportation, energy, agriculture and much more Violating the Constitution to do good is an “ends justify the means” approach General Welfare – not carte blanche per the Tenth Amendment Commerce clause – “…among the several States…” – interstate commerce only Necessary and proper clause (p.21) – “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department orOfficer thereof.”
Key Provisions of the U.S. Constitution (Part 2 of 3) First Amendment – Establishment and free exercise clauses (p.33) “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Fourth Amendment – protection against unreasonable searches and seizures – implies a right of privacy (p.33) Eighth Amendment – prohibits cruel and unusual punishments (p.35) Ninth Amendment – Rights retained by the people (p.35) “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Tenth Amendment – Reserved powers – negates broad interpretation of “general welfare” “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (p.35)
Key Provisions of the U.S. Constitution (Part 3 of 3) Fourteenth Amendment Section 1. (p.37) Citizenship defined – “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Due process clause – “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…” Equal protection clause – “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Article VII. Constitution signed on “…the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven…” (p.31)
Abortion as V iolating the Just War Criteria and the Laws of War Informal talk delivered to local Christian peace activists (1986) http://www.cul.detmich.com/alwar.html Some explanatory notes were added in 1996 Letter to the editor (1995) http://www.cul.detmich.com/lemmolte.html
The Career of Dr. Bernard Nathanson http://www.lifenews.com/2011/02/28/bernard-nathanson-a-life-transformed-by-truth-on- abortion/ Obstetrician/Gynecologist and zealous campaigner for the legalization of abortion. A founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL). Originator and disseminator of the most pernicious, damaging and persistent lies (still with us today) by which abortion was sold to the American public (abortion a medical rather than a moral issue, fake polling data, fabricated data on illegal abortions and maternal deaths, benefits of legalization, casting of the Catholic Church hierarchy in the role of villain, abortion a solution to poverty). Presided over, supervised or committed some 80,000 abortions. Converted to the pro-life cause by the weight of the evidence. “…I was converted to the cause of life only because I was converted to the cause of truth.” Eventually converted from being a “devout atheist” to being a Catholic.
Conversation with Larry Lader from “Aborting America” by Dr. Bernard Nathanson ""Historically," he said, after the usual throat-clearing ceremony, "every revolution has to have its villain. It doesn't really matter whether it's a king, a dictator or a tsar, but it has to be someone, a person to rebel against. It's easier for the people we want to persuade to perceive it this way." I conceded that. It was good tactical strategy. "Now,"" Larry's continuing, ""in our case it makes little sense to lead a campaign only against unjust laws, even though that's what we are really doing. We have to narrow the focus, identify those unjust laws with a person or group of people. A single person isn't quite what we want, since that might excite sympathy for him. Rather, a small group of shadowy, powerful people. Too large a group would diffuse the focus, don't you see?" I nodded. Where was he going?" Continuing, ""There's always been one group of people in this country associated with reactionary politics, behind-the-scenes manipulations, socially backward ideas. You know who I mean, Bernie?" Not the Catholics again? "Well, yes and no." Throat clearing again. A heavy thought coming. And I wasn't wrong. It was his devil theory. "Not just all Catholics. First of all, that's too large a group, and for us to vilify them all would diffuse our focus. Secondly, we have to convince liberal Catholics to join us, a popular front, as it were, and if we tar them all with the same brush, we'll just antagonize a few who might otherwise have joined us and be valuable showcases for us. No, it's got to be the Catholic hierarchy. That's a small enough group to come down on, and anonymous enough so that no names ever have to be mentioned, but everybody will have a fairly good idea of whom we are talking about." His syntax was as careful and as surgical as his daily shave. It was irrefutable. The only thing that was a little jarring, even to my untutored mind, was that the original 19th century laws, New York and elsewhere, had been placed on the books mostly by doctors when there were few Catholics around. I raised that question, hesitantly. "Bernie, we're talking politics now. Watch and see how respectful of facts the opposition will be once our campaign gets going. Just listen to the opposition.""
Some quotations from Dr. Bernard Nathanson “The discussion … has been muddied by a resort to a particularly vicious brand of anti- Catholicism, as many of you know, in the press. There have been ongoing attempts to paint this movement [the Pro-Life Movement] as a Catholic movement, and there have been almost heartbreaking lies and libel in the press on this score. If you ever substituted for the word Catholic, in many of these publications, the word Jewish or black, you would be immediately castigated. The press would destroy you. However, because the word Catholic is used, it appears to be allowable.”
Some quotations from Dr. Bernard Nathanson “I remember laughing when we made those slogans up.” “We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical.” “We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one… Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000.”
Some quotations from Dr. Bernard Nathanson (continued) “Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.” “Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500 percent since legalization.”
Roe v. Wade (1973) Characterized by poor scholarship with multiple errors and omissions regarding history, medicine, constitutional law, biology and more Numerous references to “potential life” or “potentiality for life” or human life The First Amendment is mentioned once but there is no discussion of the religion clauses or any claim for their relevance for the right to abortion Discussion of the American Medical Association position -- Dr. Horatio Storer, the leader of physicians’ efforts to protect prenatal lives is not named Discusses three reasons for criminal abortion laws: Moral reasons – discounted Medical reasons – hazards to the mother Protecting prenatal life
Roe v. Wade (1973) Medical Reasons for Criminal Abortion Laws “Even after 1900, and perhaps until as late as the development of antibiotics in the 1940's, standard modern techniques such as dilation and curettage were not nearly so safe as they are today. Thus, it has been argued that a State's real concern in enacting a criminal abortion law was to protect the pregnant woman, that is, to restrain her from submitting to a procedure that placed her life in serious jeopardy. “Modern medical techniques have altered this situation. Appellants and various amici refer to medical data indicating that abortion in early pregnancy, that is, prior to the end of the first trimester, although not without its risk, is now relatively safe. Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth. [n44] Consequently, any interest of the State in protecting the woman from an inherently hazardous procedure, except when it would be equally dangerous for her to forgo it, has largely disappeared.” [n44] Mentions “high mortality rates at illegal ‘abortion mills’” – no details discussed
Roe v. Wade (1973) Reasons for Criminal Abortion Laws – Protecting Prenatal Life “The third reason is the State's interest -- some phrase it in terms of duty -- in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory (emphasis mine) that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. [n45] The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail” [n45] The opinion notes that the purpose of these laws has been sharply disputed in state courts
Roe v. Wade (1973) The three major points of the decision Privacy – Blatant assertion of a new constitutional right to abortion without any discussion or pretense of reasoning Personhood – Failed to note an earlier legal precedent for due process rights of prenatal children recognizing them as legal persons – poor research and scholarship Prenatal Life – Deliberate evasion of the relevant scientific facts that argued against the desired conclusion
Roe v. Wade The Right of Privacy “This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment 's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.“ There is no further discussion of the history, origin or reasoning for the right to abortion. “Where certain ‘fundamental rights’ are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a ‘compelling state interest’”
Due process clause – “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…” “The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.” [n51] [n52] “But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [p158] [n54] “All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. ”[n55] ”[n55] “In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” Roe v. Wade The Meaning of “Person”
Roe v. Wade The Meaning of “Person” The Court held that unborn persons were entitled to protection under the Due Process Clause in the case of McArthur v. Scott (1884). By ruling that preborn persons do have the right to due process, a right that is the fundamental law of the land, they are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. “The net result is that we have two Supreme Court cases coming to opposing conclusions: McArthur v. Scott holding that preborn persons have the right to due process, and Roe holding that preborn persons have no constitutional rights. Which case should be followed? First, Roe was obviously wrong as a matter of fact, since McArthur v. Scott preceded it. Second, McArthur v. Scott’s holding concerns the procedural right to due process, a right that is the fundamental law of the land—a right without which all other rights would be unenforceable. If the rule of law means anything, any court would be justified under our Constitution in disregarding Roe and following McArthur v. Scott.” See articles by Gregory J. Roden – references in handout
