The Uterus and Politics: Readers Respond 

By Harry T. Cook 

1/22/13    

Harry T. Cook

Forty years ago today (January 22), the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in a case known as Roe v. Wade 410. U.S. (1973). The ruling, built in part on the constitutional right to privacy discovered in the adjudication of Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965), provided that a woman under certain conditions and time limits could legally seek the termination of a pregnancy. In both cases, the 14th Amendment that mandates equal treatment under law was cited as justification.

Ever since, conservative lobbies of one kind and another -- including the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church -- have challenged the ruling and worked indefatigably for its overturning. Roe v. Wade is debated over and over again in political campaigns. Presidential candidates are hectored about future nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court over whether candidates would favor potential justices on the basis of their known positions on the 1973 ruling.

My essay published on January 11, titled The Uterus and Politics, dealt with the subject of reproductive rights. (If you haven't read it, you can find it here.) Its argument was that men, especially on the grounds of religious belief, should not on the basis of such belief be free to limit women's reproductive rights -- in particular those exercised under the legal umbrella of Roe v. Wade and, even more basically, an informed conscience.

Readers' response to the essay is well worth reading. A sample of that response is presented here as part of the observance of the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and the advancement of women's civil rights it provides.

* * *

Rev. Eileen Ray, Melbourne, Australia:

The book of Numbers, chapter 5, verses 20-22 intrigues me. It appears here that the priest is entitled to induce an abortion in a woman who has been unfaithful to her husband (emptying the contents of her womb). Strange goings on. So there are conditions where abortion is "Biblically acceptable." I agree men should keep out of women's uteri, and stick to their own business. It is between a woman and her god (if she has one) to decide the best way forward when she becomes pregnant. The decision to abort is extremely rarely taken lightly, if ever. In fact, abortion is a moral dilemma. Some say that a woman has no right to abort if she thinks she can't afford to have the child. If she is seeking to better her circumstances because she sees I am wealthier than she, then I think I am as much to blame for her predicament as she is. Abortion on demand should be available for those who want it. I am old enough to remember women in their teens dying at the hands of back yard abortionists. No one deserves to go through the agony that these women have suffered.

Margaret Loeher, Sacramento, CA:

As a grandparent I am no fan of abortion, but feel strongly that this difficult decision is one that should be made by the woman involved rather than the government. The passion with which some deny this freedom to women, and then abandon her and the born child to poverty, lack of opportunity, and/or abuse is remarkable. What is harder for me to fathom is that Obamacare, which calls for free or low cost birth control for all, is not lauded by those who oppose abortion as a huge and hopeful step forward. We know that easily available contraception is the best way to dramatically lower the number of abortions. According to the Catholic radio station to which I listen frequently, birth control is not natural and therefore immoral. There are a few other things in our lives that are not natural. Vaccines, antibiotics, clean water, and modern distribution of food come to mind. ... Studies have shown that if women limited their reproduction to only children they want, we could largely bring the population under control -- not to mention give a marvelous gift to the children. If we care about future generations, about life, about "God's Will," we need to vigorously promote birth control, education, women's rights, and, yes, the fact that abortion will sometimes be necessary. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Benjamin Taub, Ann Arbor, MI:

I've been reading your newsletters for a few months now and find them very interesting. On this week's, however, while I don't disagree with your position as a matter of pragmatism, I do think it's important not to denigrate all abortion proponents as pursuing an immoral proposition. While there are certainly abortion foes who do oppose it for the wrong reasons (male dominance, G-d's will) there are others who oppose it from a genuinely, widely accepted moral ground -- that killing another human is inherently immoral. Thus, in the minds of these people, the act of abortion is immoral because it represents killing. So, just as those who vehemently oppose the death penalty, genocide, and other "institutionally acceptable acts of killing" are speaking from a morally defensible position, some in the anti-abortion movement are speaking from that same position. It seems to me that the question with these people is twofold: 1) When human life actually begins and 2) If you agree that life begins at conception or at some point before the abortion, is there a greater, societal, moral good that trumps the sanctity of that life? I do believe that there are times when two different moral positions legitimately clash with each other. In those cases, it is probably right to pursue the "most right in the long term" path. Nonetheless, one should understand when they're doing so, rather than simply lumping those opposed to your position into a group of people without defensible morals. As for me, I am a Jew who doesn't really believe in G-d -- a fact that I hate to admit given the amount of flying that I sometimes do. I do, however, believe in Judaism.  

Name and City of Residence withheld by request:

I am a Catholic priest in a diocese on the eastern seaboard of the United States. A long-time friend of mine in New Jersey sent me your article. I am what they call a "Vatican II" priest. I was ordained just as the progressive changes in Catholic life were set in motion by that ecumenical council partly under the aegis of His Holiness Pope John XXIII and, at its end, Paul VI, who, I am afraid vacillated as to his support of some of the changes. I know several confreres who would agree with your well-articulated arguments about reproductive rights. Neither they nor I would last long in the Church if we publicly seconded them. But just to let you know, you -- a priest of a sister Church -- are far from alone in the tradition. You are a blessing.

Tracey Morgan, Southfield, MI:

The evolution of our particular branch of the primate species was "aborted" prematurely. We have much more evolving to do. But would you mind if I shed no tears when a woman makes the decision to abort or not? I'd rather objectify the decision in order to humanize the one forced to make it. A friend has her counselors require a woman to respond to a pair of objective questions when they come to her clinics seeking abortions. What will your life be like if you have the abortion? What will your life be like if you don't? Compassion for the person, of course. Tears for the decision? They would merely interfere with the need for her to come to a calm and calculated conclusion, for herself and in her interests. I have friends who did not agonize at all over their decisions to abort. Their interests were obvious to them. -- Compelling piece, as is the postscript.

The Rev. Fred Fenton, Concord, CA:

Susan Jacoby may have gone too far by implying atheists are free from the hypocrisy practiced by religionists. However, she does have a point. As social workers can tell you, ending access to safe abortions will cause the death of many poor, desperate women who cannot afford to travel to some more enlightened part of the world where abortions are legal.

The Rev. Michael R. Link, Las Vegas, NV:

What you say is absolutely spot-on. Male decision makers can not help but reference their own issues regarding sexuality, potency, libido problems, needs for gene perpetuation, etc. -- Abortions will take place no matter the law or the arcane restrictions political power puts up as roadblocks. Parental concerns, waiting periods, insurance exclusions, forcibly required to watch videos, etc., etc., will not deter a woman who needs or wants an abortion. Back alley abortionists, medicinal herb remedies, and dozens of other effective or phony solutions will proliferate. The result of Roe v Wade allowed an abortion to take place in a safe, medically secure environment, rather than in an unsafe and barbaric facility. Changing the law, Constitution amendments, party platforms, campaign rhetoric nor anything else will stop abortions. The only consequence will be to move it back underground where many women will die and be brutally invaded.

Carolyn Aishton, New York, NY:

Outstanding! On the money!