I am utterly amazed that on a Catholic campus, Winer did not feel the need to interview someone who fully agreed with the Church, especially since these people exist in abundance. I am one, for instance, and several of my friends have made it clear they are as well. Furthermore, I question the respondent who said she was “personally pro-life” but believed in others’ freedom of choice. If someone believes abortion is murder, he or she is not likely to be okay with anyone — except for in circumstances of rape, incest and the mother’s life being in danger — getting one. This, contrary to Winer’s and his respondents’ assertions, is as clear-cut as issues get. I thus question Winer’s efforts to question anyone truly from the pro-life side.
If there is still scientific debate over the issue of when life begins, thus leading to personal preference, this does not lead to a kind of moral relativism on the issue. If someone believes that something is as morally wrong as a true pro-lifer would choose to abort, he or she has an obligation to at the very least educate and enlighten someone considering these options.
One of Winer’s respondents is quoted as saying that “some radicals within the ‘pro-life’ movement desire to mandate morality by making abortion illegal.” I confess to not understanding this quotation at all, considering that morality — to at least a certain extent — has been mandated since the birth of law and order. Are these “radicals” doing anything that our original lawmakers didn’t do when they made larceny illegal, or murder? What were the motivations for these original laws if not for morality? A respondent also said, “I’m ‘pro-choice’ because I think that being ‘pro-life’ is picking a side for someone else.” Again, since the beginning of history, law has picked sides for people and if someone breaks the law, he or she is punished. I understand there is a great deal of debate on abortion, but this article makes it seem as if morality in law is this incredibly radical new idea.
One of the article’s participants is quoted as saying, “For someone else to make [the decision on abortion] for her is to disrespect her life.” I have a problem with this, as well. If one were to pick between the three inalienable rights as to which outlawing abortion might violate, the last choice would be life. One could say this violates the woman’s liberty, and this would be problematic. I have always found liberty to be the most complicated and vague of these terms, as the nature of any law seems to be limiting the freedom to choose. Of course, Thomas Jefferson and many of our Founding Fathers viewed “liberty” as “property,” and I think we leave ourselves open to harsh criticism if we define someone’s child — yes, I use the word “child” because when a miscarriage occurs, one does not lose their fetus, but their child — as property.
Lastly, I would like to conclude that I am disgusted that a Catholic institution such as Fordham would print this. Debate on this issue is fair, but presenting alternative views and not explaining the Catholic side is not debate. While another Jesuit university, Boston College, has released statements against on-campus dispersion of condoms — a view that has caused far less outrage within the Church — it seems out of character of Fordham to do this. I call on both The Fordham Ram and the administration to be more true to our university’s core values, mainly the sanctity of life.
— Patrick Mullen, FCRH ‘15
