The ”sensible compromise on abortion” proposed by Joan Beck (Nov. 12)
offers nothing except more limitations. Beck would choose a point ”at about 70 days after conception” as the time at which to prohibit abortion, pretending to justify that line by invoking science. Beck displays her lack of principle by stating that ”some exceptions would have to be made,” and listing those circumstances that would, in her estimation, justify allowing abortion ”after the abortion time limit.” She has rebutted her own assertion that the core question on abortion is ”when does life begin?” and that science can answer that question. Who would decide whether a fetal anomaly is ”severe” or that a health problem is ”endangering”? These examples and those that she chose to omit reveal only her personal values-values not necessarily shared by others-and her continued refusal to acknowledge the myriad conditions in a woman`s life that lead her to one decision or another about a pregnancy.
Joan Beck is correct only in noting that pro-choice groups will not be satisfied with this proposal. She can count on our continued opposition to demands that a woman justify her personal reasons for or relinquish to anyone else-whether columnist, scientist or legislator-the intrinsically personal decision of continuing a pregnancy or seeking an abortion.
