Dismantling Roe - Christianity Today

Thirty-five years and 50 million abortions later, Roe v. Wade stands as a nearly sacred text for the sexual revolution. Just as Christianity has its apologists, so does Roe. Philosophers and ethicists such as David Boonin, Eileen McDonagh, and Judith Thomson either defend associate justice Harry Blackmun’s reasoning in Roe or build further justifications for what Roe established. Francis Beckwith, associate professor of philosophy and church-state studies at Baylor University, spends much of Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge) taking on these abortion-rights apologists.

This is important work. If the Supreme Court ever seriously curtails the laissez-faire abortion environment established by Roe, abortion-rights arguments will shape the movement that surely will persist. Beckwith, who last year reconverted to Catholicism, builds his argument without appealing to Christian revelation. Thus, he challenges the notion that restricting abortion would be tantamount to imposing Christian dogma on American law.

Defending Life is not the sort of book that a crisis pregnancy center can hand out to its younger clients in hopes of saving a life. It is a heavily technical debate with other specialists. Beckwith does, however, lighten the load with an occasional pop-culture reference. In the context of a discussion about the scope of the human community, here is one of his wittiest turns: “After all, if Christopher Reeve was identical to his embryonic self, then we were no more justified in killing an embryo to acquire its stem cells so that Mr. Reeve might walk again than we would be in stealing Mr. Reeve’s eyes so that Stevie Wonder might see again.”

Beckwith performs a most effective demolition job on the pro-choice movement’s more hackneyed arguments. For instance, part of his answer to the annoying “Don’t like abortion? Then don’t have one” bumper-sticker position is “Don’t like murder? Don’t commit one.” Beckwith argues forcefully that pro-choice advocates who offer such suggestions are practicing a subtle and patronizing intolerance that expects pro-lifers to act as if their “fundamental view of human life is false.”

Beckwith’s work is worthwhile reading for pro-life thinkers who wish to track Roe‘s deadly march through the American intelligentsia. It’s more worthwhile still for pro-life thinkers who know that, while Roe may have won many battles since 1973, the war is far from over. Defending Life will equip pro-life activists to make a logically sound defense of human dignity.

The battle for American hearts, though, may require even tougher work. The challenge for the most talented pro-life activists will be to take the arguments in these pages and translate them into concepts readily grasped by gum-smacking teenagers who suddenly wonder whether a baby is in their immediate future—especially those teens raised in the shadow of the modern altar to Roe.

Douglas LeBlanc, CT contributing editor.