Abortion More Than Legal, Moral Issue
FILE - In this Aug. 27, 2010 file photo, a man walks into a Tiffany store on Wall Street in New York. Tiffany & Co. cut its outlook for both sales and profit for the year, citing a slowdown in demand for its jewelry not only in the U.S. but in many other countries. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File) / Mark Lennihan
This column was written by Fred Barnes.
How do people become pro-lifers? What turns people into passionate foes of abortion and related issues like euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research? I'm not referring to those who supported the pro-life position because of their family upbringing or religious faith or because of a political requirement as, say, a Republican candidate in a red state. I'm talking about people who, as adults or mature teenagers, were either pro-abortion or basically indifferent to the issue. Then something changed their mind, prompting them to take up the anti-abortion cause. Perhaps they began defending the pro-life position without realizing they'd flipped. In any case, what caused the change? What happened?
The answer can be found in the experiences of five people: Ronald Reagan, Henry Hyde, Ramesh Ponnuru, Wesley Smith, and myself. And their stories, I think, are roughly representative of what a multitude of others went through as they came to embrace the cause of saving unborn children. The five experienced two things in common that should be easy to spot as we look at their five cases.
Let's begin with Reagan. In his first year as California governor in 1967, the legislature passed a bill to legalize "therapeutic" abortions. It was an issue Reagan hadn't thought much about and he was torn over whether to veto the measure. Many Republicans in legislature strongly urged him to sign the bill. So did aides on his staff, including conservatives Ed Meese and Lyn Nofziger, who later followed Reagan to Washington. Reagan was assured it would result in only a handful of abortions.
His instinct was to veto the bill, and the Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles urged him to follow that course. But he signed it into law. Reagan was disturbed by his decision, however, and continued to think long and hard about abortion. The bill, according to Lou Cannon in 'Governor Reagan," "permitted more legal abortions in California than occurred in any other state before the advent of Roe v. Wade." Reagan's worst fear was realized.
By 1980, Reagan had changed his mind and become a firm opponent of abortion. He insisted on a pro-life plank in the Republican platform for the first time. In 1983, he published a passionate pro-life essay, "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation." It turned out that signing the abortion bill in 1967 was the only political mistake that Reagan ever admitted.
Weekly Standard How do people become pro-lifers? What turns people into passionate foes of abortion and related issues like euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research? I'm not referring to those who supported the pro-life position because of their family upbringing or religious faith or because of a political requirement as, say, a Republican candidate in a red state. I'm talking about people who, as adults or mature teenagers, were either pro-abortion or basically indifferent to the issue. Then something changed their mind, prompting them to take up the anti-abortion cause. Perhaps they began defending the pro-life position without realizing they'd flipped. In any case, what caused the change? What happened?
The answer can be found in the experiences of five people: Ronald Reagan, Henry Hyde, Ramesh Ponnuru, Wesley Smith, and myself. And their stories, I think, are roughly representative of what a multitude of others went through as they came to embrace the cause of saving unborn children. The five experienced two things in common that should be easy to spot as we look at their five cases.
Let's begin with Reagan. In his first year as California governor in 1967, the legislature passed a bill to legalize "therapeutic" abortions. It was an issue Reagan hadn't thought much about and he was torn over whether to veto the measure. Many Republicans in legislature strongly urged him to sign the bill. So did aides on his staff, including conservatives Ed Meese and Lyn Nofziger, who later followed Reagan to Washington. Reagan was assured it would result in only a handful of abortions.
His instinct was to veto the bill, and the Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles urged him to follow that course. But he signed it into law. Reagan was disturbed by his decision, however, and continued to think long and hard about abortion. The bill, according to Lou Cannon in 'Governor Reagan," "permitted more legal abortions in California than occurred in any other state before the advent of Roe v. Wade." Reagan's worst fear was realized.
By 1980, Reagan had changed his mind and become a firm opponent of abortion. He insisted on a pro-life plank in the Republican platform for the first time. In 1983, he published a passionate pro-life essay, "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation." It turned out that signing the abortion bill in 1967 was the only political mistake that Reagan ever admitted.
- no previous page
- next
1/2
Recommended
- Who decides Oscar winners? White men over 60
- Top Twelve Most Patriotic Songs Ever
- American dystopia more reality than fiction
- Obama only goes after leaks that don't benefit him
- Who Lives The American Dream?
- The hunk factor and the 2012 elections
- The Decline and Fall of the American Empire
- Don't Take My House!
Your point is well taken. If someone is against abortion, then they won't have one - even if they are brutally raped. I have a different opinion. No one will force me to be a broodmare against my will. Simple really.
The writer of this article has come to an emotional conclusion on the subject that he fools himself into thinking is intellectual. In any event, abortion is a personal decision for a woman in which Mr. Barnes personal opinions and conclusions have no part.
As fervently as you feel abortion is wrong, there are others with a different world view, who feel as strongly that this is a decision which should be left to the individual(s) involved. It should NOT be the province of the government, nor should it be the province of religious fascists, who feel that they have all the answers for all of us, whether or not we want them! If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one! No one is requiring you to do so -- and if you regret decisions made in the past, get professional help and get past it, but leave other people alone.
And, do you really think that outlawing abortion will prevent women from having them? Such a policy will force the matter underground, and will result not only in the abortion of more fetuses, but also in the needless death of young women. And for what? So that some self-righteous moralizing busybody can assert that the poor women "got what they deserved"?
Finally, do we really want a new generation of children born to mothers who are ill-prepared to raise them, or who simply don't want them? Can our nation really afford more sociopathic young people who will likely commit crimes, thereby ensuring that they will waste their lives in prison? What about the lives of those who would be adversely affected by children who might have been aborted? This matter is not as simple as you would believe, and this does not even consider the issue of global human overpopulation, which is also relevant!