Does Socially-Approved Killing Increase Criminal Homicide?
by Rachel MacNair
When killing is socially approved, does this provide a model for killing that isn’t? We offer evidence.
The Homicide Rate and Executions
Do executions deter murder? Since societies with executions still have murders, we know it’s not a complete deterrent. But are there fewer murders than there would be otherwise?
There’s another possibility: there could be more murders. Perhaps potential murderers don’t identify with the executed, but see them as villains just like others do. Instead, they identify with those they see as the purveyor of justice—the executioner. Wishing to see themselves as also purveyors of justice, they’ve just been given instructions on how to deal with individuals they see as villains in their own lives. This is the “legitimation of violence model.”
So, if the threat of executions has any impact at all compared to other punishments, which idea is right, based on the evidence?
Many countries have at different times abolished the death penalty altogether, so we can look at the homicide rate in the year before abolition and the year after. Dane Archer did this (see pp. 118–139 of his 1984 book, Violence and Crime in Cross-National Perspective).
If capital punishment is a better deterrent than long imprisonment, the homicide rate should usually have risen after abolition. In most cases, it decreased. The evidence favors the “legitimation of violence model.”
The Homicide Rate and War
The idea that wars might increase crime and lawlessness has been suggested from scholars ranging from Erasmus to Sir Thomas More to Machiavelli. Winston Churchill and Clarence Darrow suggested that World War I specifically had this effect. Sociologist Emile Durkheim noted a sharp rise in the homicide rate after the Franco-Prussian War.
In the same book as the study on executions, Dane Archer found that, when the difference between prewar and postwar homicide rates was calculated, there was a very large upsurge in homicide rates (see pp. 63–97).
Since some combatant nations did show unchanged rates or decreases, Archer looked at what the differences between nations were. The main difference was in the size of the wars. Nations with larger combat losses showed homicide increases much more frequently than nations with less extreme losses. While both victorious and defeated nations showed homicide increases, the victorious nations were more likely to do so.
Why? Social disorganization? Then defeated nations should show more frequent increases than the victorious. So should those with worsened economies. Yet it was the opposite. Violent veterans? Perhaps some, but the increases in perpetrators occurred for both women and men and in all age groups
Archer proposes the most likely explanation is the legitimation of violence model. Civilians are influenced by the “model” of officially approved killing and destruction:
What all wars have in common is the unmistakable moral lesson that homicide is an acceptable, even praiseworthy, means to certain ends. It seems likely that this lesson will not be lost on at least some of the citizens in a warring nation. Wars, therefore, contain in particularly potent form all the ingredients necessary to produce imitative violence: Great numbers of violent homicides under official auspices and legitimation, with conspicuous praise and rewards for killing and the killers … Even though social scientists have in the past amassed impressive experimental evidence that violence can be produced through imitation or modeling, they have in general neglected the possibility that government—with its vast authority and resources—might turn out to be the most potent model of all.
(pp. 66, 94)
The case for this model may be strengthened by noting that crime rates often go down during nonviolent campaigns. This hasn’t been subjected to as rigorous a study, but Gene Sharp does cite several instances in his 1973 book (pp. 789–793).
Homicide Rate and Abortion
One idea is that abortion would lower the criminal homicide rate by preventing the births of people inclined to commit murders, what with having been unwanted and being members of the underclass. This bit of prejudice against those in poverty, with a tinge of racism, doesn’t sit well with many.
But in support of the idea, statistics in the United States show that the homicide rate did in fact trend down in the 1990s, at about the point when those who would have been born in the 1970s, but because of Roe v. Wade weren’t born because they were aborted, would have been hitting their late teens. That’s when violent crimes are most likely to be committed.
This wasn’t a controlled experiment, and any number of things could account for it – but most especially, take note that the number of abortions were declining at the same time as the number of criminal homicides. It would be every bit as reasonable a theory that a high prevalence of people solving problems by killing someone in the womb was associated with someone solving problems by killing outside the womb. Whatever lowered the incidence of killing people in-utero could therefore also cause fewer people to kill ex-utero.
Given that there can be all kinds of explanations, neither theory can be confirmed without a controlled experiment. History doesn’t allow for this. But if the “legitimation of violence” model works in war and executions, might it also work with abortions?
Violent Crime and Female Feticide
In a report on scholarship entitled “Sex Ratios and Crime: Evidence from China,” authors report:
In 2005, 120 boys were born for every 100 girls in China, a surplus of one million boys . . . the social implications of a large number of men with little or no prospect of marriage are largely unknown. In this paper, we look at crime rates, which nearly doubled in the last two decades, and argue that male-biased sex ratios have contributed to this rise . . . we find that a 1 percent increase in the sex ratio raised violent and property crime rates by some 3.7 percent, suggesting that the sex imbalance may account for up to one-sixth of the overall rise in crime.
Homicide of Women Who Refused to Get Abortions
Here’s a list of dozens of pregnant women who’ve been murdered by or at the behest of the child’s father because she refused to get an abortion. To get on this 2012 list, these conditions were necessary:
1. The woman’s murderer was caught;
2. The motive being about her refusing to get an abortion was known somehow;
3. This got into court records or newspaper articles so that a search could find it.
Therefore, this list is undoubtedly the tip of the iceberg.
Conclusion
We may argue against forms of socially-approved killing on the grounds that killing is wrong and therefore shouldn’t be socially approved. Yet we also need to be aware that the story doesn’t stop there. Such killing sets an example. Therefore, the death toll is much higher than those whose targeting was socially approved.
======================================
For more of our blog posts on a similar theme, see:
Remembering Rep. Walter B. Jones, Jr.
by Patrick O’Neill
It may be have been unprecedented on the U.S. political landscape — a Catholic U.S. Congressman who was invited to be the keynote speaker at both an anti-abortion rally and an anti-war rally — in the South.
Yet, that’s what happened when Republican Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., an Eastern North Carolina Congressman who lived out his adopted Catholic faith like an Old Testament prophet, came to podiums a few blocks and a few years apart to address audiences that hold few shared values. Jones died Sunday in his hometown of Farmville, on his 76th birthday after a short stint in hospice care.
Far removed from the self-survival mindset of most Catholic Democrats who fearfully abandoned their Church when it came to protecting the unborn, Jones sounded every bit like Jerry Falwell when he spoke in Raleigh at the North Carolina Right-to-Life Rally railing against “baby killing.”
In Raleigh again, at the invitation of Veterans for Peace, Jones received a standing ovation from a room full of lefties the likes of which you’d expect to see for Sen. Bernie Sanders or former Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
Christina Cowger of North Carolina Stop Torture Now, said Jones was one of the few politicians who gave an ear to a group that has been calling for U.S. accountability for its role in torture for more than decade.
“Before he became ill, Jones told us he would appear in public and make a statement about torture and North Carolina’s role,” Cowger said. “It’s too bad we didn’t have a chance to make that happen. He was a remarkable man.”
Jones spent most of his House career essentially on a mission to atone for his vote in support of sending troops to Iraq following the 9-11 war hysteria. It was Jones’s contention that he had been lied to by Pres. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and others that led to his vote in favor of preemptive war.
So enthusiastic was Jones in initially backing the war effort that he is credited with coining the term “freedom fries” to replace “French” fries in the U.S. House cafeteria when France refused to join the pro-war-with-Iraq U.S.-led coalition.
“Jones was driven by his principles,” wrote the News & Observer editorial board on February 11: ‘Don’t just praise Rep. Walter Jones — emulate him.’) “He voted with Donald Trump only about 50 percent of the time.”
Jones voted against Trump’s tax cuts and against repealing the Affordable Care Act, and he supported overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. Jones called on Trump to release his tax returns and he called for an independent investigation into claims Russia influenced the 2016 election. He was against feeding the national debt and wanted money out of politics.
However, Jones paid dearly for his maverick positions. The February 11 News & Observer editorial board noted the consequences Jones endured for his moral independence.
Jones “won few friends with his courageous stands. In fact, he was rewarded by being stripped of committee memberships, was never named a committee chairman and was banished to the Republicans’ back bench.
“That’s the price to be paid these days by a politician, from either side, who does not come to attention and salute the party line. Independence should be a trait that is celebrated, not punished, but Jones knew that’s not the case in 21st century America.
“Jones’s colleagues could better honor him not by heaping praise on him but by emulating him. Where has their respect for his nonaligned nature been up to now?”
Jones made national headlines for his change of heart over his Iraq War vote. An early supporter of the war, Jones eventually regretted his pro-war vote.
“I did not do what I should have done to read and find out whether Bush was telling us the truth about Saddam (Hussein) being responsible for 9/11 and having weapons of mass destruction,” Jones is quoted as saying in a 2015 radio interview. “Because I did not do my job then, I helped kill 4,000 Americans, and I will go to my grave regretting that.”
As part of his self-imposed “penance,” Jones began sending personal letters — more than 11,000 in total since 2003 — to families of dead troops. Jones began sending the letters after attending the funeral of Marine Sgt. Michael Bitz, who died in Iraq in 2003.
“I want them to know that my heart aches as their heart aches,” Jones told the Associated Press.
Jones posted photos on the wall outside of his House office, of “anybody that’s been sent and died from Camp Lejeune,” he told The News & Observer. To date, Jones’ memorial had grown to more than 500 photos of troops that died.
In a tribute to Jones by Raleigh News & Observer political writer, Rob Christensen, published February 3 while Jones was under hospice care, Christensen called Jones “an American original.”
Christensen wrote that Jones:
has been a social conservative: a leading abortion opponent . . . He has been a special favorite of the Religious Right, and when he visits the small towns and country churches that dot Eastern North Carolina, he speaks a language that is more likely to come from the Bible than from a political consultant or poll. . . .
Although his colleagues do not regard him as a deep thinker, there has always been a ideological consistency to his positions. Jones believes in protecting life — whether it is the unborn or young men sent into battle for optional wars.
Christensen also wrote, Jones’ “spigot of campaign funds out of Washington was long ago cut off, and he is sometimes seen sitting alone at the Capital Hill Club, a GOP social club, two blocks from the Capital.”
Jones was born Feb. 10, 1943, in Farmville. He is survived by his wife, Joe Ann, and daughter, Ashley.
An email statement from Jones’ congressional office was issued following his death Sunday: “Congressman Jones will long be remembered for his honesty, faith and integrity. He was never afraid to take a principled stand. He was known for his independence, and widely admired across the political spectrum. Some may not have agreed with him, but all recognized that he did what he thought was right.”
at our 30th anniversary conference, 2017
Editor’s Note: When Christenson says Jones “believes in protecting life,” this doesn’t include opposition to the death penalty, nor does it imply that Jones followed the consistent life ethic. It’s the juxtaposition of opposition to both abortion and war, using the same principle, which interests us.
How Black Panther Promotes a Consistent Life Ethic
by Andrew Hocking
Andrew Hocking writes about spirituality in movies, TV, and books and frequently discusses politics from a consistent life perspective.
Since its release last February, the movie Black Panther has made a tremendous impact, becoming a commercial and critical success—currently a Best Picture Oscar nominee—and also generating commentary about its social significance. As the first major studio release about a black superhero, with a black director and predominantly black cast, the racial justice themes of Black Panther have appropriately received much attention.
While those themes alone would make the movie important to defenders of life, Black Panther champions the consistent life ethic across multiple interrelated political issues. Specifically, the film exhorts us to apply the same ethic to our public policy and personal lives. If we do not, disastrous consequences follow when we violate our conscience for the sake of the nation. (Significant spoilers follow.)
Follow Your Conscience
The fictional African nation of Wakanda embraces a strict isolationist policy as it hides its significant technological advancements made possible by their natural resource vibranium. Throughout history, Wakanda did not act as it watched neighboring nations being enslaved and colonized. In the present day, the country’s government refuses to help outsiders, not sharing technology, providing aid, or accepting refugees.
This begins to change when T’Challa, the Wakandan king and superhero known as the Black Panther, leads a mission to capture an individual who previously attacked his nation. As the mission unravels, a CIA operative named Everett Ross takes a bullet in order to protect a Wakandan. Despite the risk of exposing his nation’s secret technological advancement, T’Challa brings Everett back to Wakanda to save his life.
T’Challa acts as he does because, simply put, he could not have stood by and watched an individual die when he had the power to save him. Few could do so. This being the case, why do many people support policies of national inaction?
The Danger of Double Standards
Whether spoken or unspoken, many believe the fallacy that morality for a government is different from that for a person. The previous king, T’Chaka, explains to his son, “You’re a good man with a good heart. And it’s hard for a good man to be king.” He implies that a king, or government, must commit immoral acts for the sake of their nation.
The fundamental conflict between the antagonist, Erik Killmonger, and T’Challa flows from King T’Chaka’s mistaken belief. Decades prior to the film’s main events, he violated his conscience to do what he considered to be in Wakanda’s best interest. After killing his brother to protect a friend, he left his brother’s son and mother to fend for themselves, living in poverty in Oakland, California, rather than bringing them to Wakanda. Justifying immorality in the name of serving the country, he actually endangered the country as this boy grew up to become Erik Killmonger, who nearly kills T’Challa and usurps power.
As I write about spirituality in stories at asyoupoetshavesaid.com, I need to make a comment directed to conservative Christians. Many white Evangelical leaders explicitly say the Bible’s commands to individuals do not apply to governments. Jerry Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University, recently commented:
It’s such a distortion of the teachings of Jesus to say that what he taught us to do personally — to love our neighbors as ourselves, help the poor — can somehow be imputed on a nation… It’s a distortion of the teaching of Christ to say Jesus taught love and forgiveness and therefore the United States as a nation should be loving and forgiving, and just hand over everything we have to every other part of the world… In the heavenly kingdom the responsibility is to treat others as you’d like to be treated. In the earthly kingdom, the responsibility is to choose leaders who will do what’s best for your country.
Comments like this imply Jesus’s teaching might work in theory, but not in practice. It denies that acting ethically, by caring for the poor and turning the other cheek, for example, is “best for the country.” It reveals a fundamental disagreement in worldview, a difference over what is right, what is wrong, and what works.
What Do We Truly Believe?
The end sequence of Black Panther exemplifies how people’s worldview determines their actions and political stances. Specifically, we see the outworking of T’Challa’s and Killmonger’s beliefs about the morality and efficacy of violence.
Unsurprisingly for an action film, T’Challa physically defeats Erik Killmonger. Nevertheless, though he stabs Erik in the chest in the heat of battle, T’Challa says “We can still heal you…”. Erik responds “Why, so you can lock me up? Nah. Just bury me in the ocean with my ancestors who jumped from ships, ‘cause they knew death was better than bondage.”
The audience never finds out what T’Challa would do after saving Erik’s life. At a minimum, though, his offer of healing spurns the logic of the death penalty. At best, his offer embodies restorative justice. The movie’s post-credit scene offers evidence in favor of this second interpretation, showing that T’Challa worked to successfully rehabilitate a killer named Bucky Barnes, who is featured in other Marvel films.
T’Challa’s worldview values life, leading him as an individual to offer mercy and forgiveness towards an individual, even to an enemy. Since he is absolute monarch as well, the film presents his worldview manifesting itself in government policy. Finding no place for the death penalty, he offers restorative, not retributive, justice.
Erik’s response, however, reveals he does not even consider that his future would involve anything other than incarceration. Why would he? He grew up in poverty knowing racial injustice, likely seeing first-hand mass incarceration destroy his community. Furthermore, his experience as an American covert operations soldier erased any further notions of grace or mercy, leaving him with a worldview that has room for only retributive, not restorative, justice.
Erik pulls out the blade in his chest and dies moments later. Effectively committing suicide, he continues to act out the worldview that views death as a solution.
While some might say a government could never apply Jesus’s radical teachings to love your enemy and turn the other cheek, Black Panther demonstrates it has applications which can lead to beneficial outcomes for all. Instead, failing to embrace these teachings leads to unnecessary suffering and death.
Making It Personal
Have you made T’Chaka’s mistake? Do you justify immoral government action or inaction?
As a quick test, think of a government policy you support and consider if you could personally act out what you have voted for the government to do. For instance, could you personally block a refugee family from entering the country? Could you personally kill a person on death row?
If you support policies that contradict your conscience, what does this say about your underlying beliefs? Rest assured that protecting and cherishing life through nonviolent means is the best policy for individuals and governments.
=========================================
For more of our blog posts from Andrew Hocking, see:
Three Nonviolent Lessons from Dr. Who
How to Value People Like Mister Rogers
For more of our blog posts on movie reviews, see:
Hollywood Movie Insights (The Giver, The Whistleblower, and The Ides of March)
The Price of Violence: When Dehumanizing the Vulnerable Hurts One’s Own Causes
by Julia Smucker
Julia Smucker
Last October, in one of a series of opinion pieces in Slate on how the political left should approach the U.S. Supreme Court, Christopher John Sprigman made the point that the liberalization of abortion laws that came with Roe v. Wade, without popular consensus in its favor, has proven disastrous for the left by giving the right a tangible, long-term foil against which to militate. “The price of Roe,” he summarized, “is all the progressive change we gave up when Roe helped push the center of American politics to the right.”
More recently, Washington Post columnist and former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson mirrored Sprigman’s argument from the opposite side of the political aisle, warning of the steep costs to the moral credibility of “institutions on the right,” and particularly the pro-life movement (though without treating these as entirely synonymous), from willingness to associate themselves with the corrupting influence of Donald Trump.
Being a political independent in part because of the consistent life ethic, I’m resistant to the framing of life issues in conventional left/right terms. Nor do I find motivation in prospects for political advantage or disadvantage for a given ideology. Nevertheless, I sympathize with both writers’ concerns to the extent that they desire to protect human beings who are vulnerable to violence and other indignities.
Furthermore, the juxtaposition of their arguments points to a more significant overarching concern from a consistent life perspective: the promotion of public policies that hurt the vulnerable is costly not only to those directly harmed, but also to the protection of other vulnerable human beings by extension, whenever nonviolent and life-affirming policy goals become bound together with violent and life-denying ones.
