Editor:
John Keisling has a way with words. He has a solid sense of style. This has never been more evident than in the Sept. 12 column ("Pro-choice arguments favor Susan Smith") in which Mr. Keisling uses sarcasm to argue that the pro-choice position regarding abortion is just as ridiculous as the idea that Susan Smith should have the right to choose to terminate the lives of her two sons.
Without substance, however, even the most stylish of essays crumbles under scrutiny. This is the case with Mr. Keisling's essay. In order for his sarcasm to work, we must agree with Mr. Keisling that there can exist no substantive distinction between the moral status of an unborn fetus and the moral status of a born child. It is exactly on this point that the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with Mr. Keisling in its decision on Roe v. Wade on Jan. 22, 1973. I quote the court:
"...When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
I'm sure that Mr. Keisling will recognize this as a conservative tenet which argues against "Big Government" in favor of individual liberty.
The distinction between abortion and infanticide, Mr. Keisling, is that there exists consensus in our society that a born child possesses the moral status of a fully human being. Therefore, the born child possesses all of the inalienable rights that our Constitution guarantees. So does the pregnant woman. It is the moral status of the unborn fetus that is ambiguous, and that is why abortion is legal under our Constitution.
Mark Hedley
Adjunct Professor
Department of Sociology