Introduction

In his famous Preface to Saint Joan, George Bernard Shaw wrote "We must face the fact that society is founded on intolerance" simply because "society must always draw a line somewhere" between "allowable conduct" and the intolerable. What happens when a society stops drawing lines?

That is the question William Murchison ponders in our lead article, based on a recent book by Sociologist Alan Wolfe, who claims to have discovered what Americans think "about right and wrong, truth and falsehood" by extensive interviews "with everyday middle-American suburbanites"-i.e., the prototype Middle Class.

As it happens, Shaw made great fun of "Middle-class morality"-but of course he (like his fellow Fabians) depended on middle-class readers, just as our own pundits and propagandists do today. Change mostly comes not from the top or bottom, but when the majority in the middle accept it.

Well, if Professor Wolfe is right, Middle America has accepted quantum changes from the moralities of previous generations, and is now mainly tolerant only of intolerance itself-the mood, Murchison says, is "you can do what you want so long as you let me do what I want." (Wolfe found two exceptions; neither homosexuality nor "bilingualism" are yet acceptable.) Not surprisingly, the new Mushy Morality is most prominent in re religion, where "diversity" has replaced virtually any shred of dogma; a typical Wolfe "answer" runs "Having morals can exist without believing in God." Small wonder that relativism reigns. As regular readers know, none of this pleases Bill Murchison, who flays all the falsehoods in his accustomed style-in short, it's a very good read.

Actually, Ellen Wilson Fielding picks up the same theme, but from a specific angle: "unfaithfulness" is now tolerated far beyond the lines our society drew just decades ago. Put crudely, Gary Hart was ruined by sins quite venial compared to those "alleged" against our sitting President, whose only penance seems to be soaring "approval" ratings. The question is whether our society can recover in time, before all the lines are gone (Who would have predicted that "learned and cultured" Germany would free-fall into Nazism?). As Ellen puts it:

The failure to honor a promise or act honestly, the bending of the truth on a witness stand, the willingness to let what is pleasant trump what you have pledged to do, may seem far removed from the holocaust of abortion or Oregon's lapse into state-- sanctioned assisted suicide. But it is not far removed. Toleration of multiple acts of individual unfaithfulness leads to the overwhelmingly oppressive toleration of greater wrongdoing on a colossal scale. This is not supposition or an exercise in logic: it is observable truth.

How much of our moral and cultural decline should be blamed on television? As Mrs. Lynette Burrows points out, books were a primary source of entertainment in pre-TV times-in the last century the latest installment of a Dickens novel was as eagerly awaited by "everybody" as any sit-com today. Nor was it uncommon for "working class" people to be quite well read, and when millions were reading the same popular books there was a "values commonly shared" civility of manners (Shaw's "Deserving Poor" certainly knew what respectable behavior was, whether they practiced it or not!).

In sharp contrast, Burrows argues, TV projects an "alternative reality" to the real world, especially in its politically-correct portrayal of working women as "Beautifully dressed, affluent, sexually liberated and `in command"' whereas "the overwhelming majority of them do not have a career, they have 'a job' which most of them dislike and which they do only from economic necessity." Sounds like interesting stuff? We sure think it is: when the faxed copy came in from Cambridge we "glanced" at the first sheet, intending to put the piece aside for later; instead, we kept right on glancing to the end of it, by turns laughing and nodding agreement-- we bet you will do likewise.

By the way, lest you think our title (not hers) "Whoring for Fun and Profit" is sensationalized, it is not: it fits BBC-TV shows Mrs. Burrows was "on" along with supposedly-happy prostitutes touting their lucrative "jobs"-the fact that this could happen at all vividly illuminates where the once-staid BBC itself stands on such "social issues" (needless to add, its programs are monolithically pro-abortion, pro "Gay Rights," the lot, despite its charter guaranteeing "Fairness"!).

Next we have a special section on what we justly call "the RICO Outrage"-it has its own introduction (see page 35), but we want to add a few comments here. The glaring lesson of NOW v. Scheidler is old news; ever since Roe v. Wade a quarter century ago, abortion has "enjoyed" a unique status in our courts, high and low. It is not only fair but painfully accurate to say that, when abortion is the issue, the ordinary rules of judicial decisions-not to mention fairness-simply do not apply. In Scheidler, the "charge" was that non-violent picketing of abortion mills (exactly what civil-rights protestors did in the '60s) was in fact comparable to Mafia-style extortion and violence. Nobody believes that is true, but extremism in defense of abortion has become the vice of judges.

