Posts
No Mention of the Rights of Women
After leaving the Bush White House
conservative Michael Gerson has had a career as a columnist for the
Washington Post. Because he has written thoughtful commentary at
times he deserves a listen-to when
he tries to justify eliminating the right of women to end a
pregnancy. His main argument is that by outlawing abortion the
nation is expanding rather than contracting rights and inclusion.
It
is the antiabortion movement that appeals to inclusion. It argues for
a more expansive definition of the human community. It opposes ending
or exploiting one human life for the benefit of another. There are
heart-rending stories that prevent the simplistic application of this
approach. But most of the antiabortion men and women I know have the
genuine and selfless motivation of trying to save innocent lives.
Of course the saving of innocent lives
by the anti-abortion rights people does not include saving the life
of the infant or the child once they are born. A large portion,
almost certainly a majority of those in the anti-rights camp oppose
government help with health care, education and other benefits that
allow children to lead decent lives.
But the real and fatal error in Mr.
Gerson's piece is his total lack of defense, or even recognition of a
woman's right to control her own body. One must conclude that Mr.
Gerson has no response to the position that the state must not, can
not force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term during a time when the
fetus is not viable. And because he has no response, Mr. Gerson
simply ignores that argument. In that way he joins the rest of the
anti-abortion rights movement, men and women who would use the power
of government to enforce their desires for how a woman should behave
on woman who do not want them to do so.
And of course if Mr. Gerson and others
really wanted to stop abortions, they would spend their time and
resources championing family planning. End unwanted pregnancies and
you end abortions. It's that simple.
No comments:
Post a Comment