Russell and Duenes

What With to Feed the Idols

with 2 comments

Moreover, you took your sons and daughters whom you had borne to Me and sacrificed them to idols to be devoured. Were your whorings so small a matter? You slaughtered My children and offered them up to idols by causing them to pass through the fire.” – The Prophet Ezekiel

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart, focuses heavily on the need to protect the “health” of the woman who is choosing to have a late-term abortion. Both the Roe and Casey decisions stated that abortion must be permitted through all nine months of pregnancy where the “life or health of the mother” is at stake. The “health of the mother” has turned out to mean not just physical health, but emotional and psychological health as well, which in practical terms has meant that the government cannot stop any woman from having an abortion at any point in her pregnancy for any reason she wants, or none at all. She can always say that she did it for her “health.”

Justice Ginsburg says that we must have partial birth abortion because “[w]omen, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ‘to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation.’ Their ability to realize their full potential . . . is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’ Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.”

In other words, according to Justice Ginsburg, women cannot “realize their full potential” unless they are free to have their children killed in any and every manner practicable, through all nine months of pregnancy. A woman’s “autonomy” and ability “to enjoy equal citizenship stature” cannot be guaranteed unless the law guarantees her the right to have her child’s brains sucked out or skull crushed.

I don’t dispute Justice Ginsburg’s contention that delivering a live baby all except for her head, fully intact, and then piercing her skull and sucking her brains out, is safer for the mother than a doctor having to rip the baby apart in the woman’s womb. Undoubtedly partial birth abortion is less gruesome and horrifying than other late-term abortion procedures that remain legal. But would she really have us believe that a eight or nine month baby, delivered as such except for her head, is still a being less than a full human being, unworthy of protection and life, subject to her mother as judge and jury so that we can finally have “equality” between the sexes? Please tell me how women come out winners in this deal, not to mention their babies?

Justice Ginsburg laments the fact that the Court  let “moral concerns” influence its decision; concerns, she says “that could yield prohibition on any abortion.” She would not allow these “moral concerns” to “override[] fundamental rights.” A woman has a right to a dead baby, and that’s that. Moral concerns need not enter into it.

Ginsburg goes further, saying that “the Court invokes an antiabortion shibboleth for which it concededly has no reliable evidence.” And what is this “shibboleth,” this trite platitude, that people who oppose abortion put forward? According to Ginsburg it’s the notion that “woman who have abortions come to regret their choices, and consequently suffer from ‘severe depression and loss of esteem.'” No reliable evidence? The evidence is mounting (see here). What if we just don’t want to hear it? So we get women coming and going. Must we convince them that the babies they carry are not babies, that their freedom and equality in society ride on the continuance of all forms of abortion, no matter how gruesome, that they are exercising their “constitutional rights;” and then when they go through with it, they must stand “strong” and not speak of any pain, depression, or regret, and if they do, we must spike their stories? Is it now a mark of honor when women aren’t bothered?

Justice Ginsburg seems to think that any insinuation that abortions will have deleterious effects on women will, in her words, “reflect[] ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution – ideas that have long since been discredited.” No, women are now strong enough to “not let it get to them.” Justice Ginsburg simply cannot abide the fact that, in the Court’s opinion, “a fetus is described as an ‘unborn child,’ and as a ‘baby.'” No, no, we’ll have none of that.

Justice Ginsburg concludes: “[T]he notion that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational.” She’s right about that. For it surely is a grave contradiction for Justice Kennedy to say that “[t]he government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman,” and then go on to proclaim it legal for us to show no more respect for that “life within the woman”than we do for a Thanksgiving turkey that we’re about to consume.

“They worshipped and served the creature, rather than the Creator.”



Written by Michael Duenes

August 1, 2012 at 8:45 pm

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. This makes me sick. I wonder how many abortions she has had.

    Jessica Parr

    August 1, 2012 at 8:50 pm

  2. Mike, well stated as always.


    August 2, 2012 at 11:14 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: