“Our children have been reared in the age of abortion, and are coming of age in a time when seemingly respectable people are enthusiastic for euthanasia. It cannot be good for our children, and the world they will make, that they are given this new lesson that human life is not precious, not touched by the divine, not of infinite value.
Once you “know” that–that human life is not so special after all–then everything is possible, and none of it is good. When a society comes to believe that human life is not inherently worth living, it is a slippery slope to the gas chamber. You wind up on a low road that twists past Columbine and leads toward Auschwitz. Today that road runs through Pinellas Park, Fla.” –Peggy Noonan
Is this the closet we’re gonna get to you commenting on the Schiavo case? I’m curious to hear what you think about DeLay.
I don’t have much to say on Schiavo that hasn’t been said already. As for DeLay, haven’t been following the story much, but what I do follow, I must admit, it looks rather Clintonesque…so I don’t like it.
That’s a bit of an overstatement by Noonan on human history. As if it only started after WWII. It wasn’t to long ago that African Americans where 3/5 human and easily lynched. It was divine destiny to eradicate the Native Americans, those savages, to make room for whites. To imprison, torture, mutilate, and kill innocent people, during the Spanish Inquisition. Romans crucified Jesus because he was a problem to a certain group. Last time I checked, abortion rights weren’t the cause for those genocidal and murderous results.
I don’t know of any other time in recorded human history where you, as a citizen today, enjoy so much freedom, rights and due process from persecution from indiscriminate (or deliberate discrimination) from the prevailing government or society in general.
Maybe she would prefer to live in 1905 America, where the only precious life deserving protection belonged to white men.
I think you are taking her statement too far. I think the problem she is addressing is a new problem, just like one may say slavery posed to the generations before us (that also lead to Auschwitz). All the examples you gave were also things that would lead to the same thing, but our current culture doesn’t have those as a problem.
What new problem?
That abortion, euthanasia, and all these other new issues are teaching the new generation “that they are given this new lesson that human life is not precious, not touched by the divine, not of infinite value”.
Columbine and Auschwitz have nothing to do with abortion and euthanasia. Those concepts by Noonan were given as reasons, and dismissed as well, to commit those and prior atrocities. Mass murders and organized genocide are committed on innocent people not wanting or willing to die. Individual choices has to how to live and die is a right and should be honored.
In fact, her argument undermines her point. The State (thanks to Bush) has conscripted Schiavo to live in a persistent vegetative state against her wishes. Her free will ignored because the State believes she is “touched by the divine” even though she may not. And don’t tell me that since Schiavo’s wishes are in doubt, that it is then best to error on the side of life. Because you will then become the ward of the state, with your family removed from the decision making process. Doctors and federal guardians will decide what medical course is best for you. A reverse Auschwitz. In fact we already have one, it’s called the Bureau of Indian affairs.
Mass murders and organized genocide are committed on innocent people not wanting or willing to die. Individual choices has to how to live and die is a right and should be honored.
Right, but that is a priori assuming that abortion is not the taking of human life. Which of course, us pro-lifers don’t agree with.
Whether life begins at the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg or just before birth, is something that, I believe, can be reasoned to a conclusion. But unfortunately, some pro-lifers can’t be reasoned with and will take the extreme view that those clumps of dividing cells are “life.” Thus no abortion and forced birth, regardless of circumstance. I do think that a line can be and should be drawn as to when an abortion is allowed and when not. IMO, it should be within the 1st trimester, the sooner the better. And don’t criminalize it; that will do more harm than good.
Whether life begins at the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg or just before birth, is something that, I believe, can be reasoned to a conclusion. But unfortunately, some pro-lifers can’t be reasoned with and will take the extreme view that those clumps of dividing cells are “life.” Thus no abortion and forced birth, regardless of circumstance. I do think that a line can be and should be drawn as to when an abortion is allowed and when not. IMO, it should be within the 1st trimester, the sooner the better. And don’t criminalize it; that will do more harm than good.
Sorry for the double post. Didn’t refresh.
Hey IB,
It actually wasn’t your fault, for some reason or another, your post triggered my spam filter and it came to me for review. Being a lover of freedom of speech, I decided to approve both posts. If you like, I can delete one. Now, to your other comment…
While I am as pro-life as they come, I do agree with the general priciple that their are ‘extremes’ on both sides of this issue. You single out Republicans yet fail to mention that Democrats voted 73 percent against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and 61 percent against a ban on partial birth abortion. In addition, if forced to pick between extremes, I would much rather pick the one who stresses the value of life in excess, than the one that values it less. When it comes to the serious issue of life, it’s best to err on the side of caution.
But with that aside, I do think that Noonan has a point. Just to use her example, abortion debates often center around choice, and not around whether or not the unborn is a person or not. If the unborn is a person, than their should be no choice in the matter. If, on the other hand, the unborn is not a person, than it should not be regulated any differently than having your tonsels removed is. Democrats keep focusing on the choice element, while completely ignoring the personhood element. This, when I would say most people, acknowledge that atleast some aspect of life is being lost (No female sees an upcoming abortion like they see an upcoming tonsel removal, for example).
So yes, this, like other issues in the past, devalues life, and is a dangerous value to teach the next generation.
It appears you are more reasonable than most of the Republican leadership, if I read you correctly. There is a big difference, like I said, between terminating cell division and aborting a fetus a month before birth. If the Republicans can concede that and allow choice (and stop calling it a “person”) then I can see Democrats drawing the line at a ban on long term abortion. I would support that.
As far as your devaluing life argument, that can also be laid at the feet of every Republican attempt at blocking any public safety measure, for example, i.e. the cost of basic safety measures isn’t worth the extra increase in cost at the expense of the bottom line. It is a non sequitur in my opinion.
What is you opinion onSun Hudson? Bushand State Republican party pushed it through.
Here are the links:
One last try (coding skills non-existent):
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/03/lifesupport_sto.html
http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:X4ScpImbI68J:www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934+sun+hudson&hl=en&client=safari
There is a big difference, like I said, between terminating cell division and aborting a fetus a month before birth. If the Republicans can concede that and allow choice (and stop calling it a “person”) then I can see Democrats drawing the line at a ban on long term abortion. I would support that.
I grant that there is a difference, but it is not a difference in principle, it’s a difference in mercy. For example, I would say that there is a difference between shooting someone in the head to die instantly, than killing someone in a long gruesome act. The difference doesn’t imply that one is a person while the other is not, but that one way to kill is more ‘humane’ (for the lack of a better word) than the other. Or in the instance of cell division, I would use the analogy of killing a person serving life without parole (not on the death penalty), and killing a free person. Both involve persons, yet one is doomed to die anyway.
In addition, unlike other ‘killing’ examples you gave, abortion involves the deliberate act of killing the unborn person.
As far as your devaluing life argument, that can also be laid at the feet of every Republican attempt at blocking any public safety measure, for example, i.e. the cost of basic safety measures isn’t worth the extra increase in cost at the expense of the bottom line. It is a non sequitur in my opinion.
No, this is not a fair analogy. In all safety measures there are trade-offs, and there may be times where the trade-offs aren’t worth it, even when some people may die. If one were to be the unlucky person that died because of insufficient safety measures, while the government may have some responsibility, it is not like abortion, where the mother is going into the abortion clinic for the sole purpose to kill her unborn child. One could make the analogy that it is the difference from first degree murder, and say, second or third degree murder (assuming for the sake of argument the government had some fault in the death).
What is you opinion on Sun Hudson? Bushand State Republican party pushed it through.
Dont know all the details, nor have I read everything you linked, but from what little I’ve seen, it doesn’t look right.