Over here at Marshall Art's new blog, in the comments thread, I am involved in an ongoing discussion of the issue of abortion. Before your eyes roll, etc., let me just say that my interlocutor, going by the nom de computer Mom2, has asked me to personalize the question, rather than discuss it dispassionately (at least, as dispassionately as possible). My response was easy. Having gone through the whole pregnancy thing twice, my wife and I were conscious of the hazards involved, and the difficult choices we might face should serious complications arise. I will be blunt and say that, for me, if ever the choice was forced upon us, while not forcing anything, I would, as I said in comments there, with great regret and without hesitation, do what was necessary to save my wife's life and/or future reproductive health.
I wrote those comments last night, and at work last night I got to thinking about them in the context of the broader issues of "choice" and healthcare. As abortion is still a medical procedure, it seems to me a perfectly reasonable way to consider the subject. In the first place, I think it is important to say that, while the event never transpired (thankfully) where we had to even glance in the direction of abortion, I am glad the option is a live one. Were that option closed, especially in a situation where my wife's life and/or health were threatened, and no choices were left, not even the bad choice of losing a fetus to save a life - I would be enraged. To have one's medical and ethical decisions made for them, especially when the issue is so dire is a presumption and imposition of the most tyrannical sort.
The same, more broadly, applies to the whole issue of healthcare. Whether it is the lack of coverage that tens of millions of Americans face, or the denial of coverage by insurance companies that effectively ends treatment, considering the pro-life movement within this broader context of the limitation of personal choice is the tyranny of the minority. In some cases, the reasons presented are economic; in some others, moral or religious. In either case, they show a decided lack of healthy respect for the human ability to make decisions for themselves, and to take upon themselves the burden of making difficult choices. I do believe that is the heart of the anger at both instances of corporate presumption - insurance companies in their way, and the pro-life movement in its way each would tell others that the choices they make are the incorrect ones, and their lives and health are better managed by others who know better.
Balderdash.
