Abortion Surfaces with the Gloves Off
I have not heard a word from any candidate about abortion. Finally, the NYT leads off its editorial page with the gloves off. No mincing of words now: women’s penumbral “rights” to the privacy to abort is pitted against the “preposterous” measure in South Dakota to “redefine the term ‘person’ in the state’s Constitution to include fertilized human eggs.” Neither stupid nor slow, the Times warns that “no one should be fooled.” What in effect is being put on the table is “bestowing on fertilized eggs, prior to implantation in the womb and pregnancy, the same legal rights and protections that apply to people once they are born.”
The language continues to be downright aggressive while it fesses up to what it’s all about: “The amendment…. carries broad implications, ranging from harmful to downright ridiculous. Potentially, it could ban widely used forms of contraception, curtail medical research involving embryos, criminalize necessary medical care and shutter fertility clinics. A damaged fertilized egg might be eligible for monetary damages.” They are parsing out for us what the smallest child already knows about the swelling in mommy’s tummy.
Further, they note that “most 15 year olds who find themselves pregnant instinctively turn to a parent for support and guidance.” This is obviously bad since it “would make it difficult for young women caught in abusive situations to obtain an abortion” since [and now it gets sordid] it may be the case “where the father or step-father ... caused the pregnancy.”
Since this issue is really the issue at the heart of the nation and this election – even of the economic debacle, it should be brought out with the same gloves off disclosure as the NYT. If the Times can say this with such forthrightness and fearlessness, the real truth of the human person as fertilized egg – the center of the culture of life - needs to be shouted from the housetops. Now.