26 January 2003
One common complaint from abortion-rights advocates is that the opposition is unyielding, implacable and adamantine. I assume that by making this complaint, they wish to position themselves as flexible and open to compromise.
Karl Born, writing in Hoosier Review, describes one particularly warped incident at Indiana University. The IU chapter of Campus for Choice had posted a list of firms to be boycotted for supporting "anti-choice, anti-women causes." One of the targets was Wendy's. Why? "Dave Thomas is very anti-choice. Thomas was adopted and believes all women facing unwanted pregnancies should give their children up for adoption."
This contains, so far as I know, three words of truth: "Thomas was adopted." And also so far as I know, Dave's foundation has as its primary goal finding homes for thousands of children already born; adding to the waiting list is a secondary consideration at best. But that's not the real point. What I want to know is: Does Campus for Choice believe that if a woman decides to go through with the birth and give up the child, she has not made a choice? Or that she has made a wrong choice?
Maybe I'm missing something here, but on the face of it, this looks every bit as dogmatic and inflexible as the anti-abortion folks are supposed to be.
Oh, and Dave? I think I'll have a Classic Double with Biggie Fries and a Frosty. And if you would, see what Joshua Claybourn is having.