Margaret Christopher's recent column ("Pro-choice or pro-life? Neither position makes sense," March 28) makes a disturbing case for the continued legalization of abortion. While she deserves credit for at least examining each side's premises, her conclusion is quite alarming, as it ultimately sanctions the taking of innocent human life.
She argues that a fetus is a "living being" that is biologically different from its mother; however, the mother still has the right to abort that life if she deems it appropriate. Furthermore, only women (not our government) can make such a determination because it would reduce women's freedom and equality. Therefore, the question should not be whether abortions should remain legal, but how to prevent them.
In taking such a position, though, Christopher destroys her own argument. She rightly argues in one breath for the fetus' humanity; even a zygote satisfies the criteria for biological human life (including unique genetic coding, metabolism, development, the ability to react to stimuli and cell reproduction). However, in the next, she denies the fetus the chance to be born and exercise his or her humanity. A contradiction in logic, pure and simple.
The taking of innocent life--by definition--is murder. There is no ethical defense for killing someone who is innocent, no matter how great the inconvenience to another person may be. That is, we may never kill innocent person A for person B. Moreover, the idea that only women can determine the fate of an unborn child is spurious, for it presumes that the child's life is subordinate to a woman's freedom, even when that freedom entails killing another.
Our philosophical tradition does uphold governmental intervention in cases where innocent human life is at risk, which is where the argument correctly hinges: If the fetus is not human, then government has no right to intervene. But if the fetus is indeed human life, as Christopher admits, then the government, whether it includes men or not, has a moral responsibility for guarding the life of one who cannot defend him or herself.
It is one thing to deny that an unborn child is not really human until after birth; it reassures the conscience that terminating life is not all that horrible. But it is quite another to admit to a person's humanity and then still argue for the "right" to decide whether to end that life. This brings into question whether that conscience is even operative.
Wayne Wilkins
Fuqua '94
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.