In the Chicago case, as several of our commentators argue, the abortion fanatics are playing a high-risk game that may well bounce back on them; the "rationale" for Scheidler is applicable far beyond money-poor "pro-lifers"-indeed, it might well be used against the tempting riches of the Abortion Establishment (whose members surely "conspire together"?) itself. Oremus.

Without doubt, history shows that legal fiats-even the "final solution" of Roe v. Wade-can end up producing results never dreamed of by their black-robed authors. As it happens, Mr. Robert Destro next weighs in with an analysis of what has been happening to Roe itself-and what more may happen soon. We won't attempt to describe his closely-reasoned arguments here, but we will serve up a tantalizing morsel. It has been assumed that Roe made the unborn non-persons before the law, but what of the "embryos" created for in vitro fertilization? They are obviously alive: Do they have rights, or are they merely "property"? Frozen (for "future use") embryos cannot be aborted, so Roe doesn't apply: What law does? It's all news to us, as it may be to you (if you start this one, you'll finish it).

Professor Hadley Arkes has appeared in our pages several times before. Indeed, it seems he appears everywhere several times; he is a most prolific commentator on social and political affairs, yet he is unfailingly capable of a "different view" even on over-reported issues. Here, in an article that first appeared in The Weekly Standard (the still-young Washington conservative magazine), he injects a new insight into the vexed "partial birth" abortion debate. Again, we won't attempt a summary; his arguments will carry you along to his proposal, which certainly belongs in our permanent record of the Abortion Wars.

Wesley Smith has also appeared here previously, and he too has become a prolific commentator on another front in the total war, having become the attorney for the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force. Did he know what he was getting into? Euthanasia-wearing its many bogus masks ("Death with Dignity" et al.)has become politically-correct chic, a Disneyland of the "hard-case" scenarios once used to promote legalized abortion. Originally, of course, the claim was that the terminally-ill should enjoy a "right to die" that would end their pain; that was merely the "wedge"-the agenda is to snuff out what the pre-Nazi German doctors labeled "lives unworthy of life"-Dr. Kevorkian is just giving away the game plan (and getting away with it!). So it is no surprise that doctors now resent being used as mere agents of death: they now bid to decide who will enjoy the "right" to be killed.

That is a grisly subject Mr. Smith tackles here: "Futile Care Theory" argues that while you may want to prolong your earthly life, doctors should decide if it's more "cost-effective" to polish you off. Who is promoting such a dogma? Why, says Smith, our Medical Elite, doctors who have "discarded the once self-evident truth that all human beings have equal moral worth." That truth was of course thrown overboard by Roe v. Wade; the difference is, whereas none of us can be aborted, the "futile life" may be yours, even if you are a doctor.

Our final article is . . . not that; indeed, it may well be the most unusual piece we have ever run. An Australian friend who saw a version printed in a journal there sent us a copy, saying (he'd inquired) there was actually more in the original text. We were stunned: the story-line is straight enough; a woman thrilled to have had an in vitro baby later faces the fact that the "process" also produced five "sibling" embryos. What does she want done with them, since the time-limit for frozen "storage" has run out?

She wrote down her agonizings in a journal, excerpts of which you get here. It is beyond us to attempt commentary, this is one you must read for yourself! But there is one thing that sprang into mind as we read it first: our Abortion Establishment rejects the very notion of any "Post-abortion Syndrome"-they insist that women feel no guilt for having killed an "unwanted" baby-hand us a Magic Wand and we'd make every one of them read this story, which ought to bring tears to their eyes. Oh yes: some "drawings" were available; it turns out that they figured in the text, and so we asked for one, which we have reproduced where it fits. If, after reading her "jottings" you find yourself praying for her, you're in our company.

As usual, we have a number of relevant appendices, beginning with an important piece from the distinguished legal scholar Mary Ann Glendon (Appendix A) that in fact covers a great deal of the recent history of abortion as an international issue. Specifically, Glendon recounts the strange case of President Bill Clinton's willingness to veto the long-awaited bill "regularizing" the U.S. status at the U.N. (by paying long-withheld dues) simply because it would endorse the U.N.'s own anti-abortion policy. But as we've noted above, when abortion is the issue, the ordinary rules don't apply?

In Appendix B you get an unusual commentary from an unusual man: Ben Stein is a multi-talented actor, author, and lawyer who is well-known to TV viewers and movie-goers as well as his many readers. But perhaps the most unusual thing about him is that he lives in Hollywood, yet openly holds anti-abortion views that are politically incorrect in the extreme. They are also powerful, forcefully written and, as you will see, exactly compatible with William Murchison's lead article: Americans may think ours is "A Golden Age" because of the trippling numbers on the stock exchange, but there are "some other numbers"-such as some 37 million abortions since Roe-that should shame us all.

As we say, we are fortunate in having pieces that fit well with our featured articles; in Appendix C you get one that adds chapter and verse to Ellen Fielding's epistle on telling the truth. Mr. David Gelernter gained "fame" via being maimed by one of the Unabomber's devilish mailings; after a long and painful time, he wrote a book (Drawing Life: Surviving the Unabomber) that will remain unforgettable to anyone who has read it-if you haven't, you should, it is a noble statement of faith. Here, Gelernter focuses on recent examples of successful lies-the facts no longer seem to matter. As it happens, one of his examples you will find reprinted here as well (see Appendix E below), so you can see for yourself whether Gelernter is right in his somber conclusion that "our national conversation has broken down" because of our failure to respond to untruths.

Next we have feisty Columnist Maggie Gallagher (Appendix D), who rarely fails to command attention with her no-nonsense prose. And-Guess what?-here she takes off on the very Kass v. Kass case that Robert Destro analyzes expertly above, but of course Gallagher gives you not legal passions but human ones, e.g. "Meanwhile, Maureen Kass' heart is breaking; what mother's wouldn't?" And she vividly adds to Destro's point: Can "embryos"-obviously living humans-really be mere "property"? And even if so, couldn't they be "donated" to some other infertile couple? Mr. Destro is right: we have by no means heard the last of the cold-blooded decision in the Kass case.

As promised, you next get (Appendix E) one of the stories Mr. Gelernter cites above, and you can indeed see for yourself how "disinformation" has dominated the "partial birth" abortion controversy. Fact is, in this one piece Matthew Scully may well have produced the best short summary of the whole affair-and of course he in turn complements the article by Hadley Arkes. True, regular readers of this journal have read it all before, but in a dozen different pieces, whereas here you get a valuable synopsis, complete with all the important names and dates-you may want to keep this one handy.

There is still more in our bag of tricks: next we out-do ourselves by having Mr. Wesley Smith add another commentary (Appendix F) to his own featured article, but we think you will agree that it is an excellent addition because-as we noted above-Jack "Doctor Death" Kevorkian is the personification of the "right to die" agenda. And in this short but powerful piece, Smith gives you the truth about Kevorkian and his crimes that you don't get in the "regular media"-the smirking ghoul is surely the only Serial Killer ever to achieve Star status? What kind of society celebrates such cold-blooded inhumanity? Good question.

We conclude with one more trick: in Appendix G you get a very down-to-earth description of what it's like to have an abortion. The "Would-be Mother" is all too usually left out of the ideological polemics that strait-jacket the public abortion debate-but there is always a formerly-pregnant woman left alone after a "successful termination"-Why did she do it? What does she think now? Again, we've already given you a classic case above (even though the woman involved agonized over "mere" embryos, not an actual abortion); here, you get an added dimension. What about the "guy"? Whatever happened to "shotgun weddings"? Another good question, albeit a rather disturbing one to leave you with-but then "our" issues aren't kindly or calm ones, are they? Maybe next time we'll provide lighter fare. Meanwhile, enjoy our cartoons-which are funny (a friend writes "Cartoons in a serious quarterly?-what a marvellous idea!").

J. P. McFADDEN

EDITOR

Copyright Human Life Foundation, Incorporated Summer 1998
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved