Ethic of expediency
I’m not clear about why Katha Pollitt mourns only for Savita and not for Savita’s baby. Without question, the situation as Katha Pollitt describes it is horrifying. But she does not deny that such cases are rare. No one recommends forming public policy based on the hard cases. To be fair, both sides use this tactic; but typically, hard cases are exploited to manipulate opinion.
On a more human level, why is there no concern about the child’s death? Pollitt does not find it worthy of mention. Instead of continuing to push for the right to abort a child in such cases. Why not push for medical advances that can save both mother and child? Why do we continue to believe the answer to every problem associated with pregnancy is death for the child? It’s an easy alternative, but is it the best? It would be like accepting mastectomy as a cure for breast cancer.
I believe that Katha Pollitt and other pro-abortion advocates are going to be on the wrong side of history. A hundred years from now, we are going to be horrified at our treatment of these early-stage human life forms.
I’m not arguing that the Catholic hospital in Ireland did the right thing. What stuns me is the complete lack of interest in the child’s life. It betrays an ethic of expediency, and I believe we’re better than that. Let’s exhaust every possibility to preserve human life and make those hard choices with the greatest reluctance and sadness.
My sympathy goes out to Mr. Halapannavar at the loss of his wife and child.
St. Louis, MO
Nov 19 2012 - 9:13am