Last weekend I spoke to Students for Life, a college pro-life group, about media and public relations. One thing we discussed is how most people don’t like to deal with the issue of abortion because it forces judgments on the beginning of life and competing rights (mother vs. child) – and that most people simply don’t want any part of it. In a post from yesterday afternoon, the Atlantic’s Daniel Indiviglio doesn’t take a stance on the debate itself, but highlights the questions public health care necessarily must face. For instance, would more or fewer abortions help the bottom line for a public health care plan? Is it better to have a younger, stronger populace that needs less health care, or by keeping a lid on population numbers do abortions save money in the long term? Should women whose pre-natal babies have diseases be urged to abort children who will cause a drain on the health care system?
These are chilling questions that no one wants to even ask, let alone answer. Pro-choice advocates who claim government has no place dictating whether a woman can terminate her baby’s development should be standing with pro-life forces who don’t want their tax dollars to fund what they feel is a violation of an individual’s right to life. Neither side will be happy with greater regulatory involvement, which may be the first thing these camps have ever agreed upon.
Jim Eltringham 