Just when you think that the hard left has gone soft, that
they’re all either multi-culti sentimentalists or “fact”-obsessed
technocrats, an essay like this
one over at Salon comes along. As her title
(“So what if abortion ends life?”) makes clear, Mary Elizabeth
Williams is impatient with her coevals on the left, who blather and
equivocate whenever they’re forced to talk about abortion.
The essay itself is, alas, far from the model of clarity that
Williams seems to have intended it to be. In fact, it’s a bit of a
mess. In one paragraph Williams praises the efforts of Planned
Parenthood to move the abortion debate beyond the rhetoric of
“choice” and “life,” while in the next she mentions “the dirty
tricks of the anti-choice lobby” and refers to “[us] on the
pro-choice” side. So I’m wondering: does Williams think that
“choice” is a fudge or not? If so, why does she continue to use it
as a label? For my part, I tend to agree with her that “pro-life”
and “pro-choice” are both wanting in descriptive power, and suggest
replacing them with “pro-life-under-any-circumstances” and
“pro-death-at-the-whim-of-the-mother-though-never-that-of-the-father”
respectively.
A bit later Williams gloats over the fact that “seven in 10
Americans [are] in favor of letting Roe v. Wade stand.” Well, to
borrow from her title, “So what?” Let the figure be eight or nine
out of ten Americans: only 2.88839328 ×
10-6 percent of us are Supreme Court justices. How
many Americans can explain to me the legal reasoning behind the
Court’s decision in 1973? (Here’s
the text of the Fourteenth Amendment: find me what it says about a
“right to privacy.”)
Her essay really, err, takes off in her fourth paragraph:
Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All
life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals
like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like
death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm
troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having
the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the
boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her
health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous
entity inside of her. Always. [bold mine, MW]
“All life is not equal”: This is the language of slave owners
and totalitarians. It is also, in its way, a legitimate
metaphysical and ethical stance, albeit one that, as a Christian, I
find emetic. (After all, one can observe that
person x and person y are
unequal in the sense that they exhibit marked differences in
natural ability, attainment, etc., due to hereditary and other
factors, without believing
that x or y is lacking in
metaphysical dignity or any less beloved of God.) It’s hard for me
to see, though, how the entire project of egalitarianism, which is
itself the result of a kind of weak misreading of the ancient
Christian belief that we are created in God’s image, does not
collapse once one admits “all life is not equal.”
“[N]on-autonomous”: Is a newborn infant “autonomous”? A toddler?
An eight-year-old? At what point do young homo sapiens become
“autonomous”? The inordinate amount of time upon which a young
human is completely dependant upon its mother (i.e.,
“non-autonomous”) is one of the most distinctive characteristics of
our species. Really I guess I’m wondering why, if a person’s not
being “autonomous” makes it okay to kill him or her, a mother
shouldn’t be able to chuck her crying, expensive three-year-old
into a river if the fancy strikes her? “She’s the boss,” right?
Still, I can’t help but feel that, despite her attempt at plain
speaking in the above paragraph, Williams remains a bit squeamish,
at least rhetorically speaking, about the actual implications of
her position. Recall her title: “So what if abortion ends life?”
Well, when “life” ends, we call that “death”; and when “death”
comes as the result of someone delibarately ending the life of
another, we call that “killing.” So why not write “So what if
abortion is killing?”
(Thanks to Rod
Dreher over at the American
Conservative for bringing this essay to my
attention.)
C'mon Man!| 1.25.13 @ 2:45PM
You, Sir, are wise beyond your years. I am a 50 yr old man, and have trouble finding wisdom such as yours among my peers. Please keep writing as you do, hopefully the light will shine on your generation, mine, and those to follow so we end that horrendous "practice" so callously practiced by the party of death - unless you are a convict.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.25.13 @ 2:49PM
Perhaps she would prefer Pro-Death to Pro-Choice.
Butch| 1.25.13 @ 3:31PM
"Non-autonomous." My hometown newspaper is a good, independent, conservative paper whose editor is published in the "Conservative Chronicle." However, the letters to the editor section are primarily filled with liberal screeds of nearly identical content spewing daily HuffPo talking points. This past week, the section was nearly entirely filled up with these--all published on the same day--citing their horror that there were those pointing out the hypocrisy of those "horrified" over Newtown, but who were simultaneously absolutists on abortion. The words "offended," "I take offense," and "shame, shame on you" were in every one.
I thought about sending a response in to all of them pointing out that Newtown could be thought of as post-natal abortion, inasmuch as all those six-year-olds were also "unviable" without their mothers. But I didn't. I'm sure everybody caught on
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.25.13 @ 4:24PM
Non-autonomous is synonymous with dependent. In theory, following Frau Wilhelm's logic, couldn't anyone receiving a government be also considered non-autonomous, and as such also be terminated?
It looks like the Progressives might be highlighting their Eugenics agenda again.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.25.13 @ 4:26PM
"receiving a government "
That would be government benefits check or transfer.
Jim Adcox| 1.25.13 @ 4:37PM
14th amendment begins: "All persons born . . ." So does that make the unborn an unperson? Is that how the unborn can be perceived as a nonperson? Since the unperson resides in the female person's womb, then does that female person then have the right to do with the unperson as she wishes? (Hold on, hold on, I think I'm almost to the beginning of a shadow of a penumbra that can glimmer with the light of the right of privacy--No, wait, never mind, I was just making shit up).
sydney escort | 1.25.13 @ 10:17PM
Of course it's killing. It's already have life.
Dai Alanye | 1.28.13 @ 12:57PM
"Officer, officer! Help me."
"What is it, mam?"
"Someone just killed my friend, Mary Elizabeth Williams."
"So? What difference does it make?"