The Silent Minority

Could you perhaps provide a pincite to when Justice Blackmun uses the phrase "arbitrary figure to viability" in his opinion because for the life of me, I can't find it. If you are paraphrasing, then take the phrase out of quotes.

I believe what Blackmun was trying to argue and what you have distorted, is that it is not the Court's place to determine when a fetus is alive. His trimester scheme is not arbitrary at all but based on the following:

"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the 'compelling' point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 725, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth.

It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. ...

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this 'compelling' point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State."

If you have some sort of super secret original copy of Roe v. Wade that contains the quote you attribute to Justice Blackmun, I would really like to see it.

It is also worth noting that the whole trimester scheme was tossed aside by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, so your point becomes even weaker.

Great comment, Steve. I'm glad someone responded so quickly and articulately.

Great article. Cornell students need to hear pro-life arguments every once in a while.

First, thank you to Ms. Sweeney for having the courage of her convictions to stand up and speak out for that which she believes.

Second, to Steve and Adriene, my condolences. You have missed the forest for the trees, and do not address the central point of Ms. Sweeney's article. Talk about "arbitrary". In fact, the principle error made by Ms. Sweeney with respect to her discussion of Roe v. Wade is the failure to note that it gtranted a right to abortion throughout the term of a pregnancy; many people labor under the misconception that abortion is permissible only in the first trimester. The horror of partial birth abortion is truly indefensible and unfathomable, however, both attempts by federal legislators to eliminate this pernicious form of abortion have been opposed in various court proceedings. In all material respects, it is indistinguishable from infanticide. Do we as a sociaety want to inhabit a world in which such a barbaric practive is permitted?

As to viability issues, children have survived delivery as early as 22 months, and weighed as little as 1 pound. The viability threshold seems to advance to an ever-earlier stage of pregnancy. Children who would have had no chance of survival a few years ago, now are born and thrive. The claim that infants do not feel pain until 28 weeks is laughable, as any sonogram technician can tell you.

Three other points for your consideration:

1. The women identified in the Supreme Court decision as "Jane Roe" has chnaged her position, regrets her decision to abort her child and now is a strong, pro-life voice.

2. I recommend that you read a book entitled The Hand of God, written by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of Planned Parenthood's foremost abortionists in the early years of legalized abortion, who, based on his scientific knowledge, grew to oppose abortion.

3. Did you ever notice that everyone who favors abortion already has been born?

Thanks for your feedback, Smily Jr., however my point is not " 'arbitrary' " at all. Ms. Sweeneyy bases her argument around the premise that the viability standard was looked at as arbitrary even by Justice Blackmun. This is false and the quote she attributes to Blackmun IS NOT IN THE ACTUAL COURT OPINION. Pointing out that the writer made up quotes is not "missing the forest for the trees." It is identifying journalistic fraud. Again, if you can direct me to the part of the opinion where this quote is from, I will recant my point. However, I think Ms. Sweeney simply lifted the quote from some pro-life newsletter and didn't bother to fact-check it herself.

As you point out, she also missed the boat on what Roe v. Wade actually said, as it does not give a constitutional right to an abortion only in the first trimester, but throughout the pregnancy with the state's interest growing as the pregnancy progresses. Her failure to get this right and her omission of any reference to Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which stripped away a lot of the Roe opinion) shows that she did very little research for this column other than reiterating the basic pro-life talking points.

You nor Ms. Sweeney also fail to outline whether you would allow abortions in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother is at risk. Ms. Sweeney seems adoption is a viable solution to those who don't want to keep the baby, but neglects to weigh in the stress and rigor that pregnancy takes on a woman's physical and emotional health.

Onto to your points of consideration:
1. One anecdotal example of someone who regretted having an abortion. I'm sure there are thousands more who have regretted the decision and still thousands more who don't.
2. Recommendation noted.
3. Did you ever notice that everyone who is "pro-life" is also already born?

Your response seems to focus on issues of journalistic integrity rather than the central issue: Ms. Sweeney's point is that abortion is wrong. The fact the quote attributed to Justice Blackmun may not appear in the decision does not undermine her position. Blackmun's opinion did point out that there were differing views as to when a baby is viable, although he did not tie the viability threshold to the point at which the state can introduce restirctions. You are probably correct that Ms. Sweeney found the "quote" from some other commentary on Roe v. Wade which attributed the words to Justice Blackmun.

