Ross Douthat attempts to use logic rather than misogyny and religion to defend abortion bans.
The problem today is the same problem SCOTUS faced in Roe v. Wade. How can we establish the legal right to life of the fetus? Historically, all sorts of different lines have been drawn from conception to child survival of infancy. Then, the justices picked a line that would seem to have the most popular support, ie., let the woman decide. Between the fetus and the mother, the mother certainly has the stronger right-to-life. Medically, we don't sacrifice the mother in favor of the child if such a stark choice is called for. Douthat doesn't seem to get that. He comes down on the idea that the fetus trumps everything else. He refuses to see that whenever the fetus ranks higher than the mother, we are using law to lessen the status of a full-fledged person against an organism that cannot survive independently. The uncomfortable truth is that developing humans are not legal persons, yet.
He also ignores the demonstrated fact that abortion rates are minimized in societies where women have full control over their childbearing. Women do better and babies do better when women are in control.
No comments:
Post a Comment