Thursday, February 24


David J. Garrow, in this feckless piece of calculated fence-sitting for the "Christian Science Monitor," as published in Yahoo! News, accomplishes two things: first, he underscores how nervous proponents of an immoral cause become when advances in scientific understanding undermine their long-held, but poorly-grounded claims; two, he proves incontestably that the "CSM" is not near the newspaper it once was years ago. Why publish a writer so obviously comfortable with a fence post puncturing his posterior? Garrow should quit pontificating on what might make a better case for continued support of an unconscionable Supreme Court Decision (i.e., Roe v. Wade) and get himself in to see a proctologist. This Op/Ed piece deserves the circle file, not publication in a Christian, church-owned newspaper.

Implicit in Garrow's thinking is that if the human fetus is confirmed by modern science as sentient, if it is a human being simply developing and growing between conception and birth, and if life indeed does begin at conception, then the Right-To-Choose/Roe v. Wade crowd will need a new justification for the outrage it champions -- a more glib piece of ratiocination for what we Pro-Lifers know to be the loathesome slaughter of innocents that is abortion on demand.

You have to read down through the column, as he takes his sweet time getting there, but he eventually offers a solution:

Perhaps pro-choice politicians instead should revive a now largely forgotten abortion rights credo of the Roe era: every child a wanted child. Although the fears of overpopulation that once helped give rise to that slogan no longer resonate, statistics show that the neglect and maltreatment of young children is an even larger problem in American society today than it was three decades ago.

Perhaps no public figure wants to discuss how many fetuses, once born, tragically become victims of neglect. But increased attention to the fetus ought to be accompanied by a more honest public conversation about how often childbirth then leads to child abuse.

Don't you love it? It's comparable to arguing that marriages ought to be annulled on demand in the first nine months after the vows are taken since statistics show that more than 50% will end in divorce. Besides, what's more abusive than abortion itself? And there's not mention one by Garrow of the responsibility or accountability of the parents (whether the child was planned or unplanned), or that every life has value regardless of the circumstances in which that human being may find himself or herself. And certainly no consideration is given by Garrow to the belief that no one's life is predestined or without free choice, or without opportunity for improvement or a change in circumstances. No, if there are slums, orphanages, and abusive or fatherless households, then abortion can preclude a child from the statistical prospect of such less than optimal circumstances. Abortion is, in Garrow's mind, the palliative for the human condition.

We all know that not every child is a wanted child. And we all know that not every wanted child is necessarily treated properly, nurtured, provided for, and caringly loved. Man is not perfect, life is not perfect, and as the book title avers, bad things happen to good people. But repugnant, life-ending, pain-causing, medical procedures to kill babies in utero or ex utero are not the answer to such societal issues, any more than Dicken's Scrooge was right (or moral) in thinking that it was better to have the poor starve and thereby "decrease the surplus population."