Comments on Thirty-eight Years and Counting . . . But Still Reason to Be Hopeful!TypePad2011-03-27T19:02:44ZRick Garnetthttps://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/03/thirty-eight-years-and-counting-but-still-reason-to-be-hopeful/comments/atom.xml/Roe critic commented on 'Thirty-eight Years and Counting . . . But Still Reason to Be Hopeful!'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2014e604ad5ff970c2011-03-31T20:48:38Z2011-03-31T20:48:38ZRoe criticI agree with David that a Roe reversal would be just the beginning, not the end, of a long struggle....<p>I agree with David that a Roe reversal would be just the beginning, not the end, of a long struggle. I add two points.</p>
<p>First, the mistaken impression that he identifies, i.e., that a Roe reversal would ban abortion, is common among grassroots activists on both sides and among average Americans in the middle. The misimpression is also manipulated and reinforced by elites on both sides.</p>
<p>For example, pro-choicers and Democratic candidates try to energize voters with the threat that their freedom turns on Supreme Court justices and thus on Presidential and Senate races. But no, an outright Roe reversal would not affect California, New York, Illinois, or so many states that would not pass a ban in any foreseeable future. And for many states that might ban, most of the population is within a medium drive to city that has access, such as Indiana/Chicago, Virginia/DC/Baltimore. Maybe Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi are an issue.</p>
<p>On the pro-life side, many are happy to let the grassroots fervor build at the prospect that the ultimate goal is Roe reversal. One asymetry, though, is that reversal is a necessary, but not sufficient step, so focusing solely on that first down is not as deceptive in its results, but is equally wrong in principle. </p>
<p>Second, all this is just further proof that Roe is a bad decision, not just from a pro-life view, but because it has short-circuited and warped the debate for decades. As long as it makes things mostly or fully all-or-nothing, many Americans have tuned out of the debate, and self-identified absolutists on both sides have not faced the reality of what their positions would mean. A post-Roe world will be challenging, but it would be a monumental improvement over what we have now.</p>David Nickol commented on 'Thirty-eight Years and Counting . . . But Still Reason to Be Hopeful!'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2014e602a40c6970c2011-03-28T13:58:30Z2011-03-28T13:58:30ZDavid NickolIn watching the film about Students for Life, I was struck by how rapturous it is and how it gives...<p>In watching the film about Students for Life, I was struck by how rapturous it is and how it gives the impression that when abortion is "abolished," the country will be transformed into one where every life is cherished and all is happiness and goodwill. Has anyone projected a likely scenario if, say, Roe v Wade is overturned? That will not, of course, "abolish" abortion, but merely turn it over to the states. If the students are tired of the "38-year battle" that began with Roe, I don't think they are going to find the battle miraculously at an end if Roe is overturned. If anything—or so it seems to me—the battle will intensify, with separate battles in every state. And in those states where abortion is banned, does anyone expect the struggle will be over, any more than the struggle ended when Roe was decided? I think as long as there are "pro-aborts" and "anti-aborts," the ugliness will continue. I agree with Andrew MacKie-Mason. There has to be some coming together of both sides. Abortion will not be "abolished" if it is criminalized in some states and not others, or if somehow it is criminalized in *all* states. </p>Andrew MacKie-Mason commented on 'Thirty-eight Years and Counting . . . But Still Reason to Be Hopeful!'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20147e3811e50970b2011-03-27T23:25:23Z2011-03-27T23:25:23ZAndrew MacKie-Masonhttp://source4politics.blogspot.comExcuse me, I should have said "making unplanned pregnancies less common," of course.<p>Excuse me, I should have said "making unplanned pregnancies less common," of course.</p>Andrew MacKie-Mason commented on 'Thirty-eight Years and Counting . . . But Still Reason to Be Hopeful!'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20147e3811dd0970b2011-03-27T23:24:22Z2011-03-27T23:24:22ZAndrew MacKie-Masonhttp://source4politics.blogspot.comI hope that "a right to be unburdened by pregnancy" is where anti-abortion and pro-choice individuals can come together under...<p>I hope that "a right to be unburdened by pregnancy" is where anti-abortion and pro-choice individuals can come together under a truly pro-life banner. One that supports and encourages the nurturing of all new life while at the same time doing everything they can to support the dignity in the life of all women.</p>
<p>Supporting programs to make unplanned pregnancies more common, ending the stigmas that still surround young pregnancies (while emphasizing the reasons that it's not wise to get pregnant too young), making fathers responsible for bearing more of the burden than they currently do, making it easier for mothers to get an education and a professional career, alleviating economic situations that make pregnancy and parenthood more difficult for the poor...these are things which can found a new pro-life movement truly dedicated to all human dignity and recognizing both the value of the life of the unborn and the freedom of women.</p>