Letters to the Editor
vasumurti
Published Letters: 65
-
finding common ground
[Read the article: The abortion doctor]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Even pro-lifers and pro-choicers have met to find common ground. I am forced to use the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life,” because these are the political labels by which the pro-abortion and anti-abortion sides identify themselves. But they are both misleading.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson (cofounder of NARAL; a physician who presided over some 60,000 abortions before changing sides on the issue), wrote in his 1979 book, Aborting America:
“…the Right-to-Lifers are not in favor of all ‘life’ under all circumstances. They are not in the forefront of the save-the-seals crusade. They are not devotees of Albert Schweitzer’s ‘reverence for life,’ or its equivalent in Eastern religions, in which the extinction of cows or flies somehow violates the sanctity of the cosmos.
“Turning to the human species, they do not necessarily oppose the taking of life via capital punishment. Where were they when Caryl Chessman was executed for a crime he did not likely commit—and a rape at that, not a murder?
“They were likely not notably in the opposition while the United States was sacrificing lives on both sides of a questionable war in Viet Nam.
“They are not ‘pro-life’; they are simply anti-abortion.”
However, Dr. Nathanson goes on to say about those who prefer to be called “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion”:
“This is the Madison Avenue euphemism of the other side. Who could possibly be opposed to something so benign as ‘choice’? The answer is: Almost anyone — depending. The diehard opposition to civil rights and public accommodations for black Americans in the ‘50s and ’60s was ‘pro-choice’ with a vengeance. Some whites wanted the ‘right’ to serve hamburgers or rent hotel rooms to whomever they wished.
“Most of us now oppose the concept of choice in such ugly claims. The true question is, ‘What choice is being offered, and should society sanction that choice?’ In any honest discussion we must focus upon what is being chosen, without hiding behind the slogan.”
Most Americans are neither pro-life nor pro-choice. American public opinion falls somewhere in the middle. We see those on the pro-choice side opposing even reasonable restrictions on abortion.
For example: our laws require parental notification or consent if minors want tattoos or pierced ears; why should abortion be exempt?
The decision to take a life is very grave, so why is it unreasonable to require a 24 hour waiting period, to give a new mother time to think things through, rather than make a decision in haste?
The pro-choice rhetoric that women are capable of deciding for themselves whether or not to carry a child to term means they ought to be able to make informed choices. The informed consent or “women’s right to know” laws advocated by pro-lifers are consistent with pro-choice rhetoric.
Even many on the pro-choice side are uncomfortable with abortion during the later stages of pregnancy, yet they are often reluctant to support a ban on partial-birth abortion: a procedure which is never medically “necessary,” and which former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan likened to infanticide.
In Guerilla Apologetics for Life Issues, Paul Nowak points out that Planned Parenthood opposes even reasonable restrictions upon abortion, such as 24 hour waiting periods, parental notification, informed consent or “women’s right to know” laws, etc.
Nowak writes: “Planned Parenthood opposes clinic regulations, despite the fact that in many states there are more restrictions on veterinary clinics than self-regulated abortion facilities.”
Since the goal of the pro-choice movement is to “keep abortion safe and legal,” why does Planned Parenthood oppose clinic regulations?