Bumper Sticker: “If you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?”
Monday, March 2nd, 2009
This bumper sticker exemplifies the empty, albeit seemingly pithy rhetoric, by which the most heinous of behaviors finds shallow justification in our culture. What the words actually mean, however, makes the case for the view opposite what is promoted by the rhetoric.
The argument is supposed to be an “a fortiore ratione” argument. (Or, it could be construed as “a minore…”, depending on how to take “unjustified” in the sentence after next.) “Trust with child” is much stronger than “trust with choice.” So whatever should be unjustified regarding “trust with choice” ought to be even less so regarding “trust with child”. But where does that actually lead? Do those pasting this sticker think there is some difficulty in us acknowledging that since we (pro-lifers, that is) do not trust them with their choice, we therefore do not trust them with their child? There is no difficulty at all. The conclusion is correct. The reason we want to protect their child in the womb from their attempt to destroy him or her is precisely because we do not trust them with the choice they have made about that child.
But a more accurate analysis regards the words “choice” and “child”. In those two words is the trick, since the “choice” is only significant insofar as it is about the child, and since the “child” in the bumper sticker is actually about whatever choices and behaviors the parent will have toward it. That is, the only choice about which we do not give parents prerogative (at least in the domain of this discussion) is the choice of whether a child’s life is worth preserving. No parent (before or after the birth of their child) has the privilege (?!) (muich less right) of deeming a child’s life not worth living.
So if the choice is for abortion, then we trust the parent neither with the choice nor the child, on both counts precisely because parents should not kill their offspring. If the choice is to preserve the child, then we trust the parent with the choice and the child with one and the same judgment.
So here’s a more appropriate bumper sticker for anyone whose vehicle, door, or wall is sporting the object of this diatribe: “If you can’t trust my rhetoric to be honest, how can you trust me with life-destroying political decisions.”
There. That’s much better.
It is staggering to me just how blithely even intelligent and respectable commentators have slipped into critiquing a woman’s willingness to have eight children. Mike Huckabee’s comments on Fox News’ Red Eye last night are a good example of the hopefully innocent confusion going on. To paraphrase, Huckabee argued that if the mother were on government welfare then there was a serious problem. NBC’s Today Show provided an example of the more likely 
Yesterday I commented on the radio about President Obama’s decision to reverse the Mexico City Policy. That policy, an executive order instituted first by President Reagan, then again by President G.W. Bush, prevented federal international aid money from being used to promote abortion. My only mistake (in this particular context, at least!) was commenting on the executive order prematurely. Since his 
But explaining to most people that no effort to pretend otherwise can overcome the laws of supply and demand which govern human behavior is futile. People are certainly intelligent enough to realize, for instance, that government cost caps only reduce the amount or level of care or slow the economy overall so that everyone suffers; but they are not interested enough to learn about all the channels through which economic pressures will inevitably seek level.
Now doctors are facing the same pressure. Here’s the issue. Suppose a woman goes in for an exam and her obstetrician realizes there is a problem with the fetus which would lead a pro-choice physician to recommend a “therapeutic” abortion. But suppose this doctor is pro-life. Obviously she is not going to perform an abortion. But because she is pro-life she cannot participate in a abortion either, not even by referring her patient to a different physician. For those who are pro-life that decision is obviously justified. But for those who are pro-choice it appears to be a breach in the physician’s agreement to benefit her patient.
But can a man stop taking hormone therapy and then naturally produce an egg to combine with another man’s gametes and end up with an embryo? No. Only a woman who has worked really hard at appearing to be a man to the point where her culture was willing to call her a man can do so.
When used for that purpose, the prescription can prevent implantation of an embryo, and therefore…well…which words should be used next? Does it “prevent a pregnancy” since the woman never has an embryo attached to her uterus, and is therefore never pregnant? Or does it “end a human life” since there is a living embryo destroyed as a result of the treatment?
Three words: conflict of interest. There is no more comprehensive or practical tool for identifying ethically indefensible behavior than conflict of interest. Yet its significance is often overlooked and its implications ignored. The New York Times 
