Abortion
Sir: Christopher Hitchens (Where babies go to', 9 February) points out that femin- ists did not demand that others had abor- tions, while those who oppose abortion do demand that all pregnant women see it through or face punishment. He claims that there is a difference here. Indeed there is: but is it important? Slave-owners of the old South did not demand that all should hold slaves, but the abolitionists did demand that slave owners should be com- pelled to give up their lawful property or face punishment. The claim of those opposed to abortion is that injustice is being done to third parties. One is not generally expected to take a permissive attitude to such injus- tices: 'I don't intend to whop niggers myself, but I don't see any reason to prevent the folks down South from doing so' is hardly a respectable position. Of course, those who favour abortion usually claim that the foetus is not a third party with rights. But it was quite common for slave-owners to claim that blacks were not human. It's not enough to claim: you have to give reasons. In this context, we can perhaps, see the purpose of program- mes such as The Silent Scream. Of course what it represents is questionable, and admits of different interpretations: of course it adds nothing to what was already known, and of course it's gruesome and in bad taste. But the same is true of Uncle Tom's Cabin: a work which I recommend to the attention of Mr Hitchens.
Christopher Martin
Calle Tudela10-3°, 31002 Pamplona, Spain
Previous page