Gerson, to his credit, does attempt to dissociate the pro-life movement from political “conservatism” as conventionally understood, introducing the movement in his column as having “traditionally been in a different category.” He explains, “If you believe that a fetus is a member of the human family from its first moment … then opposition to abortion is inherently a social justice issue. It is the defense of the weak and voiceless against violence.” This framework for what it means to be pro-life leads naturally into the necessity of consistency, “to care equally for the lives of women in crisis” and “for the health and welfare of children after birth,” to “be opposed to the dehumanization of unborn children and the dehumanization of refugees and migrants.” As an issue of defense of the weak, Gerson argues, “The legitimacy of pro-life sentiment is demonstrated by its consistency.”
To sacrifice this consistency for the sake of political gain is not only harmful to those dehumanized by the policies and rhetoric of “Trumpism” but also, by association, to the pro-life movement itself. Associating with misogyny, nativism and racism, abuse and cruelty, he elaborates, comes at a serious cost to pro-life claims to stand for women, social inclusion, charity and reason. The price of “the Trumpification of the pro-life movement,” then, is the very credibility of the movement’s basis in compassion.
Sprigman frames the price of Roe more in terms of the advancement of an undefined “progressive” ideology for its own sake, but to the extent that what he means by “progress” overlaps with justice toward vulnerable human beings, his point parallels Gerson’s. To serve his argument against over-reliance on the Supreme Court to effect justice, he mentions some of the more glaring examples of unjust Supreme Court decisions, such as its affirmation of slavery in Dred Scott, of detention of Japanese-Americans in Korematsu, and of discrimination against travelers from primarily Muslim-majority countries in Trump v. Hawaii. Ironically, Roe fits this pattern in a way that Sprigman doesn’t acknowledge, if one looks at it as a pattern of failure to protect human beings from dehumanization and violence. But even though Sprigman sees Roe itself as a positive by virtue of its conventional association with “progressivism,” he’s still skeptical about whether it’s been worth the obstacles it’s created to more laudable goals related to nondiscrimination. The price of Roe is not only millions of prenatal lives, but also the victimization of numerous others by the broad license given to other forms of violence and exclusion, sometimes in the name of fighting against Roe.
Both legalized abortion and the broad bigotry of Trumpism are already negative things in themselves, with immeasurable costs to human dignity. That’s all the more reason for people on both sides of the aisle to let go of goals that are counterproductive to their best ideals and belie claims of compassion for the vulnerable – ideally for consistency’s sake, but at least for the sake of the lives they do seek to protect.
==================================
For more of our blog posts from Julia Smucker, see:
Amnesty International’s Blind Spot
Defining Reproductive Justice: An Encounter
A Friendly Approach
by Richard Stith
I think we should be careful to be positive and praise all the folks who support one of our key issues, while still gently encouraging them to broaden their opposition to violence.
Here’s an example of how I’ve been trying to apply this approach locally. A theater here in town is putting on Keely and Du, a 1993 play considered by pretty much all the reviewers as pro-abortion (an abortion-seeking rape victim, Keely, is kidnapped, handcuffed to a bed for 5 months, and lectured by a male Fundamentalist [and to a lesser degree by her female nurse, Du] on the nature and goodness of life and motherhood). The director even invited the pro-abortion National Organization for Women (NOW) to the first performance, let them distribute literature, and made NOW representatives guests of honor at the opening night party afterwards.
We considered demanding that the theater be consistent and let us distribute pro-life materials (a picture of a 16-week baby, a list of gestational milestones, and the “you are strong” flyer with sources of help that we hand out in sidewalk counseling). Instead, however, we just asked them if we could come into the theater from the bitter cold with our stuff. They said “yes.”
Leafletting at the play, left to right:
Rosemarie Stith, Pat Tuttle, Pat Garcher, and Mike Garcher
Later I wrote the following review, which they posted on their Facebook page:
Hey Mike,
Here is that blurb you asked me to put together to try to draw more people to the play.
Feel free to use it any way you wish.
Since I am known among local pro-lifers for my strong anti-abortion views and activism,
I hope my endorsement will attract those folks in particular.
Best of luck. You guys have just done a terrific job with this play.
Richard
PS Thanks again for letting us distribute our pro-life literature to those coming in the door. I do think it provides a context which allows them to appreciate the drama to an even greater extent.
Clip of Keely & Du from YouTube
NOW has celebrated Keely and Du and pro-lifers have opposed it, I suppose because the playwright presents the chief anti-abortionist as a domineering lawbreaker. But at the same time the arguments against abortion are candidly presented, so I think that disagreeable personage was needed for balance. As a law teacher here in Valpo for over 40 years, I know that you can’t set up a debate with all the arguments on one side. Both debate and drama require tension in order to be powerful, which this play certainly is.
Moreover, underneath the clash over life and maternity, something beautiful slowly emerges: female solidarity in the face of patriarchal oppression. This emerging solidarity doesn’t take sides on abortion. Instead, it gives everyone something hopeful to hold on to at the end of the play.
Protests by the NOW folks and others have now driven us back outside for the final three performances, but I think we’ve made some good inroads into the minds of the staff and of many patrons. The green-haired woman director made a special point of shaking my hand and expressing her deep appreciation for my letter.
I think a scolding approach would have been far less successful.
============================================
For more of our posts by Richard Stith, see:
Equal Concern for Each Human Being, Not for Each Human Issue
Open Letter to Fellow Human Rights Activists
When “Choice” Itself Hurts the Quality of Life
For more posts on similar themes, see:
Defining Reproductive Justice: An Encounter
Progressive Prolifers at the Progressive Magazine 100th Anniversary Celebration
Human Rights & the Right to Life: Reconsidering Conventional Human Rights Activism
by John Whitehead
Respecting people’s human rights should go hand in hand with upholding the consistent life ethic. The concept of “human rights” broadly means those conditions that people can legitimately claim as necessary to living a decent human life. Life itself is one of these conditions, and many human rights documents recognize a right to life. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (Article 3).
In principle, the wide-ranging respect for life practiced by advocates of the consistent life ethic should be perfectly compatible with human rights activism. In practice, however, contemporary human rights activism can often promote the destruction of life that consistent life ethic advocates work to stop. We should recognize this conflict and change how we look at the practice of human rights advocacy today.
The UN Human Rights Committee & The Right to Life
Last fall, we witnessed a significant example of how human rights activism, as conventionally practiced, can promote killing. The United Nations Human Rights Committee issued, on October 30, a lengthy “comment” on how to interpret Article 6—which deals with the right to life—of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 6 states that “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” While abortion is not explicitly mentioned, the article, which permits the death penalty under highly qualified circumstances, says that “Sentence of death…shall not be carried out on pregnant women.”
The recent comment interpreting Article 6 contained some very positive applications of the right to life: for example, it identifies the maintenance of nuclear weapons as contrary to that right. Nevertheless, the comment also adopted the grotesque position that respecting the Covenant requires securing access to abortion. It says that states party to the Covenant must not violate “the right to life of a pregnant woman or girl, or her other rights under the Covenant.” The comment then elaborates:
Thus, restrictions on the ability of women or girls to seek abortion must not, inter alia, jeopardize their lives, subject them to physical or mental pain or suffering which violates article 7 [article 7 of the Covenant being “prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,”] discriminate against them or arbitrarily interfere with their privacy.
States parties must provide safe, legal and effective access to abortion where the life and health of the pregnant woman or girl is at risk, or where carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the pregnant woman or girl substantial pain or suffering, most notably where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or is not viable…
States parties should not introduce new barriers and should remove existing barriers that deny effective access by women and girls to safe and legal abortion, including barriers caused as a result of the exercise of conscientious objection by individual medical providers.
The comment also urges states to “prevent the stigmatization of women and girls seeking abortion.”
Let’s consider the full meaning and significance of this passage: the UN Human Rights Committee’s comment is affirming abortion as morally acceptable. Nowhere is any right to life of the unborn child acknowledged. The words “unborn,” “preborn,” “baby,” and even “fetus” don’t appear in the comment (the comment does at least condemn infanticide and reaffirm the prohibition on executing pregnant women). Justifying access to abortion on the grounds of “mental pain or suffering” or “substantial pain or suffering” is about as subjective and elastic as such rationales get. The principle could be used to justify abortion for essentially any reason. Moreover, the passage totally ignores how much pain and suffering to women abortion can cause, if they are pressured or coerced into abortion or later regret their decision. The condemnation of “stigmatization” suggests abortion should be not merely legal but socially acceptable. Finally, the comment asserts that not even respect for doctors’ conscientious objections to abortion should stand in the way of abortion access. In short, the passage cannot be explained away as, say, a purely pragmatic effort to avoid women dying from illegal, unsafe abortions. The passage supports abortion.
The comment’s treatment of assisted suicide is somewhat better, as it merely accepts the existence of this practice without endorsing it. After encouraging suicide prevention, especially among “vulnerable” people, the comment states
States parties that allow medical professionals to provide medical treatment or the medical means in order to facilitate the termination of life of afflicted adults, such as the terminally ill, who experience severe physical or mental pain and suffering and wish to die with dignity, must ensure the existence of robust legal and institutional safeguards to verify that medical professionals are complying with the free, informed, explicit and, unambiguous decision of their patients, with a view to protecting patients from pressure and abuse.
Such a position still falls well short of the necessary condemnation of euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Reconsidering Conventional Notions
The Human Rights Committee’s emphatic support of abortion and tacit support of assisted suicide is unusual in how blatantly it inverts the right to life the Committee is supposedly interpreting. In general, however, support of such killing by groups that claim to be protecting human rights is sadly common. Many mainstream human-rights-advocacy organizations have come to advocate for abortion access. The Consistent Life Network has recorded how Amnesty International gave up its prior position of neutrality on abortion and switched to supporting abortion access. Amnesty was even involved in the—tragically successful—campaign to legalize abortion in Ireland. Human Rights Watch and the aid organization Doctors without Borders have taken similar positions.
This giant moral blind spot of human rights advocacy groups is even more striking when one considers that many nations who would be judged as having bad records on human rights (as conventionally understood) are often opposed to abortion or assisted suicide.
Saudi Arabia, for example, is justly condemned for its extraordinary repression of its citizens, executing people for a wide variety offenses. Nevertheless, the Saudi Arabian legal code shows greater respect for the unborn than those of many western democracies or many human rights groups’ ideologies. Abortion is illegal in Saudi Arabia, with exceptions made for the life or physical health of the mother. Egypt, which also has a bad human rights record, goes even further, allowing abortion only to save the mother’s life. Iran, which has the dubious distinction of being one the leading executioners, also legally restricts abortion, allowing it only to save the mother’s life or in cases of fetal impairment. Pro-life activists might criticize such laws on various grounds—the Iranian exception for fetal impairment seems notably ableist, for example—but these laws nevertheless reflect greater concern for protecting unborn humans than the legal interpretations of a UN committee dedicated to championing human rights.
Consider also the example of China, which is rightly reviled by human rights activists and pro-life activists alike for its repressive policies, especially its coercive, abortion-promoting population control. Even China, however, bans suicide, including assisted suicide and euthanasia. In this respect, even one of the world’s most notorious human rights offenders protects lives that the UN Human Rights Committee and many democratic western nations that might endorse conventional human rights activism, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, or parts of the United States, don’t.
My point, I hasten to add, is not that we shouldn’t criticize the human rights records of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, China, or similar nations—we clearly should. As I write this, the Saudi government continues to cause death and suffering both at home and abroad through its war in Yemen. China is currently carrying out a brutal crackdown on its Uighur ethnic minority. We shouldn’t support the flawed, compromised understanding of conventional human rights groups or the no-less flawed understanding of these repressive states. The goal should be laws and public policies that respect lives of all, from conception to natural death. Consistent life ethic advocates should study the examples of countries such as the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Malta, which ban abortion and the death penalty and do not allow assisted suicide.
We should, however, recognize how flawed the conception of “human rights” held by international agencies and NGOs and many western democratic nations is. We should direct our critique equally to these groups and nations and those repressive ideologies and nations that violate human rights as conventionally understood.
Consistent life ethic advocates need to reject the tendency to view contemporary liberal-democratic views of human rights, as embodied by certain western nations and groups such as Amnesty International or the UN Human Rights Committee, as a model that other nations and groups must follow. Replacing the violent repression of a Saudi Arabia or China with the violent permissiveness of the United States or the Netherlands isn’t progress. Let’s work to realize a complete, consistently pro-life understanding of human rights across all nations, ideologies, and cultures.
Roe Anniversary Protests, 2019
by several people who were there
For a mainstream press article on our presence at the March for Life, see “What It’s Like for Secular, Liberal Pro-lifers at the March for Life” in The Atlantic. The Washington Post also included some information from our supporters in their coverage.
March for Life Chicago, January 13
Rachel MacNair & son leafleted about the Grassroots Defunding campaign.
Richard Stith:
Rosemarie (my wife) and I, wearing pro-life T-shirts, wandered among the “pro-choice” counter-protesters. Between their shouts, we sincerely expressed to many, “We’re glad you got to get born.” One responded, “So am I,” to which I said, “Great. That means you’re a little bit pro-life!” Another said nothing at first, but then followed us to say, “I wish you weren’t!”
When we found two folks holding a banner with the words “Democratic Socialists of America,” I told them “I’m a socialist, too.” They asked “Are you for a woman’s right to choose?” I answered “No. That’s individualism. It turns the next generation into private property.” They looked taken aback for a moment, but then they resumed shouting.
.
Expo, January 17-18
Rachel MacNair:
We tried a new technique on the Grassroots Defunding campaign – we had an accordion-file with flyers for each individual state. So when people came by our table, we’d ask them what state they’re from, and then give them info from their own state with a summary of the Planned Parenthood centers in their state and the alternatives (on the actual medical services, the non-abortion things PP does) for each PP center nearby. That turned out to be a remarkably successful approach, as being more specific that way was way better than just a general flyer. Yet people definitely understood the general point: PP has the money, and that makes them stronger in the short term – but we as the pro-life movement have the grassroots, and that makes us stronger in the long term. It was fun to see the recognition in people’s eyes as something common to nonviolence theory and peace studies made perfect sense in their own experience.
We also had signs from member group New Wave Feminists for them to take, and those went like hotcakes, so more of the signs held at the March had to do with prolife feminism. We also ran out of our buttons saying “No Abortion, No Death Penalty, No War” – it was so gratifying to see so many people eager to take those, free if they promised to wear them.
D.C. Planned Parenthood Protest, January 17
John Whitehead:
Some of the weekend’s most memorable aspects were small, unexpected moments of human connection. One of these came paradoxically during the tensest episode: a vigil outside the Washington, DC, Planned Parenthood, where pro-life protestors stood a few feet from police and clinic escorts (I was there leafleting for Grassroots Defunding). Father Frank Pavone, a Consistent Life Network endorser, spoke at the vigil. During his remarks, he noted that one of the attendees was the journalist Robin Marty, who is pro-choice. Pavone thanked Marty for writing about abortion and pro-lifers in a fair-minded, respectful way. To witness this moment, in which people on opposite sides of such a divisive, emotionally charged issue could recognize each other’s humanity, was touching.
Democrats for Life Breakfast, January 18
While the Consistent Life Network is a non-partisan group, Democrats for Life is a member group. Their breakfast speaker line-up included Katrina Jackson, Louisiana state representative, who was also a major speaker at the rally for the March for Life. Our supporters, Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa and CJ Williams, also spoke, covering the consistent life ethic.
Top left: Katrina Jackson. Top right: Kristen Day introduces Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa. Bottom: CJ Williams speaks.
Sarah Terzo:
The speakers all emphasized the importance of social programs to help women facing unplanned pregnancies. The director of a crisis pregnancy center emphasized how many of the women who come to the center are referred to government safety net programs, such as Medicaid and housing vouchers. In a question-and-answer period, speakers and attendees lamented the fact that housing is so hard for single mothers to afford and there are so few programs to help them. The fact that Republican politicians cut social programs that are lifelines for women with crisis pregnancies is a huge detriment to the pro-life movement and the cause of helping women in crisis. Herndon-De La Rosa spoke about her own political awakening after she had her son at age 16. She realized that she was able to give birth to her son and parent with the help of her family, but many other young pregnant teens are not so lucky. They need, she realized, social programs to help them when their parents abandon them or simply don’t have the resources to help them. Because of this, she thinks politics will not be the solution to the abortion debate. Instead, pro-lifers have to change hearts and minds to make abortion unthinkable.
Rehumanize Rally
& March for Life, January 18
Top left: Aimee Murphy on the March, dancing as usual; her shirt has a picture of a uterus and says “Weapon-Free Zone.” Top right: We gather for the consistent-life rally.
Bottom: group photo before marching. Left to right, back: Rosemarie and Richard Stith, Bill Samuel, Tom Taylor. Tony Masalonis. Front: Sarah Terzo, John Whitehead, Rachel MacNair
Rachel MacNair:
Signs were creative, as is common in large demonstrations, but it occurred to me afterward that I don’t recall seeing any partisan political sentiments during all that time. There were a couple of vague things about voting pro-life, with no specifics of who that meant. Signs were mainly on the issue, with some identifying the group that was marching, and some that were certainly religious.
The slogan “making babies great again” was not uncommon; it’s not one I would wear because of what it’s based on. But I will say that my pro-abortion anti-Republican father burst out laughing when I told him about it (as did I when I first saw it). At least it’s a sensible sentiment on its own.
John Whitehead:
Probably the best moment for me came during the March when I was assisting Consistent Life Board member Sarah Terzo, who uses a wheelchair. We came to a spot on the sidewalk that was filled not only with police officers but fatigues-wearing soldiers, presumably all there for crowd control. I asked them if we could pass; they were very friendly and obliged by parting to let us through. It was a tiny moment yet seemed symbolically apt: a crowd of men with guns moved out of the way in response to mere words. Could there be a better representation of what we seek to accomplish?
