Ryan Dashek's April 7 column on abortion contained, for the most part, the same arguments used time and again by pro-choicers. His choice of words, however, betrayed a dangerous use of logic (or lack thereof). If arguing that pregnant women have a right to their bodies, why the queasiness over late-term abortions?
Dashek states he had moral problems with the procedure. He contends a human begins existence when it develops vital organs, so it's reassuring that he'd have a problem with terminating a late-term pregnancy. Unless, of course, the kid could be retarded. Then it's OK.
Also unsettling is Dashek doesn't actually condemn a woman's right to choose once the fetus has become a human is his view. This is the same as condoning murder. How can anyone condone the killing of another human being?
Traditional arguments conclude that one's freedom ends when it infringes on another's. Abortion is a most severe case of this infringement. When do we stop focusing exclusively on a woman's right and begin thinking of a child's right? The ideals of freedom this country was founded upon"" - contrary to
Dashek's opinion of a woman's right to choose - are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Although the federal government is far from passing a law prohibiting abortion at this stage, it's a thought that should be addressed. It is the role of government to protect those unable to protect themselves. It wouldn't end the demand for abortions overnight, but sometimes government must take a stand. Passing the laws that ended segregation didn't end racism, but it made clear the government would no longer be a willing participant in the oppression of African-Americans. A law prohibiting the killing of unborn babies could send a
similar message.
- Jim Aspholm
UW-Madison sophomore
