Right for the Wrong Reason

The LA Times ran an opinion piece (Statesman online Sunday) from a professor who calls himself a “pro-choice atheist” who supports President Bush’s proposal to cut federal funding from hospitals and other entities if they force an employee to provide certain types of care — including abortion services — against conscience and personal belief.

I’m grateful for the professor’s defense of the important regulation, but his line of reasoning is faulty. He says, “If we respect the right of women to control their bodies, we ought to respect the rights of doctors to control their own actions. And if we respect the decision to perform abortions, we ought to respect the refusal to do so.”

But the analogy doesn’t quite hold up. If he wants to follow this line of reasoning, he should say, “If we respect the right of women to sell their bodies as prostitutes, we ought to respect the rights of doctors . . . .” Or, “If we respect the rights of women to take bids for their spare kidney on EBay, we ought to respect the rights of doctors . . . .”

Neither of these options is (at present) allowable, which shows the limits of argument that women (or men) should have the right to “control their bodies.” Contrary to the “Keep Your Laws Off My Body” posters at prochoice rallies, the government already has a number of laws on the bodies of men and women.

Laws against selling one’s body sexually, or selling parts of one’s body to the highest bidder, may eventually go away. But laws against what I can do with someone else’s body should be established and upheld. And when we’re talking about abortion of a healthy, developing fetus, we’re talking about the end to someone else’s body.

So, Crispen Sartwell is right to defend the federal regulation currently being considered, but he’s right for the wrong reason.