Musings Of An Indie Writer| « | The Quilt |
»
|
|
Monday, December 20, 2004
Moral Horror And Political Discourse
has an impassioned piece up about the Democratic Party’s tentative moves to invite pro-life Americans into their parlor. To say the least, she’s a trifle dismissive about it, but for your Curmudgeon, that’s not the main event:
Ever wonder why what the real motive is for rabid infanticide supporters? I used to send links to my column to a group of friends, mostly liberals. Somewhat politically apathetic, they usually responded with a “How are you doing?,” rarely commenting on the column. One day I got a scathing message from one of them. One of my anti-abortion pieces sent her through the roof. She told me off, giving me a history lesson on women’s rights and the run-down on the right to choose, etc.
I was taken aback by the fervor of her response. I’d sent anti-skin color preference articles, anti-NAACP articles, articles comparing white Democrats to slave masters and by implication, blacks liberals to slaves (I thought I catch it with that one.), and nothing so moved her as my plea for the protection of unborn children.
Isn’t it curious that the right to kill babies provokes such passion?
Well, actually, no, it’s not. It’s what Constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe, with whom your Curmudgeon disagrees on just about everything else, called “a clash of absolutes,” and there’s nothing that gets the juices flowing like one of those.
Remember: the pro-choice forces see it as a struggle over who owns a woman’s body, and who may therefore dictate what’s done with it. They may be wrong, but having cast the issue as a rights battle, they have no alternative but to man the barricades. One does not compromise on rights.
The pro-life forces see it as the defense of the innocent and helpless. We, too, see the issue as one of rights: the right to life of the unborn baby. So we tend to be absolutists as well, at least when discussing the moral aspects of the matter.
One of the hardest lessons for the political activist to internalize is that to attack the opponent’s moral position puts him beyond all possibility of persuasion. It’s hard because for the typical activist, there’s a strong moral premise beneath every political position he holds. That’s what fuels his efforts (unless he’s a paid functionary, of course). To keep his moral horror of those who disagree with him properly reined in is about the most difficult thing he could ever try to do.
If you, too, have been jolted by a reaction such as LaShawn received, think more about how you would feel if someone attacked your moral position on an issue about which you felt strongly.
Comments
Absolutely fantastic points…And, it never ceases to amaze me how narrow and focused such a moral imperative can be. For example, the “right to control one’s own body” nearly always translates to the abortion. However, consider that tattoo parlours are not legal in New Hampshire (at least they weren’t when I lived there). By default, the New Hampshire legislature has denied the New Hampshire resident the “right” to deface their skin layers on “their own body.” However, a simple trip south to Taxachusetts and your “rights” are re-installed. Is this not the same premise, less the messy consideration of that fetus thingy?
Posted by IR on 12/20/2004 at 04:34 PMAnd here’s where I (not uncomfortably) straddle that “Rights” fence when it comes to abortion.
I understand that the pro-life side believes that “life begins at conception” - or, more to the point, a fertilized egg is a human being with all attendant rights.
I don’t agree, but I understand.
What I don’t understand is why “pro-choice” advocates don’t realize that that fertilized egg becomes a human being, with all attendant rights, sometime during the gestation period, and those rights are at least equal to the rights of the woman carrying it.
I’ve been particularly struck by the media’s use of the term “fetus” in the case of Lisa Montgomery who killed 8-month pregnant Bobbie Jo Stinnet and then cut her viable baby out of her corpse, intending to keep it as her own.
If the child is alive, it’s a baby, not a fetus. According to Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: fe·tus
Pronunciation: ‘fE-t&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful:
an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birthBut if you support late-term abortion, you MUST call it a “fetus” rather than what it is - a BABY.
Posted by Kevin Baker on 12/21/2004 at 08:49 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
