MARK EARLEY, "Irreplaceable - Why The 'Biological' Argument For Abortion Doesn't Work"

BreakPoint cultural commentary with Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson
http://news.crosswalk.com
http://link.crosswalk.com/UM/T.asp?A1.25.21274.1.939276

April 21, 2004

One day in 1981, when Jeannette Watson was visiting her doctor for a pregnancy checkup, she told him about her congenital hip displaysia. The doctor informed her, "in a few years there is going to be a genetic test to determine early in a pregnancy if the fetus carries that defective gene."

Jeannette, who considered herself pro-choice, responded, "I would never kill my baby because he had hip displaysia."

Jeannette's husband, Alexander Sanger, disagrees. He tells this personal story in his new book, Beyond Choice: Reproductive Freedom in the 21st Century, Sanger is the grandson of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Like his grandmother, Sanger is a pro-abortion activist. To him, the moral of this story is that his wife "simultaneously thinks that abortion should be legal and that it is in many cases wrong"—he considers that a problem. Sanger believes that, like his wife, this country is "pro-choice, mostly." And for him, "mostly" is not enough.

As Sanger reports, the number of Americans who support abortion in all circumstances has changed very little in the three decades since the Roe v. Wade decision. So he wrote the book to share some pro-choice arguments that he hopes will be more convincing than the old ones. He thinks we need to learn to see abortion not just as morally justifiable, but as morally right.

If we base our thinking on biology, Sanger argues, we see that both abortion and birth control are necessary means of taking "control of our reproduction" and making sure our genes are passed along. He claims that it may be in a woman's "reproductive interests" to abort a child who isn't healthy, or for whom she can't care, and try to have another one later when the circumstances are more favorable. This, he says, is the best way of ensuring that her genes will be passed on to future generations. Near the end of the book, he sums up this argument as follows: "The only thing more important than life is the propagation of life."

That statement is chilling. I think if I were Sanger's son, I would be frightened by my father's words, especially when you consider that story of his wife's conversation with her doctor. While he dedicates his book to his son, among others, he claims that any child-his son included, I presume-is replaceable.

And yet I would be surprised if Sanger really believes that about his own child. I suspect he's a lot like the philosopher Peter Singer, who argues in favor of euthanasia for the weak while lavishing care on his sick, elderly mother.

While Sanger is an influential and respected man in some circles, I don't think his arguments are going to be as effective as he believes. Even if you don't believe that each human being has an indisputable right to life, most people can't get past the fact that each human life is unique, that no one is replaceable. If that's the best he can do. I'm afraid Sanger will have to resign himself to the fact that the American public still has some respect left for unborn human life-a respect on which those of us who are pro-life need to continually build.

END OF ARTICLE

Copyright © 2004 Prison Fellowship Ministries.
All Rights Reserved.
Visit the Breakpoint website at: http://www.breakpoint.org.

For more information about Chuck Colson and Prison Fellowship Ministries, visit: http://www.prisonfellowship.org

SUBSCRIPTION INFO
Breakpoint Newletter
* To subscribe, send an email to:
SUBSCRIBE-breakpoint@lists.crosswalk.com or go to
http://www.crosswalk.com/lists
for a complete list of our newsletters.
* Copyright © 2004 Salem Web Network and its Content Providers.
All rights reserved.

TOP OF PAGE

GO TO WRITINGS MASTER LIST

RETURN TO ON DOCTRINE HOME

HOME

WRITINGS

ORGANIZATIONS

Q & A

NEWSLETTER

FAQS

CONTACT

ABOUT

BELIEFS

LINKS

ARCHIVE

FREE BIBLE

STORE