|
This
column is not about abortion.
I
could follow that statement with an essay on fly fishing and more than a few
readers would manufacture a pro-life or pro-choice argument out of it. The
danger in using the word at all is that some will immediately scour the page for
hidden meaning. And find it, present or not.
I have
no talent for feigning neutrality and I'm a little leery of those who do. To
spare anyone the speculation, let me state that I am firmly pro-life. You
should also know that I was on the other side of the question a few short years
ago, so I know and understand both arguments.
Discussion of any matter of contention, and perhaps social conduct in general,
seems to be getting increasingly less civil. Abortion in particular has become
an issue that inspires opponents to demonize each other. And while there are
certainly individuals who have earned the criticism, most of us are just trying
to come to the best conclusions we can based on the information available to us.
So
agree or disagree, you know where I stand. But this column is not about
abortion. This column is about parents' obligation to raise their children and
their right to do so as they see fit within limits designed to prevent abuse.
This is about the difference between adults and children and the discrepancy in
their abilities to judge and make decisions.
The
law recognizes these distinctions in many ways. Persons under 18 can't get a
driver's license without parental approval, vote, or legally consent to sex.
They can't drink alcoholic beverages until they're 21. Children under 18 can't
get married, buy a gun, join the military, or enter into a contract without
parental consent. In fact, they can't even get their teeth cleaned without an
OK from Mom or Dad.
They
can, however, get an abortion. At a time when medical science is struggling to
determine why girls are beginning to enter puberty as young as age 7, the
California Supreme Court has voided a law requiring parental consent for girls
under 18 to get an abortion. The law struck down this month has never gone into
effect due to legal challenges, though similar laws are on the books in 40
states.
Abortion is such a divisive issue that some partisans won't give an inch
regardless of how absurd the extreme. Unfortunately, the leadership of most
pro-choice organizations and a bare majority of California Supreme Court
justices are guilty of exactly this type of knee-jerk mule-headedness.
Here's
the gut check: would these partisans support removing age or parental consent
requirements for the purchase of a gun? For consumption of alcohol? For
driving a car? Would anyone seriously propose allowing 7-year-olds to enter the
military as long as they've reached puberty? Is there really a significant
number of parents, pro-choice or pro-life, who think that the decision to have
an abortion requires less maturity of thought than a teeth-cleaning?
The
irony here is the limp-wristed hand-wringing now so popular over parents not
taking responsibility for their children. We think kids today are rude,
selfish, ungrateful, and out of control. What's needed, the patter goes, is for
parents to strap on their collective guts and be accountable for their progeny.
And nowhere is this line more popular than in the legal system of this state, of
which the California Supreme Court is presumably the pinnacle.
Yet
Chief Justice Ronald George wrote in his opinion that the health of girls "too
frightened or too embarrassed" to talk to their parents would be endangered by
the parental consent law. My own opinion is that we've gone seriously afoul of
reason if we have elevated to the highest judicial office in the state a man who
believes juvenile fright and embarrassment to be reasonable bases to hand over a
decision of such consequence to children as young as 7.
While
I disagree, it's at least rational to argue that abortion should be a matter of
conscience for one adult. But surely it's possible to believe in a "woman's
right to choose" without granting that same license to a child. And surely most
in the pro-choice camp have no difficulty making the distinction.
Nearly
all the pro-choice folks I know would tell you that they do not favor abortion,
but believe it should be a matter for a woman to decide on her own. And they
are being completely honest when they say so. There is a radical element,
however, that doesn't give a rat's rump for your child or mine beyond political
expediency. An element that would let girls too young to walk to the store by
themselves choose an abortion alone rather than be perceived as backing off one
iota. An element that has crossed the line from pro-choice to pro-abortion.
State
Senator Tim Leslie has begun an effort to amend California’s constitution to
correct this travesty, and parents of all persuasions should follow his efforts
with interest. Pro-choice policies, however much one might agree or disagree,
don't inherently interfere with existing parent-child relationships.
Pro-abortion policies do.
This
column is not about abortion, just as the California Supreme Court's decision is
not about choice. Both are about who gets to raise your child. Parents who
would willingly abrogate those responsibilities, or stand by and allow the state
to require them to do so, are guilty of the moral equivalent of sticking their
fingers in their ears and humming. The stakes are just too high.
© 1997 – 2002 Brent Morrison
|
