Yesterday I mentioned an article by William Saletan about surrogate mothers in California who, because they stopped being paid for their services, had every right to abort the child that, genetically speaking, wasn’t even theirs. As I said, the case is “another example of how in vitro fertilization turns a human being into a commodity.”
Saletan wrote an update last night remarking that the “awful story” has—understandably—gotten quite a reaction. Some of the response was positive: None of the surrogate mothers who lost funding have decided for abortion, and many people have already stepped in to offer them financial support.
But there has been a negative response to the story as well—and not just from pro-lifers who see IVF surrogacy as another example of a society that refuses to respect the dignity of human life. Pro-choicers also questioned Saletan’s motives for writing on such a troubling story. And so Saletan interrogates himself in the voice of angry abortion advocates:
What’s my agenda? Do I have a problem with women controlling their bodies? Am I a frontman for the religious right, a useful idiot who pretends that compromise on these issues is possible when, in fact, it isn’t? Even [an attorney involved in the case], in a tweet posted on his blog, initially responded to my article by remarking, “The lengths (or depths) abortion foes will go to make a point.”
Saletan is quick reassure his pro-choice readers that he doesn’t “think a regime of abortion restrictions enacted in the name of life would make this world a better place.” He thinks that such measures would instead “cause a mess—hypocrisy, deceit, interrogations, amateur home surgery, moral crudity backed by the force of law—as ugly as any war fought in the name of peace.” Saletan does not “equate abortion with murder.” Nor does he “even think it’s the worst option available to a woman facing unintended pregnancy. Every abortion dilemma is different, because every situation is different. The person best situated to make the right decision is the pregnant woman.”
If this all sounds like standard boilerplate from the pro-choice lobby, that’s because it is. But what makes these comments especially frustrating is the way Saletan, at the very same moment, is willing to admit that abortion ends the life of a unique human being:
So why do I keep bringing up abortion as a moral problem? Because it is a moral problem. It’s the destruction of a developing human being. For that reason, the less we do it, the better.
How on earth, one might ask, could Saletan admit that abortion is the “destruction of a developing human being” and at the same time argue to keep it legal? Or how can he “write about the value of unborn life” without also standing up to defend it? Or how can he not equate the “destruction of a developing human being”—for all of us are developing human beings—to murder?
Saletan even seems to understand how scientific advances—far from bolstering the pro-choice cause—are actually eroding the moral arguments once held up by abortion advocates:
The reason I keep you posted on developments in IVF, surrogates, and embryo screening is that they’re transforming the debate. They’re changing the conditions on which our moral positions rely. Were you pro-choice because the embryo was in a woman? Now we have embryos in dishes. Did you support embryo screening for fatal diseases? Now we’re talking about screening embryos for eye color. Does the value of an embryo depend on what its mother thinks? Now we have embryos with two mothers: a genetic one and a gestational one. Should they at least consult each other?
So what is Saletan’s goal? Why does he shed light on all of the troubling aspects of abortion and reproductive technologies if he doesn’t think one should actually change his mind about them? Well, Saletan writes “about the value of unborn life because that’s the problem [his] fellow pro-choicers don’t like to talk about.” He just wants to “challenge” them.
But what good are such challenges if the greatest dogma of them all—the enshrinement in law of the right to kill an unborn child—remains untouched?