Sarah Terzo:
A pre-March meet up, sponsored by member group Rehumanize International emphasized the theme of the march itself, “Pro-Life Is Pro-Science” with multiple speakers. Being surrounded by so many consistent life ethic supporters, both experienced older supporters as well as vibrant, enthusiastic young people, was a huge mental and emotional boost to me. An article in The Atlantic said that there were over 60 people at the meet up. The coverage was quite positive and it was a great way to kick off the March.
A moment that inspired me at the March itself was when Consistent Life president John Whitehead and I left the main flow of marchers and headed towards the Southeast Neighborhood Library where Consistent Life sponsored a discussion after the March. From a side street, we could see the March go by. We watched as a huge crowd of pro-lifers, seeming to have no end, walked down the street. As with past marches, it was incredibly inspiring to see the massive number of people who turned out. I left the March feeling energized and enthusiastic for the pro-life movement’s future.
Post-March Meet-up, January 18
Bill Samuel:
The group who gathered for a wide-ranging discussion of consistent life ethic issues after the March kept growing as people finished the March and were able to come over to our location. The groups with the most representation were the Consistent Life Network, the American Solidarity Party, and the University of Maryland Baltimore County Students for Life. After the discussion, we all went out for dinner together at a nearby taco place.
Student for Life Conference, January 19
Rachel MacNair (seated) talking to students about the Grassroots Defunding campaign for finding alternatives to Planned Parenthood
John Whitehead:
Another memorable moment came during the Students for Life of America Conference, where Consistent Life had a table. One attendee knew Consistent Life from Facebook. She confided to me that as a “pro-life pacifist” she often felt in the minority and was glad to find like-minded people.
O’Connor Conference, January 19
Speakers on pro-life feminism included our supporters Serrin Foster, Aimee Murphy, and Herb Geraghty. Speaking from the Catholic Mobilizing Network about the criminal justice system and restorative justice, including opposition to the death penalty, were Emma Tacke and Caitlin Morneau.
Women’s March, January 19
Ross Bones-Valentin, Feminists Choosing Life of New York / New York City Regional Director:
Against all odds, our presence didn’t go unnoticed at the Women’s March. A small but determined group of pro-life feminists walked together holding signs in support of life and women. To our surprise, several women came to us with an uplifting “I’m glad you’re here,” and others even asked to take pictures of us. There were cameras, chanting, banners, music and an atmosphere of empowerment and hunger for change.
In the middle of the crowd, we had a very pleasant conversation with a “pro-choice” ob-gyn doctor who was collecting signatures in favor of an Equal Rights Amendment. She expressed the reasoning behind her support for legalized abortion. The doctor claimed “women will die” if left with no choice but to go to illegal abortion clinics. In response, we explained that legalized abortion “addresses” the wrong problem. Instead, we discussed the importance of advocating for all women to have better healthcare and socioeconomic opportunities. Opportunities that free women from confronting situations where abortion appears like the apparent, sensible choice. In the end, we all agreed that feminists need to promote a culture which acknowledges the value and dignity of women; a change that would ultimately make unplanned, ’inconvenient’ pregnancies a thing of the past.
With peace and conviction, we marched. And next year, we’ll be back.
Left: Michele Sterlace-Accorsi. Right: Ross Bones-Valentin
Will for Life – Double Down
by Tony Masalonis and Rachel MacNair
This is an updated and expanded version of an article published in Peace and Life Connections on April 25, 2014.
Euthanasia and the death penalty can be connected by taking a stand against both in your personal life. Opponents of these forms of killing have developed documents that anyone can use to assert that they don’t want to be killed by “medical intervention” or medical neglect, nor have anyone be executed in the event they’re killed by criminal homicide.
The National Right to Life committee (NRLC) has put in the great amount of homework needed to create “Will to Live” documents for the United States. These are alternative versions of standard “living wills” that unlike most of those documents, explicitly indicate a desire not to be euthanized. NRLC presents reasons to take this approach, and downloadable documents for each state in the United States that take into account the differing state-by-state laws. People in other countries should also find this information useful in crafting their own documents that work with the laws of their own nation. The documents are designed to have legal status and to provide real protection to prevent anyone opposed to euthanasia, either in general or for him/herself, from falling victim to this form of homicide.
To stand against the death penalty in a personal way, you can sign the “Declaration of Life”. Originally drafted by the Cherish Life Circle (as shown in this New York Times article), a group founded by a member of the Sisters of Mercy, the Declaration says, “I hereby declare that should I die as a result of a violent crime, I request that the person or persons found guilty of homicide for my killing not be subject to or put in jeopardy of the death penalty under any circumstances, no matter how heinous their crime or how much I may have suffered.”
A number of anti-death penalty groups are promoting the Declaration and have made it available for downloading or copying. These include Unitarian Universalists for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), and the makers of the film Where There is Darkness, As can be seen on the last link, the filmmakers are also collecting names of folks who have signed the declaration. Their movie chronicles the true story of Fr. Rene Robert, who signed the Declaration and who years later was murdered. The document was instrumental in keeping the perpetrator from being sentenced to death. Although the Declaration document doesn’t have the same legal weight as Will to Live documents, Fr. Robert’s story shows that it can influence court decisions in a life-saving way.
Naturally, we encourage readers to download/copy and sign both documents. Both authors of this post have signed appropriate versions of both of them. For an added witness to the consistent life ethic, get them notarized at the same time, and keep them together with your will and other related documents as connected “wills for life.” It might give your friendly attorney and notary public something to think about!
Another way to promote these potentially life-saving documents in a consistent-life context would be to make them available as a set at houses of worship and other gatherings of action-minded groups. If possible, have your friendly notary handy.
Though all of us who “execute” these papers hope they’ll never have to be used, they represent a creative way to witness for life and against killing, educate others, and give yourself some comfort that you might someday prevent an unjust death – maybe even your own.
Restellism Exposed: Abortion Opposed by Early Women Physicians
Excerpt from ProLife Feminism: Yesterday & Today. Introduction by Mary Krane Derr, condensed.
Dr. Charlotte Denman Lozier (1844-1870)
Charlotte Denman Lozier graduated from the homeopathic New York (City) Medical College for Women, which outraged conservatives because of its students’gender and its hygiene curriculum. As a student, Charlotte successfully protested Bellevue Hospital’s refusal of clinical privileges to women. After graduation, she joined her alma mater’s faculty, and held office in the Working Women’s Association.
Restellism Exposed
by the Staff of the Revolution
Dr. Charlotte Lozier of 323 West 34th Street, of this city was applied to last week by a man pretending to be from South Carolina, by name, Moran, as he also pretended, to procure an abortion on a very pretty young girl apparently about eighteen years old. The Dr. assured him that he had come to the wrong place for any such shameful, revolting, unnatural and unlawful purpose. She proffered to the young woman any assistance in her power to render, at the proper time, and cautioned and counseled her against the fearful act which she and her attendant (whom she called her cousin) proposed. The man becoming quite abusive, instead of appreciating and accepting the counsel in the spirit in which it was proffered, Dr. Lozier caused his arrest under the laws of New York for his inhuman proposition, and he was held to bail in a thousand dollars for appearance in court.
The [New York] World of last Sunday contained a most able and excellent letter from Dr. Lozier, in which she explains and most triumphantly vindicates her course in the very disagreeable position in which she was placed. It is certainly very gratifying and must be particularly so to Dr. Lozier, to know that her conduct in the affair is so generally approved by the press and the better portion of the public sentiment, so far as yet expressed. The following are only extracts from extended articles in the New York World and Springfield Republican relating to it:
The laws of New York make the procuring of a miscarriage a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not less than three months, nor more than a year; they define the committing of an abortion resulting in the death of either child or mother to be manslaughter in the second degree. It was this latter crime that Dr. Lozier was asked to commit, and she insists that as the commission of crime is not one of the functions of the medical profession, a person who asks a physician to commit the crime of ante-natal infanticide can be no more considered his patient than one who asks him to poison his wife. Thus Dr. Lozier makes out her case, and seems to prove conclusively that neither law nor professional honor forbids physicians handing over to the police persons who apply to them to commit murder; but that law, professional honor, moral obligation, and social duty all unite in compelling them to thus aid in the punishment of these attempts to procure the slaughter of the innocents. This being so, how does it happen that it has been left for this woman to be the first to perform this duty? The pulpit and the press for months have been ringing with declamations against the frequency of the offence of ante-natal infanticide among the most respectable classes of American society. Has there been no cause for these accusations; or do physicians generally hold opinions of their duty in this matter wholly different from those entertained and acted on by Mrs. Lozier?
And the Springfield Republican says:
A woman physician at New York, Mrs. Dr. Charlotte D. Lozier, took the very unusual step, on Saturday, of having a man and a woman, who had applied to her to assist in procuring an abortion upon the latter, arrested and committed to jail for trial, under the New York statute, which has long been practically a dead letter, but which makes the bare solicitation or advising to commit this crime a state prison offence.
The woman, whose name is Caroline Fuller, first went alone to the office of Doctress Lozier, and on stating her purpose was kindly warned of the sin and danger of such a course, and allowed to depart. But the next day she returned with her paramour, Andrew Moran of Anderson Court House, S.C., and he boldly demanded that the operation should be performed, offering to pay roundly and to shield Mrs. Lozier from any possible legal consequences, should there be a fatal termination. Upon this Mrs. Lozier promptly sent for a policeman, who arrested both Moran and Miss Fuller, though the latter was discharged when brought before the justice for examination. Moran is held for trial, having failed to bribe Mrs. Lozier not to appear against him by offering her $1,000. Moran and Miss Fuller came all the way from South Carolina to have the abortion performed, and Moran’s wife made a third in the party, though one would hardly suppose she would enjoy a trip to the metropolis under such circumstances.
May we not hope that the action of Mrs. Lozier in this case is an earnest of what may be the more general practice of physicians if called upon to commit this crime, when women have got a firmer foothold in the profession? Some bad women as well as bad men may possibly become doctors, who will do anything for money; but we are sure most women physicians will lend their influence and their aid to shield their sex from the foulest wrong committed against it. It will be a good thing for the community when more women like Mrs. Lozier belong to the profession.
—Revolution, 2 December 1869.
=================================
For more of our posts on 19th-century activists, see:
Dickens
From A Christmas Carol, by Charles Dickens (1843)
Early in the novel, Ebenezer Scrooge is speaking to two men who are trying to solicit a donation to the poor. When he says he’ll donate “nothing,” they ask if he wishes to remain anonymous.
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned [prisons and workhouses]: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”’
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,”’ said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Much later, Ebenezer Scrooge is speaking to the ghost of Christmas Present concerning Tiny Tim.
“No, no,” said Scrooge. “Oh no, kind Spirit! Say he will be spared!”
“If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race,” returned the Ghost, “will find him here. What then? If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief.
“Man,” said the Ghost, ” if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child.”
From The Chimes, by Charles Dickens (1844)
Dickens wrote several Christmas novellas, not just the most famous one with Ebenezer Scrooge.
Context: Mr. Filer just heard a friend explaining how terrible marriage is to a young couple after they say they’re planning to marry. The young woman’s father is also present. “Such people as those” refers to people in poverty, three of whom are in front of him listening to him say this.
“A man may live to be as old as Methuselah,” said Mr. Filer, “and may labour all his life for the benefit of such people as those: and may heap up facts on figures, facts on figures, facts on figures, mountains high and dry; and he can no more hope to persuade ‘em that they have no right or business to be married, than he can hope to persuade ‘em that they have no earthly right or business to be born. And that we know they haven’t. We reduced it to a mathematical certainty long ago!”
Commentary
Dickens’ Christmas Carol . . . is a polemical work: Dickens was sparring with the laissez-faire capitalists whose influence in industrializing Britain sought to limit concern for the poor to running poor houses and treadmills. . . His other target was Thomas Malthus. Malthus, the intellectual granddaddy of zero population growth, had argued that population increase would inevitably lead to disaster. . . Scrooge gives voice to the elite opinion of his day when, dismissing the businessmen who come to his office seeking charitable contributions, he opines that those who would rather die than go to a poorhouse “had better do it and decrease the surplus population.”
John M. Grondelski, National Catholic Register, December 17, 2011
===================================
For another Christmas literature commentary in our blog, see: