|
CHANGING ATTITUDES TOWARD ABORTION
by Wayne Jackson
According to a recent issue of U.S. News & World
Report (March 1, 1999), Faye Wattleton, former head
of Planned Parenthood, was “crushed” when she
learned that America’s views on abortion are
shifting, apparently toward a more conservative
posture.
In an article titled, “The Joy of Sexual Values,”
senior writer John Leo says that Wattleton’s new
group, the Center for Gender Equality, found that 53
percent of American women think abortion should be
permitted only under special circumstances, e.g., in
cases of rape, incest, or to save a mother’s life.
Only 28 percent favored unrestricted abortions, and
some 70 percent say that more restrictions are
needed.
When UCLA conducted its national survey designed to
gauge the attitudes of college freshmen, it
discovered that support for legal abortions dropped
for the sixth straight year. Over the past nine
years, backing for abortions has dipped some 14
percent.
Those who regard human life as sacred are delighted
to see this transition in thinking. May the day be
hastened when the notorious Roe v. Wade ruling
(1973) is reversed.
We continued to be troubled, though, that many who
view themselves as “pro-life” advocates are willing
to make exceptions, justifying abortions in cases of
“rape and incest.” Their position simply is not
logical.
Consider the following points.
If the fetus within a woman’s womb is a human being,
to take his or her life is murder. If the fetus is
not a human person, why should anyone oppose
abortion under any circumstance? The manner of
conception is irrelevant. Is a child a child,
regardless of “by whom” the conception was
initiated? Of course it is.
Let us think about the matter from this vantage
point. Suppose a woman is raped and, as a
consequence, becomes pregnant (though such
occurrences are extremely rare). Let us also assume,
for the sake of the argument, that for some reason
she carries the baby full term and gives birth. Let
us take it a step further and suppose that she
nurtures the baby for a couple of years. Finally,
she visits a psychiatrist and confides that though
she has tried to love this child, the memories of
her rape have made her a mental wreck; she can no
longer bear to be in the youngster’s presence.
Here is the key question: May she now, with
impunity, kill her offspring? Universally, the cry
will be, “No!” But why not? If rape is a
justification for destroying the child before birth,
why not after birth as well?
Does logic confuse some of our leaders? If abortion
is a moral act, there should be no restrictions. If
abortion is an immoral act, concessions may not be
made to accommodate “circumstances.”
The conception of children, by either rape or
incest, is a tragedy. But one does not correct a
wrong with a wrong. Somehow, though, in the abortion
controversy, two wrongs are supposed to constitute a
right! This ideology is utter nonsense.
This is not at all difficult to understand. The
problem is that politicians, and others of
significant influence (including a host of
clergymen), are simply too spineless to take a
strong and consistent stand on this volatile issue.
When common sense and moral conviction melt in the
face of politics, we are in a sorry state of
affairs.
It is wonderful that attitudes toward abortion are
moving in a more conservative direction. However, we
have light years yet to traverse.
©1999 Christian Courier Publications
|
