Speaker 1: Welcome to Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Here thousands of
Speaker 1: hours of Dennis's lectures courses in classic radio programs. Had
Speaker 1: to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles, go to Dennisprager dot com.
Speaker 2: Okay, my friends, I have never, in twenty one years
Speaker 2: of lecturing, spoken publicly on abortion. You may understand why.
Speaker 2: In about an hour this may be the last time
Speaker 2: for another twenty one years. Stick a lot of preparation emotionally,
Speaker 2: intellectually and morally, and I have good news for you.
Speaker 2: I think I have a I think it will help
Speaker 2: you because I do have I have an answer. I
Speaker 2: don't have the answer that much kutzpook, but I have
Speaker 2: an answer, an answer which will not satisfy either extreme
Speaker 2: and on no issue is my self definition of centrist
Speaker 2: passionate centrist as accurate as the issue of abortion. I
Speaker 2: am absolutely equally distant from the right and the left
Speaker 2: on this issue. I am the perfect person to talk
Speaker 2: about abortion. I have zip agenda. I don't agree with
Speaker 2: either of them at all. And the irony is when
Speaker 2: I will present to you what those positions are and
Speaker 2: what a middle position could be. You'll, probably most of
Speaker 2: you will probably identify with the middle position. Certainly, poll
Speaker 2: after Poland America has revealed that most Americans hold a
Speaker 2: fully centrist position, a position which I will describe in
Speaker 2: a moment. Before that, let me just give you two
Speaker 2: book bibliography for your interest. Though there is a huge
Speaker 2: library of books on abortion, there is one short masterpiece
Speaker 2: written by a professor of law at Harvard. This woman
Speaker 2: has written something brilliant, Abortion and Divorce in Western Law.
Speaker 2: It's a Harvard paperback. Quite aside from her what the
Speaker 2: evidence she brings and her own I think highly illuminating thoughts,
Speaker 2: it's just fascinating and easily read, okay. The other one
Speaker 2: is scholarly work which is a classic of Judaica Marital relations,
Speaker 2: birth control, and Abortion in Jewish Law by David Feldman.
Speaker 2: It's been out for years. I read it in college,
Speaker 2: so and I don't even think of is new. Then
Speaker 2: those are two that I would bring to just for
Speaker 2: your own edification. The two extremes are. The left extreme
Speaker 2: is a woman can do what she wants with her
Speaker 2: own body, to use their own rhetoric. The right extreme
Speaker 2: is that abortion is murdered. The reason that the left
Speaker 2: one I characterize as an extreme is because it reduces
Speaker 2: the fetus to a worthless piece of appendage to a woman.
Speaker 2: The statement a woman can do what she wants with
Speaker 2: her own body, which legally is a fact. A woman can,
Speaker 2: after all, mutilate herself. She can cut her fingers off.
Speaker 2: There is no law against the woman cutting her fingers
Speaker 2: off or tattooing her body. To give a more innocuous
Speaker 2: example in and of itself, a woman certainly can do
Speaker 2: what she wants with her own body. The question is
Speaker 2: this her own body, the same way a decayed tooth
Speaker 2: is her body. The statement that a woman can do
Speaker 2: what she wants with her own body is equivalent to
Speaker 2: saying that the fetus the unborn. Call it what you wish,
Speaker 2: and I don't have a preference on what term we use.
Speaker 2: Is the moral equivalent of a decayed tooth. A woman
Speaker 2: has a decayed tooth, she removes it. The society have
Speaker 2: any right to tell a woman what to do with
Speaker 2: her teeth, of course not so why do we have
Speaker 2: any right to tell a woman what she should do
Speaker 2: with her fetus? With her unborn? It's the same. That's
Speaker 2: the way the argument works. When I've debated that point
Speaker 2: with people, to the left of me. They've gotten annoyed.
Speaker 2: They get annoyed, but they don't have an answer. That's
Speaker 2: what doing what you want with your own body means,
Speaker 2: means the fetus is identical to a decayed tooth. I
Speaker 2: appreciated when one gentleman who took this position on a
Speaker 2: TV show TV debate that we had, said, you're right that.
Speaker 2: I'll be honest, that's exactly how I view a fetus
Speaker 2: like a decayed tooth. Okay, what at least I appreciated
Speaker 2: the intellectual honesty. I don't appreciate the position, but I
Speaker 2: appreciated the honesty. What I don't appreciate is someone who
Speaker 2: says a woman can do what she wants with her
Speaker 2: own body. Then you tell the person what that means,
Speaker 2: and they say, no, I don't look at it that way.
Speaker 2: But then don't use that rhetoric. You can't have it
Speaker 2: both ways. And of course logic itself tells you it's
Speaker 2: not possible. It's not your body. It's in your body.
Speaker 2: It's the proof is that if you want the child,
Speaker 2: you would never say it's your body. Nobody goes over
Speaker 2: to a pregnant wie who wants to give birth and says, hey,
Speaker 2: how's your body? Of course not they say how's the child?
Speaker 2: How's the kid? Nobody even says how's the fetus? They
Speaker 2: say how's the child? Or how's the Baby's the baby kicking?
Speaker 2: Did you hear the baby? Did you get a sonogram
Speaker 2: of the baby. We use rhetoric that we like for
Speaker 2: our own position. Jerry Folwell made me aware of this
Speaker 2: in a public dialogue. I give him credit for that.
Speaker 2: I always try to remember the sources of good points
Speaker 2: that I hear said. When a woman wants the child,
Speaker 2: she calls it a child. When she doesn't, she calls
Speaker 2: it a fetus. It's the same exact thing, and it's
Speaker 2: the same thing here. It's her body when she doesn't
Speaker 2: want it. It's not our body when she does want it.
Speaker 2: So let's not fool ourselves. It's a radical position that
Speaker 2: makes a fetus worthless tissue. You can't get left of
Speaker 2: that position. That's why I call it an extreme left position.
Speaker 2: Pro choice is not an extreme left position. A woman
Speaker 2: can do what she wants with her own body is
Speaker 2: an extreme left position. That's the point that I wanted
Speaker 2: to make clear here. At the other end is the
Speaker 2: other extreme beyond which you can't go. It's murder. It's
Speaker 2: morally equivalent to shooting an adult and killing the person,
Speaker 2: and murdering the person. I have problems with that, for
Speaker 2: reasons that I will come to later. I want to
Speaker 2: start first with the problem of the left position. I
Speaker 2: told you that most people have a middle position. I'd
Speaker 2: like to read to you what Pole after Pole has
Speaker 2: demonstrated in America, and I fully support. I am absolutely
Speaker 2: with these middle with the rest of Americans. Here is
Speaker 2: this Profet, Sir Glendon, this woman writing. It is not
Speaker 2: particularly difficult to ascertain where the public stands on abortion,
Speaker 2: since the three principal surveys, National Fertility Studies, Gallop, and
Speaker 2: National Opinion Research Center have exhibited major similarities over many years,
Speaker 2: both before and after Roe versus Wade. That's the famous,
Speaker 2: some will say infamous, nineteen seventy three court decision allowing
Speaker 2: abortion on demand. Majorities consistently around fifty five percent have
Speaker 2: been opposed to its major innovation, elective abortion, and to
Speaker 2: much of the content of Roe and other abortion decisions.
Speaker 2: At the same time, majorities have consistently opposed a total
Speaker 2: ban on abortion and believe that the law should specify
Speaker 2: the circumstances under which it is permissible. They strongly approve
Speaker 2: abortion if the woman's health is in danger, and disapprove
Speaker 2: it if it is sought for no other reason than
Speaker 2: that the woman does not want the child. Majorities women
Speaker 2: more than men, disapprove of abortion after the first trimester.
Speaker 2: Majorities believe that human life begins before birth, with men
Speaker 2: more likely to see life beginning later than women do,
Speaker 2: which is going to be a very important part here,
Speaker 2: which when I talk about whether or not it's a
Speaker 2: women's issue. One other point with regard to the public,
Speaker 2: the way she summarized it is perfect. Although they want
Speaker 2: abortion to be legally available in some circumstances, this is
Speaker 2: most people she's speaking about. They do not wish for
Speaker 2: themselves or want to confer upon others a fundamental right
Speaker 2: to dispose of developing life. Developing life is a new phrase.
Speaker 2: I had never heard it termed that way. I think
Speaker 2: that that is about as honest a way of putting it,
Speaker 2: not human and not fetus, but developing life. But anyway,
Speaker 2: that's just a secondary point. Most Americans are in the middle.
Speaker 2: Let me define, let me put it in my terms,
Speaker 2: because this is where I stand, so you'll know what
Speaker 2: the outset. When I am asked on the radio, which
Speaker 2: is all the time, what is my stand on abortion?
Speaker 2: My answer is I'm pro choice and anti most abortions,
Speaker 2: which perfectly alienates me from ninety eight percent of the
Speaker 2: people listening who want either one of the side. Now, actually,
Speaker 2: it doesn't alienate me from ninety eight percent. If I'm
Speaker 2: right that the majority agrees with me. It does and
Speaker 2: alienate me from more than fifty percent, but it certainly
Speaker 2: annoys the left and the right. The right want me
Speaker 2: to say I'm pro life or anti abortion, anti choice.
Speaker 2: The others want to hear me say pro choice and
Speaker 2: end the sentence. But I can't end the sentence an effect,
Speaker 2: I am for allowing women to do something that, in
Speaker 2: many cases I believe is immoral. That has been my
Speaker 2: position for years. It's crystallized through well not what's crystallized.
Speaker 2: What has become clear to me through this research for
Speaker 2: this course is that there's a solution. I've always known
Speaker 2: the dilemma that I want the middle of the road done,
Speaker 2: But how do you do the middle of the road.
Speaker 2: And if I'd have only known this earlier, I would
Speaker 2: have been way ahead of the game, and unfortunately I didn't.
Speaker 2: I should have read this book ten years ago. In Europe,
Speaker 2: they have a good answer, ladies and gentlemen, I learned,
Speaker 2: which I am either I've either been inordinately ignorant or
Speaker 2: if not, I am shocked at how we in America,
Speaker 2: including people like me who are very well informed, have
Speaker 2: been so uninformed about the European solution to this very dilemma. HM, no,
Speaker 2: it is. It is absolutely remarkable to me. After all,
Speaker 2: my friends, I don't think anybody here could argue that
Speaker 2: the United States is less socially conscious than West Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden.
Speaker 2: If anything, it's Western European countries, especially the northern countries,
Speaker 2: that Americans look to for social legislation that's called progressive. Now,
Speaker 2: let me tell you something. The United States Roe versus
Speaker 2: Wade and since has been by far the most radical
Speaker 2: in terms of abortion rights in the world. There is
Speaker 2: nothing close to Roe v. Wade in the world. The
Speaker 2: United States is alone in the way it treats the
Speaker 2: issue of abortion, the radical way in which it terms
Speaker 2: the entire debate, that it is a woman doing what
Speaker 2: she wants with her own body, that it is a
Speaker 2: matter of privacy, that it is a matter of rights
Speaker 2: to abortion. Those three most common statements are unique to America.
Speaker 2: The debate is never phrased that way. Let alone solved
Speaker 2: that way in Western Europe. Why America is alone? I'm
Speaker 2: going to deal with why has it happened that way?
Speaker 2: But that's a secondary issue to the fact that you
Speaker 2: should know this, that we are alone, that there are
Speaker 2: different solutions that are much better. We don't have a solution.
Speaker 2: We have gone to one extreme. You want it, get it? Now?
Speaker 2: What have they done? What has Europe done? France offers
Speaker 2: a model that I'd like to like to read to
Speaker 2: you about. In France, since nineteen seventy five, abortion has
Speaker 2: been available up to the end of the tenth week
Speaker 2: of pregnancy to any woman quote whose condition places her
Speaker 2: in a situation of distress unquote. That's the law in
Speaker 2: France for twenty five years. Distress is not defined, and
Speaker 2: the statute makes the woman herself the sole judge of
Speaker 2: whether she is in it. No doctor or bureaucrat needs
Speaker 2: certify anything regarding her state. Thus, this is where Glendon
Speaker 2: is so terrific, because she explains what all this is about.
