In regard to Mia Eisner-Grynberg’s Wednesday, 10/8 Forum column entitled “Keep your laws off my body: The Missouri abortion law, Part II,” there are a few thoughts I would like to offer.

First, abortion remains entirely legal in the state of Missouri and in every other state in the nation. The constitutional right granted by the Roe v. Wade decision is still intact. Yet, the new legislation begs the question: if a woman cannot postpone her decision to have an abortion by a mere twenty-four hours, then is it truly the best decision that she can make? I must take issue with Ms. Eisner-Grynberg’s claim that any woman who arrives at a clinic seeking an abortion has already spent enough time considering the consequences of her decision. Many women rush into abortions thinking it is their only choice, only to regret doing so later in life. If I, as a male, am not a credible enough authority for stating so, then consider the case of Norma McCorvey, who was “Jane Roe,” the plaintiff in the Roe vs. Wade case. McCorvey spends most of her time these days on the speech circuit as a pro-life advocate.

Second, Ms. Eisner-Grynberg still does not address the fact mentioned in several responses to her original column that Planned Parenthood and other abortion services providers stand to profit from a woman having an abortion. Thus, an abortion services provider cannot qualify as an objective distributor of abortion related information when consulting with prospective female patients. Despite this, the new legislation states the meeting twenty-four hours prior to the abortion must be held at the location of the provider. If the legislation were to state that the woman must receive the information concerning the abortion at, say, a Catholic Church, then I would understand Ms. Eisner-Grynberg’s ire. Who can honestly imagine a pregnant woman visiting a Planned Parenthood clinic only to hear them say, “You know, you really shouldn’t get an abortion-it’s wrong.” At best, it is extremely faulty logic on Ms. Eisner-Grynberg’s part to conclude that an abortion services provider would offer any pro-life rhetoric or persuasion; it would simply be a bad business practice.

Additionally, Ms. Eisner-Grynberg’s article mentions her involvement with the National Organization for Women and its decidedly pro-choice position. The routine of many pro-choice advocates who laud abortion rights under the more respected and less controversial guise of women’s rights is becoming increasingly tiresome. Indeed, there are many feminists (www.feministsforlife.org) who would agree that “abortion is a reflection that society has failed women.” Pro-choice advocates have forced their cause into the area of an honorable one-that of equal rights for women. Early feminists like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Mary Wollstonecraft must be rolling in their graves, for they were all pro-life.

Abortion in our time has become so convenient that much of society has developed an indifferent stance in regard to its moral implications. Others will state, “Personally I’m opposed, but who am I to judge?” This line of thinking may well constitute the biggest piece of sophistry floating around in society today. If a person can recognize what an evil and horrible thing it is to murder an unborn child, then he or she ought to recognize that that applies to everyone. If one can acknowledge the sheer brutality of abortions, he or she ought to have the conviction to declare it as universal-that the inherent human dignity of an unborn child is not dependent on utilitarian notions. The intrinsic good of being a human being does not disappear just because some misguided men and women do not realize it. As a pro-life advocate, I cannot let sit the idea that this is simply just a different valid viewpoint. We are talking about something deeper than tax cuts, free trade, or foreign policy issues; these views concern the wanton destruction of the most innocent among us.

Leo Tolstoy wrote in 1852, “It is true that slavery is an evil, but an extremely convenient evil.” The same can be said for abortion in our time. The end of legalized abortion is not near, but the new legislation may help remind us that the means of going through with such a serious act ought not to be as simplified and consequence-free as our society has made it.

Popularity: 1% [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 15th, 2003 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Forum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.