| A Question for the Pro-Life Crowd | for everyone |
I really do understand that people feel so strongly about abortion that it becomes their predominant issue. Of course, I don't really know anyone who is pro-abortion, anyone who thinks it's cool, anyone who can't wait to get pregnant so they can have one. In a perfect world no one would want or need an abortion. (Of course, there's an irony in that some of the most adamant, dare I say, evangelical, pro-lifers also oppose birth control, leading to unwanted pregnancies, leading to... well, you get the picture.)
You may have noticed this is not a perfect world.
So to the Sarah Palin Pro-Life crowd, let me share this (true, real-life, personally known to me) dilemma and then pose a question. Young married couple, pregnant with twins. Sadly, one twin is, almost literally, sucking the life out of the other. If carried to term, without intervention, both will die, because the sick twin is actually the stronger of the two fetuses, the one stealing the resources from the other. In this imperfect world of ours, the doctor performed a therapeutic abortion of Twin A. Twin B is now a happy, healthy, normal child, with loving parents.
Here's the question: How do you write a law outlawing abortion that allows for this healthy child to survive? How do you write a law outlawing abortion that lets the family and medical community make the decision that, in fact, is truly the "pro-life" decision. Show me how this law would be phrased and maybe I'll consider revising my "pro-choice" position.
Oh, and for those of you who want to dismiss this case as a rarity, I'll concede that (as you must concede that this real child would, in fact, have not survived). However, I've noticed that rarity does not keep the radical pro-lifers from passing laws, like the one in Missouri outlawing "partial birth abortion" -- outlawing a procedure that had not been performed in Missouri in the preceding (at least 5, I think) years.
Our world is not perfect and life is not simple. It's messy and complicated, getting more so all the time. Beware of those with simple solutions (whether pro-choice OR pro-life).
And although it doesn't change the structure of anyone's argument, here's a final note. This issue has zero personal bearing for me. Were Roe v. Wade overturned tomorrow and abortion made illegal in every state in the union, should someone I loved need an abortion, she'd get it, because we have the resources to go the safe, legal clinics in North America or Europe that will continue to operate outside U.S. borders.
Bill Berndt wrote on Jan 21, '09
ReplyDeleteNo one knows their true feelings about this issue until they have a personal stake in the decision. Every opinion is purely hypothetical until YOU actually are confronted with the decision. I'm tired of the debate. The law is what it is and it's not changing in my lifetime. Next topic, please.