Published by Communities At Washington Times, 11-9-10
My column of October 4, 2010 entitled, “When Liberal Values Collide,” recently collected a newer comment, reacting to some challenges about abortion. Sometimes a writer’s response to dissenting opinion inspires an all new article, thus, today’s unusual role reversal, a reader’s remarks followed by a column!
READERS’ COMMENT:
“I am one old American who is slightly to the left socially, and slightly right fiscally so I refer to my beliefs as moderate. I do not agree with abortion philosophically, but I am unalterably opposed to outlawing the practice. I have no desire to force women with an unwanted fetus to the back alleys where they once had to go, if they weren’t affluent enough to go to Denmark or Sweden. I do not believe that we should still be arguing the point since there are too many options to unwanted pregnancies. I believe that abortion is properly the decision of the female who can square it with herself, her doctor, and her God. We men should stay the hell out of it.”
RESPONSE:
How interesting when somebody is against abortion personally but does not want to see it outlawed. With all due respect for an obvious sincere viewpoint, my reader is invited to consider a few tugging, yet seldom asked, questions.
Why exactly are you against abortion? Is it because you believe deliberate pregnancy termination is accomplished only by taking a human life? Should your answer be yes, then why is it OK for somebody else to take a human life? Or are we merely discussing a form of birth control? In that case, why be against abortion “philosophically?”
As for men “staying the hell out of it,” such musings may sound like humble, sanctimonious words from a modern, progressive male, but before allowing popular statements to move faster than a quick card trick, perhaps we’d be better served to back up for a less hasty examination. Naturally, any decent society should embrace women’s rights. Do these rights extend to baby women as well? If there is a living human being inside of a prospective mother, are we not a talking about a body and life of its own or is this unborn child nothing but property? Property was an emotionally charged buzzword embraced by southern plantation owners in Pre-Civil War times. Such proud aristocrats insisted their northern neighbors should “stay the hell out of it.” What right, after all, did Massachusetts or Pennsylvania have to impose personal morality on Virginia or Georgia? The Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott Decision gave legal legs to that position, something to ponder, just in case anyone wants to also quote a similar, more modern, Supreme Court ruling (Roe Vs. Wade.) in which the unborn child is referred to as property (Roe V Wade, section 9:B).
Or would you argue less about property and more about men not understanding the experience of a pregnancy/ abortion? Forgive my crude analogy, but have you ever held up a 7/11 store? No? Does this mean you are in no position to judge others who do hold up 7/11 stores? After all, you have never shared their experience. As a matter of fact, can you think of any situation (aside from abortion) where you personally object to harming innocent people yet publicly condone the action?
Obviously, our most important question associated with abortion asks whether or not a human being has been destroyed, but there’s another related injustice, one seldom discussed or even thought about. People love to embrace “a woman’s right to choose.” Does this sacred right of choice extend to men as well? Can men decide whether or not to be parents? If a guy marries in good faith, agreeing with his wife that they are going to have children together; if his wife then becomes pregnant, only to later change her mind, does he have any say whatsoever? Is a man’s right to raise offspring forever under the jurisdiction of his mate simply because he isn’t carrying their baby in his own body? Think about this! They decide together to have a baby. She changes her mind. She now wants an abortion. Dad may honestly believe his own child is about to be literally killed! Doesn’t matter! Regardless of any personal, moral considerations, this presupposed right to be a parent simply does not exist. Be it birth or abortion, he is barred from participating in any verdict. However, should this very same man impregnate a woman (in or out of marriage) will she not sue him for palimony after he refuses to take responsibility for their child? Would he be able to say, “Wait a minute! This pregnancy has nothing to do with me. It’s her body and her choice whether or not to bring that baby into the world. If she wants him, let her take care of him.” Our poor friend would be laughed out of court.
A summary of today’s peculiar logic: While an unborn infant is inside of a woman, it is hers and hers alone. Her partner has absolutely nothing to do but support her decision. But as soon as a child is delivered, it automatically becomes joint property creating equal responsibility for both. What an amazing difference geography can make, especially when that geography is a womb. Consistency seems to be fleeting.
Since Americans love to brag about choice, we’d be well advised to find a good looking glass, asking our “mirror, mirror on the wall” why choice isn’t offered to all. Such a privilege certainly isn’t granted to fathers. For that matter, unborn babies don’t receive a whole lot of choice either.
Meanwhile, are you aware that many leaders in the various Pro-Life organizations are women? (Feminists For Life and Life Perspectives, serve as two significant examples.) Abortion is not a man vs. woman issue, but rather a point of tension within sexes!
As for a woman “reconciling the decision with her God” are you suggesting abortion is right or wrong only within the context of religious beliefs? Would not a subject such as life and death be just as important to atheists?
Meanwhile, we still haven’t dealt with the biggest elephant in the rooom: How exactly are people defining abortion anyway?
“A termination of the fetus.”
Doesn’t termination mean kill? Isn’t fetus a Latin word for baby? In his novel, l984, George Orwell predicted a time when society would change its speech to nullify the effects of human actions. l984 has arrived. In fact, Newspeak has brought us into 2010 and will travel far into twenty-first century history.
In all fairness, many women, when they have an abortion, do not think of it as murder. In our zeal to call actions what they truly are, let us refrain from harsh accusations. Certainly doctors who perform abortions realize just exactly what they are doing, but young, frightened women, led to believe (for whatever reasons) that abortion is simply another form of birth control, are not cold blooded killers, neither should they be labeled as such.
Still, it is not impossible for people to peer beyond clichés or disguised words. Courage often cures brainwashing, enabling a person to admit that abortion equals death. Interestingly enough, many of today’s Pro-Life advocates are people who at one time had abortions themselves or who were prominently “Pro-Choice.” Three very interesting individuals representing this changed position are; Norma McCorvey, plaintiff in the famous Roe V. Wade case that led to the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling to legalize abortion, Sandra Cano, plaintiff of the companion case, Doe V. Dalton, and Bernard Nathanson, an outspoken doctor who founded the National Abortion Rights Action League and who performed abortions himself.
My friend, these simple observations are offered in a spirit of open discussion. I believe you need to re-think your position. Perhaps you still are not convinced that a human life is at stake. Even so, should we not err on the side of caution? Do not all human beings have a right to discuss ethics, be they male or female? Someday, when society finally concludes that legalized infanticide is being disguised behind a more convenient word, abortion, we will all know what decision needs to be made. Who are we kidding?
Share this on