As to your comment on my third concluding point: there is no irony in the fact pro-life people already have been born.

You also may be correct that there are thousands of women who do not regret abortion, althoug, in the fullness of time, I am willing to wager that the overwhelming majority of women who have had aboritions regret their actions. The fact "Jane Roe" is among the latter group is more than a mere anecdote.

You don't seem to think there's a connection between "journalistic integrity" and the central issue to the column. There is nothing further from the truth. Ms. Sweeney argues that abortion is wrong along several lines of reasoning. One of them, as we both admit, IS COMPLETELY FALSE. How does the fact that a quote that she attributes to Blackmun is nowhere to be found in the opinion not undermine her position? Half of her column is based on the premise that the viability standard is arbitrary according to the Supreme Court when 1) they never called it arbitrary in the opinion she cites and 2) it's not even the standard used today. She could have easily made her point without citing false authority. I don't know how I can make this anymore clear to you.

I do not see how the misuse of a quotation serves to invalidate the argument that abortion is wrong, particularly in view of the fact justices of the Supreme Court over the years, including O'Connor and Scalia, have characterized the trimester test establsihed by Roe v. Wade as arbitrary. If that were not the case, why did the Court feel the need to shift to an "undue burden" test in Planned Parenthood v. Casey? The fact Ms. Sweeney has not accurately identifed a source of Supreme Court concern over the arbitrary quality of the earlier decision does not render her argument completely false, in this, or in any other respect. Ms. Sweeney undoubtedly should have been more meticulous in her research, but I am taken with the fact you have advanced no justification for what I suppose to be your position on abortion, and that your only objection seems to be that she wrongly attributed a quote to Justice Blackmun. In the absence of that error, would you agree that abortion is wrong? If not, are there any circumstances under which you believe the right to an abortion on demand should be limited? Where do you fall with respect to issues such as partial birth abortion, parental notification laws, restrictinons on transporting minors across state lines for the purpose of procuring an abotion, waiting periods, infomred consent following consultation with a physician, and spousal notification laws?

By the way, you will have just as much success finding in the United States Constituion the "right to privacy" on which the decision in Roe v. Wade is based as I have had finding the Blackmun quote referred to above. It is sad that the Supreme Court can invent a constitutional right and be lauded for it, and an undergraduate can misquote a Justice and be pilloried for it.

"I do not see how the misuse of a quotation serves to invalidate the argument that abortion is wrong,"

My point was not that misquoting the opinion invalidates the argument that abortion is wrong, but that it invalidates her argument that the Court thought the trimester scheme was arbitrary from the get-go, which is not true. I gather that Ms. Sweeney feels that abortion is wrong. Her argument as to why it is wrong in this case IS FALSE. It would be akin to me arguing that eating too many eggs is bad for your health based on a quote from the Surgeon General that I made up. The overall point may still be correct, but my premise is patently false.

"particularly in view of the fact justices of the Supreme Court over the years, including O'Connor and Scalia, have characterized the trimester test establsihed by Roe v. Wade as arbitrary."

But she didn't say that Scalia and O'Connor characterized it as arbitrary. She specifically said and "quoted" Blackmun. You can make the argument that the Roe precedent was eroded over the years, but Ms. Sweeney chose not to do that.

"If that were not the case, why did the Court feel the need to shift to an "undue burden" test in Planned Parenthood v. Casey?"
The Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey thought that using strict scrutiny standard prevented sufficient respect for the interest in potential life. They did not frame the abortion issue as a right to privacy because they didn't think they could get the necessary votes. The undue burden standard that they used instead has no Constitutional basis and is unworkable, given that the majority and concurrence apply the same test to the Casey set of facts and came up with different results.

"The fact Ms. Sweeney has not accurately identifed a source of Supreme Court concern over the arbitrary quality of the earlier decision does not render her argument completely false, in this, or in any other respect."

Yes it does. She frames her argument a certain way to make it look like Roe had little support from its author, but that is false. She could have easily and accurately stated that several judges throughout the years have disagreed with Roe, but she didn't.

"Ms. Sweeney undoubtedly should have been more meticulous in her research, but I am taken with the fact you have advanced no justification for what I suppose to be your position on abortion, and that your only objection seems to be that she wrongly attributed a quote to Justice Blackmun."

We could be here all week if we made this into a full-blown debate on abortion. I chose to criticize Ms. Sweeney's column on a particular point because I found her argument particularly egregious. Given that the rest of the column is the same standard pro-life position, I didn't see the need to address this.

"In the absence of that error, would you agree that abortion is wrong? If not, are there any circumstances under which you believe the right to an abortion on demand should be limited? Where do you fall with respect to issues such as partial birth abortion, parental notification laws, restrictinons on transporting minors across state lines for the purpose of procuring an abotion, waiting periods, infomred consent following consultation with a physician, and spousal notification laws?"

I didn't realize that I had to announce my opinion on every abortion issue in order for you to consider my argument. As someone who is "pro-life," you should want someone arguing your view to know what they are talking about. Clearly Ms. Sweeney does not.

"By the way, you will have just as much success finding in the United States Constituion the "right to privacy" on which the decision in Roe v. Wade is based as I have had finding the Blackmun quote referred to above. It is sad that the Supreme Court can invent a constitutional right and be lauded for it, and an undergraduate can misquote a Justice and be pilloried for it."

Yes truly sad. The difference is that the Supreme Court used theories of constitutional law to explain why we have a constitutional right to an abortion, whereas Ms. Sweeney decided to make up a damning quote and then use it as a sword to attack abortion precedent.

I think you will concede, as you suggested in one of your first coments, that Ms. Sweeney was sloppy in her use of the "quotation", by not tracking it to its purported source. That is far different from stating that she made up a damning quote. As previously noted, the quote is consistent with general commentary on the Roe v.Wade decision since the date it was issued, including commentary by various justices over the years. By using the quote, she is not saying that Justice Blackmun did not support the decision; plainly he did, otherwise he would not have written the opinion. You can interpret the reasoning in the opinion as being arbitrary, as many people have.

I am not saying that you need to announce your position to engage in this dialogue; it is a matter of curiosity. I have considered your argument, and believe that you have blown out of all proportion the use of a quotation that plainly was taken from a source other than the decsion itself. So, despite your protestations to the ocntrary, it appears that your principle objection is to Ms. Sweeney's journalistic lapse, rather than with the substance of her argument. Leaving aside the source of the comment, did Roe v. Wade contain an aribtrary standard?

The fact the Supreme Court decided to put lipstick and makeup on a pig (and to continue the bastardization of the Constitution in the process) does not chnage the fact that it's still a pig. Don't forget that the Supreme Court also applied "theories of constituional law" in reaching its decisions in Dred Scott v. Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson. History has not treated those decisions favorably, and, it is hoped, that one day Roe v. Wade will join those decisions on the scrap heap.

Let me try to put this in as simple of terms as I possibly can. If you construct an argument based on a quote that you falsely attribute to someone, your entire argument is WRONG. Let's say I wrote a column about how President Bush was an alcoholic and I based this column on a quote from him where he says "I am an alcoholic." If that quote is false or someone else actually said it, then my entire argument is WRONG.

In the current example, Ms. Sweeney has chosen to frame her argument around the arbitrariness of the viability standard. To support this argument, she claims that in the original opinion, Justice Blackmun himself says it is arbitrary. That is of course NOT TRUE and therefore her entire argument is WRONG.

You are quick to defend Ms. Sweeney because you agree with her overall point that abortion is wrong, but you do yourself a disservice by blindly making excuses for her. If you had to pick one person to represent your views in a one-on-one debate on abortion, would you pick her, knowing that she fudges her facts? I know I wouldn't.

As to your hope that Roe v. Wade will overturned, what do you hope to replace it with? No abortion at all, even in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is at risk? Ms. Sweeney seems to think carrying a baby to term that you don't want and then giving it up for adoption is a walk in the park!

I think the Simpsons summed up the best path we can take: Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

This is too important a topic to rely on a "gotcha" game, where one claims a single error (which is actually one more of form than substance) can credibly be claimed to render an argument completely wrong.

Consider the following points made by Ms. Sweeney in her article:

1. Roe v. Wade began a dark era with the Supreme Court's declaration that abortion is a constitutionally protected right.
2. The result of that decision, is that millions of babies who otherwise would have been born have not been.
3. Thousands march in Washington each year to protest the decision.
4. The marchers will be criticized and taunted for doing so.
5. Cornellians do not tolerate an open dialogue on the subject of abortion.
6. There is disagreement regarding when a baby achieves consciousness or begins to feel pain.
7. Planned Parenthood reportedly has not cited any medical authorities to support its statements as to when a baby first is able to feel pain.
8. Once a child is conceived, a baby will result in the absence of an abortion or miscarriage.
9. The pro-life movement is not a male-only preserve.
10. There are outreach programs for pregnant women, and they deserve greater financial support.

To these, I will add my own, which is consistent with the position taken by Ms. Sweeney:

11. The standard set forth in Roe is arbitrary (regardless of whether Blackmun said it). While outwardly denying that that was the case, the Supreme Court conceded as much in switching to the undue burden standard in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Of the foregoing pints made by Ms. Sweeney in her article, which ones are invalidated by her attribution of a statement to Justice Blackmun that you yourself suggested was probably lifted from a secondary source? Certainly not the first 10, and I will agree to disagree with you if you say the 11th.

Your argument is akin to stating that, if a person misstates a fact in constructing any argument, then their entire argument is rendered invalid. I have read countless "corrections" in newspapers and magazines, and the next time the publisher states that a mistake in the original article invalidates the entire article will be the first.

Of the 3,700 abortions per day reportedly claimed by Planned Parenthood, how many are cases involving rape, incest or saving the mother's life? Incidentally, a typical provision of pre-Roe state abortion statutes (including the one at issue in Roe) provided an exception to the prohibition on abortion where an abortion was performed to save the mother's life. The current federal statute proscribing partial birth abortion also contains such an exception, as does the teaching of the Catholic Church. So, that concern, a popular red herring among the pro-abortion crowd, is irrelevant as all parties agree that abortion is acceptable under those circumstances. We are left, then, with cases of incest and rape, about which reasonable minds may differ, although I would suggest that if one is to be intellectually honest and logically consistent, there is only one answer.

One last point: why is it that a mother or father who immediately kills a newborn baby is guilty of infanticide, while a doctor who delivers all but the baby's head before killing it is not? Are you comfortable living in a society where a person that kills a baby one minute after delivery is a murderer and a person that kills a baby one minute before delivery is just a medical professional doing his job? Just wondering.

Here's a question: what's wrong with murder? We as a country do it all the time for unjustified reasons (see the war in Iraq for instance). I assume you are a Republican by your comments, so I'll assume you love war and murder for the purpose of supporting America, so explain to me why it's so bad if a parent wants to kill their unborn child to improve her life and the lives of everyone that child might encounter after growing up in an unloving household or screwed up in some foster home. Give me a break. There's nothing wrong with abortion. It's probably a contributor to reducing the crime rate in the last 20 years, in fact (read Freakonomics, which overdoes this argument a bit). I'm so tired of Jesus freaks pushing this issue, when they've never really thought about the fact that there's nothing wrong with killing something that is sapping its energy from you, can't survive on its own (sounds like a parasite a little), and has the potential to ruin your life and potentially its life doesn't really benefit the common good all that much anyway.

"Your argument is akin to stating that, if a person misstates a fact in constructing any argument, then their entire argument is rendered invalid. I have read countless "corrections" in newspapers and magazines, and the next time the publisher states that a mistake in the original article invalidates the entire article will be the first."

Normally those corrections occur for factual newspaper articles, not opinion columns. If Thomas Friedman or George F. Will repeatedly misstated factual background in their columns every week, they would not be columnists anymore.

If Ms. Sweeney cannot take the time to get her facts straight on one issue, I have no reason to believe her other general assertion that pro-life people at Cornell are being constantly harassed or silenced is true. Why should I believe her assertions about the Planned Parenthood website either? The entire argument then falls apart. While the things you point out may be true, she has no credibility left in my eyes.

Your final point is a popular pro-life red herring. Who is trying to abort a baby one minute before it is being delivered? That's not how the majority of abortions are performed.

To Steve: As to your final point: (a) that is how ALL partial birth abortions are performed, and (b) the overwhelming majority of abortions are not the result of rape and incest either. Convenience is a wonderful reason for snuffing out a life.

To Dave: An appallingly pathetic attempt at humor (at least that's the most generous construction I can give to your "argument"). By the way, any parent will tell you that your parasite comment applies with equal force to their college age and younger children.

I'm not trying to make a joke. And as much as parents might SAY that about their children, it's not true. An unborn fetus literally CANNOT survive without its mother, at least early in pregnancy. It's as worthless as a vegetable you keep alive in the hospital because you have some moral crazy argument that we should waste resources of a worthless life. You made no attempt to debunk my argument because it's flawless, and abortion has been proven valuable by our best measure of justice - the courts. I'm sure you've killed tons of animals in your life (you're Republican, so I assume you like hunting with the "chaps"), and you're certainly a citizen of a country that has dehumanized and murdered thousands of people to increase its own utility (by the way, I didn't argue that there is anything wrong with this). You're set in your ways, and I'm not going to change your opinion, but maybe you should stop and think why the most right-wing country in the world still doesn't agree with you.

Perhaps you didn't read my question carefully enough. I said who is actually trying to abort a baby one minute before it is born? That would never happen. I gather you were trying to describe what happens when a partial-birth abortion is performed, but your example is ridiculous.

Also, I would imagine that the number of pregnancies aborted due to rape and incest is extremely underreported due to women not wanting to admit they've been raped.

Dave: Are we on Candid Camera? I love the ad hominem stuff. Priceless. I also like the presumption that you know anything about me. You've concluded that I am a republican because I value human life in all its forms. Does that mean that democrats do not value human life? You assume I hunt animals. Why? On what basis? Based on your apparent disdain for republicans, I presume that you are a democrat. Using your brand of logic, am I to conclude that all democrats are immoral, smug and self-satisfied with their self-perceived cleverness? And your argument for eugenics -- straight out of Margaret Sanger, the mother of Planned Parenthood. Your argument, such as it is, is insane (or at least deranged). I've got news for you -- your average newborn doesn't stand a real good chance of surviving on its own either.

Steve: Facts are facts: babies that are aborted during a partial birth abortion are killed just before they draw their first breadth. I do not see any way in the world that a rational human being can contend that there is anything right about such a procedure. Just how many of the purported 3,700 daily abortions do you suppose are the product of unreported rapes? Get real, abortion was legalized so that affluent people could feel better about themselves for seeking and having abortions, and the vast majority of abortions are obtained for the sake of convenience and out of selfishness.

Wow. You still haven't tried to debunk my argument at all. Killing isn't wrong. Everyone admits that unless you are a pacifist and have something against war, crime-fighting, etc. So, abortion, assuming it is positive for the living parties who actually have cognitive understanding of their surroundings, is not wrong. This is not deranged - this is just never argued this way because it propels you into other arguments that muddles the issue. Regardless, this is the basic idea behind abortion, killing terrorists, etc. In addition, where do you get the idea that most abortions are done out of convenience? Most abortions are very painful, both emotionally and physically. Women have abortions in the vast majority of cases (READ THE LITERATURE AND STOP GENERALIZING) because they feel that they are unable to support their child. This is the OVERWHELMING reason. Younger women (under 25) are the plurality of the cases, and guess what - they can't support a child! Think about your educated, well-to-do, and cared-for friends at Cornell, and ask them how old their mothers were when they were born. I am almost certain you will find those mothers were over 25, if not over 30. Despite the increased likelihood of defects as the mother gets older, higher IQ children are born to older mothers. And no, that's not just a function of their late start on life (in fact, the largest number of the under 25 abortions occur in women in college). Read the facts, and I'll be ad hominem all I want with you because I actually have and you disappoint me.