Recently, Karen and I have been discussing the fact that so many of the people who differ from us in their opinion about the morality of abortion refer to it as a "hard choice" or some such. To give just one example, Hilary Clinton famously said she wanted abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare." As we've talked, this seems to us evidence of highly muddled thinking. The argument from the Clinton side of things is that abortion is the moral equivalent of having a mole frozen off or a corn removed. So why the concern about the procedure's rarity? If it's not a child we're talking about, a fully human person, then there is no moral import whatsoever to the decision. But if it is, then why should society provide a safe and legalized method of murder, no matter the rarity thereof? Something tells me that such statements are really nothing more than slick evasions, "Bubba bait" (to paraphrase the late Sen. Moynihan), designed to conceal the more controversial opinion that fetal murder is justified in the name of maternal sexual freedom. Simply put, those who make such statements know that there is a human life at stake, but believe that the value of that life is less than the value of being able to sleep with whomever you want without fear of the "consequences" of such behavior. They fear the return of the patriarchal society we left behind so much that they are willing to sacrifice millions of (mostly poor and minority) babies on Aphrodite's altar.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Abortion: A "hard choice"?
Recently, Karen and I have been discussing the fact that so many of the people who differ from us in their opinion about the morality of abortion refer to it as a "hard choice" or some such. To give just one example, Hilary Clinton famously said she wanted abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare." As we've talked, this seems to us evidence of highly muddled thinking. The argument from the Clinton side of things is that abortion is the moral equivalent of having a mole frozen off or a corn removed. So why the concern about the procedure's rarity? If it's not a child we're talking about, a fully human person, then there is no moral import whatsoever to the decision. But if it is, then why should society provide a safe and legalized method of murder, no matter the rarity thereof? Something tells me that such statements are really nothing more than slick evasions, "Bubba bait" (to paraphrase the late Sen. Moynihan), designed to conceal the more controversial opinion that fetal murder is justified in the name of maternal sexual freedom. Simply put, those who make such statements know that there is a human life at stake, but believe that the value of that life is less than the value of being able to sleep with whomever you want without fear of the "consequences" of such behavior. They fear the return of the patriarchal society we left behind so much that they are willing to sacrifice millions of (mostly poor and minority) babies on Aphrodite's altar.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You hit the nail on the head with this one, Joe. Abortion is all about convenience of the mother. People have argued with me that it isn't for convenience, but no one has yet provided any evidence for any abortion not done for convenience of some sort. Murder for convenience. Sad.
Post a Comment