No true balance of interests in abortion

In his recent letter to the editor, Mr. Theodore Utchen argued in support of America's approach to the abortion issue. I write in response only because his letter is such a textbook example of what's wrong with that approach.

Mr. Utchen helpfully defines the abortion stakes this way: "When a woman is pregnant, there are two interests involved that need to be balanced against each other. One interest is that of the fetus … and the other interest is that of the pregnant woman." It is "simply a question of balancing two competing interests."

Would that it were so. But the writer proceeds to tell us the real truth: "When we balance these two interests against each other, the interest of the woman should prevail over that of the fetus." It is "her decision to make, not mine or yours."

The incoherence of this approach thus reveals itself. The writer's solution to the tension between the two interests has nothing to do with "balance." It resolves that tension, not by negotiating a solution that is fair to both (envision here the "scales of justice"), but by simply eliminating one of the interests from consideration. This is what passes for "balance."

The truth is, under our current law, the unborn child's life-or-death interests are not merely sacrificed to those of the mother; worse, the child's interests do not even exist unless and until the mother says they do. So away with any pose of balanced interests. "Balance" is precisely what America's approach to abortion does not provide.

Those who support this approach should banish this shameful word from their vocabulary.

Duane Litfin

Wheaton