Today is the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It is a great irony (and a work of God’s grace) that “Jane Roe” is now a pro-life advocate who is working to overturn the Supreme court decision that bears her name. Please take a few moments to read her views on the matter, expressed in her 2005 Senate testimony. More information on her pro-life activism can be found at her website: www.roenomore.org.
More information on the abolition of the practice of human abortion can be found here:
It is not uncommon for pro-choice advocates to make the claim that “consenting to sex does not entail consenting to pregnancy.” The idea is that even though the woman takes responsibility for engaging in an act of procreation, she bears no moral obligation to take responsibility for the pregnancy that results. In this post, I argue that the idea of “consenting to pregnancy,” per se, is logically incoherent, and that such claims, understood in a logically coherent way, ultimately do nothing to advance the pro-choice position. Continue reading
In a collaborative effort between Ian John Philoponus, Rhology, and myself, we recently analyzed the case of Dr. Gisella Perl, and provided a response from the abolitionist perspective. Dr. Perl was an inmate at Auschwitz who performed abortions on Jewish women to prevent them from being vivisected at the hands of Josef Mengele. Such an extreme case in such horrific circumstances seems to provide a counterexample to the idea that human abortion is always morally unjustified. In this two-part series, we analyze the scenario, and provide an ethical analysis that demonstrates the consistency of the abolitionist position.
The Consistent Abolitionist: The Extreme Case of Dr. Gisella Perl (Part 1)
The Consistent Abolitionist: The Extreme Case of Dr. Gisella Perl (Part 2)
