The central issue is always what are
the unborn and what are our obligations (if any) to them. So any
appeal that centers on arguing that people in the past didn't believe
the unborn were fully human and that abortion has always been common
fails to address the central issue. It is no more decisive than
arguing that prior to the 18th century slavery was widely embraced
and had been historically accepted so the African slaves must be a
class of human life we are allowed to enslave.
That said, there is wisdom in
understanding the world we live in within the context of the events
of the past that brought us to this moment. Ecclesiastes 1:9 says:
“That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been
done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the
sun.” We wrestle with moral issues that are rooted in ancient
questions but feel altogether new because the medical science and
technologies that raise the questions are novel.
Also, the hole in our knowledge begs to
be filled. As a result, myths framed as history can thrive in the
absence of a substantial response. As Hadley Arkes says in Natural Rights and the Right to Choose, we end up absorbing the premises of
the other side. He shares a story about Lincoln's aggravation with
General Meade celebrating driving the Confederate invaders “from
our soil.” Lincoln was said to have responded, “Will our generals
never get that idea out of their heads? The whole country is our
soil.” Dellapenna points out in Chapter 1 that “even strongly
anti-abortion authors like George Will have reiterated the new
orthodoxy, presumably because this spurious history has become so
thoroughly embedded in the popular culture that it has taken on the
aura of unquestionable truth.”
Considering the emphasis Blackmun
placed on the historical argument justifying the majority decision in
Roe v. Wade, it is important to examine what Dellapenna calls the new
orthodoxy and see if the history of abortion framed by men like Cyril
Means and James Mohr corresponds to the best evidence that we have
available. Admittedly, this will not answer the question of whether
or not abortion is wrong, but it may help us to understand where we
find ourselves and how we got here. If we discover that our past is a
bit more brutal than we hoped, it certainly would not be the first
time that this was true. And as Christopher Kaczor points out in The Ethics of Abortion, if we are justified in treating another class of
human beings in this manner, in defining them as something less than
us, then it will be the first time in history that we were right.
As I reread Dispelling the Myths of
Abortion History, I'll simultaneously revisit Marvin Olasky's
Abortion Rites and Arkes' Natural Rights and the Right to Choose. The
blogging will follow Myths, but I'll frequently reference the others
as well. I hope that this will serve to expose some fantastic work
that others have done to correct the new orthodoxy while introducing
many of you to books that have enriched my understanding of this
issue.