According to olden rules, there are two things one mustn’t discuss at dinner: religion and politics. I agree with this, generally speaking. (I agree with a lot of olden rules.) Maybe the touchiest subject of all is abortion. And that is the subject of my column today, an expansion of a piece I have in the current NR.
Many years ago, when I was in my late teens, and thinking through some issues, I read about a case in the Chicago area. A man had killed his son shortly after the son was born. The child had physical problems: a cleft palate, a harelip, and a heart condition. The father took him and bashed his head against the floor — right there in the delivery room.
The man was brought up on murder charges. And a columnist in the Chicago Tribune said, “Really? Is what this fellow did so different from an abortion, which many people would have understood and applauded? And now he is facing murder charges? Does that make sense?”
I thought about this. And thought some more.
And I was reminded of that earlier episode — 1983 — when I read about a case this year. A sorority girl in Ohio killed her daughter, right after the babe was born. The young woman was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Is what she did so different — all that different — from what others ask doctors to do, nice ’n’ neat, at an earlier stage?
Anyway, this is what I explore in today’s column. Not for the dinner table (most dinner tables). But a hugely important subject, no matter what our individual conclusions.