Speaker 2: If all one is interested in is how easily an
Speaker 2: abortion could be obtained. It would be correct to say that,
Speaker 2: in fact, there is abortion on demand in France in
Speaker 2: the first ten weeks of pregnancy. But so far as
Speaker 2: the way abortion all right, now, hold on, that's part one.
Speaker 2: You say you're in distress, you want an abortion, You
Speaker 2: get an abortion in France. But let me keep on
Speaker 2: reading what it means. The distress requirement may have no
Speaker 2: direct sanction, and many people may not take it seriously,
Speaker 2: but it does communicate a message which may enter, along
Speaker 2: with others social into the way in which French men
Speaker 2: and women think and teach their children and each other
Speaker 2: about how one should conduct one's life. I'm going to
Speaker 2: keep reading about this, but I want you to bear
Speaker 2: in mind something here which is fundamental to society. The
Speaker 2: purpose of law is not only to prohibit certain acts.
Speaker 2: It is to teach. It conveys the values of a society.
Speaker 2: Let me just move for a minute tangentially here. I
Speaker 2: want capital punishment for murder on the books, primarily as
Speaker 2: an educative tool. It is the only way in which
Speaker 2: society could say how heinous it considers murder. I am
Speaker 2: less interested in executing murderers than I am in having
Speaker 2: capital punishment as the punishment for murder, because punishment is
Speaker 2: the only way in which society can say what it
Speaker 2: thinks about something. There is no other way. The only
Speaker 2: other way that could exist is where you have wording
Speaker 2: in laws that allows something but seem to circumscribe it. Now,
Speaker 2: this is, in other words, punishment teaches and allowance teaches.
Speaker 2: Allowance teaches though usually that something's okay, but if you
Speaker 2: phrase it within circumscribed boundaries, you're saying you can do it.
Speaker 2: But what America doesn't have is a butt. That's the
Speaker 2: difference between America and Europe in a nutshell. But I'm
Speaker 2: not going to give you just a nutshell. I'm going
Speaker 2: to continue another statement of principle, and the French law
Speaker 2: is set forth in a later section of the law.
Speaker 2: Quote they termination of pregnancy must, under no circumstances, constitute
Speaker 2: a means of birth control. That's the law, that's the
Speaker 2: statute of France. To this end, continuing the statute, the
Speaker 2: government shall take all the measures necessary to promote information
Speaker 2: on birth control on as wide a scale as possible,
Speaker 2: while making now it's Glendon speaking, while making abortion available.
Speaker 2: In this case, the statute mandates several procedures designed to
Speaker 2: make the pregnant woman aware of and able to choose
Speaker 2: alternatives to abortion. It is part of French law that
Speaker 2: she be made aware of alternatives to abortion. First, the
Speaker 2: physician who receives the woman's initial request for termination of
Speaker 2: her pregnancy must furnish her with a brochure supply by
Speaker 2: the government, informing her that the law limits abortion to
Speaker 2: cases of distress. Now, of course you understand the beauty
Speaker 2: of that. If she says, well, okay, I meet those criteria,
Speaker 2: I'm in distress. Fine, Remember she's the only one to
Speaker 2: determine if she's in distress. But we've given her a
Speaker 2: government brochure to tell her that it's got to be
Speaker 2: only if you're in distress. It's purely totally educative. The
Speaker 2: brochure must contain information about the public benefits and programs
Speaker 2: that are guaranteed to mothers and children, and about the
Speaker 2: possibilities of adoption, as well as provide a list of
Speaker 2: organizations capable of giving assistance. That's all in the brochure that,
Speaker 2: by French law, must be given to a woman by
Speaker 2: her doctor, he is contravening French law if he does
Speaker 2: not give it to her. Second, the pregnant woman is
Speaker 2: required to have a private, private interview, if possible, with
Speaker 2: her partner, the man who impregnated her, with a government
Speaker 2: approved counseling service. She is required she may not have
Speaker 2: the abortion without this, which in principle is not to
Speaker 2: be located in any facility where abortions are performed. Do
Speaker 2: you see what they're trying to do? Is in it clear?
Speaker 2: It was brilliant what they worked out here, though this
Speaker 2: would offend now beyond anything imaginable national organization for women.
Speaker 2: This consultation, according to the statute, is supposed to furnish
Speaker 2: the woman with assistance and advice quote a, especially with
Speaker 2: a view toward enabling her to keep her child. Third,
Speaker 2: at least one week must he lapse from the time
Speaker 2: of her initial request or an abortion, and at least
Speaker 2: two days from the time of the mandatory consultation before
Speaker 2: the abortion can be performed. After ten weeks, the law
Speaker 2: in France permits only therapeutic abortions. The legislation as a
Speaker 2: whole writes Glendon is pervaded by compassion for pregnant women
Speaker 2: by concern for fetal life, which we do not have.
Speaker 2: There is no concern for fetal life in Roe versus Wade,
Speaker 2: and by expression of the commitment of society as a
Speaker 2: whole to help minimize occasions for tragic choices between them.
Speaker 2: See that's what in Europe, they're mature enough to understand
Speaker 2: abortion presents a tragic choice. We should be mature enough
Speaker 2: to understand that. Of course, the woman has a case.
Speaker 2: There's no humane human being can deny that. But there
Speaker 2: is a case to bring made on behalf of society
Speaker 2: and feed a life too, or developing life, as she
Speaker 2: puts it. But if you say a woman can do
Speaker 2: what she wants with her own body, you immediately dismiss
Speaker 2: the possibility that there is tension. There's no tragic choice.
Speaker 2: Clevic does might decay tooth have any demands that it
Speaker 2: can make on society, of course not. This commitment is
Speaker 2: carried out by provision of birth control assistance and by
Speaker 2: comparatively generous financial support for married as well as unwed mothers.
Speaker 2: Contrary to what one constantly hears from both sides of
Speaker 2: the abortion controversy in the United States, a divided society
Speaker 2: can compromise successfully on the abortion issue. It's happened in
Speaker 2: every European country. Only we stand alone, as it were.
