“Trying to plan for the future without knowing the past is like trying to plant cut flowers.” — Historian Daniel Boorstin
“A nineteenth-century German historian wrote that every moment of history is equally present to God. Every moment is also equally present to great evil. But there are moments in which great evil bestirs itself with intentions that are discernible to those who have eyes to see. Ours is such a moment. Evil, as is its wont, employs the language of the good to disguise its purposes. In this case it is the great good of choice that hides the greater wrong of what is chosen. It is a tempting shrewdly contrived for a free society that has forgotten that freedom depends upon devotion to more than freedom.” — Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, from his book, “American Against Itself.”
Those who were not of age in the late 1960s and early 1970s may find it challenging to fully comprehend the ingenious strategies employed by abortion proponents to challenge state abortion laws. These strategies capitalized on the emergence of various ideologies and conventional wisdoms, utilizing them as powerful weapons against the established norms. Additionally, they capitalized on a genuine desire to assist the impoverished by advocating for an unrestricted and unlimited right to terminate pregnancies.
Abortion was the Swiss Army knife of the 1960s and 1970s, a multifaceted instrument that could be employed in a wide range of contexts. The issue of child abuse was also a prominent concern during this period. The assertion that “every child is a wanted child” would effectively eliminate instances of child abuse. Indeed, the incidence of child abuse has increased significantly, as predicted by those who advocate for pro-life policies.
Furthermore, if the impoverished were afforded the same “right” to terminate their children as the affluent, it would not only exemplify the functioning of democracy but also provide a pathway out of poverty. It is, in every sense, manifestly incorrect. This resulted in the redefinition of abortion as a “moral question” into a “pocketbook issue.”
From the early 1960s until the present day, those in favor of abortion have sought various avenues to have the government pay for elective abortions, particularly for the economically disadvantaged. The poor, in terms of their attitudes, have historically been among the segments of society most opposed to abortion. This is why organizations such as Planned Parenthood have had to invest significant resources in persuading them to override their instincts and strategically locate their clinics in close proximity to communities of color.
However, there were numerous additional factors that established the context for Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. The backdrop to this period was a powerful Women’s Liberation Movement, which included a significant number of pro-abortionists, and the near-hysteria surrounding the publication of the “Population Bomb,” which predicted that worldwide starvation was imminent.
What was the message that was conveyed? The solution to these serious individual and global dilemmas conveniently dovetailed with unlimited access to abortion.
One might argue, as I have on numerous occasions, that the Roe v. Wade decision represented the triumph of packaging and managed hysteria over reasoned discourse and a century-long history of largely protective state abortion laws.
Professor George McKenna astutely observed that Roe can be seen as a kind of reverse 13th Amendment. Where one abolished slavery, the other transformed the unborn child into a helpless “non-person” whose life could be terminated at the discretion of the mother.
Nevertheless, in response to the perceived inhumanity of abortion and its perceived violation of core civil and religious principles, a significant grassroots movement began to emerge. Despite its humble origins and limited resources, the pro-life movement has grown stronger each year. It has done so despite the intense hostility of most power brokers.
However, had the pro-life movement not persevered through those challenging early years, particularly the 1970s, who would have been there to oppose infanticide, euthanasia, assisted suicide, fetal tissue harvesting, and stem cell research that would require the exploitation of human embryos, cloning, and UN Commission-sponsored attempts to make abortion an internationally recognized “right,” as well as a host of other morally reprehensible assaults on the unborn and the medically dependent?
“Two Different Americas”
Robin Toner, a veteran New York Times reporter, passed away recently. After covering numerous pro-life and pro-choice rallies, she astutely observed that they bring together two distinct Americas and two disparate cultures.
A striking illustration of this phenomenon is the vocabulary employed by each group. Toner notes that pro-choice rallies are characterized by a focus on the language of “rights and laws,” whereas pro-life demonstrations tend to prioritize “rights and wrongs.” This observation was highly perceptive on Toner’s part.
Many pro-lifers have had firsthand experience with abortion or crisis pregnancies that were nearly aborted. Such individuals would never, ever claim that facing an unplanned pregnancy is easy or that the character required to give that baby life is minimal.
We do, however, assert that it is morally reprehensible to terminate the life of the unborn child. Furthermore, we are committed to assisting you in accessing the resources necessary to carry your pregnancy to term.
One might consider the following: It is imperative that a protective zone be established around the child, ensuring that no individual or entity can trespass upon its wellbeing. This is not only essential for the child’s safety, but also for the safety of all individuals.
Over the past half-century, there has been a great deal of debate surrounding the veracity of the slippery slope argument, with many parties contesting both its factual basis and its inevitability. It would be a welcome development if the prevailing view were to be proven erroneous. However, this has not been the case, with the contrary position being validated on numerous occasions.
Moreover, the logic that was unleashed in Roe has not only ensnared a wider and wider circle of victims, but has also affected a broader range of individuals. This includes the unborn, the injured newborn, and the medically dependent elderly.
In “First Things,” Rabbi Marc Gellman posited the concept of “righteous gentiles,” individuals who risked their lives to shelter Jews from the Nazis.
It is evident that the United States of America in the year 2020 is not comparable to Nazi Germany. The nation is renowned for its greatness and nobility, and it is capable of making misguided decisions, as evidenced by the current stance on abortion. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that while circumstances may be challenging for those who advocate for the rights of the unborn, they do not risk their lives to do so.
Nevertheless, Rabbi Gellman’s review of a thought-provoking book effectively encapsulates the core motivation behind the pro-life movement.
In “The Altruistic Personality,” their book about Christians who saved Jews during the Holocaust, Samuel and Pearl Oliner asked what distinguished the rescuers from the majority who did nothing, or were complicit. Their conclusion was that they were not distinguished by educational level or by political views or even by attitudes towards Jews. They were, however, different in two critical respects: they were strongly connected to communities that had straightforward and unsophisticated understandings of right and wrong, and they had a powerful sense of moral agency and shame.
They said over and over again in interviews that they could not have lived with themselves – – and many said they could not have answered before God – – if they had not done what they had done.
The righteous gentiles of the Holocaust came from communities and families that had prepared the way for their courage by teaching them how to feel shame and therefore virtue and courage.
Those who are pro-life engage in their activities for three reasons: first, because it is their moral obligation to do so; second, because they believe it is the morally correct course of action; and third, because they anticipate being held accountable for their actions on behalf of those who are considered to be the most vulnerable members of society.
It is my firm belief that those who are pro-life will continue to act with courage and dedication until the day that the “all-clear” signal is given for all the most vulnerable Americans.
Chelsea Garcia is a political writer with a special interest in international relations and social issues. Events surrounding the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel are a major focus for political journalists. But as a former local reporter, she is also interested in national politics.
Chelsea Garcia studied media, communication and political science in Texas, USA, and learned the journalistic trade during an internship at a daily newspaper. In addition to her political writing, she is pursuing a master's degree in multimedia and writing at Texas.