Roe v. Wade The Meaning of “Person” “In Roe, Blackmun was at odds with his own remark, “[U]nborn children... have been represented by guardians ad litem.” That is because in Roe, the Supreme Court rejected a motion by a guardian ad litem, appointed in the state of Illinois to represent preborn children, to make arguments on their behalf (Doe v. Scott, 321 F. Supp. 1385 [ND Ill. 1971], cert. denied, 409 U.S. 817, 1972). Preborn persons were thereby denied a hearing in Roe. Hence, by means of the rule pronounced in McArthur v. Scott, the case of Roe v. Wade was not just wrongly decided, it is null and void with regard to the rights of preborn persons. Quoted from article by Gregory J. Roden
Roe v. Wade The Meaning of “Person” – Other Cases An Equal Protection case, involving unborn persons, was decided in the year before Roe (1972), Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. In McArthur and Weber the Supreme Court upheld the vested rights of unborn persons under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. In the primary case Blackmun claimed supported the right of privacy, Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford… the federal judiciary could not order one party to a suit to submit to surgical examinations. Still, Justice Gray noted that the common law contained exceptions allowing examinations of pregnant women, as due process protection for children en ventre sa mere: “The writ de ventre inspiciendo, to ascertain whether a woman convicted of a capital crime was quick with child, was allowed by the common law, in order to guard against the taking of the life of an unborn child for the crime of the mother.” Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 253 (1891). The common-law use of the writ de ventre inspiciendo in early American legal history is beyond dispute. Email communication from attorney Gregory J. Roden
Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. 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.” This is not innocent ignorance This evaded acknowledging that they were striking down the nation’s founding premise. “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.” “With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb.” Roe v. Wade When Life Begins
A portion of Justice Byron White’s dissent in Roe v. Wade With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 states are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.
Roe v. Wade Legalized abortion by invalidating state laws Legalized abortion throughout pregnancy due to the broad definition of health in the companion decision, Doe v. Bolton (“all factors, physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age”) Declared privacy a fundamental right “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy” Stripped the prenatal child of all standing under the law Enshrined the Mental Abortion of the prenatal child in American law Established Abortionism as America’s new state religion, replacing the founding “civic religion” of Intrinsicism Empowered the Birthist Abortionite agenda domestically and internationally and seriously hampered all attempts to restrict the right to abortion
Roe v. Wade Was and remains an affront, an assault and an offense against The democratic process The rule of law under the Constitution Basic justice and morality Reason itself The American people continue to chafe under the morally and socially unacceptable consequences of this brazen act of judicial tyranny which is incompatible with everything this nation has ever stood for. This controversy is not going away.
The Right to Abortion Continues to do massive harm to people worldwide Based on lies – unusual number and “quality” Reduced a nation once unique in its founding principles Substantial evidence to suggest this is of satanic origin I will not accept, serve or empower this agenda What I value Deliver us from evil
Al Lemmo Dearborn, Michigan 313-561-5933 Calls are screened, please leave a message Intrinsicist@comcast.net
Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration: Steps for Improvement and Change (Document produced by an outside party and submitted to the Obama-Biden Transition Project) The next President will have the opportunity to advance a reproductive health agenda that will make a profound difference in the lives and health of women, men, and families in the United States and around the world. Greater investments in reproductive health care will improve women’s health, reduce the incidence of disease, and promote healthy childbearing. Moreover, ensuring access to reproductive health services is essential to women’s full and equal participation in society. For too long, our nation’s reproductive health policies have failed to address adequately the health care needs of women and their families. Skyrocketing costs and ideologically- driven government restrictions have put reproductive health services out of reach for millions of women. Here at home, this failure has led to persistent health disparities, including those based on income, race, ethnicity, gender, primary language, sexual orientation, immigration status, and disability, that are unacceptable in a country with the wealth and resources of the United States. The impact abroad has had similarly deleterious effects, with a growing unmet need for contraception, a rise in maternal mortality, and the increasing spread of HIV/AIDS, particularly among women. We urge the next President to articulate and implement a vision for a new, commonsense approach to the nation’s and the world’s pressing reproductive health needs, and to take concrete steps to: Prioritize prevention;Improve access to abortion care;Support healthy pregnancies; Guarantee access to comprehensive, quality, affordable health care for all;Reclaim America’s global leadership on reproductive health;Restore integrity to the government’s public health decision- making processes;Invest in research and initiatives to improve women’s health; and Appoint judges and executive officials who are highly qualified and committed to individual rights and justice.
Seven Principles of Catholic Social Teaching Life and Dignity of the Human Person We believe that every person is precious, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person. Call to Family, Community, and Participation We believe people have a right and a duty to participate in society, seeking together the common good and well-being of all, especially the poor and vulnerable. Rights and Responsibilities Every person has a fundamental right to life and a right to those things required for human decency. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities to one another, to our families, and to the larger society. Option for the Poor and Vulnerable In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the story of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.
Seven Principles of Catholic Social Teaching (continued) The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers must be respected – the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to organize and join unions, to private property, and to economic initiative. Solidarity We are our brothers' and sisters’ keepers, wherever they live. Learning to practice the virtues of solidarity means learning that “loving our neighbor” has global dimensions in an interdependent world. Care of God’s Creation We are called to protect people and the planet, living our faith in relationship with all of God’s creation. This environmental challenge has fundamental moral and ethical dimensions that cannot be ignored.
My background Born in August of 1952 and grew up in New York City Recall seeing a display on prenatal human development at the American Museum of Natural History - probably early 1960s Asked to take part in classroom debate on abortion – fall of 1965 Made 8mm movies of embryos through a microscope while in high school No recollection of ever hearing a sermon in church specifically about abortion No recollection of Roe v. Wade being decided in 1973 Bachelor’s degree in biology 1974 Probably responded to a direct mail appeal in late 1970s Became friends with the former Director of the Michigan Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights Our differences are not due to deficiencies in intelligence or innate goodness
Top 10 Reasons It’s The UnChoice The rhetoric of choice hides the reality of coercion. 1. 64% of American women who have had abortions felt pressured by others. 1 2. Her “choices” may involve losing her shelter, her family, her income or even her life. 3. Coercion can escalate to violence. 2 Homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women. 3 4. Coercion takes many forms, including undisclosed, deceptive or false information presented as fact..4 5. Even though the majority felt rushed, 67% received no counseling; 79% were not told about alternatives. 1 6. Abortion is often a woman’s last choice, but her abuser's first choice. 2 America's teens are also at risk for coercion, significant health injuries and suicide. 5
Top 10 Reasons It’s The UnChoice (continued) The rhetoric of choice hides the reality of coercion. 7. Many who pushed family or friends to abort were also deceived – by experts, authorities, even pastors – about fetal development, alternatives and risks. 4, 6 8. The overall death rate of women rises 3.5 times after an abortion. 7 Suicide rates are 6 times higher after an abortion. 8 9. 65% report symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder they attribute to their abortions. 1 10. "We were maiming at least one woman a month." – Carol Everett, former abortion clinic operator 9
My 1996 letter to the editor for Martin Luther King Day http://www.cul.detmich.com/lemmolte4.html The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that injustice anywhere was a threat to justice everywhere. He said this about segregation and discrimination: "Let us never succumb to the temptation of believing that legislation and judicial decrees play only a minor role in solving this problem. Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless." (Quotation from Strength to Love) What might Dr. King have said about our current treatment of the immature members of our species? Dr. King devoted his life to opposing the choice to discriminate on the basis of race. But one week after his birthday we observe the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, which freed us to choose to discriminate fatally on the basis of "wantedness", physical maturity, appearance, sex, health, dependence, sentience, parentage, or any other criterion, including race, if it is done before birth. Are these criteria any less arbitrary or subjective than race? By what logic shall we choose criteria for excluding others from the protection of the human community? What does the acceptance of such criteria for destruction say about the content of our character?
Rabbi David Rosen Dear Al, I read your summary and while I appreciate the noble character and purpose of your intentions, the language could not be mine. To begin with “abortion” is not totally negative in Judaism even regarding infanticide, if this is necessary to save the mother. I am also uncomfortable with negative arguments and would rather emphasize the importance of recognizing and respecting the Divine in life, above all in that created in the Divine Image - the human person. While I would certainly agree that human subjective interest, let alone egocentricity, is fundamental to moral failure; I would also emphasize that the Divine Will is to be discovered in the human heart and conscience, as well as with the benefit of the wisdom of Tradition. In substance there might not be much difference between us, but I do not feel that I can share the style of your summary. Best regards, David Rabbi David Rosen CBE KSG International Director of Interreligious Affairs, AJC
Rabbi David Rosen Dear Al, Of course you are correct, the word “infanticide” was completely inappropriate – I meant of course “foeticide” even at the very last stages of the embryo’s formation. Jewish Law teaches that the embryo does not have the status of a “human being” to “compete” with that of the Mother, until the babe has emerged from the womb. Re your question, there are two approaches in the halachah (Jewish Law) which are often held at one and the same time – one is to see the embryo as an extension of the Mother’s body (though many see this as only being relevant after three months and that before that, the embryo is “but as water”;) and others as seeing life commencing at conception, but (as per the terminology I have been using) as a human in potential, that is only fully realized with birth. I am afraid that as far using the term “Divine Image” to describe a foetus, I can only say that the Divine Image is in formation in a foetus. However I do of course affirm completely the ideas of the intrinsic value of the child, duties and responsibilities towards the child, our obligations to protect the lives and dignity of all human beings, he who destroys or saves one life destroys or saves the world, care for the vulnerable and marginalized, the need to show compassion to other which includes to know what pains the other, modernity's challenge to authority and self-defense short of taking another's life.
Rabbi David Rosen However from a halachic perspective these values can only apply prenatally on the understanding that the foetus in not yet a human being fully in the Divine Image and therefore subordinate to these abovementioned responsibilities to fully formed living human beings. Of course you are free to share our correspondence with whoever you choose. Best wishes for a blessed Easter. David
Excerpt from Rabbi David Rosen’s Article Religion as a Tool For Good and Evil March 2003 http://www.rabbidavidrosen.net/articles.htm However it is disingenuously convenient and self-deceptive to put the blame for the woes of Arab society at the feet of colonialism. In fact the real challenge did indeed bear colonialism on its decks, but was also precisely that which brought about the demise of colonialism itself. The challenge was and is: modernity! At the heart of modernity is the concept of individual autonomy. I, of course, would claim that this is fundamentally a Jewish concept, rooted in the Biblical teaching that each and every person is created in the “Divine Image,” i.e. of inalienable value and dignity. Nevertheless in making the individual the ultimate arbiter in life’s decisions, modernity not only facilitated political democracy and the advance of human rights etc.; ipso facto it also undermined traditional authority and communal loyalties, and thus posed a challenge to the power of religious institutions and authority itself! Christianity and Judaism in the West increasingly understood that unless they engaged modernity constructively – which meant, if not adapting, at least reinterpreting their traditions in a manner meaningful for modern society – they would lose their relevance. (bolded words are my emphasis)
Excerpt from Rabbi David Rosen’s Article Religion as a Tool For Good and Evil March 2003 http://www.rabbidavidrosen.net/articles.htm Of course self-defense is not an unqualified right in Judaism. The Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin makes it clear that if you can neutralize or prevent an attack without killing the potential assailant, but you do kill him – then you are a murderer, even if you had a legitimate claim to self defense or the defense of others. It is not only the ends but the means that are a moral imperative for Judaism. Nevertheless, Judaism is not pacifistic! Not to act in defense in the face of a threat is to be guilty of the most serious moral failure. “You shall not stand idly by while your brother’s blood is spilt,” the Torah declares in Leviticus Chapter 19.
Is the Catholic Church Relevant? The Church stands apart with respect to three issues or “separations” Contraception – separation of the unitive and reproductive functions of sexual relations (Theological Abortion) Abortion – separation of the value and dignity of human life from its prenatal biological existence (Mental Abortion) Divorce – separation of the marriage partners after a “one flesh union” has been established (Physical Abortion) The Catholic Church will not compromise with what it regards as evil. If it ever does it will truly become irrelevant. If the Church is a “hospital for sinners” with a mission to call people to God, it has never been more relevant.
Conditions for a just war - from Mark Latkovic article (1) Legitimate authority must declare war, not private citizens or groups (2) The cause must be just ("namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault") (3) The war must be waged with a right intention ("so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil," as Thomas says), which excludes acts of war done out of vengeance, hatred, and other like motives. This third condition would also encompass the moral quality of one's ends or objectives in fighting a war. These too must be morally good. Of these three conditions, it is the second one, "just cause" which determines whether "grounds for war" exist. According to Finnis, the tradition essentially reduced the reasons for going to war to two: "self-defense, and the rectification (punitive or compensatory/restitutionary) of a wrong." The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following recent tradition, adds four other conditions of a more prudential nature for a war to be morally justified (4) The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain (5) All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective, that is, war must be waged as a last resort (6) There must be serious prospects of success (7) The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated It is only after all of these conditions are met, Weigel argues, that "the second set of just-war criteria," that is, "the 'jus in bello' or 'war-conduct law,'" is engaged 'proportionality,' which requires the use of no more force than necessary to vindicate the just cause 'discrimination,' or what we today call 'non-combatant immunity.'
From my 1986 war speech: http://www.cul.detmich.com/alwar.htmlhttp://www.cul.detmich.com/alwar.html 1996 note - I did not include in this talk most of the other Just War criteria and am not sure if I was aware of all of them at the time. Some others are also clearly violated by abortion in all or most cases. These include the requirements for Just Cause and Last Resort since killing of the unborn is typically done for less than compelling reasons. Much the same could be said for the requirements for Comparative Justice and Right Intention. Comparative Justice states that wars should only be fought when the rights and values involved are so great that they justify killing. This is typically not the case with abortion. Right Intention states that wars must only be fought for legitimate intentions and that pursuit of peace and reconciliation must continue during the conflict while avoiding unnecessarily destructive acts or imposing unreasonable conditions. Again, these principles are routinely violated in the war on the unborn. The requirement for Competent Authority states that war must be declared by those with responsibility for public order, not by private groups or individuals. We have trivialized this in abortion by permitting minors and other individuals who are frequently under great stress and often largely or totally ignorant of the nature of the act to make life and death decisions. There is no other situation where such decisions are treated so casually by society (consider military actions, capital punishment, police use of deadly force, etc., all of which are subject to review or appeal). Even the Just War requirement for Probability of Success could be violated by abortion given what we now know about the negative after effects of abortion on women.
From my 1995 letter to the editor http://www.cul.detmich.com/lemmolte.html The fiftieth anniversaries of the atomic bombings have prompted debates about the ethics of warfare. Meanwhile, America's war on prenatal children has raged on unabated, routinely trashing every ethical principle. It has consisted exclusively of literally surgical first strikes against the totally innocent and helpless, intended to preempt the recognition and protections normally accorded at birth. Rather than honor the immunity of non-combatants, it has deliberately targeted them. It has employed poisonous weapons, refusal of quarter and live dismemberment (mutilation) of the unarmed target population, even subjecting them to experimentation, in contravention of the laws of war and all international standards for the treatment of prisoners. It has violated "Just War" principles, including just cause, last resort, proportionality and competent authority by placing the decision for a death-dealing act, grotesquely disproportionate to the ends usually sought, in the hands of the frequently ill-informed, distraught and underage. It's rationalization on the basis of so-called hard cases has reduced the vast majority of those slaughtered to collateral damage at rates that would be morally horrendous if practiced by the military.
http://www.cul.detmich.com/alwar.html Excerpt from later in the war speech to local Christian peace activists: And so, I again pose a rhetorical question. Why do we hate our unborn children with such intensity? Why are we willing to withhold or suspend every principle of humane, compassionate, lawful and civilized behavior when it comes to them? Principles routinely applied in dealing with the worst of criminals and enemies that would destroy us. Why do we not give the benefit of the doubt? Why do we not presume personhood? Why do we allow the most excruciatingly painful methods of execution? Why do we permit the execution for any reason or no reason? And the conclusion that I come to in answer to those questions is that the unborn, if unwanted, confront us with an insoluble problem except by the use of violence. They cannot be negotiated with, they cannot be deterred, they cannot be appeased, they cannot be threatened, embargoed, held hostage, imprisoned or in any way stayed from being born except by the violence of abortion. For life cannot be stopped except by death and so we justify this violence to preserve our power. At the heart of the matter is the issue of control, of power. The feminists maybe are right after all... I tried to look at this as a conservative/liberal type of issue and I think that both conservatives and liberals seek control in their own way. I've also heard it described, this preoccupation with power, as a male thought and action pattern. This compelling need to conquer, subjugate, control others. One thing I'm pretty sure it isn't, this need for power, is it is not a Christian preoccupation.
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child "The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth.“ This Convention has been signed but not ratified by the United States I know of no action by the signatories to restrict abortion under this provision
Overall Summary of the Model The model sets forth the key elements of human rights abuses as aspects of an idolatrous cult called Abortionism which is based in a philosophy of human self-worship. It describes the violation of the critical, protective philosophy of Intrinsicism, the Three Abortions (or profanements, analogous to the sacraments of true religions) and the subdivisions of the cult into sects and subsects based on their criteria for choice, the choice to discriminate against others, even to the point of rationalizing the total destruction of entire human populations.
Roe v. Wade The Meaning of “Person” The Court held that unborn persons were entitled to protection under the Due Process Clause in the case of McArthur v. Scott (1884). By ruling that preborn persons do have the right to due process, a right that is the fundamental law of the land, they are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. An Equal Protection case, involving unborn persons, was decided in the year before Roe (1972), Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. In McArthur and Weber the Supreme Court upheld the vested rights of unborn persons under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. See articles by Gregory J. Roden – references in handout
Roe v. Wade The Meaning of “Person” “In Roe, Blackmun was at odds with his own remark, “[U]nborn children... have been represented by guardians ad litem.” That is because in Roe, the Supreme Court rejected a motion by a guardian ad litem, appointed in the state of Illinois to represent preborn children, to make arguments on their behalf (Doe v. Scott, 321 F. Supp. 1385 [ND Ill. 1971], cert. denied, 409 U.S. 817, 1972). Preborn persons were thereby denied a hearing in Roe. Hence, by means of the rule pronounced in McArthur v. Scott, the case of Roe v. Wade was not just wrongly decided, it is null and void with regard to the rights of preborn persons. “The net result is that we have two Supreme Court cases coming to opposing conclusions: McArthur v. Scott holding that preborn persons have the right to due process, and Roe holding that preborn persons have no constitutional rights. Which case should be followed? First, Roe was obviously wrong as a matter of fact, since McArthur v. Scott preceded it. Second, McArthur v. Scott’s holding concerns the procedural right to due process, a right that is the fundamental law of the land—a right without which all other rights would be unenforceable. If the rule of law means anything, any court would be justified under our Constitution in disregarding Roe and following McArthur v. Scott.” Quoted from article by Gregory J. Roden