Saletan on Roe
By Diogenes (articles ) | Mar 07, 2006
Vexed, like many pro-aborts, by the way its flaws have made the Roe v Wade decision unworkable, Willam Saletan does some nail-biting for the benefit of the Washington Post.
Politically, legally and technologically the 33-year-old court decision is increasingly obsolete as a framework for managing decisions about reproduction. But only the abortion rights movement can lead the way beyond it. The anti-abortion groups can't launch the post-Roe era, because they are determined to abolish its guarantee of individual autonomy, and the public won't stand for that. It must be up to reproductive rights supporters to give the public what it wants: abortion reduction within a framework of autonomy.
Let's decode that. In what sense are anti-abortion folks determined to abolish individual autonomy? In the sense that we want a law against abortion, as indeed there are laws against other forms of homicide. It is the logic of all law, as Prof Hadley Arkes says, to replace private choice with public obligation. Those who, e.g., support laws against child molesting want to abolish individual autonomy -- specificially, the autonomy of the child molester -- in a way no different than the pro-lifer does vis-à-vis the abortionist.
Saletan has more going for him than the standard newsroom harlot, and must be able to see the sophistry of his own point here. He's doing battle on two fronts (trying to shush the trolls at NARAL so as to give abortion-on-demand a more voter-friendly face), and he may find it necessary to engage in what Joseph Sobran calls "ho-hum hysteria" to reassure the Katha Pollitts that his heart's in the right place. On the other hand, it may be that Saletan actually shares the paranoia we see constantly in the gay rights crowd: a No to abortion would be a No to the sexual revolution, and revolutionaries don't suffer setbacks gladly. In that case Saletan's chicanery would have been effected with malice aforethought, in the belief that excess in the service of autonomy is no vice.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Spring Challenge Grant
Progress toward our Spring Challenge Grant goal ($25,000 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: frjimc -
Mar. 07, 2006 8:34 AM ET USA
Neither can we say that excess in the service of vice is in any wise "autonomy."
Posted by: patriot6908 -
Mar. 07, 2006 8:15 AM ET USA
"Reproductive rights" has that wonderfully mechanical ring to it that one might associate with responsible driving or truth in packaging. It's a petri dish term that tries to undermine the intimacy and beauty of bringing a child, made in the image of God, into our world. A term that might have easily been employed in 1938 Berlin or 1950 Moscow. A term that also sets the stage for loading people on to boxcars.