Get the feed!
Palin follows her pro-life logic
Read the article / show / issue that provoked me to write a letter and my response below that or go straight to my response
Date Posted on this Site
September 18, 2008
Publication
Toronto Star
Publication Date
September 17, 2008
Published Content
There are at least 101 reasons not to vote for Sarah Palin - insofar as anybody votes for the bottom of the presidential ticket - many of these exposed, or rather reinforced, over the past week of campaigning and in that wince-inducing Charles Gibson interview.
But her inflexible position on abortion isn't one of them.
The pro-choice majority - which includes me - is not all of the same view on reproduction rights always favouring the mother. Many of us take a dim view of late term and partial-birth abortions unless the mother's life is at risk. Such terminations may occur only infrequently but that doesn't make the issue any less relevant. Infanticide is also a rare occurrence yet it's still on the books as a crime.
Palin has some wacky ideas, if maybe not quite as gaga as presented in the original deluge of Sarah-Who? reportage. For example, this daughter of a science teacher merely suggested that creationism be taught in the classroom alongside the regular curriculum, which is what happens in Toronto's Catholic schools and just about every faith-based learning alternative. There may be no place for this in a secular public school system - my opinion - but that's a different argument. Her creationist views are not extreme in the context of religious beliefs. Even hard-nosed scientists have found ways to reconcile what they know, on the evidence, with what they don't know, spiritually.
It's the literal reading of Scripture - The Word - that separates evangelicals from more rational beings, many of whom take their Bible lessons just as seriously. Absolutism is the great divide.
Yet absolutism is just as divisive in the abortion debate, a conversation that so fatigued Canadians we simply stopped having it, at least in a political and judicial forum.
What those of us on the pro-choice side fail to respect is that abortion is no more right an option in unwanted pregnancy - or less wrong, in the alternative - when conception results from rape or incest, or when the fetus is known to have a genetic defect. Intellectually, if one supports the basic premise of a woman's singular right to choose, how the fetus got there is not germane: Whether by accident, by one-night stand or by sexual assault. Emotionally, it doubtlessly makes a great deal of difference, but that's not part of the legal argument either if a fetus has no legal status as a person.
For those adamant that life begins at conception and abortion is murder, there can be no compromise because the fetus is not to blame. I don't agree with this but I understand the moral logic. This puts evangelical Christians on the same moral wavelength as the Catholic Church and other monolithic religions.
Palin, by refusing to abort a baby she knew would be born with Down syndrome, was consistent with her beliefs when put to an anguishing test. Or maybe there was no anguish at all. For some, the moral clarity is just that certain. Of course, she would make no allowances in instances of rape and incest.
The problem with the Republican party is they would impose those views on everybody else, by hook or by crook, by right-wing judges appointed to the Supreme Court or by denial of state funding for abortion services. It's right there in the Republican platform bluebook: "We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life."
That, not Sarah Palin's personal and unyielding veneration of the embryo, is worth rejecting.
My Response Letter
Ms. DiManno needs a biology lesson.
She writes that "For those adamant that life begins at conception and abortion is murder, there can be no compromise because the fetus is not to blame. I don't agree with this but I understand the moral logic."
Life that begins at conception is not "moral logic"; it's science!
Any first year biology textbook explains that human life begins with a one-celled embryo (or zygote), which is formed with the union of an egg and a sperm. For example, "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology" by Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., clearly states that a "zygote is the beginning of a new human being".
Perhaps Ms. DiManno would like to explain how she disagrees?
Jason Gennaro
Was my response published?
No