|
Jewish World Review Oct. 2, 2000 / 3 Tishrei, 5761
Philip Terzian
First, however, let's dispose of the politics. Anyone who suspects that the Clinton
administration pressured the FDA to act on this controversial matter in the midst of a
presidential campaign goes to the head of the class. The act of dropping the RU-486 pill into
the contest for the White House came as naturally to President Clinton as, say, misusing the
Strategic Oil Reserve for partisan purposes. But while Al Gore might benefit in the short run
from sacrificing the oil reserve to lower gas prices, it is not certain whether RU-486 will
have much effect, except to emphasize the well-known differences between the candidates. Al
Gore welcomed the decision on the pill while George W. Bush lamented that RU-486 will make
abortions "more and more common rather than more and more rare."
As always, on this damnable issue, I find myself isolated among a handful of agnostics.
Along with pro-abortionists, I believe that the decision to have an abortion should rest
with the individuals involved -- and, depending on the age of the mother, their parents -- and
not the government. Abortions may be limited in scope, and regulated by law, but should not be
banned outright. Yet it is easy to recoil from the rhetoric of such organizations as Planned
Parenthood, or the National Abortion and Reproduction Rights Action League (NARAL), which revel
in this gisly procedure, and seem curiously devoted to what is at best a gruesome necessity.
That's a fair description of RU-486: The very idea of a convenient oral mechanism for
killing a growing fetus must give pause to the most fervent unplanned parent. Brave New
World seems uncomfortably close.
Which brings us to the London twins. The facts of the matter have been universally
publicized, although thanks to Britain's merciful privacy laws, the identify of the parents and
their offspring is unknown. The mother and father came to Britain from Malta seeking medical
attention for their girls, who are joined at the lower abdomen, and one of whom has an
"undeveloped brain." It was ultimately decided, by British medical authorities, that since the
two girls were destined to die in their present condition, they ought to be surgically
separated, saving the life of one. The parents, who are Roman Catholic, objected, claiming that
G-d, and not the courts, ought to decide who lives and dies under such circumstances. And the
case has divided Britain along religious, ethical, legal and medical lines.
I concede that the "quality of life" argument in this instance can be dangerous. The case
for allowing one of the girls to be sacrificed so that the other might live is based, in large
part, on the notion that the undeveloped brain of the doomed twin would leave her (in the words
of one judge) "beyond any help." Using such a rationale, it is not hard to imagine physicians
advising parents to kill off their premature babies, or giving Grandma lethal doses since she
can no longer thread a needle. The "quality of life" looks one way to the life involved and
another way to the loved one emptying the bedpan or awaiting an inheritance.
Still, it is difficult to see the logic in allowing both girls to die on principle. There's
a painful choice to be made, no doubt, but that's what humans are capable of doing. One
anti-abortionist has declared that the taking of innocent life under any circumstnces is
unacceptable, and that's a fair argument. But it also demands a certain purity of vision. For
the truth is that we take innocent lives all the time. When the Russians invaded Germany, or
our pilots bombed Hanoi, thousands of innocent men, women and children were incinerated. Who
suffers from our principled embargo against Saddam Hussein? Not Saddam Hussein. Necessities of
war, or reasons of state, seem like poor excuses to their innocent victims.
Life is cheap, and disturbingly undervalued. What makes RU-486 distasteful is not the fact
that it aborts a fetus, but that it transforms a complex, arduous decision into a matter of
convenience. Similarly, the London twins raise a larger question: Which do we value, conviction
or survival? It is admirable to protect lives that cannot defend themselves, and there is no
doubt anti-abortionists have the better ethical argument. But sacrificing two girls on the
basis of doctrine -- especially when one may yet be sustained -- is no better than eradicating
life by popping a
09/28/00: Driving on America's Main Street
|