The fetus is dead

In retrospect the Supreme Court decision yesterday should not have been a surprise.

The political left prides itself on being the protector of the less-well-off. They fought slavery with religious zeal. When nobody thought a Catholic could be elected president, the Democrats nominated one. They're likely to nominate a white woman or a black man next. The left is for sheltering the homeless, feeding the hungry, taking in the immigrant, for good pay and safe jobs.

In many ways the political left can be summed up as being opposed to the abuse of the powerless by the powerful.

This is why the abortion issue has hurt the left. Over the last 30 years the left has sought to sanctify the birth canal, claiming for it the moral power of granting entitlement to life. On one side, tissue. Pass through, be blessed, and be worthy of protection.

And comes the inevitable rejoinder: "what if this tissue is passed through the birth canal before an abortion, is it not annointed? If life begins at birth, does not a partial birth result in at least a partial life?"

It is a fair point, one that must be acknowledged. From a moral, philosophical, and scientific standpoint there is nothing fundamentally different about the fetus inside the mother's womb at nine months and the infant emerging minutes later at birth.

They are morally equivalent.

There is, slowly developing, a person whose life depends on a myriad of sacrifices made and risks taken by the woman carrying it. To choose not to carry those responsibilities and let that nascent life end, is a tragic choice - though perhaps the least tragic remaining.

The public understands this.

But in the desire to protect women from being treated as second class citizens, the left has employed the callous language and ideology of the fetus as tissue, displaying an intentional moral blindness that they themselves so often criticize in their opposition (as when we hear that Jesus would have favored a cut in the capital gains tax).

How many prospective parents talk about how their "fetus" is doing?

All the while, medical technology advances, and with it the viability and visibility of the life inside a pregnant woman. By not acknowledging this life, the pain of its loss, and the gruesome similarity of some procedures to infanticide, the political left undermines its credibility and claims to moral superiority.

The same happened when President Bush watched an unfolding tragedy in Iraq and claimed everything was fine. The public stops listening until the obvious ugliness was addressed and the requests for support made in light of it. People understand hardship, but the don't tolerate being patronized (just ask Al Gore).

Yesterday, through their elected and appointed officials, the American people said that if society's right to care for the life of a fetus stops at the birth canal, then it starts there, too. The myth cuts both ways.

So why do we object? Not because we feel a fetus has been granted "human" status and rights.

No, we object because the government is exerting its control over a woman's body in the name of another. Just as when women were the property of their fathers and their husbands. Once men could rape their wives with impunity; her body belonged to him. That history is why we object so bitterly to the court's ruling. The court is effectively saying that there is a legal right to injure a woman, granted to the government on behalf of a child. If the child had been born, and needed a kidney or bone-marrow transplant from the mother to stay alive, many people would feel the mother is morally obliged to risk her health for the life of the child, but very few people would be comfortable with the government compelling the woman to undergo a risky medical procedure. Yet pregnancies are risky.

I believe this is the essence of the more-honest dialog we need to begin with America. Acknowledging the moral imperative of protecting those in need, acknowledging the increasing moral standing of the life growing, the deep sadness that any person feels when they cannot choose to carry a life and must let it end, the great moral questions this raises, but emphasizing that freedom means freedom to make mistakes, even tragic ones, that we are a nation of free people, that when a government can force you to put your health at risk against your will, you are not free. That even when we deeply disagree with the morality of another's actions, when those actions fundamentally affect their own health and future, we must be humble enough to leave the judging to the individual, her doctor, and her God.

And that to the extent that we want to take action to avoid the tragedy of unwanted pregnancy and abortion, we should focus on making the situation rare and the alternatives better, without adding extra burdens or coercions to an already heavy decision.