Author Topic: Roe v. Wade overturned?  (Read 31149 times)

John_Hannah

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5692
    • View Profile
Pr. JOHN HANNAH, STS

John_Hannah

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5692
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #796 on: June 25, 2022, 09:39:15 AM »
Try this:

By Karen Swallow Prior

Dr. Prior is a research professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and a columnist for the Religion News Service.

Roe v. Wade’s reversal has elicited cries of anger and despair from those who feel a sense of dread for the future of women and the future of America.

I understand that feeling of dread.

As a pro-life advocate, I lament with those who feel they have lost a basic human right, as well as moral agency and hope for the future. But for me it is Roe that brought these losses.

Roe stripped from the prenatal child the right to continue to live and grow, safe and free from intentional harm. If you believe, as I do, that abortion unjustly ends the life of a being that is fully human, a life that exists independently of the will of the mother, is self-organizing and unique, developing yet complete in itself, then you will understand Roe not as a ruling that liberates but as one that dehumanizes, first the fetus, then the rest of us.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Further, Roe elevated radical autonomy over moral agency. Roe struck down the hope that is inherent in every human life, whether new or old, for as long as life remains.
More views on abortion
Opinion | The Editorial Board
The Ruling Overturning Roe Is an Insult to Women and the Judicial System
Opinion | Michele Goodwin
I Was Raped by My Father. An Abortion Saved My Life.
Opinion | Michelle Goldberg
The Death of Roe Is Going to Tear America Apart
Opinion | Roxane Gay
It’s Time to Rage

Roe was an unjust ruling. I have always believed it would be overturned, as other unjust decisions by the court were, although I thought it would take longer. I rejoice that it did not. But of course it will take longer for abortion to become unthinkable, which is the real goal of the pro-life movement.

I joined the movement decades ago. My friends and co-laborers in the movement across the political spectrum have over the years established and worked in pregnancy help centers. We have opened our rooms and homes to women who needed them. We have educated them about prevention, alternatives, resources, employment, schooling and empowerment. We have offered help at doctors’ offices and abortion clinics. We have held baby showers, attended weddings, kindergarten graduations and legislative sessions. We have cried with those who regretted their choices, and we have cried with those who didn’t (but cried anyway). We have marched and protested.

And we took our cases to the courts, including the Supreme Court. Some of these cases, including one that I was involved in, were not centered on abortion itself but on our right to protest it. A federal district court attempted to limit pro-life protests by establishing buffer zones outside abortion clinics. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which eventually struck down one type of restriction and upheld another one.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Still, I was, like my fellow evangelicals, a Johnny-come-lately in a long line of people who have opposed abortion and infanticide and tried to defend vulnerable life.

Members of the early Christian church within the ancient Roman world rescued abandoned infants (often those who were female or otherwise deemed inferior) from certain death. In the 19th century, a newspaper created by prominent suffragists, The Revolution, published articles that called abortion “infanticide” and “child-murder.” The pro-life movement in America before Roe was dominated by Catholics who then generally skewed Democrat, and who fought for legal protections for the unborn and expansions of the social safety net.

Roe and its legacy radicalized those of us in the current movement. Legalized elective abortion was the consolation prize given to women in 1973 for the centuries of inequality and oppression that stemmed from their sin of not being men. While every mother and every father should want their children, our status as human beings at any stage of life should not depend on who wants us or whether we are wanted at all.

It is only when we inject into the issue questions of subjectivity (like wantedness) or religions (like ensoulment), existential ones (like sentience), theological ones (like human dignity) or sociological ones (like quality of life), that we find ample room for uncertainty and disagreement. These are important, enduring questions. But they are not questions upon which the basic, inalienable right of an individual life should depend.

The judicial fiat of Roe v. Wade jump-started the culture wars that have poisoned our political process and brought us to a place of polarization and unbridgeable division. Indeed, this division has been capitalized on by far too many pundits and politicians, for whom a position on abortion does not appear to be a sincerely held belief, but merely an issue they can (and do) leverage for votes or monetize for financial gain. Such betrayal casts a shadow on the overturning of Roe, which has been for me and many others a long-awaited event.

Even so, making abortion unthinkable might start with the law, but it won’t end there. For it is not only the supply of abortion that matters but also the demand. I lament the impoverishment of a social imagination that cannot conceive of a world in which women can flourish without abortion.

I think we will imagine it someday. Of course abortion, like all violence, abuse and injustice, will always be with us. But laws don’t only prevent — laws teach and form the ways in which we envision our world and the ways in which we can and should live with one another.
Editors’ Picks
How Many Languages Could a Child Speak?
Jayson Tatum Knew He Could Have Had His Moment
John Grisham Is Still Battling His Southern Demons
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Since Roe, our culture has increasingly come to understand that it’s not merely “our bodies, ourselves” but also “our communities, ourselves.” Our bodies live and move among other bodies — whether for good or ill. We are our brother’s and our sister’s keepers, and it does take a village to become who we are. Thankfully, America’s romance with radical autonomy and rugged individualism is cooling. Roe gave our nation some of the most liberal abortion laws in the industrialized world and a high rate of abortion compared with that of many other industrialized countries, in no small part because of our individualist cultural and economic ethos.

Accordingly, in a recent Times Opinion essay, Patrick T. Brown acknowledged the need for “a broader vision of policy than just prohibiting access to abortion.” A post-Roe world, he wrote, “is one that compels a greater claim on public resources to support expectant mothers” and demands that we “take seriously the challenges that women and families experience not only during and immediately after pregnancy but also in the years that follow.”

The conservative think tank where Mr. Brown is a fellow, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has developed a robust, holistic Life and Family Initiative aimed at protecting the lives of prenatal children and offering concrete support to the families in which they will be born. California’s Catholic bishops have also outlined a commitment to support women, children and families. And the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention has included in its 2022 public policy agenda a range of issues beyond its ongoing focus on abortion, including alleviating hunger and strengthening low-income families.

We can do better than asking women (and men) to choose between their children and themselves. I see the overturning of Roe as the first step in getting there. Then, to make abortion unthinkable, we must make it unwanted.

Peace, JOHN
Pr. JOHN HANNAH, STS

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13502
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #797 on: June 25, 2022, 09:41:53 AM »
Pastor Fienen writes:
People do change their minds sometimes, especially when the issue changes from a hypothetical to an actual case.

I comment:
And people also speak one way when seeking a job, schmoozing and assuring in order to win support, while concealing what they actually intend to do. Pre-confirmation discussions concerning Roe v. Wade were not "hypothetical." The two senators believe they were conned. They should have stuck to their original intent not to cast an affirmative vote on the confirmation.
Both are possible. You choose to believe the worst about those who disagree with the position that you are committed to and believe absolutely those who support that position. That does not make you correct, just committed to your cause.


Since you believe the senators and believe that Kavanaugh lied how does that oblige me to agree with you? Well, you are our humble correspondent, schmoozer with the influential and powerful, senior church statesman statesperson who has been everywhere and met every one of significance and we are just humble bamboozled parish pastors who are the subject of your mission to enlighten the benighted, so I guess we owe it to you to believe everything that you and those you listen to say. We are just insignificant honyacks.


I appreciate your opinion and that of the NYT that you choose to listen to. I simply disagree.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2022, 10:56:42 AM by Dan Fienen »
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Matt Hummel

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2944
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #798 on: June 25, 2022, 09:46:22 AM »
So how does a prolife individual feel on the first full day of a Post Roe America? I am not gloating. Now the actual hard work begins. But with casting down of that idol of Moloch, it can be done.  I thought of the MLK quote: "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important also. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless, and this is what we often say we have to do in society through legislation."

With the matter now in the hands of each state, the Abortion -Industrial complex will not have the air supremacy they did up until yesterday. They actually will have to state their case for child murder. It will now be a political ground game matter. And that becomes an issue of neighbors talking to neighbors. As a prolife supporter, I get to show Crisis pregnancy centers, happily adopted babies, mothers being supported and cared for. As a proabortion supporter, you get to show mangled corpses that have to be reassembled to make sure nothing is left in the uterus. I'll take those odds.
Matt Hummel


“The chief purpose of life, for any of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks.”

― J.R.R. Tolkien

Matt Hummel

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2944
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #799 on: June 25, 2022, 09:47:28 AM »
Thank you Pr. Hannah! 😀
Matt Hummel


“The chief purpose of life, for any of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks.”

― J.R.R. Tolkien

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 8068
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #800 on: June 25, 2022, 09:50:01 AM »
Pastor Fienen writes:
People do change their minds sometimes, especially when the issue changes from a hypothetical to an actual case.

I comment:
And people also speak one way when seeking a job, schmoozing and assuring in order to win support, while concealing what they actually intend to do. Pre-confirmation discussions concerning Roe v. Wade were not "hypothetical." The two senators believe they were conned. They should have stuck to their original intent not to cast an affirmative vote on the confirmation.
Both are possible. You choose to believe the worst about those who disagree with the position that you are committed to and believe absolutely those who support that position. That does not make you correct, just committed to your cause.


Since you believe the senators and believe that Kavanaugh lied how does that oblige me to agree with you. Well, you are our humble correspondent, schmoozer with the influential and powerful, senior church statesman statesperson who has been everywhere and met every one of significance and we are just humble bamboozled parish pastors who are the subject of your mission to enlighten the benighted, so I guess we owe it to you to believe everything that you and those you listen to say. We are just insignificant honyacks.


I appreciate your opinion and that of the NYT that you choose to listen to. I simply disagree.

Under such a theory, how much more bamboozled were Republicans and the presidents who issued the nominations with Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter?

The truth is, justices cannot -- and do not -- state how they will rule in pending cases.  If the senators feel they were conned, then they never understood the rules of the game.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13502
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #801 on: June 25, 2022, 10:02:01 AM »
I agree that while I rejoice at the overturning of Roe v. Wade an unjust ruling that was poorly make to begin with, the excessive celebration (as well as the weeping and gnashing of teeth, not to mention the violence of Roe supporters) is excessive. One of the problems that the Roe decision had left America is that it not only settled the issue for many, it short circuited the discussion. Opponents of abortion need no longer be listened to, Roe made it legal, that should be the end of the story. To their shame, many pro-life people stopped (if they had ever started) listening to stories and plights of the pro-choice. Roe helped end the discussion about abortion, but it did not end the conflict, only heightened it.


Rather than seeking to come to reasonable compromises about abortion, compromises that recognized the needs and wants of both mothers with problem pregnancies and the unborn who could now be simply aborted and discarded or harvested, for the pro-choice compromise wasn't needed, they had won, and for pro-life compromise wasn't offered so why not fight for it all. Positions were polarized and hardened. Now we need to come back and recognize that the other side, much vilified over the years, do have points that are valid and real needs to should be met.


Can those discussion happen? Can we as a people recognize each other's needs, beliefs, and positions across the great abortion divide that Roe only widened and deepened? Can we have reasonable discussions over coffee, on social media, Late Night Talk shows, daytime talk shows, and most importantly in state legislatures? I hope but have doubts. We have been in a winner take all mode for a long time, encouraged from both sides.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19583
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #802 on: June 25, 2022, 10:25:39 AM »
You have to take time to celebrate victories for truth, life, and good. As this CNN article puts it:

"The ruling was the result of a staggeringly successful generational quest by the conservative movement at all political levels, from grassroots social and religious activists through the founding leaders of a right-wing legal establishment to successive Republican presidents."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/25/politics/reshaping-politics-roe-v-wade/index.html

That "generational quest" has been more than one generation; it includes almost my entire life and I'm 52. I can remember my mom in the 1970's picketing the local abortion clinic. She was still doing it periodically when I was in high school, and one of my English teachers ridiculed those protesters in class (not knowing one of them was my mother) by asking the class "Who do those loonies think is going to pay to raise all those babies?"  I represented Students for Life at Valpo when several groups tried to prevent the local hospital from adopting pro-choice policies, and we lost. We've had many losses. We watched presidents elected by pro-life voters appoint the justices who "grew in office" (which is how liberals describe conservatives who become more liberal) and made the ridiculous, incoherent Casey ruling rather than challenge Roe. We've marched in Washington in the bitter cold. People like RJN lost long time friendships over the issue. It has been a decades long struggle with the voices whispering in our ear that this was all folly. Even in this forus over the nearly twenty years I've been on it, pro-lifers have had to deal not merely with the strident pro-choicers but with the constant pushback from allies and fellow pro-lifers who were always trying to justify their votes for pro-choice politicians. 

Of course it isn't over. People who spend months on the campaign trail to win an election still have to govern. They haven't fulfilled any of the reasons they ran for office merely by getting elected to office. But they've taken a critical step. And they rightfully celebrate their victories. Yesterday's ruling, while not a panacea, comes as close to being an unqualified good as governmental change and the workings of politics gets. It is comparable to the fall of the Berlin Wall, another great victory that many people who longed for it for decades thought would never happen.

So no, the human condition was not fixed yesterday. The parousia did not occur. But something unquestionably good did happen. Something that people on the side of life and justice had been been struggling for decades to achieve, often in the face of hopelessness and ridicule, was in fact finally achieved. We should not walk on egg shells about being happy about it, nor let our happiness and celebrations be tempered by scoffers who point out that every problem and potential complication has not been dealt with. 

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13502
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #803 on: June 25, 2022, 10:59:00 AM »
Must the abortion issue be a winner take all? If so, there is no solution that does not further divide the country.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 15044
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #804 on: June 25, 2022, 11:21:59 AM »
Pastor Fienen:
Since you believe the senators and believe that Kavanaugh lied how does that oblige me to agree with you? Well, you are our humble correspondent, schmoozer with the influential and powerful, senior church statesman statesperson who has been everywhere and met every one of significance and we are just humble bamboozled parish pastors who are the subject of your mission to enlighten the benighted, so I guess we owe it to you to believe everything that you and those you listen to say. We are just insignificant honyacks.

Me:
Why do you post crap like that? I do not expect you to agree with me. You just like feeling victimized. I do not think you are an idiot.
Retired ELCA Pastor. Parishes in Iowa, Nw York and New Jersey. LCA and LWF staff. Former journalist. Now retired, living in Minneapolis. Preaching and presiding for Episcopalians next Sunday.

Matt Hummel

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2944
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #805 on: June 25, 2022, 11:41:45 AM »
Must the abortion issue be a winner take all? If so, there is no solution that does not further divide the country.

With respect Dan, I believe the answer, on the Pro-Life side is a “Yes.” But that yes has to be understood as being incremental. For one population to wipe out another, all that is necessary is for it to reproduce at a marginally faster pace. If we look at the issue via memetics (as opposed to genetics in the case of populations), all the Pro-Life side has to do is convince a marginally larger portion of the population of the validity of its arguments. Dobbs has given a level playing field. From the standpoint of what might be called intellectual natural selection, pro-life wins. We have crisis pregnancy centers, adoptions, and all sorts of positives. They have hysterics cosplaying Handmaid’s Tale and mangled corpses. Not a good look, tbh. The first thing Eisenhower did as camps were liberated was get film and photo teams in to document the evil. Pro-Choice really has no up side.

It may take awhile. But we will win. Because we have the truth.

Matt Hummel


“The chief purpose of life, for any of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks.”

― J.R.R. Tolkien

James_Gale

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4115
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #806 on: June 25, 2022, 11:47:40 AM »
Pastor Hannah posts an interesting commentary from a long-time pro-life activist.
I do not like the "Hooray! We won! Now we are in charge!" attitude of some pro-lifers. That is not true and the suggestion that "Now we're gonna get at gay marriage and contraception" is very misguided. (Coming from a Supreme Court justice it is downright scary.)
   Neither do I like the apocalyptic howls of some pro-choice people. Some of those noises mask hostilities to religious faith, along with some abhorrently amoral attitudes.
   We also need to avoid placing our concern for all of religious faith, patriotism, civil law, morality, team spirit and life itself on one issue.
   There are threats about us that go beyond opposing abortion or defending the right to have one. Some of these, I fear, are more destructive and if we rip each other up on this one issue, the others may do us in.


What's scary is a Supreme Court that considers itself empowered to read into the Constitution legal rules not even remotely supported by the Constitution's text.  When the Court has exercised this self-created power, it has removed matters from the political branches of the federal and state governments and in the process has subverted democracy.  We all should be wary of a Court that is willing to do whatever it pleases, the law be damned.  And we should laud any judge who promises to guide the courts away from such judicial tyranny.


One need only read Roe v. Wade and Casey to recognize that those decisions were not tethered to any coherent Constitutional principles.  Dobbs does nothing less or more than recognize that the Court's job is solely to interpret the Constitution and other laws.  Its job does not extend to making policy decisions that the Constitution by its silence plainly leaves to the political branches and to the people.


Dobbs obviously is about abortion, but only secondarily.  It is primarily about the preservation of our Constitutional system.  If the Court's conservatives had wanted to take the Breyer/Sotomayor/Kagan approach to Constitutional interpretation, they could have declared that the Constitution offers all its right s and protections to all persons from conception.  This would have been a pro-life analog to Roe v. Wade and Casey.  But the Court did no such thing.  Its opinion is absolutely neutral on abortion precisely because the Constitution is silent on the topic.  The Court therefore expressly held that the Constitution provides no basis for recognizing either a woman's right to an abortion an unborn child's right to be born.  Abortion policy therefore is to be made by the legislative branches of our federal and state governments.  It is up to the democratic process.


Why anyone, irrespective of political or social perspectives, would want nine old, unelected jurists to usurp the role properly exercised by the people's elected representatives is beyond me.

Matt Hummel

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2944
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #807 on: June 25, 2022, 12:00:16 PM »
BTW-

Any breakdown on the maternity benefits for all those companies bravely willing to pay for abortion and travel?
Matt Hummel


“The chief purpose of life, for any of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks.”

― J.R.R. Tolkien

James_Gale

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4115
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #808 on: June 25, 2022, 12:08:22 PM »
From today’s NY Times
Senators say Kavanaugh gave private assurances that he felt Roe should stand
WASHINGTON — During a two-hour meeting in her Senate office with the Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh on Aug. 21, 2018, Senator Susan Collins of Maine pressed him hard on why she should trust him not to overturn Roe v. Wade if she backed his confirmation.
   Judge Kavanaugh worked vigorously to reassure her that he was no threat to the landmark abortion rights ruling.
   “Start with my record, my respect for precedent, my belief that it is rooted in the Constitution, and my commitment and its importance to the rule of law,” he said, according to contemporaneous notes kept by multiple staff members in the meeting. “I understand precedent and I understand the importance of overturning it.”
   “Roe is 45 years old, it has been reaffirmed many times, lots of people care about it a great deal, and I’ve tried to demonstrate I understand real-world consequences,” he continued, according to the notes, adding: “I am a don’t-rock-the-boat kind of judge. I believe in stability and in the Team of Nine.”
   Persuaded, Ms. Collins, a Republican, gave a detailed speech a few weeks later laying out her rationale for backing the future justice that cited his stated commitment to precedent on Roe, helping clinch his confirmation after a bitter fight. On Friday, Justice Kavanaugh joined the majority in overturning the decision he told Ms. Collins he would protect.
   His seeming turnabout in the case on Friday prompted Ms. Collins and another senator, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, who gave Justice Kavanaugh crucial votes for his narrow confirmation to vent their anger, saying they felt their trust had been abused. Their indignation was echoed across the Capitol by lawmakers who said the court’s decision on Friday helped drain what was left of any credibility Supreme Court nominees have in their confirmation hearings.
   “I feel misled,” Ms. Collins said in an interview, adding that the decision was in stark contrast to the assurances she had received privately from Justice Kavanaugh, who had made similar, if less exhaustive, pronouncements at his public hearing.
   Mr. Manchin, the only Democrat to vote for Justice Kavanaugh, also expressed similar sentiments about Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who made his own strong statements about adhering to precedent during his confirmation in 2017.
   “I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans,” said Mr. Manchin, who himself is anti-abortion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/roe-kavanaugh-collins-notes.html


I don't know whether Senators Collins and Manchin feel "conned."  We can't truly know what anyone said in private meetings.  Each person's notes will lack context and can include something of the notetaker's own spin.


What we do know is that in their confirmation hearings, Judge Gorsuch and Judge Kavanaugh both discussed stare decisis and the role of precedent.


Gorsuch said that Roe v. Wade is "precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."  But he went on to refuse to uphold any particular precedent because in so doing he would be "tipping my hand and suggesting to litigants that I have already made my mind up about their cases."  Similarly, Kavanaugh testified that while it is important to respect precedent, you "listen to all arguments" in weighing whether to follow it.  Taking the record as a whole, it seems to me that Senaors Collins and Manchin failed to consider the whole record in forming any conclusions. 


This all is consistent with the Ginsburg rule under which nominees for the Supreme Court steadfastly refuse to disclose how they would rule on a particular question.


(Judge Barrett, when asked whether Roe v. Wade should be considered a "super precedent," which questioners had defined as being so well settled "that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling.  And I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category.")

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44655
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« Reply #809 on: June 25, 2022, 12:12:38 PM »
Try this:

By Karen Swallow Prior





Roe stripped from the prenatal child the right to continue to live and grow, safe and free from intentional harm. If you believe, as I do, that abortion unjustly ends the life of a being that is fully human, a life that exists independently of the will of the mother, is self-organizing and unique, developing yet complete in itself, then you will understand Roe not as a ruling that liberates but as one that dehumanizes, first the fetus, then the rest of us.


I do not agree with the boldfaced line. The mother can do all kinds of things, e.g., drugs, alcohol, that can permanently affect the child within her. That life is dependent upon the mother taking good care of herself.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]