Roe v. Wade Anniversary

January 22 marked the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that liberalized abortion law. Last year Diana Hsieh and I reviewed the reasons why that’s a good thing. But the religious right, driven by religious faith, ignores the reasons why abortion should remain legal.

The Rocky Mountain News reports, “Abortion is the slavery issue of our time, author Eric Metaxas told about 400 people at the annual Colorado Right to Life rally Thursday on the steps of the Capitol.” Metaxis made it clear that his motive is religious faith: “God is the one who calls you to the battle.”

However, the comparison between abortion and slavery completely falls apart in light of the fact that a fertilized egg is not a person, whereas a slave is. As Diana and I also point out, the true comparison is between the abolitionist movement and the progress in making abortion legal. Abolishing slavery and legalizing abortion both protect the rights of people.

Yet, not only does the religious right continue to push its faith-based politics, it makes it a priority, despite the movement’s sound defeat last November. For example, Andrew Tallman writes, “[A]bortion is the single greatest moral evil of our day. Nothing else even comes close.” But where is his argument that abortion is evil at all? In fact it is the prohibition of abortion that is morally evil. But, to the religious right, violating people’s right to get an abortion is more important than fighting terrorism or preserving economic liberty. And that is precisely why the religious right took such a beating at the polls.

4 thoughts on “Roe v. Wade Anniversary”

  1. I think the point is, Ari, that at the time a slave was a human being who was not legally recognized as a person. Likewise, an unborn child is a human being who is not legally recognized as a person. I see the parallels very clearly.

    Good to see/hear from you again! But I disagree with you on this. I wonder if you might be interested in doing a radio program about this (maybe combine it with talking about your new book?).

  2. You’re missing the point entirely. A fertilized egg is not, in fact, a person, and therefore should not be legally recognized as such. When you’re prepared to seriously present a case for your supposition, taking into account the arguments that Diana and I have reviewed, then please get back to me.

  3. But an embryo is a human being, every bit as much as a slave or a Jew, so your distinction is moot.

    And this isn’t why Republicans took a beating at the polls. They got beat because their candidates weren’t conservative, and many Christians (enough to make a difference) didn’t vote (for them at least).

    Be honest, would you vote for Al Gore if he made Ron Paul or Bob Barr his running mate? No? Well, neither would we (not some of us, anyway).

    I’m serious about the radio show, if you’d like a good debate! Plug your book, and your ideas!


  4. The difference is that I’ve made my case, and you haven’t. You can keep repeating your claim without evidence or proof, but that leads nowhere.

    The problem with your claim about Republicans not being sufficiently “conservative” is that the term has no precise meaning, and it packages a bundle of disconnected programs. As I’ve argued, McCain hurt himself by supporting Bush’s bailouts. But even more he hurt himself by selecting the anti-abortion zealot Sarah Palin. I’ve reviewed this elsewhere.

Comments are closed.