file: /pub/resources/text/ProLife.News/1992: pln-0207.txt --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Life Communications - Volume 2, No. 7 April, 1992 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This newsletter is intended to provide articles and news information to those interested in Pro-Life Issues. Questions to readers and articles for submissions are strongly encouraged. All submissions should be sent to the editor, Steve (frezza@ee.pitt.edu). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) The Basic Fallibility of Roe v. Wade: A Closer Look at the 1973 Decision We know in our hearts, and somewhere in our minds, that something MUST be lacking in the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade. How else could such a result have occurred? And, true enough, when we take a closer look at the majority opinion that IS Roe v. Wade, we find that our instincts were absolutely correct. The most obvious downfall of the logic espoused by Justice Blackmun in Roe is exemplified by this quote: We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. CT. 705, L. Ed. 2d. 147 (1973). The opinion rationalizes this decision by stating that there is a wide divergence of thinking on the issue and that because "those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any conclusion." Neither would the Supreme Court! Accordingly, the decision would simply be left to each and every average individual! What is this?! Is this not WHY we have a Supreme Court of the land? Exactly to decide those MOST difficult questions, those questions which center around constitutional rights -- such as the right to life -- which may and must not be left up to the individual? How can a question be TOO difficult for the Supreme Court yet easy enough for a person with a grade school education to decide? Does the Supreme Court expect only "easy" questions to come before it? But, even more fundamentally, what the court admits in the quoted statement is that the abortion issue does, in fact, center around the question of when life begins. It admits in that statement that the unborn fetus MAY or MAY NOT constitute human life, and that this most crucial question will be resolved by "the individual". Since when? Since when has "the individual" EVER, in our history, been permitted to decide life or death issues? The logic of such a decision (and its failure) is best analogized to the following example: Person A wants to shoot a gun into a dark room. There MAY or MAY NOT be a person living in that room (Person B). Person A would kill Person B if permitted to shoot. Person A therefore requests legal permission to shoot into the dark room. Person A's argument is that there is a CHANCE that no one is in the room, and there is a CHANCE he will not kill anyone by his actions. The court grants permission. When would anyone ever be granted permission to take a chance on another human's life? Never. However, by the Supreme Court's own admission this is exactly what Roe accomplishes. Therefore, one need not even be wholly convinced that an embryo or fetus is human life to abhor that horrendous excuse for logic which comprises Roe v. Wade. - Mary Grenen ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) AN EYEWITNESS AT THE CAPITOL The Prolife Counterdemonstration in DC: (4-5 April, 1992) We sent a good-sized delegation of men and women from Wellesley College, Harvard U, and MIT went to the "March for Women's Lives" as part of the pro-life counterprotest. We were received very cordially, especially since we were the group that had come the farthest and we (the Wellesley group) were from a college that is mostly pro-abortion. First, we went to a vigil in front of the Supreme Court, organized by Feminists for Life. (Prior to that vigil, our group privately met with a woman from FFL, who also works for NRL.) At the vigil were many women who had themselves experienced the trauma of abortion. Each person present was given a sort of placard, in the shape of a tombstone, with information on it about a woman who had died from a legal abortion (i.e., each tombstone described a different woman and included as much information as could be found about her particular death due to a legal abortion). The names and the information from the tombstones were read aloud, in memory of the deaths of these women. Many pro-abortion hecklers in the background, however, seemed to find this amusing, as they cheered at the memory of each death, shouting things like, "She died for choice!!!" All in all, however, it was a beautiful ceremony. When we later went back to Union Station; our group consisted of about 11 people, not all walking together - We were told by guards (Union Station security or NARAL security for the PP benefit, we were not sure which) that we must disperse immediately or risk being arrested by the police that they were about to call. At the time, there were no outward signs that we were about to protest; this incident was wholly based on the fact that we were wearing buttons which said, simply, "CHOOSE LIFE." The following day (Sunday), we went to a protest on the west lawn of the Capitol, which was also organized by FFL. The police made sure that, while the marchers wandered all over the place, we were confined to "the grassy area behind the wall." Fortunately, we were still very visible. We chanted things like "Pro-woman, pro-life!" and "Vida, si! Aborto, no!" (for the benefit of the Spanish-speaking marchers). Signs waved with everything from pictures of aborted babies to slogans such as "Safe, legal, and funded pregnancy- every child's right." There was a good deal of press coverage - Wellesley Alliance for Life had several interviews. As expected, we experienced everything short of physical violence. My personal favorite anecdote-a woman in a wheelchair, holding a sign with a picture of an aborted child, was told that "That's not what it looks like" and "They should have aborted you." Generally, the demonstration was deemed a success. On the way home, however, all roadside stops for miles and miles were crowded with busloads of pro-aborts. We finally entered one, concluding (correctly) that we probably wouldn't find an agreeably non-hostile environment anytime soon. While in this restaurant, we were taunted, jeered at, pushed, and insulted, and generally not treated very well, even by some of the employees. Fortunately, the rest of the trip was rather uneventful, save the many confrontations on the road between our van with pro-life signs in the windows and the many cars which displayed signs from NARAL, homemade signs, and bundles of coat hangers. -Melanie Swiderek -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- About the rally in DC: The media put the crowd at 500,000, but I did not see such a huge crowd as they said. Anyway, if the official record is 500,000, and they chopped ours down to 80,000 (where we had nearly 800,000 people there), I think we need to talk to people about next year, with the goal of putting 1 million people out on that Washington lawn - so many that they'll need a Starfleet camera to photograph the rally. - Steve Chaney ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (3) LADIES HOME JOURNAL the Ladies Home Journal is running a survey on abortion that will be sent to the presidential candidates. The number to call is 1-900-773-1717, it costs 75 cents and you are asked to respond to three questions by touch-tone. Please pass this on through the chain. -Paul Hilts A local Christian radio host (WPIT) thought that although the phone call was 75 cents for every minute, if enough people called then it would show the general public just how we felt about abortion. Otherwise the survey would turn around looking like most people were pro-abortion. It does cost money, but this isn't a report that will be buried in a drawer somewhere and never seen because it is being done by a well known magazine and it will get published. -Sheflynn Sherer -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- It seems that the results will be sent to the 1992 presidential candidates to influence their stand on abortion. The phone call is automatically answered, and only three questions are asked, with touch-tone responses. 1) At what time during the pregnancy should abortion be legal? (9mo, 6mo, 3mo, just rape, never) 2) Should the wife have to get permission from her husband to have an abortion? (yes/no) 3) Would you vote for president solely on the abortion issue? (yes, no) The call costs 75 cents and the number is 1-900-773-1717. No word on how long the survey will last. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (4) RALLY IN COLUMBUS Ohio College Students United for Life are holding a rally at the Statehouse in Columbus on Sat. April 12, from 12 pm-3pm. -Kevin Hammer ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (5) WHAT WORKS: UNDERSTANDING THE 'OTHER SIDE' We [pro-abortionists] used to call abortion laws an analogy to slavery of women. Get a load of this: To the pro-choice movement in general, abortion laws are considered Slavery to women on the grounds that it forces them into bodily servitude for someone (something) else. It turns women into a "place" and not a "person". J.C. Willke's constant reference to abortion as a discrimination via "place of residence" could easily back up this strong, seemingly flawless argument of the abortion rights movement. This notion flows directly out of the "privacy" thing - bodily privacy and the right not to have to put something in it that you do not want in it.. (Or keep something in it that you do not want.) When developed, this turns into a highly nasty argument, because it can render irrelevant even the fact that a fetus is a person: persons do not have the right to inhabit other persons' bodies. Hence, it is a violation of civil liberties (slavery) for whoever ends up in this situation - in this case, women. Of course, the way to handle this argument is that a fetus is a minor. Adults do not have the right to even parental support. Only a child, or minor, has that right. There is ample room to show that, in the subset of the legal principle which forces parents into servitude to care for their child, there exists the subset of women & pregnancy which can be held relevant to this (or this principle held relevant to that subset). It would also rope in fathers to child support (which one can sue for). The issue is, is bodily support out of bounds, or if, because it is provided by nature, in bounds? This, by the way, is the bottom line of pro-choice thinking. Break this, and you've only got the issue of fetal personhood to tackle, and by then, you'll have 90% of the battle won and it's a downhill ride from there, at least for me. -Steve Chaney - Glad to be on the right side - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Quote Of the Month: "If it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life -- as distinct from the health of the mother which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible" -Mr. Justice Thomas Finley, Chief Justice of the Irish Supreme Court, on a recent ruling permitting a 14-year old rape victim to travel abroad to abort her child. +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Credits: | | 1- Mary Grenen is an attorney in Pittsburgh, and a Birthright | | volunteer. Based on a talk she gave at Chatham College in Feb. | |QOM- From an article entitled "Divided Isle" from the _Catholic World| | Report_, April, 1992 p. 23. | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ Anyone desiring information on specific prolife groups, literature, tapes, or help with problems is encouraged to contact the editor.