I cautiously wade into the abortion debate after reading Tarina Keene’s Jan. 29 Op-Ed column, “Pro-choice majorities are doing the voters’ will.” Keene’s argument for less restrictive abortion laws compels me to take issue with her position that abortion is a fundamental right.
I believe there are objective truths — truths that stabilize society. You may not like them and disagree with them, but they are truths nonetheless. Slavery is wrong and the earth isn’t flat. The objective truth in this debate is that all human life is precious and has value.
Conversely, relativism — the belief that truths are defined by culture and society — means people define the truth. You do your thing and I’ll do mine. Gambling is acceptable and murder is sometimes justifiable. Relativism has plagued humanity throughout history and led to moral indifference and ultimately, violence.
Nineteenth century theologian, writer and priest, St. John Henry Newman used the example of a mighty, flowing river: If you take away its banks (truths) in the name of freedom (rights), it becomes a lazy lake without purpose or drive. Without banks, people become confused in what is good and what is true.
Relativism has influenced the U.S. Supreme Court. Dred Scott v. Sanford (slaves are property), Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal), or Korematsu v. United States (Japanese American internments) are but a few. Thankfully those decision were rendered obsolete, but when decided, they indicated a lack of moral clarity or ignorance of the truth.
If laws against murder were declared void, would you kill for fun? What if the penalty for slander and libel were removed? Would you falsely speak ill of your neighbor? Why not? Because you know it to be wrong — an objective truth.
Keene makes several statements that warrant rebuttal:
“The commonwealth … can become a place that respects a woman’s ability to make her own personal health care decisions free from political interference.” Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare and private medical insurance is replete with government guidelines, onerous regulations, and bureaucratic interference. Abortion, like any medical procedure, is not immune from oversight.
“[A]n overwhelming majority of Virginians — 72% — supports access to safe and legal abortion.” Keene gives no source for this statement; however, I believe she may be referencing a Washington Post-Schar School poll (Feb. 6-8, 2019) of 706 adults in the commonwealth. That poll found that one in fiuve Virginians think abortion laws should be “less strict” and 72% of those who think abortion is not an important issue believe abortion should be legal. Had Keene not omitted certain facts, one would conclude there is not an “overwhelming” consensus on abortion.
“Voters … rejected President Donald Trump and anti-abortion politicians’ loud and proud efforts to overturn Roe.” While Trump appears to have become a recent convert to the anti-abortion side, he joins a long line of presidents, politicians and public figures who oppose abortion. To invoke his name serves little purpose and avoids the core question: Is abortion moral and does an unborn child have rights?
Keene’s argument is rooted in the relativist concept that humans define their own truths. My body, my life, my right — who can disagree especially since a panel of nine men in 1973 affirmed it? As appealing as it may be, this thinking leads to toleration of all points of view except those views eventually deemed intolerable — relativism’s paradox. The truth is that the truth can be distasteful and not always pleasant.
I believe the day is coming when Roe v. Wade will be discussed in the same vein as Dred Scott, Plessy and Korematsu. That day may be decades away, but until then I, and millions of others, shall lobby, demonstrate, speak out, write and advocate for the protection of the innocent, unborn child and its right to life.
Frank Coyle is a retired navy officer who lives in Virginia Beach. Email him at frank.coyle143@gmail.com.
