One-hundred and fifty years ago today, Gen. John F. Reynolds made the crucial tactical decisions that would start the Battle of Gettysburg, then became one of its first fatalities.
Reynolds was widely admired for his personal qualities and military skill—we have found no recorded negative comments by his contemporaries—and scholars today generally share the assessment. (Shelby Foote called him perhaps the best general the Army of the Potomac had.) Yet as Edwin C. Bearss records in Fields of Honor, Reynolds’ death revealed that the well-liked man had a secret:
As his aides loosen his collar, they find two Catholic medallions hanging around his neck. This is surprising because he is not Catholic, and none of them knows that he is seriously interested in any woman.
They carry Reynolds’ body to the rear, with instructions to send it to his home in Lancaster after it is laid out in Philadelphia. And as they’re laying him out on July 4, with his sisters there, a lady comes in. She is Katherine “Kate” May Hewitt. Kate has his West Point ring and tells his sisters that they met on a boat from California to New York and that they’re engaged.
Reynolds was a Protestant, she a Catholic. That is why he had not told his family. The two agreed that if he was killed and they couldn’t marry, she would join a convent. After he’s buried, she will travel to Emmitsburg and join the St. Joseph Central House of the Order of the Daughters of Charity.
Reynolds’ last words—meant martially but also capable of being read spiritually—were, “Forward men! For God’s sake forward!”
Regrettably, things did not work out in quite so straightforward a manner. Hewitt later left the Sisters of Charity and lost her Catholic faith, receiving burial in a non-Catholic ceremony in Stillwater, Minnesota—far from the man she loved and from the church to which she had hoped to devote her life.
In recent days Ryan T. Anderson has emerged as perhaps our most prominent and articulate defender of marriage. He’s been especially ubiquitous after the Supreme Court’s rulings on DOMA and Prop 8, his written responses to which are gathered below:
Polygamists are celebrating the Supreme Court’s marriage rulings, Buzzfeedreports:
The Supreme Court’s rulings in favor of same-sex marriage Wednesday were greeted with excitement by polygamists across the country, who viewed the gay rights victory as a crucial step toward the country’s inevitable acceptance of plural marriage.
Anne Wilde, a vocal advocate for polygamist rights who practiced the lifestyle herself until her husband died in 2003, praised the court’s decision as a sign that society’s stringent attachment to traditional “family values” is evolving.
“I was very glad… The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore,” said Wilde. “Now it’s grandparents taking care of kids, single parents, gay parents. I think people are more and more understanding that as consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose.”
“We’re very happy with it,” said Joe Darger, a Utah-based polygamist who has three wives. “I think [the court] has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that’s certainly something that’s going to trickle down and impact us.”
In a press release today, the Catholic Bishops led by Timothy Cardinal Dolan and Salvatore Cordileone call the Court’s DOMA ruling “tragic” and also lament that it failed to uphold Prop 8:
Today is a tragic day for marriage and our nation. The Supreme Court has dealt a profound injustice to the American people by striking down in part the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Court got it wrong. The federal government ought to respect the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, even where states fail to do so. The preservation of liberty and justice requires that all laws, federal and state, respect the truth, including the truth about marriage. It is also unfortunate that the Court did not take the opportunity to uphold California’s Proposition 8 but instead decided not to rule on the matter. The common good of all, especially our children, depends upon a society that strives to uphold the truth of marriage. Now is the time to redouble our efforts in witness to this truth. These decisions are part of a public debate of great consequence. The future of marriage and the well-being of our society hang in the balance.
Marriage is the only institution that brings together a man and a woman for life, providing any child who comes from their union with the secure foundation of a mother and a father.
Our culture has taken for granted for far too long what human nature, experience, common sense, and God’s wise design all confirm: the difference between a man and a woman matters, and the difference between a mom and a dad matters. While the culture has failed in many ways to be marriage-strengthening, this is no reason to give up. Now is the time to strengthen marriage, not redefine it.
When Jesus taught about the meaning of marriage – the lifelong, exclusive union of husband and wife – he pointed back to “the beginning” of God’s creation of the human person as male and female (see Matthew 19). In the face of the customs and laws of his time, Jesus taught an unpopular truth that everyone could understand. The truth of marriage endures, and we will continue to boldly proclaim it with confidence and charity.
Now that the Supreme Court has issued its decisions, with renewed purpose we call upon all of our leaders and the people of this good nation to stand steadfastly together in promoting and defending the unique meaning of marriage: one man, one woman, for life. We also ask for prayers as the Court’s decisions are reviewed and their implications further clarified.
Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker has sent a letter of protest regarding the University of Miami’s dismissal of Colin McGinn for harassing a female graduate student. “Such an action,” says Pinker, “would put a chill on communication between faculty and graduate students.” Pinker further fears that McGinn’s dismissal will stymie “the openness and informality on which scholarship depends.”
That depends on your definition of openness and informality. One of the messages, according to the Chronicle, was about how McGinn had been thinking about the student while masturbating. She described the messages, which McGinn continued to send over several months, as ”extremely inappropriate and uncomfortable.”
“We’re in the middle of a debate, with neither side’s position ‘inevitable.’ This discussion is healthy for our democratic republic. And it would be wrong for the Supreme Court to shut down this conversation prematurely.” So says Ryan T. Anderson commenting on the Supreme Court’s gay marriage cases in a helpful primer at National Review.
If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation.
This is a familiar refrain, one with a certain intuitive appeal, but studies are increasingly undermining it. As Ashley Rogers Berner wrote in our December 2012 issue, a 2008 study by David Campbell compared civic engagement among students from Catholic, religious non-Catholic, secular-private, assigned public, and selective magnet schools and found that students at non-state schools—which are largely religious—performed better. This was particularly pronounced in the case of Catholic schools.
Campbell’s results held even accounting for family factors like parental income, education, and religiosity and school-based factors like size and mandatory community service. So why is the president presenting religious education as divisive instead of as something that enriches the social order? That he spoke in Northern Ireland explains why he picked out Catholic and Protestant schools, but it does not excuse his mistake.
Of course, education’s aims are academic even before they are social and civic. Here, too, religious schools outperform their public counterparts. As Rogers Berner concludes: “William Jeynes, a professor of education at California State University, recently analyzed multiple studies and data sets exploring the link between religious schooling and attainment and concluded that religious education helps all children academically, but particularly helps minority and low-socioeconomic-status students close the achievement gap.”
Fr. George Rutler, pastor of the vibrantly orthodox Church of Our Saviour in midtown Manhattan, is being reassigned to St. Michael’s Church in Hell’s Kitchen. In his latest weekly column, Rutler acknowledges a quiet campaign against the reassignment:
I was gratified that so many wanted me to stay here, and Cardinal Dolan was not unaware of that when he decided that he has other tasks for me to undertake.
But Rutler insists on the importance of obedience to his bishop:
I promised obedience to the Cardinal and to his successors, and I have done that and continue to do that and shall do that until all my earthly shepherds turn me over to the Chief Shepherd.
Under the Church’s universal canon law, priests are appointed “for an indeterminate period of time,” (can. 522) and can only be removed according to a set procedure and for specific reasons. However, the canon law also allows bishops’ conferences to create set terms for priests at which point they can be reassigned at the bishop’s will (thus skirting the wrangling that might otherwise arise during an attempted reassignment). In the U.S., the set term for a priest at a parish is six years. Rutler has served two six-year terms at Our Saviour and now, at the end of his second term, is being reassigned.
Term limits are certainly good for bishops who otherwise would have to find different ways to move problematic priests, but they also make it difficult for a priest to feel true fatherhood for his parish. As soon as he gets to know his parishioners, he has to face the prospect of a move. As George Weigel writes in today’s column, the appropriate time for a priest to be at a parish will vary from case to case but “certainly can’t be measured in un-renewable terms of office”:
Once Evangelical Catholicism has taken hold in a parish—the gospel is being preached with conviction, the liturgy is being celebrated with dignity, the parish is attracting many new Catholics, religious and priestly vocations and solid Catholic marriages are being nurtured, the works of charity and service are flourishing, and the parish finances are in order—moving a pastor out because “his term is up” is about as old Church, as institutional-maintenance Church, as you can get.
Those who might lament Rutler’s reassignment are unlikely to have the full facts and so must be cautious in drawing conclusions. Any frustration would be better focused not on this particular reassignment but on the general institution of terms for priests, which shapes this case and all others.
The Weekly Standard‘s outstanding John McCormack asked Nancy Pelosi to identify “the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth?” (Pelosi opposes legislation that would ban the latter.)
“As a practicing and respectful Catholic,” Pelosi responded, “this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this. I don’t think it should have anything to do with politics.”
Pelosi’s unreasoned invocation of religious identity almost makes one wonder if the Know-Nothings were right.
Almost. The Catholic church emphatically teaches that protecting innocent life is a “political” matter, a duty of every moral community. Speaker Pelosi, meanwhile, needs to learn that being Catholic does not necessarily preserve one immaculate from error and above all criticism.
Mr. McGinn . . . denies allegations that he behaved improperly. Those allegations were lodged by a female graduate student who has said that the professor sent her a series of sexually explicit e-mail and text messages, starting in the spring-2012 semester. . . Mr. McGinn wrote that he had been thinking about the student while masturbating.
McGinn, a wide-ranging but not terribly careful critic of religious belief, wrote in 2008 that sexual abuse in the Catholic church was “made possible” by “unquestioning obedience to the authority of the representatives of the church, i.e. priests.”
McGinn also has held up the idea of “atheist as ‘role-model’” which he calls a “revolutionary concept”:
[Atheists] make up in morality what they lack in belief; whereas believers have to do so much work to believe that they have no energy left over for morality. The depravity of the Catholic Church is a nice illustration.
Yet the abolition of the priesthood would not mean the end of clerisies, nor would it stop the abuse of authority. As Colin McGinn’s sad case reminds us, a world without faith is not a world without sin.
It may sound like an unlikely number one best-seller for any country, but even more so in secular Norway.
Yet the Bible, printed in a new Norwegian language version, has outpaced Fifty Shades of Grey to become Norway’s most popular book, catching the entire country by surprise.
The sudden burst of interest in God’s word has also spread to the stage, with a six-hour play called “Bibelen,” Norwegian for “the Bible,” drawing 16,000 people in a three-month run that recently ended at one of Oslo’s most prominent theaters.
Officials of the Lutheran Church of Norway have stopped short of calling it a spiritual awakening, but they see the newfound interest in the Bible as proof that it still resonates in a country where only one percent of the five million residents regularly attends church.
Andrew Cuomo’s abortion bill may lead to forced abortions, warns New York’s Cardinal Timothy Dolan in a June 4 press release issued jointly with the bishops of New York state:
We are profoundly distressed by the introduction of a bill in New York State today that would ease restrictions in state law on late-term abortion and runs the serious risk of broadly expanding abortion access at all stages of gestation. This legislation would add a broad and undefined “health” exception for late-term abortion and would repeal the portion of the penal law that governs abortion policy, opening the door for non-doctors to perform abortions and potentially decriminalizing even forced or coerced abortions. In addition, we find the conscience protection in the bill to be vague and insufficient, and we are concerned about the religious liberty of our health facilities. While the bill’s proponents say it will simply “codify” federal law, it is selective in its codification. Nowhere does it address the portions of federal laws that limit abortion, such as the ban on taxpayer funding, the ban on partial birth abortion or protections for unborn victims of violence.
As the pastors of more than 7.2 million Catholic New Yorkers, we fully oppose this measure, and urge all our faithful people to do the same, vigorously and unapologetically. We invite all women and men of good will to join in this effort and defeat this serious attempt to expand abortion availability in our state and to codify the most radical abortion proposals of any state in the nation.
We support the first nine points in the Governor’s agenda that enhance the true dignity of women. We commit ourselves to examining those proposals and working with the legislature on any and all efforts that help guarantee real equity for all women and men. Our position on these issues will be consistent with all the efforts of the Catholic Church throughout the world to enhance the dignity of women. The direct taking of the life of a child in the womb in no way enhances a woman’s dignity.
Instead of expanding abortion and making abortions even more prevalent, we would like to protect both the woman and the child in the womb. In New York, where one in every three pregnancies ends in abortion (and upwards of 6 in 10 in certain communities), it is clear that we as a state have lost sight of that child’s dignity. We pledge all our efforts to defeat this proposal. We call on all pro-life New Yorkers to stand together with us and with all the leadership in Albany who share our conviction that we have no need for such a bill to become law. We need instead to enhance and promote the life and dignity of all human beings from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.
Even as Chris Christie announced that he would fill Frank Lautenberg’s senate seat with an August 13 special election, conservatives banded together under the hashtag #appointRPG to call for the interim appointment of one of their most articulate leaders: Princeton professor Robert P. George.
Steven Hayward, a blogger at Powerline wrote, “Memo to Gov. Christie on Senate vacancy. Two words: Robbie George.”
Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of American United for Life, jumped on the bandwagon, saying “Let’s get it going”:
Yair Rosenberg, a writer for Tablet told Christie to “make it happen”:
Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek asked her followers to take up the cause:
Meanwhile, the Cato Institute’s Walter Olson panned the idea:
I have no doubt that George would oppose such an idea even more strenuously than Olson, and not just out of humility. It’s hard to see him winning the seat outright in New Jersey’s deep-blue sea.
Still, Governor Christie would be canny to put George on the shortlist for any interim appointee. Looking forward to 2016, Christie will need the support (or at least not the active opposition) of social conservatives. As this grassroots campaign demonstrates, few proposals would do more to galvanize that crucial bloc.
If we accept that Governor Christie should seek the best person to fill a possible Senate vacancy, the case for Robert George is compelling. He is already engaged in the central political debates of our age, he has been a valiant defender of the sanctity of human life, he takes a balanced conservative view of fiscal issues and of foreign policy, and he has the energy and charisma to communicate his ideas, and to follow through on his promise.
A new app called “Texas Bible” replaces “you” with “y’all” in English bible translations wherever the original language used a second-person plural. John Dyer, its creator, explains:
Just about any time I teach from the Scriptures I have to point out a place where the English Bible says “you,” but the original Hebrew or Greek indicates you plural rather than you singular. This means the original author was addressing to a group of people, but a modern English reader can’t detect this because in common English we use “you” for both singular (“you are awesome”) and plural (“you are a team”). This often leads modern readers to think “you” refers to him or her as an individual, when in fact it refers to the community of faith. . . .
It turns out there are at least 4,720 verses (2,698 in the Hebrew Bible and 2,022 in the Greek) with you plural translated as English “you” which could lead a reader to think it is directed at him or her personally rather than the Church as a community.
Today the British House of Lords began debate on a bill that would create a right to gay marriage. Speaking before the body, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby panned it:
The result is confusion. Marriage is abolished, redefined and recreated – being different and unequal for different categories. The new marriage of the bill is an awkward shape with same gender and different gender categories scrunched into it – neither fitting well.
The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost. The idea of marriage as covenant is diminished. The family in its normal sense predating the state and as our base community of society is weakened.
For these and many other reasons those of us in the churches and faith groups, who are extremely hesitant about the bill in many cases, hold that view because we think that traditional marriage is a cornerstone of society and rather than adding a new and valued institution alongside it for same gender relationships, which I would personally strongly support to strengthen us all, this bill weakens what exists and replaces it with a less good option that is neither equal nor effective.
“It is not at heart a faith issue,” said Welby. “It is about the general social good.”
The concept of success leads me to consider so-called meritocracies and their implications. We have been taught that meritocratic institutions and societies are fair. Putting aside the reality that no system, including our own, is really entirely meritocratic, meritocracies may be fairer and more efficient than some alternatives. But fair in an absolute sense? Think about it. A meritocracy is a system in which the people who are the luckiest in their health and genetic endowment; luckiest in terms of family support, encouragement, and, probably, income; luckiest in their educational and career opportunities; and luckiest in so many other ways difficult to enumerate–these are the folks who reap the largest rewards.
The only way for even a putative meritocracy to hope to pass ethical muster, to be considered fair, is if those who are the luckiest in all of those respects also have the greatest responsibility to work hard, to contribute to the betterment of the world, and to share their luck with others. As the Gospel of Luke says (and I am sure my rabbi will forgive me for quoting the New Testament in a good cause): “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.” Kind of grading on the curve, you might say.
It’s a basic enough observation but a necessary one. Aspiring consultants and financiers who might yawn this away if said by a minister or rabbi are likely to take it much more seriously coming from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who as much as anyone is the high priest of our meritocracy.
Timothy George, the distinguished theologian and leader of Evangelical-Catholic dialogue, is the newest fortnightly web columnist for First Things. His first piece, which contrasts the spiritual outlooks of Pope Francis and Katharine Jefferts Schori, calls on Christians to take seriously spiritual combat:
Like the robust faith of the New Testament, this kind of affective Christianity embraces the charismatic, the visionary, and the apocalyptic. These are all held in deep suspicion by those who still find spiritual warmth in the dying embers of rationalist religion. As Kenya’s Musimbi Kanyoro wrote, “Those cultures which are far removed from biblical culture risk reading the Bible as fiction.” . . .
Near the end of his life, Karl Barth declared that the next great theological frontier would be the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The pontificate of Pope Francis makes this task an urgent necessity for all who love the Church and wish to see her united in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life. Those of us in the Northern climes can begin to take this work seriously by learning to read the Scriptures alongside those on the front lines of spiritual combat.
More here. George, a Southern Baptist, joins a growing list of regular Protestant contributors including Peter Leithart, Russell Saltzman, James R. Rogers.
The universe is “built in a way that to me suggests intelligent design,” says Stephen King in an interview with NPR:
If you say, “Well, OK, I don’t believe in God. There’s no evidence of God,” then you’re missing the stars in the sky and you’re missing the sunrises and sunsets and you’re missing the fact that bees pollinate all these crops and keep us alive and the way that everything seems to work together. Everything is sort of built in a way that to me suggests intelligent design. But, at the same time, there’s a lot of things in life where you say to yourself, “Well, if this is God’s plan, it’s very peculiar,” and you have to wonder about that guy’s personality — the big guy’s personality. And the thing is — I may have told you last time that I believe in God — what I’m saying now is I choose to believe in God, but I have serious doubts and I refuse to be pinned down to something that I said 10 or 12 years ago. I’m totally inconsistent.
Via Prufrock, Micah Mattix’s excellent email newsletter on literature. (Subscribe here.)
On this Memorial Day it’s worth returning to David Mills’ thoughts on the difficulty and necessity of feeling proper gratitude for the sacrifices made by others:
I know that from their sacrifices and losses I and those I love gained much (and much we take for granted), but I find it hard to feel gratitude, or to feel it as strongly as I think I should. It’s mainly a thing to do with the children, and the day is hot and muggy, the different bands play over each other, the fire trucks blare their sirens at a painful level, a disturbing number of local politicians drive by grinning and waving. The sooner the old men march by, the sooner we can get back out of the sun.
People raised when and where I was were robbed of the pleasures and the lessons of gratitude. We were taught that any national hero or patriotic story could be exposed as at best a mixture of good and evil, and more likely as an act mainly of self-interest or desire, when it wasn’t simply made up by the mythologizers.
The woman who confronted two men who beheaded a British soldier in London this week credits her Catholic faith with giving her courage:
A mother of two who calmly confronted the Woolwich attackers on Wednesday has attributed her courage to her Catholic faith.
Ingrid Loyau-Kennet, a practising Catholic, told the Daily Telegraph: “I live my life as a Christian. I believe in thinking about others and loving thy neighbour. We all have a duty to look after each other. A whole group of people walking towards those guys would have found it easy to take those weapons out of their hands. But me, on my own, I couldn’t.”
Mrs Loyau-Kennet was travelling on the Number 53 bus through Woolwich in south east London on Wednesday afternoon when she saw a man lying in the road. She immediately got out to help him.
She said: “I took his arm to feel his pulse. There was blood on the pavement where he had been dragged and blood was pouring out of him. Suddenly this excited black man came up to me and said: ‘Get away from the body; don’t touch it.’ I looked up and I could see red hands, a bloodied revolver, bloodied meat cleaver and a butcher’s knife. OK, I thought, this is bad.”
After speaking to the first suspect, Mrs Loyau-Kennett asked the second suspect “if he wanted to sit down and give me what he had in his hands”.
Mrs Loyau-Kennet remained with the soldier, identified yesterday as Drummer Lee Rigby, despite an onlooker advising her to move away. She said: “I told her I wasn’t leaving; as long as I don’t see professionals here, I’m staying. He knows me; he knows I’m calm. I’m not afraid whatsoever. I’ll stay until something happens.”
Trevin Wax subscribes to complementarianism—the belief that men and women have distinct but complementary roles in society and church—but thinks its culture prone to certain excesses:
a reticence or hesitance to affirm and celebrate women’s contributions in local church ministry, particularly contributions that are more up-front and visible.
a warped vision of manhood that focuses on calloused hands and physical labor and ignores other kinds of work.
the assumption that marriage is always better than singleness, so that singles feel like their identity is wrapped up in not having a spouse.
unwillingness to celebrate any evidence of gospel ministry or fruit among those with a more egalitarian viewpoint.
an unexpressed expectation that the godliest women have quiet and introverted personality types, and cannot be assertive and outgoing.
a competitive tendency that leads to unhealthy individual comparisons and rushed judgments, rather than extending grace to one another.
a spectrum of “holy” and “holier” choices with regard to a child’s education (from public school all the way to homeschooling).
As a side note, in the Romanian villages I served in, the idea of women seeing their role as either inside or outside the home didn’t make sense. Families did whatever it took to put food on the table, which meant the women were just as active outside in the garden and fields as the men were. The kitchen duties were split, depending on whatever item was going to be cooked. The man was the head of the household, but the roles were not as specific or limiting; neither were these activities extrapolated as timeless specifics for everyone everywhere.
The danger, Wax says, is that subtle definitions of complementarianism advanced by its leading thinkers end up translated into blunt cultural expectations on the ground. Ideas of manhood and womanhood that are external to the faith are presented as essential to it.
In his column for today, George Weigel says that President Obama’s April 26 speech to Planned Parenthood contained “nothing short of blasphemy”:
President Obama concluded his remarks as follows: “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you . . .”
And that is nothing short of blasphemy.
Too harsh? No. For in its discussion of this grave sin against the Second Commandment, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 2148) teaches that “it is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to . . . reduce people to servitude, to torture persons or to put them to death.” That is precisely what happens in Planned Parenthood abortuaries. And on that, the president of the United States called down the divine blessing.
A Philadelphia abortion doctor convicted of killing three babies who were born alive in his grimy clinic agreed Tuesday to give up his right to an appeal and faces life in prison but will be spared a death sentence.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, was convicted Monday of first-degree murder in the deaths of the babies who were delivered alive and killed with scissors. . . .
Prosecutors agreed to two life sentences without parole, and Gosnell was to be sentenced Wednesday in the death of the third baby, an involuntary manslaughter conviction in the death of a patient and hundreds of lesser counts.
Given Gosnell’s age, it was very unlikely a death sentence ever would have resulted in an execution. Yet the law is a teacher, and the decision to spare the death sentence is sure to be variously read either as an act of mercy or a denial of justice.
In today’s Gosnell coverage, some of the nation’s most prominent media outlets called Gosnell’s victims “fetuses.” The New York Timeswrote that “the defense battled over whether the fetuses Dr. Gosnell was charged with killing were alive when they were removed from their mothers.”
Meanwhile the AP said with matter-of-fact ghoulishness, “That left the jury to weigh charges involving fetuses identified as Baby A, Baby C, Baby D and Baby E.”
These are straightforward medical inaccuracies (no human outside the womb can be called a fetus) that conceal a moral lie. To call a baby, born or unborn, a “fetus” is a way of distancing ourselves from its humanity by means of medical terminology. Once we start referring to unwanted children in the womb as “fetuses,” we pretty soon start speaking of them outside the womb that way, too.
That the Times and AP likely committed these solecisms unintentionally only reinforces how they reflect the logic of abortion rights, a logic that works whether we like it or not to undermine flimsy distinctions between born and unborn, baby and fetus.