Comment Of The Day: “Ethics Villain: University Of California Prof. Michele Goodwin”

Racist science

What continues to amaze, as pro-abortion supporters and activists throw every conceivable argument they can come up with against the proverbial wall in hopes that one might stick,is how insubstantial, emotional and often intellectually dishonest those arguments are. As the Supreme Court deliberates, we are certain to hear and read many more, and I honestly can say that I am hoping for a legitimate and persuasive one to finally emerge.

What I fear we will get, however, as the arguments do not stick but slide off that wall like wet tissue, is more warnings, threats, insults and jeremiads, like Justice Sotomayor’s despicable “stench” question, which I translate as, “Aren’t you properly terrified that if we don’t just do as the pro-abortion machine demands rather than analyze a difficult problem objectively according to facts, law and ethics, people who have already made up their minds regardless of all of those will be furious?”

The “pro-choice” rhetoric increasingly reminds me of the arguments made by the slave-holding South as thoughtful abolitionists and the anti-slavery sentiment strengthened ten-fold by “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” began backing defenders of “the peculiar institution” into a corner. They primarily invoked invalid or dishonest arguments: “science” and “studies” claiming to prove that black people were not quite human (see above), and did not have the “necessities” (to quote poor Al Campanis a century later) to be free; slavery had been permitted so long that it constituted a betrayal to end it; a Supreme Court ruling had protected the practice, and the way of life that slavery’s practitioners enjoyed and benefited from immensely would be threatened if slavery were banned. These are all essentially the same arguments being advanced today to justify continuing to treat another group of vulnerable and exploited human beings as property and non-humans. The fetus doesn’t deserve human rights because it isn’t “viable” or “cognizent.” A right that has been part of the law for half a century should never be challenged. Roe v. Wade is to the unborn as Dred Scott was to slaves.

And, perhaps most of all, American women have thrived by treating developing babies as disposable by “choice.”

Here is Ryan Harkins’ Comment of the Day addressing the related argument, advanced by a law professor, that the right to kill the offspring of incest and rape is essential to the advancement and success of people like her.


There are so many things to say, and have been said, about situations like this. It is a tragedy and a crime that a father would molest his daughter in such a fashion. Yet the child conceived is innocent. My wife reminds everyone she can that when her mother was pregnant, she didn’t know if the child was her lover’s, or her father’s. See, her father had been forcing himself on her for years. Unbeknownst to my mother-in-law, he’d had a vasectomy and likely could not father any children, but when she became pregnant, she didn’t know if it was from her father or from her lover. Someday, maybe we’ll conduct a genetic test to find out for certain. But what difference does it make? My wife is the wonderful person she is now. I love her dearly. If she actually is the creation of incest, so what? It isn’t her fault, and her very existence dragged me out of the darkness of depression and self-loathing. Not only is she innocent of her grandfather’s crime, but her very life has improved the lives of those around her.

I cannot discount the pain and life-altering situation that such a pregnancy entails. The violation of trust between father and daughter is enraging. A father is supposed to protect and defend his daughter, not exploit her. Yet, as tragic as conception from such actions is, the recourse to abortion merely exacerbates the situation. The guilty party skates scot-free. The raped lives not only with the desecration, but the knowledge that she ended the life of an innocent party. The guilt persists for decades.

The real conversation should not focus on a women’s right to choose, but how the allowance of abortion allows so many crimes to proceed undetected. Abortion spares women the consequences of unrestrained sexual activity, but allows men unbridled access to consequence-free sexual exploitation. Women would be better served to insist on fidelity and self-restraint, instead of surrendering to the second-best recourse of mopping up the consequences of rape, incest, one-night stands, and casual relations with no expectations of life-long commitments.

11 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: “Ethics Villain: University Of California Prof. Michele Goodwin”

  1. LIKELY could not father any children?

    I thought vasectomies were the guaranteed end of child-producing, unless the procedure was botched somehow.

    • I can’t say I’ve done the research, but I’ve heard many people profess that vasectomies on rare occasions can heal. Maybe that is due to the procedure being done incorrectly, or maybe it is due to cheating wives who have to explain why they are pregnant when their husbands are only firing blanks. I’m certainly open to hear if anyone knows more on the subject.

  2. Excellent points here re slavery arguments. The comparative logic is undeniable.
    Thank you for sharing such a personal perspective as well. Best wishes to you and your lovely wife.

  3. “Abortion spares women the consequences of unrestrained sexual activity, but allows men unbridled access to consequence-free sexual exploitation.”

    Bullseye. And both sides, especially young men and young women, like it just that way. Fidelity? Commitment? Self-restraint? How bourgeois. How 1950s. How Pleasantville. If you think like this you must not be getting enough, or not getting any. /sarcasm off.

    How 1950s indeed. More like how high-schoolish. How wishful. How like a wannabe porn star. Talk like that just convinces me that too many people, especially men, grow older, but they never grow up, especially when it comes to sex and relationships. A few end up like Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Roman Polanski, etc., and get away with it. A few more end up like Hugh Hefner and actually get to live the fantasy. Still fewer end up like Larry Flynt and get to not only live the fantasy but give the world the finger. But those are actually fewer and far between than you think. Most end up with an assortment of STDs, civil judgments against them, and jail time, or some combination of the above.

    BTW, you mention Dred Scott. Plessy has also been mentioned. I’d also throw out Bowers v Hardwick, which held that states COULD prohibit sodomy, later overturned by Lawrence v Texas (ironically, Lawrence died of sexually transmitted hepatitis), Seeger vs. United States (holding that only vague belief was enough to be exempted from the draft), not to mention the Obergefell case, holding there IS a general right to marriage, whatever your sexuality. All of these changed things that had been pretty much generally accepted for a lot longer than Roe v. Wade has been law.

    Then you hear all these other ideas the left is coming out with now: limitation of designated hate speech, changing the Senate to be proportional like the House, doing away with the Electoral College, making the Senate vote up or down on presidential appointments within such and such a time or being deemed to have waived the power to advise and consent, etc. Then there’s all the attacks on the Second Amendment. These rights, procedures, powers, etc., have been in place since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were enacted. Stare decisis, when argued by the left, is a shibboleth. They are only concerned with keeping decisions in place that they agree with. Everything else is subject to overturn as soon as they get the votes to do it, on the Court if they can’t manage it among the populace. However, once they overturn something and have it where they want it, it doesn’t matter if the courts or the populace change, it’s where they want it and it can’t be changed. When God made the woke left He apparently made them special to everyone else.

  4. Is it too late to file an amicus curiae after oral arguments? I honestly do not know. The analogy to the subjugation of slaves hit me right between the eyes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.