Speaker 2: Listen to now the contrast with America. In contrast to
Speaker 2: the current American legal situation, it is worth noting that
Speaker 2: the French statute names the underlying problem as one involving
Speaker 2: human life, not as a conflict involving a woman's individual
Speaker 2: liberty or privacy and a non person. Folks, these are
Speaker 2: the most important things I'll say today. Are they clear?
Speaker 2: The whole debate is framed differently in Europe. Here it
Speaker 2: is purely a matter of her rights, her privacy, her body.
Speaker 2: There it is that plus the issue of another side.
Speaker 2: There is no other side, just as there is no
Speaker 2: other side to the right wing, it's murder. Don't tell
Speaker 2: me if you're raped. Don't tell me if it's incest,
Speaker 2: don't tell me. If it's got a de terrible disease,
Speaker 2: it's murder. You can't murder a human being. If one
Speaker 2: of you is the product of rape, can I murder you?
Speaker 2: Of course not. That's why to a consistent pro lifer,
Speaker 2: it's irrelevant if the woman was raped. It's no more
Speaker 2: relevant if she was raped with regard to abortion than
Speaker 2: if she was raped with regard to you, if you
Speaker 2: are the product of a rape, if you're a full
Speaker 2: human being, what the hell is the difference how you
Speaker 2: were conceived. What matters is you're a human. There is
Speaker 2: no other side to the right. There is no other
Speaker 2: side to the left. That's called extremism. That's the definition
Speaker 2: of it. When you are one hundred percent right, there
Speaker 2: is no compe eating value whatsoever. All good values are
Speaker 2: in your corner. There is no competition. It's called extremism.
Speaker 2: But we awe Everyone in this room knows of rightist extremism,
Speaker 2: but we never talk about left extremism. But it's pretty bizarre.
Speaker 2: You can only have one extreme. It doesn't make sense.
Speaker 2: Just logically, it doesn't make sense, and in fact it
Speaker 2: doesn't either. In nineteen eighty three, the US Supreme Court,
Speaker 2: in the Akron case, invalidated a city ordinance which contained
Speaker 2: a number of provisions similar to those in the nineteen
Speaker 2: seventy five French law, including an informed consent provision. That's
Speaker 2: what they have to do in France and Europe. Informed consent.
Speaker 2: You want an abortion, will allow it, but we want
Speaker 2: you to know the options available to you. Struck down
Speaker 2: by the US Supreme Court in the name of liberalism.
Speaker 2: That is the liberal view on abortion. You can't even
Speaker 2: require a woman to know there are options, even when
Speaker 2: you let her do it, and it's only her choice.
Speaker 2: It struck down in the eighty three case, where it
Speaker 2: included an informed consent provision and a mandatory twenty four
Speaker 2: hour waiting period between the execution of the patient's consent
Speaker 2: form and the abortion procedure. Justice Powell correctly observed that
Speaker 2: much of the information required by the city of Akron,
Speaker 2: Ohio was quote, designed not to inform the woman's consent,
Speaker 2: but rather to persuade her to withhold it all together. True,
Speaker 2: but that's what they want to do in France, they
Speaker 2: want to of course, obviously it's not neutral. The decision
Speaker 2: is neutral, but the information, yes, it's given with the
Speaker 2: hope that you won't do it. But the logic of
Speaker 2: the American abortion cases seemed to him to require that
Speaker 2: American states be forbidden to adopt forbidden as France and
Speaker 2: other European countries have done, quote abortion regulations designed to
Speaker 2: influence the woman's informed choice between abortion and childbirth. A
Speaker 2: closely divided Supreme Court reaffirmed this position in nineteen eighty
Speaker 2: six holding unconstitutional the provisions of a Pennsylvania statute that
Speaker 2: would have required a pregnant woman at least twenty four
Speaker 2: hours before consenting to an abortion to be informed about
Speaker 2: the availability of medical assistance and child support, and of
Speaker 2: the fact that printed materials describing the fetus and listing
Speaker 2: agencies ready to help with alternatives to abortion were available
Speaker 2: for her inspection turned down that that was what Pennas
Speaker 2: Slovanias argued for, and the US Supreme Court turned it down.
Speaker 2: Let me uh, let me tell you of another difference
Speaker 2: between Europe and US. In Europe, they try to discourage
Speaker 2: abortion from becoming routine by example, for example, by discouraging
Speaker 2: establishment of abortion clinics. In Europe, it is done in hospitals,
Speaker 2: and they mandate that no more than a certain percentage
Speaker 2: of procedures may be abortions, so that it doesn't become routinized,
Speaker 2: a place removed from normal therapeutic functioning, normal medical functioning,
Speaker 2: where doctors just don't spend their lives. You use the verb,
Speaker 2: all right, We'll use the most neutral verb, aborting, aborting
Speaker 2: potential life, abording fetuses. What they do in Europe is
Speaker 2: a perfect compromise and I am rarely in the mood
Speaker 2: of extolling Europe's values, but here they have hit it beautifully.
Speaker 2: They tick off everybody. The right wing is terribly annoyed
Speaker 2: because any woman wants an abortion, she gets it. The
Speaker 2: left wing is terribly annoyed because they fill her with
Speaker 2: this propaganda that there are actually options available to her,
Speaker 2: and society wants you to state that you're in distress.
Speaker 2: So that's the perfect thing. When you've ticked off the
Speaker 2: left and right, you got something good. Something's working, and
Speaker 2: it works and there's peace. You don't have any of
Speaker 2: the battles in Europe that you have in America over abortion.
Speaker 2: People live with these laws in the vast majority of
Speaker 2: cases with basic contentment, understanding that you have to compromise
Speaker 2: on a very difficult issue. That's not the case in
Speaker 2: this country. Let me just cite to you German law
Speaker 2: according to the German Constitution on this issue. Quote, the
Speaker 2: false impression must be avoided that termination of pregnancy involves
Speaker 2: the same social significance as say, a trip to the
Speaker 2: physician for the purpose of healing an illness. That is
Speaker 2: the way German law would put it. That's the intent there.
Speaker 2: It's not the same. An abortion is not the same
Speaker 2: as going to your doctor for a flu shot. It's different. Now,
Speaker 2: there is one other thing to be mentioned, and then
Speaker 2: I want to deal with what is really the issue
Speaker 2: in America for the left, and that is viability abortion
Speaker 2: without the need for any reason. That's what we have
Speaker 2: in the US and five European countries. This is the
Speaker 2: most liberal way of asking for abortion. I don't need
Speaker 2: to give you a reason. I say I'm in distress,
Speaker 2: and in America, I don't have to say anything. I
Speaker 2: could say, I'm planning a trip to Europe and this
Speaker 2: is an unsuitable pregnancy, which is exactly exactly what the
Speaker 2: obgyn who delivered my son said to me when I
Speaker 2: asked him about this when we first met. This is
Speaker 2: a Beverly Hills obstetrician, and I asked him how many
Speaker 2: of the women who come to you were pregnant seek
Speaker 2: an abortion. He said fifty percent. I said, of them,
Speaker 2: what percentage is married? Said fifty percent. So I said,
Speaker 2: in other words, one out of every four pregnant women
Speaker 2: who comes to you is married and affluent and wants
Speaker 2: an abortion. He said that's right. I said, well, would
Speaker 2: you be so forthcoming with me, it said, tell me,
Speaker 2: why is it sure? Just the other week, a woman
Speaker 2: was explaining to me that she and her husband had
Speaker 2: been planning a trip to Europe for some time and
Speaker 2: it was a poor time to get pregnant. Another woman
Speaker 2: had recently started a new business and also felt that
Speaker 2: it was just a bad time to get pregnant in America.
Speaker 2: Doesn't matter. You can do it because you read in
Speaker 2: your horoscope that it was better to have a sagittarius
Speaker 2: than a Leo. And it is perfectly okay because nobody
Speaker 2: asks the reason. That's the way it is in the US,
Speaker 2: and that is the way it is in five European countries.
Speaker 2: But the US is alone in the world in forbidding
Speaker 2: any state regulation until viability, which roe versus Wade defined
Speaker 2: is between twenty four and forty eight weeks. Even after viability,
Speaker 2: it does not require you know what viability is when
Speaker 2: it could live on its own outside of the mother.
Speaker 2: Even after viability, it does not require regulation to protect
Speaker 2: the fetus. A woman can still have an abortion for
Speaker 2: health reasons, and health is interpreted totally loosely. Again, the
Speaker 2: US is alone here. Four of the five other five
Speaker 2: countries all forbid abortions after the first trimester, except for
Speaker 2: serious reasons unquote. Even the fifth Sweden places the cutoff
Speaker 2: point for elective abortions at eighteen weeks. After eighteen weeks,
Speaker 2: permission quote can only be given by the National Board
Speaker 2: of Health and Welfare, and then only if there are
Speaker 2: quote substantial grounds unquote. The Swedish statute specifically provides that
Speaker 2: abortions may not be performed at all if the fetus
Speaker 2: is likely to be viable, except in the most threatening
Speaker 2: circumstances to the woman's health at all. And that's Sweden,
Speaker 2: the most second most liberal place on earth in regard
Speaker 2: to abortion laws. If it could be viable, and ladies
Speaker 2: and gentlemen, viable is getting lower and lower with medical science,
Speaker 2: the viable time changes. Who knows what viable will be
Speaker 2: twenty years from now. Who knows? Then it presents a
Speaker 2: very real problem Pennsylvania's efforts to assure that viable fetuses
Speaker 2: be aborted alive. That's all they wanted in Pennsylvania. They asked,
Speaker 2: they made a law, if it all right, will give
Speaker 2: you your abortion. But we want if it could be viable,
Speaker 2: we'd like it to take it out alive. The US
Speaker 2: Supreme Court twice knocked it out. Now, how do you
Speaker 2: explain that the woman is getting what she wants a
Speaker 2: terminated pregnancy, But why does she want it dead? Help
Speaker 2: understand that we're talking about a lot more ear than
Speaker 2: just abortion. Chief Justice Burger in nineteen eighty six Roe
Speaker 2: versus Wade's concern for protecting viable life is quote mere
Speaker 2: shallow rhetoric. In Germany, abortions allowed after the twelfth week
Speaker 2: only with certification of grave danger to the woman or
Speaker 2: likelihood that serious and irreversible damage had already been done
Speaker 2: to the fetus. Now, in reading all of this, in
Speaker 2: preparing tonight's course, I came to realize something. I came
Speaker 2: to realize that the extreme liberal view on abortion has
Speaker 2: a lot more to do with just letting a woman
Speaker 2: have abortions. If that's all they wanted, they would have
Speaker 2: adopted the European model, It lets women have abortions. I
Speaker 2: think that there are other things concerned, and here is
Speaker 2: one of them. This is this is my belief. Liberal
Speaker 2: legislation is not intent only on allowing abortion, but on
Speaker 2: removing any guilt, any difficulty, any obstacle, and learning about alternatives.
Speaker 2: It is not only pro choice. And this hit me
Speaker 2: only today after all of this stuff. It's pro abortion.
Speaker 2: I never said that before this minute in my life.
Speaker 2: I'm pro choice, anti abortion. The National Association for Abortion
Speaker 2: Rights League NARRAAL, the National Organization for Women Planned Parenthood,
Speaker 2: the ACLU Reproductive Rights Division, I now realize, are pro abortion.
Speaker 2: They're not just pro choice. If your pro choice Europe
Speaker 2: is perfect, if your pro abortion Europe is terrible because
Speaker 2: it may induce guilt and it may give you alternatives.
Speaker 2: And that is clearly what the US liberal justices have
Speaker 2: not wanted, even to the point of removing the fetus alive.
Speaker 2: That's incredible. A woman who wants to terminate pregnancy should
Speaker 2: terminate pregnancy. What business is it hers? What happens to it?
Speaker 2: Or is it still part of her body when it's
Speaker 2: out of her body? Which is really remarkable. You then
Speaker 2: reach a metaphysical plane that transcends what I can rationally appreciate.
Speaker 2: That is what hit me. Secondly, Roe versus Wade, and
Speaker 2: this is now her who is a feminist professor Glendon
Speaker 2: her words, roe Versus Wade embodies a view of society
Speaker 2: as a collection of separate, autonomous individuals. The German decision
Speaker 2: which I read to you, emphasizes the connections among the
Speaker 2: women developing life and the larger community. But we don't.
Speaker 2: There is no relationship between the woman developing life and
Speaker 2: the larger community. It's between the woman and herself. That's
Speaker 2: all we think about. As she writes, it's a view
Speaker 2: of society, which is the classical liberal view. In America
Speaker 2: today a collection of separate, autonomous individuals. Society has no claims,
Speaker 2: only individuals have claims. Justice Douglas, the great liberal justice,
Speaker 2: in his opinion on Roe versus Wade, quote, childbirth may
Speaker 2: deprive a woman of her preferred lifestyle. That is terminology
Speaker 2: you would never hear from a justice in Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France,
Speaker 2: anywhere in the most enlightened places we compare ourselves to
Speaker 2: that childbirth will just somehow hamper her quote preferred lifestyle.
Speaker 2: And this from one of the most distinguished Supreme Court
Speaker 2: justices of the twentieth century, at least in the In
Speaker 2: the liberal view, the pro choice liberal notion is that
Speaker 2: society does not really exist. America these are my words.
Speaker 2: America is a geographical but not culture based or value
Speaker 2: based society it is a geographical locale wherein individuals with
Speaker 2: no duty towards the society each live. Thus the state
Speaker 2: the society can have no interest in abortion, only the
Speaker 2: pregnant woman can. Abortion is not a serious matter for
Speaker 2: society in America. Those are what underlie the reasonings I
Speaker 2: believe in the liberal extreme position, which is not merely
Speaker 2: pro choice, but an effect anti any alternative to choosing abortion.
Speaker 2: It is frequently couched as a woman's rights issue. I
Speaker 2: thought so till I did the research. It's a lie.
Speaker 2: I'll give you three reasons. And this is as new
Speaker 2: to me practically as new to me as it is
Speaker 2: to you. I didn't know these things. I thank you
Speaker 2: for taking this class to force me to coalesce thinking
Speaker 2: on this issue. My eyes have been opened like no
Speaker 2: other area I recall. In the last five years, on
Speaker 2: one given issue, I too thought, well, look, it's a
Speaker 2: pres it's a women's issue. I mean, it's always shown
Speaker 2: as a women's issue. Let me give you three reasons
Speaker 2: why it's not a women's issue. First, by definition, it
Speaker 2: is a woman's issue only to those who ascribe absolutely
Speaker 2: no value to the fetus, absolutely no value to societal
Speaker 2: interest in preserving developing life, and absolutely no value to
Speaker 2: the father's role in conceiving the fetus. It's only a
Speaker 2: women's issue if you accept the original argument that it's
Speaker 2: only the woman who matters. That's what why I feel
Speaker 2: I want to kick myself. I fell into the trap
Speaker 2: of tautology. It's a woman's issue only if you say
Speaker 2: that only the woman matters. The moment you say it
Speaker 2: matters a little bit, just a teen c inc beanc bit.
Speaker 2: That was to my son, because he's falling asleep. I
Speaker 2: wanted him to get the teen c eency bit. If
Speaker 2: the fetus matters just one percent, it is only ninety
Speaker 2: nine percent a woman's issue. If society matters just one percent,
Speaker 2: it's down to ninety eight percent a woman's issue. If
Speaker 2: the conceiving father matters one percent, it's down to ninety
Speaker 2: seven percent. That's why nothing else can ever matter, and
Speaker 2: that is why radical feminists are so strong on the issue.
Speaker 2: It now makes sense to me because only when you
Speaker 2: formulate it that way can you argue it's a woman's issue.
Speaker 2: So you have to formulate it that way, or it
Speaker 2: ceases to be a woman's issue the moment you allow
Speaker 2: that there are competing tensions moral values, that it isn't
Speaker 2: only the woman involved. It ceases to be a woman's issue.
Speaker 2: It is partially a woman's issue. Second, which I knew
Speaker 2: the whole time, but it just it never it's the ever.
Speaker 2: You know, it's not happened with you, you know something,
Speaker 2: but it never falls into place. More women than men
Speaker 2: oppose abortion in the United States. That's always been that way.
Speaker 2: It'll probably always be that way. More women than men
Speaker 2: approved the German government's decision of some limitations on abortion.
Speaker 2: The strongest supporters of abortion prior to Row versus Wade
Speaker 2: were affluent white men, according to demographer Judith Blake. She
Speaker 2: explains why it was affluent white men who were the
Speaker 2: vanguard of pro abortion rights. This is because abortion frees
Speaker 2: men from any responsibility for the child. I had never
Speaker 2: thought of that that's a woman's issue, that it would
Speaker 2: strike me would concern women, whereas men's responsibility for conceiving
Speaker 2: this No way, the men who conceive it have a
Speaker 2: vested injury. And who is doing this the most who
Speaker 2: would get saddled? The most affluent white men. You can
Speaker 2: come to them for paternity suits, So of course they
Speaker 2: were the most passionately feminist, no skin off their back.
Speaker 2: It's like Playboy always gives to feminist foundations. You know,
Speaker 2: the leader in making women into sex objects then gives
Speaker 2: part of the prophets to feminist organizations. Of course. Carol
Speaker 2: Gilligan one of the leading feminist thinkers in America who's
Speaker 2: also at Harvard. You should read her book in a
Speaker 2: different voice. It's what it's called. She explains the different
Speaker 2: way women see the world is. It is truly a
Speaker 2: magnum opus in a different voice, Carol Gilligan, many of
Speaker 2: the women in her chapter on abortion quote stated that
Speaker 2: one of the reason they were seeking abortions was because
Speaker 2: the men in their lives were unwilling to give them
Speaker 2: moral and material support in continuing with pregnancy and childbirth.
Speaker 2: Third Roe, this is now, This is now, Professor Mary
Speaker 2: Ann Glendon, this is so. It's so intelligent. I just
Speaker 2: have the greatest respect for her. Roe versus Weighed, with
Speaker 2: its emphasis on the separateness, the rights and the self
Speaker 2: determination of individual women, looks like a very masculine decision,
Speaker 2: while the West German Constitutional Court's opinion, with its emphasis
Speaker 2: on responsibility for others and on the social bonds of
Speaker 2: the community as well as individual rights, seems more reflective
Speaker 2: of feminine values, and women instinctively have that sense and
Speaker 2: instinctively their gut is which has a sense of bonding,
Speaker 2: is going to oppose abortion on demand more than men do,
Speaker 2: who think more autonomously. What's good for me? What are
Speaker 2: my rights? I don't care about bonding. I care about
Speaker 2: my rights. Those are three reasons I think rather powerful ones.
Speaker 2: Why it's not a women's issue, it's framed that way
Speaker 2: to get more support. Of course it will be is
Speaker 2: because a woman then feels disloyal to her gender, and
Speaker 2: women asxes me and men are cowed into submission lest
Speaker 2: they look like sexists. That's another reason I am convinced
Speaker 2: that men jump on the bandwagon. The last thing a
Speaker 2: man wants to be called, especially upper middle class white males,
Speaker 2: is sexist. And what does it cost them? Yeah, Hey,
Speaker 2: I'm for abortion, I love women, I'm for abortion. We
Speaker 2: make him pregnant and then we're for it. So I
Speaker 2: come to these conclusions. The middle road is the European model.
Speaker 2: Don't I tell you. We don't even have to do
Speaker 2: anything but take a get a fax machine and have
Speaker 2: the French send over the law the more I have
Speaker 2: read it, or the West German now the Germans, it
Speaker 2: doesn't matter, even the Swedes. Can you imagine adopting the
Speaker 2: Swedish social model and becoming more conservative, But that is
Speaker 2: exactly what we would be doing. We are on the
Speaker 2: radical fringes in the world on this issue. Not of
Speaker 2: mind being alone if you're right, but I don't think
Speaker 2: we're right. There are competing values at work here. The
Speaker 2: solution is to have those laws, because while ninety percent
Speaker 2: of American abortions are in the first trimester, you would
Speaker 2: at least have the ability of the law to educate,
Speaker 2: let the woman who goes in know that it isn't
Speaker 2: the removal of a tooth. And maybe there will be
Speaker 2: some who will read the little brochure and say, okay,
Speaker 2: I'll give it up for adoption, or even okay, I'll
Speaker 2: have it now. That involves society taking care of the
Speaker 2: woman and the child afterwards. Here the left has very
Speaker 2: valid arguments, and this centrist is very in favor of,
Speaker 2: for example, paid maternity leave. Absolutely, if we're gonna tell
Speaker 2: women don't abort, we got to help them out. Of course,
Speaker 2: that's true. That is part of it. Now you run
Speaker 2: into a severe problem that Sweden, France, Germany don't have
Speaker 2: with the inner city abortion, inner city berths, wherein you
Speaker 2: have people who can take care of kids, and who
Speaker 2: if you support, we'll have more kids who have no fathers.
Speaker 2: That's a problem. That's a serious problem, which is beyond
Speaker 2: the purview of this session. And I recognize it. I
Speaker 2: don't want to make it sound like I have a panacea,
Speaker 2: but it is to say that in principle, of course,
Speaker 2: we have an obligation as a society to the woman
Speaker 2: that we're asking not to abort, while perfectly giving her
Speaker 2: the right to. And I remain as I was before,
Speaker 2: pro your choice, even if I don't like the choice
Speaker 2: you will make in many instances. Now, why is the
Speaker 2: right wrong? The right argument is that it's murder, and
Speaker 2: it is overwhelmingly held by religious Christians. The reason is
Speaker 2: that in Catholicism and among fundamentalist Protestants it is held
Speaker 2: to be murder, or at least it is among Catholics,
Speaker 2: and I guess among some fundamentalist Protestants. Well not, I
Speaker 2: guess it is here. I have a problem on two grounds.
Speaker 2: One is theological and one is logical. Let me start
Speaker 2: with the logical and any of you have heard me
Speaker 2: debate this issue with with with the right wing Christians
Speaker 2: have called my show, have heard what I have done?
Speaker 2: Say do you really believe it's murder? Or do you
Speaker 2: use the term to make people realize how bad you
Speaker 2: think it is? And they usually say, I really believe
Speaker 2: it's murder. So then I say, you mean that literally?
Speaker 2: Before I ask you the next question. I got enough.
Speaker 2: Do you really mean it literally or do you use
Speaker 2: it as hyperbole for dramatic effect. No, it's literal. It's
Speaker 2: a life, Dennis, There's no difference. So the big deal
Speaker 2: it's in the womb, Okay, I say, then, then let
Speaker 2: me ask you something. Should doctors who perform abortions be executed?
Speaker 2: I'm for capital punishment. If you're for capital punish you
Speaker 2: must hold that these are mass murderers equivalent to Eifman
Speaker 2: personally murdering tens of thousands of people. You believe that,
Speaker 2: you believe they're Eichman, you believe they deserve to be
Speaker 2: or you don't believe in capital punishment in prison for
Speaker 2: the rest of their lives, with the key thrown away
Speaker 2: for a boarding. And there's a lot of heming and hoying.
Speaker 2: I'm told sometimes, well, they don't realize how bad it is,
Speaker 2: said neither that eifman thought Jews were sub human, he
Speaker 2: slept at night, took care of his kids. And then
Speaker 2: there's a little discomfort. There Are they mass murderers? Is
Speaker 2: one of the questions I asked them. And then let
Speaker 2: me get to it. Should they be given these sentences
Speaker 2: of death or life imprisonment? And then I tell them why.
Speaker 2: I draw a distinction between murder and abortion. And here
Speaker 2: it gets to the heart of a very important matter.
Speaker 2: From my perspective as a person and as a Jew,
Speaker 2: the moral issue is not what happened to the fetus.
Speaker 2: It's what did we do? Let me explain that to you,
Speaker 2: and God bless her. Marianne Glendon was right on tac
Speaker 2: with this too. I got to read you this it
Speaker 2: was She is a giant. She ends her chapter on
Speaker 2: abortion with this, and she kindly enough mentions in a
Speaker 2: footnote that it was a theologian who told it to her.
Speaker 2: It's about the famous Belgian fictional detective hrcu Plato. Herku
Speaker 2: Plato is thinking over a case and talking about the
Speaker 2: murderer and his assistant Hastings addresses him, but Pluo, you
Speaker 2: haven't even mentioned the victim, to which Pluot replied, my
Speaker 2: dear Hastings, everyone knows what murder does to the victim.
Speaker 2: What I'm interested in is what it does to the murderer.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm interested in. Ladies and gentlemen, I don't
Speaker 2: care that much about vetuses. Be very honest with you.
Speaker 2: They don't know nothing, they don't feel nothing, They have
Speaker 2: no bonds to anybody, They have no self consciousness. Their
Speaker 2: nervous system is so undeveloped and the operation is so
Speaker 2: fast they don't suffer. Nobody's cried about them, nobody knew them.
Speaker 2: Ask a woman who has had.
Speaker 3: A child die five days of age, two days old,
Speaker 3: and ask a woman who has had what's it called, no, no,
Speaker 3: not a still birth.
Speaker 2: That's when it's born miscarriage, which I have in my
Speaker 2: own home experienced. There's no comparison. Any woman who would
Speaker 2: walk around with a miscarriage lamenting that child for years
Speaker 2: is sick. Is sick. I will state to aategorically any
Speaker 2: husband who did is beyond sick need of emergency treatment.
Speaker 2: But they will do it for a two day old child,
Speaker 2: till they die. It's developing life, which has no emotions.
Speaker 2: We have no bonds with it. No one is suffering.
Speaker 2: My concern, and abortion is Poiret's concern in this case,
Speaker 2: What does it do to us to kill millions of
Speaker 2: would be children? Not what did it do to them?
Speaker 2: I don't lose sleep over them, even when I see
Speaker 2: the pictures and they're gross and they're emotionally riveting. What
Speaker 2: does it do to us? What does it say about
Speaker 2: us that we could say, big deal, I forgot the condom,
Speaker 2: which is what the vast majority of abortions are about.
Speaker 2: Not to mention the affluent ones of We're going to Europe.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm worried about. It's not murder. Nobody's murdered
Speaker 2: unless you say it's a full life. If it's a
Speaker 2: full life, that's a theological belief. It's not a logical belief.
Speaker 2: And for theology we have to turn to our own traditions.
Speaker 2: I honor those of Christians who believe that it's not mine.
Speaker 2: And since we both share the same Bible, at least
Speaker 2: in what Christians call the Old Testament, and to us
Speaker 2: is the Hebrew Bible, I will conclude by telling you
Speaker 2: what it says, and you'll make up your own mind
Speaker 2: whether you think that the Bible says that abortion is murder.
Speaker 2: Listed only once in the Bible, Exodus twenty one, verse
Speaker 2: twenty two, and here it is if men are fighting
Speaker 2: and wound a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled,
Speaker 2: but no harm befall her, then shall he be fined
Speaker 2: as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before
Speaker 2: the judges. But if harm before her, then thou shalt
Speaker 2: give life for life. The Torah could not be more
Speaker 2: explicit if it tried, contrasting her death. If men kill
Speaker 2: her with the fetus's death, which men also induced by
Speaker 2: fighting in her vicinity, they have, it's a capital offense.
Speaker 2: If she died, it's a fine determined by what the
Speaker 2: husband thinks it would have been worth, totally pecuniary deal
Speaker 2: as you were. Now, please understand the Jewish tradition has
Speaker 2: a very negative view of abortion, very negative. Only done
Speaker 2: in therapeutic circumstances, et cetera, et cetera. But it is
Speaker 2: in murder. It's never murder. And as the rabbi say,
Speaker 2: in the case of rape, how can we force a
Speaker 2: daughter to Israel to bring forth what was forced down her. There,
Speaker 2: she and she alone is what matters, because it's not
Speaker 2: a whole life. I'm told by Christians, you debate with
Speaker 2: me that it says in Jeremiah, I knew you when
Speaker 2: you were in your mother's womb. Of course God knows
Speaker 2: you at any point, So what does that mean? God
Speaker 2: knew whatever you were. That's why, by God is God?
Speaker 2: No human being ever says that in the Bible I
Speaker 2: knew you were before you were born. You are quite
Speaker 2: a fetus, very cute, cute little fetus there. It is
Speaker 2: very difficult in life not to take an extreme position.
Speaker 2: It is something I'm working on from the next issue
Speaker 2: of my journal. Why do people become extremists? There are
Speaker 2: many reasons, and you know what one of them is.
Speaker 2: It's the most comfortable place to be. It is. It's
Speaker 2: so comfortable to just say it's murder. You don't have
Speaker 2: any tension with incest, with taysacs babies, You have no
Speaker 2: tension with rape, You have no tension with the circumstances
Speaker 2: into which the child will be born. It is so
Speaker 2: easy to say, let a woman do what she wants
Speaker 2: with her own body. It's just the women's thing, the
Speaker 2: hell of the fetus. It's like a decayed too. No tension.
Speaker 2: Extremes have no tension. That's the joy and the appeal
Speaker 2: of it. You're one hundred percent right, one hundred percent
Speaker 2: of the time. There's no other position. For the rest
Speaker 2: of us, who are the majority of human beings who
Speaker 2: think about it, it is a real terrible issue. There
Speaker 2: are competing values here, and I think there's a solution.
Speaker 2: It's been found in Western Europe and along with a
Speaker 2: whole host of other things, in the raising of values
Speaker 2: in a society. I think we could gradually make a
Speaker 2: society where we do not have a million of these
Speaker 2: every year, which every one of us, left to right
Speaker 2: would like to see. Okay, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: This has been timeless wisdom with Dennis Prager. Visit Dennisprager
Speaker 1: dot com for thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses
Speaker 1: in classic radio programs, and to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles.