No amount of discussion, no citation of evidence, can alter the opinions of radical feminists about abortion. One evening I naively remarked in a talk that those who favor the right to abort would likely change their minds if they could be convinced that a human being was being killed. I was startled at the anger that statement provoked in several women present. One of them informed me in no uncertain terms that the issue had nothing to do with the humanity of the fetus but was entirely about the woman's freedom. It is here that radical egalitarianism reinforces radical individualism in supporting the abortion right. Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote Roe and who never offered the slightest constitutional defense of it, simply remarked that the decision was a landmark on women's march to equality. Equality, in this view, means that if men do not bear children, women should not have to either. Abortion is seen as women's escape from the idea that biology is destiny, to escape from the tyranny of the family role.I'm not suggesting that women "must bear children"- only that consenting to sex is consenting to its consequences, and this applies to both sexes. To openly choose murder in order to advance "equality" strikes me as bizarre in the extreme. It is a consequence of pitting virtues against one another, rather than attempting to balance them. It is a consequence of putting personal ideology over biological fact. Who here is the mystic? Who is being logical and reasoned? The whole thing is worth your time.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Equality trumps Diversity? Robert Bork on abortion: