On his blog, Andrew Rosenthal of the New York Times writes, “Abortion is legal. It is a safe medical procedure. And it is rare. That’s exactly how it should be. Government has no business violating women’s privacy rights and making decisions about their reproductive rights. It is the worst kind of ‘big government’ imaginable.”
On the claim that abortion is a “safe” medical procedure: it isn’t a particularly safe medical procedure for the unborn child being aborted. As for abortion being rare, there are roughly 1.2 million abortions performed in the United States each year, meaning more than 3,000 per day, and approximately 50 million since the legalization of abortion in 1973. According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.
But let’s focus most of our attention on the claim that conservatives who believe a society should protect life, including innocent, unborn life, are acting in a profoundly un-conservative way by supporting “the worst kind of ‘big government.’”
To begin with: Does Rosenthal believe government should take a stand against abortion when it comes to children in their eighth month in utero and/or children who were marked for abortion but were delivered alive? If Rosenthal believes government should be neutral on such matters, his views are monstrous and radical. If, on the other hand, Rosenthal believes government should say “no” to some abortion procedures, he is acknowledging that at some point the protection of the unborn is, in fact, a state interest. The difference he therefore has with those in the pro-life movement is where he draws the line, not that a line needs to be drawn.
Which brings me to the matter of line drawing. Where does Rosenthal propose to draw it? What objective criteria should we use when it comes to the point at which unborn life should be protected? Brain waves and brain activity? Substantial development of the nervous system? When the unborn child feels pain? When organs, arms and legs develop? Heartbeat and blood flow? Sentience? Rationality? Viability outside the womb? In the second trimester? The third? And then ask yourself this: What medical or moral basis is there to say the state should protect unborn life during the second (or third) trimester but not during the first? The answer is: There is none.
Critics of the pro-life movement, when pressed on the matter, simply throw a dart on the board and decide, for entirely arbitrary reasons, when human life has sufficient value to warrant protection from the state.
It’s worth pointing out as well that on the matter of abortion, we’re dealing with human life. That’s not a “religious” judgment; it’s a scientific one. The fetus is indisputably alive and, if it comes to full term, it won’t be a giraffe or a coyote; it will be a human child. Infants are released from the hospital to go to a home, not a zoo. The question, of course, is at what point in the developmental stage one ascribes moral significance and the protection of the law to unborn life. Intelligent and honorable people disagree on this matter. But even liberals writing for the New York Times must acknowledge, at least to themselves, if not
publicly, that at some point the entity in question has a legitimate moral and legal claim on society; that at some point puncturing the skull of an unborn child and sucking out her brain is an act a decent society should oppose. And even Andrew Rosenthal, if he can escape for just a moment from his left-wing catechism, would see how misguided it is to insist that having government protect the most defenseless members of the human community is not the “worst
kind of ‘big government’ imaginable.” There are, in fact, horrors even worse than defending unborn children.
Abortion is a major moral issue that is too expansive to be dealt with so arbitrarily as through a unanimously pro-life or pro-choice mantra. My view is that an established life is more valuable than a potential life that is not yet born, a viable fetus that is 7 months old takes precedence over a 3 month old fetus, and that a 3 month fetus is not the same as a fertilized egg. Are you not capable of arriving at the same moral distinctions? As an Orthodox Jew, I cannot unilaterally oppose abortion, for example, when the mother's life is in danger by a rodeif. In such a case, the mother should be saved. I don't think abortions should be given capriciously, but they shouldn't be prevented outright. n n nAs far as whether or not abortion is in the interest of the state: the constitution doesn't say one way or another. Certainly the constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy (if it did, it would be legal to murder one's spouse in the seclusion of one's home). I'd prefer if Conservatives didn't play with the Constitution as a rubber band the way Liberals do, and suggest an unborn fetus has a right to due process, for example.
Perhaps the point of this article leads to a viable option to change the focus of the debate. If those who are pro-life could work in steps — say, getting a debate going that a doctor shouldn't be able to throw an infant who survives an abortion attempt into the garbage, or get Congress to pass a law that starts out "Since Kagan lied to push for partial birth abortion, we modify the law thus …" It won't get what pro-life wants this immediate moment, but if the arguments can be changed to focus on abortion as doctors murdering patients for money, maybe other changes will someday follow.
I've been mulling this in my head. I just think this article is overreaching to deny that any other moral or rational system disagrees with his viewpoints. n nCommentary is supposed to be highly variegated, but Jewish. The Jewish view (which Rosenthal doesn't represent) of abortion is more subtle than (what I suppose is) the Christian perspective. While Judaism leans pro-life, it is not hidebound in the same way, and in fact rationally and morally makes distinctions rather than throwing darts. n n
There is a moment coming in our country's history when attacks by the U.S. Government on religious freedom will be fought out in the streets. Mark my words. Obama did lie in his State of the Union message when he said no federal money under the new Obama Care law would require or be spent on abortions or post coital abortion medications. He lied to the Catholic Bishops about this and threw liberal Catholics under the bus by endorsing Sibelius' " new "laws" requiring catholic institutions and medical personnel to enforce the new law. To many of us partial birth abortion is murder as is the destruction of a developed fetus that can live outside the womb and those who provide this procedure are simply murderers. I support women's rights but not murder, and I, for one, will be in the streets at the front of the crowd to oppose this unbearable and unconstitutional affront. I took an oath to support the constitution of the United States when I entered military service. I fought in an unpopular war as a patriot, and, as a patriot, I will do whatever needs to be done to fight this unconscionable law. Stand with me.
As much as both sides talk of Roe vs Wade, they tend to ignore the court's basic decision, which was a compromise. n nInitially it was framed in terms of trimesters. Currently it is that a person has a right to an abortion until viability. It may not be a perfect solution, but it is one that the population more of less will accept. n nUnfortunately, groups both on the right and the left have developed a vested interest in continuing the dispute. Even if there was a perfect solution, it would not be accepted for they prefer the controversy.
Abortion is legal during all 9 months of pregnancy, until birth. (Doe vs. Bolton)