Interesting article, and very hopeful on the pro-life front:
The pro-life movement is arguably more comfortable with the language of rights and liberties than its opponents. Abortion foes are defending a right to life grounded in the Declaration of Independence, after all, whereas pro-choicers are defending more nebulous rights (privacy, autonomy, etc.) supposedly grounded in “penumbras” and “emanations” from the Constitution.
The article discusses marriage, life and Obama. Now I happen to also be in favour of two person, man/woman marriage. And that is a position I’ve also attempted to argue in the public square.
It is a million gazillion times easier to defend life in the public square–precisely because the arguments–and the sound bites–are rights based. They are equality based. Equality and dignity for both mom and child. There’s this shaky notion pro-abortion types put forward that abortion serves women’s rights because they are “in control of their own bodies” but it’s a superficial argument, and one that is fairly easily overcome by unpacking the euphemism and looking at what really happens.
In short, I believe very strongly that combatting abortion is a fight we can’t lose. And that’s good news.
Rebecca adds: I still can’t see how abortion can be construed as part of a right to privacy. Our Dear Leader Trudeau famously quipped that government has no place in people’s bedrooms. I’m not aware of many abortions that take place in bedrooms, and even the most die-hard libertarians would have a hard time defending the idea that government has no place regulating clinics and hospitals, especially when they’re run by public funds.
But let’s go with the idea that abortion involves “privacy” and shouldn’t be interfered with by the state that it stems from something that takes place in the bedroom. If someone is raped in a bedroom, is it none of the state’s business? What about a murder in a bedroom? The proposition that something that happens in a private residence, or has something to do with sex, is inherently private is patently absurd.
I suppose the standard libertarian position would be that rape and murder are the government’s business even if they happen in bedrooms because the injured party doesn’t consent. To the best of my knowledge, the informed consent of all parties involved in an abortion never takes place, either.by