In his Sept. 22 column, Eric Zorn states that it is appropriate to consider the moral weight of the interests of the fetus against the interests and equities of various other parties.
He cites as an example the interests of a pregnant teen whose parents are “less than understanding,” a pregnant college student or a fetus known to have genetic defects. In each case, the interest of those who would desire an abortion is to avoid the tremendous inconvenience and responsibility the baby would entail. If Mr. Zorn can balance a human life against the situational ethic of a pregnant college student, what is his argument against infanticide?
When a baby is born with a severe genetic defect, that child will be terribly inconvenient to many people. I am sure that Mr. Zorn would agree that the inconvenience does not justify putting the baby to death. This is one of the issues that is, in fact, black and white. If you start to balance the sanctity of human life against the “various interests and equities of all parties,” you are heading down the slippery slope of moral relativism.
Zorn cites polls that show that seven out of eight people do not think that abortion should be illegal under all circumstances. The polls just show how far from our moral moorings we have drifted in the last 30 years. It doesn’t make it right.
