Letters to the Editor
-
To Del, and others
Your message may have been a little too subtle for this hot-button issue and for this forum, but I understood it and appreciated it.
Although I consider myself pro-choice, I think my side loses the argument -- and wastes time and energy -- when we attack the people or the motives of people who call themselves "pro-life." For example, many abortion opponents DO oppose the death penalty (the Pope, for one). I don't know that there's any point in dwelling on anyone's logical inconsistencies. Instead, maybe we should strive to present a coherent, sensitive, respectful argument to preserve abortion rights. It's a tall order, and I don't have any easy answers, but here's an example of what not to do: refer to babies as "spawn." Earlier on, there was a message referring to "rapists' spawn." That's just unnecessarily polarizing. I can certainly understand and support anyone's decision to have an abortion after a rape, but it must be recognized that you can't blame the child for a parent's sins and that, indeed, there are women who bear and dearly love children who are the result of rape. This has been the case in Rwanda, for example.
I also agree with the comment that the MoveOn organizer should have called all Democratic candidates "pro-life."
-
...enslaving people is wrong, period.
Emmet Peter: The concept that those who support choice are "pro-death" is utterly ridiculous. Do you really think those who advocate giving women the choice do so because they derive some perverse pleasure in killing an blastocyte/embryo/fetus/person (or whatever name you apply)?
The reason women must have the opportunity to choose is just what you said - enslaving people is wrong. Slavery is defined as "bondage: the state of being under the control of another person." A women with an unwanted pregnancy may CHOOSE to undergo 9 months where her body is largely controlled by another person. The choice is voluntary. Its entirely different if the choice has been made by someone else, someone who thinks there personal beliefs should control the actions of others. That's slavery - the woman is no longer has control because she's controlled by her womb.
Let's all admit that. Its all well and good to value every life, but that includes the life of the women. If you want to say that an unborn whatever is more important, that's your opinion. I just don't want to be a slave to your opinion.
-
More than inconvenience
Dell writes "But she should be willing to suffer these things to save the life of the baby."
Others have pointed out that pregnancy and childbirth are much more than inconvenience. So I'll skip that.
I would be the first to applaud any women who bore the child. What she SHOULD be willing to do is of course a matter of opinion and is entirely irrelevant. We are talking about what the state should be able to FORCE her to do.
At least as long as Justice Stevens is alive and well, no person or state can REQUIRE her to use her body to sustain the life of another person. That's slavery and *currently* considered unconstitutional. It's also a violation of the equal protection clause if an entire class of people (pregnant women) is required to loan body parts to others (including a 40% increase in strain on the heart), while men and non-pregnant women are free to refuse to loan or donate body parts (even blood) to other people, including their own children.
(A parent SHOULD BE WILLING to do this for their child. But we cannot REQUIRE it.)
When I bring up the bodily integrity issue the only argument my anti-abortion friends fall back on is the argument that consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy. While that assertion is itself debatable to say the least, it leaves their side with no argument against allowing abortion at least in the case of rape. No argument, that is, that isn't emotionally based OR actually reduces the status of the pregnant woman to LESS than the status of the baby.
-
Emmet Peter replies to Anonymous -- sorry, it's not about opinion
Many people are of the opinion that certain people should have been enslaved. We did not allow people's "opinions" to trump human rights. The abortion question is that -- does the unborn have rights that trump your opinion? You can argue that the unborn does not, but you need to make a sound argument for your position. My simple question for pro-choicers is this - at what point in an unborn child's development should its rights be respected? Even if you pick a day, a week, a month, that's more than most pro-choicers will concede. I have utterly no interest in controlling women's bodies, policing peoples' sex lives, etc. Indeed, I'll acknowledge that outlawing abortion is probably impractical and may lead to a worse situation than the one it seeks to eradicate. But you can't convince me that that's because of anything more than pure human selfishness. I know, I've been there, I've been through an "unplanned" pregnancy, and it was my firm belief in my child's RIGHT to exist, not in my "opinion" that carried the day. I believe abortion is a fundamental human rights violation, period, and yes, I believe the life of the innocent unborn is equal to, if not superior, in value to that of its parents. I feel the same way about all born people -- I have no right to take their lives unless they are attacking me, period. I think euthanasia's wrong, the death penalty is state-sponsored murder, and the Iraq War violated the just war theory. Abortion is simply one form of the self-centered madness that has come to grip our nation's consciousness. We, who have life, somehow have decided we may dispose of others who somehow inconvenience us. That, Anonymous, is my opinion. If you fear that, so be it. At least you know your life is protected in my world. I'm not so sure mine is secure in your's.
-
Response to Emmet Peter--
You claim that abortion is a human rights violation which is not open to “opinion.” Yet you continue to use the term “believe” or “belief” in your argument rather than stating facts. In the absence of facts, all you have is opinion. In non Judeo-Christian cultures, “human rights” don’t necessarily comply with our definition. All religions and cultures don’t have the same values or rules. If you were from China or India I doubt you’d have the same opinions.
You claim that pro-choice is a manifestation of selfishness. Although the decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is ultimately an individual issue of morality and conscience, it is unfair to assume that all decisions to do so are motivated by self interst. If the practical considerations regarding abortion were all exclusive to personal concerns, you would be right.
However, the practical considerations of legalized abortions effect not only the individual, but the society as a whole.
Long before there were religions, we humans realized we needed the protection and assistance of our fellows, i.e., we needed membership in a society. It shouldn’t surprise any of us, then, that 5 of the Ten Commandments regard human relations among members of a society. The lesson is far-reaching: if we are not diligent in preserving the integrity of our society, then we all suffer.
It’s only in the context of the welfare of the society that you can “justify” a war, for instance. It’s in the very same context that you can’t justify disallowing the right to terminate unwanted pregnancy when society has abrogated its parental rights and obligations. When our Judeo-Christian G-d commanded, Thou Shalt Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother, He placed a responsibility upon us as parents (i.e., the adults of the society) to 1) abide by His laws, 2) take care of our children and 3) teach His laws to our children and make them good citizens. As parents we are not WILLING to take responsibility for and adequate care of our existing children (and adults) that no one wants.
Collectively, we have shirked our G-d given duties as "parents." Despite what you may believe, there are NOT enough people willing to be foster and adoptive parents for the children we already have. We have homeless people and children walking the streets. We have tens of thousands of children that are abused or neglected. These are our discards-children we have deemed to be without value, unworthy. What of their human rights?
Who are the selfish ones, those who want to eliminate the greatest suffering or those who want to impose their morality or beliefs onto a society with no thought to the consequences or costs of doing so?