mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice
Abortion: The Great American Exception
Features Icon
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    Has the US ever been a collectivist society? Perhaps people are just getting tired of being told what they should think or do by ideologues. In short, we may be seeing a revolt against minority views being imposed upon the majority.

    • WhateverDunce

      If there is an expectation that we celebrate Trans-sexual attention whores like Caitlyn Kardashian instead of just merely tolerating them, we are being ruled by the minority. If we put a pizza place out of business, not because they ever refused service to anyone, but for a mere thoughtcrime, we are being ruled by the minority. If we kowtow to the online mob over RFRA in Indiana, we are being ruled by the minority.

      One thing hasn’t changed in America. Those who yell the loudest, stomp their feet the hardest and those that manipulate the masses most effectively are still being allowed to win. Every day, in fact. Conformity is still being demanded and expected. All that has changed is what is necessary to conform and the groups demanding it.

      Add to that increased dependency on government and Individualism is lost.

      This article makes a critical error. Licentiousness is not Liberty. It’s just bread and circuses.

    • wheezer

      Amen! Though the left is a dichotomy of econnomic collectivism but social individualism. While the right tends toward the reverse.

  • jeburke

    A libertarian is someone who wants to take away grandpa’s Medicare and Social Security but will let him smoke dope and watch porn to ease the pain.

    • Dagnabbit_42

      And then there are Christian libertarians:

      A Christian libertarian is someone who voluntarily gives over a tenth of his pre-tax income to assist the poor and elderly through various charitable works, and hopes everyone else will do likewise, but refuses to point a gun at their face to compel them to join him.

      A Christian libertarian is someone who personally treats dope-smoking and porn-watching as evils which endanger the souls and destroy the liberty of anyone who indulges in them, but refuses to point a gun at their face to compel them to follow his own moral code, if they sadly (not to say idiotically) don’t share it.

      A Christian libertarian is someone who draws a sharp line between Activity X being immoral, and it being morally justifiable for government to outlaw Activity X. For of course he regards government outlawing as a threat to use force: “Do this, and we’ll lock you up; try to escape and we’ll shoot you,” and as a Christian he holds an almost-but-not-quite-pacifist view of Initiating The Use Of Force: It isn’t always immoral to use force, but there is a very high threshold before it is justifiable. And it being justifiable usually hinges on whether the evil being opposed is not merely immoral, but forcible in some way. One may justly execute a murderer (that is to say, oppose wrongful lethal force with comparable lethal force), but one may not, no matter the temptation, justly execute someone who willingly buys Justin Bieber recordings. For although the latter is a grave offense against aesthetics and civilization, it is not forcible*, and therefore does not justify the use of lethal force to oppose it. Something non-forcible, such as voluntary shunning, is called for instead.

      * Unless, of course, the recording is played so loudly that others find themselves unwillingly overhearing it. In the event of such a public outrage, a certain amount of civic-minded vigilantism is excusable.

      • SupplyGuy

        This is exactly how I feel. I’m conservative in my personal beliefs and conducts and libertarian in my political views.

      • jeburke

        Methinks someone is a bit over-defensive and needs to chill.

      • Fred

        True, human law cannot forbid everything bad or immoral. Aquinas himself said as much in the Summa Theologica (Question 91, Article 4: [h]uman law cannot punish or forbid all evil deeds; since while aiming at doing away with all evils, it would do away with many good things.) Still, as St. Paul said, the law is a teacher. Laws against certain drugs attach a stigma to those drugs, to that degree at least, limiting their use. Unrestricted production of and access to pornography teaches children (of many ages) that it is ok and normalizes the perverse and exploitative sexual relationships it portrays. Legalization of gay “marriage” teaches that marriage has been defined so broadly as to be meaningless and is therefore trivialized. Legal abortion teaches that it is morally permissible to kill babies. (Even if you do not consider a fetus a baby, if you do not believe the logic of abortion leads to approval of infanticide, consult Peter Singer, Richard Dawkins, and the linked article here in a respected British medical journal.) Human law cannot perfectly embody the natural law, but should be consonant with it. That means forbidding or restricting some behaviors that libertarians would unconditionally allow.

  • Timothy Villareal

    Neither Mr. Mead nor anyone else who abhors the violence of elective abortions, but who simultaneously abhors the idea of abortion-seeking women being criminalized by the state, has to accept the labels and lingo of the pro-choice and pro-life movements, as if their limited moral mindsets have to govern our entire discourse on this awful subject.
    I’d urge Mr. Mead and those similarly inclined to embrace an alternative terminology and legal framework: procreative nonviolence.
    Procreative nonviolence acknowledges that elective abortion is indeed an act of brutal violence toward human beings, whose only “crime” is that they have not been born yet, but also recognizes that attempts to criminalize women and/or the abortion doctors acting at their behest is also a form of violence: depriving people who pose no threat whatsoever to society of their liberty, which is innately tyrannical.

    While guaranteeing the personal autonomy and freedom of abortion-seeking women and the doctors acting at their direction, the legal aims for procreative nonviolence would confront – and remedy – two areas of law that otherwise ensconce a double-standard toward our precious unborn brothers and sisters: the utterly despicable manner in which their human remains are treated – tossed into biomedical waste trash bags – and the attempts by some pro-life organizations to furnish goods and services to abortion-seeking women as an express means to deter elective abortions, which ultimately serves to affirm the pro-choice mindset that economic deprivation can ever be a legitimate excuse to electively abort. For more information on procreative nonviolence, please visit this link:

    • mdavt

      Always a treat when self-promoters stop by.

      • Timothy Villareal

        Right now, all across the U.S., hundreds of aborted babies, who are made in the image and likeness of God just like you and I, are being tossed into biomedical waste trash bags, as if they are nothing but pieces of junk.
        Meanwhile, even as Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land, there are already government officials chomping at the bit to imprison abortion-seeking women, as this ABC News report from just yesterday about a Georgia woman clearly shows:
        Instead of engaging in ad hominem, I invite you to consider the principles of procreative nonviolence, which challenge the tyrannical, de-humanizing thought patterns inherent in both the pro-choice and pro-life movements.

  • Robert Catt

    Lets face it,with condoms and birth control handed out like Halloween Candy there really isn’t any need for abortions anymore expect for the crazed that want to receive one as a progressive secular sacrament.

    • Dagnabbit_42

      Well, yeah, in the short term.

      In the long term, unwanted pregnancies and the abortions that allow women to escape them are actually caused by the cultural shift from seeing condoms and birth control pills as something perverted and God-defying (the uniform belief of all serious Theists prior to about 1930) to seeing them as normal convenience-items without moral relevance (the modern view).

      This cultural shift was the delayed-action consequence of Western Civilization’s abandonment of Natural Law Ethics. Natural Law Ethics was not abandoned because anybody disproved it, of course; to this day it’s the ethical system which grants the most solid and objective underpinning for identifying the good. But around the time of Descartes, people just got tired of the same old thing and they wanted to propose a new and exiting alternative view, no matter how self-contradictory. Enter mind-body dualism, the rejection of teleology, and stupid self-contradictory and tail-chasing systems like consequentialism. And…well, that’s when philosophical advancement in Western Civilization pretty much ended.

      As usual such talk amongst the intellectual elite took decades and centuries to start filtering down to the common level, where it contaminated and eventually replaced the intellectual worldview of the masses. But by the early 20th century people no longer could articulate why it was nasty to eat food and then vomit it up again in order to empty one’s stomach to permit the eating of more food. They could no longer articulate why, provided you had the money and a way to receive nutrients and didn’t hurt anyone by doing it, it would be wrong to attach electrodes to the pleasure centers of your brain and shock yourself repeatedly into orgasmic bliss until you died. All these things are easily answered by those who believe there’s such a thing as Natural Law. But Western Civilization no longer does.

      As these early 20th century kids grew older, a few of them became the new and oblivious generation of Anglican churchmen who, at the 1930 Lambeth Conference, became the first Christians in history to suggest that, in some limited emergency-circumstances, it might be okay for a married husband and wife to use a condom to prevent conceptions. They regarded this an incremental and relatively conservative shift of view, albeit in a liberalizing direction.

      After that change, the persons then alive were merely living on borrowed time, spending the cultural inheritance of their forebears while no longer holding a worldview that could sustain it. Had Thomas Aquinas been the type of friar to produce apparitions, he might have appeared to warn them: “Après moi, le déluge”. But he was too busy enjoying the Beatific Vision, and since they’d already discarded Moses and the Prophets, he knew they wouldn’t have listened anyway, even to a guy returned from the dead.

      So in the generation that followed the Anglican shift, there was a total reversal rejecting Natural Law in favor of consequentialism.

      Which, of course, is the reason for the 60’s, for no-fault divorce, for gay “marriage,” for weird women who choose to “marry” bits of the Berlin Wall, and so on.

      Turns out Richard Weaver was right: Ideas Have Consequences. But the ideas you play around with today only have consequences for your great-great-grandchildren. Which is just aces, if you like playing around with ideas without bothering about the consequences: By the time your civilization falls apart, you’ll be a hundred and fifty years in the grave! What fun.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service