Open Letter to the NY Times

Thanks to a good friend, I got introduced to a writer ahead of his times and have only begun to scratch the surface of his writings. So far, the piece below is my favorite.

Walker Percy wrote a letter to the NY Times on the 15th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which for unanswered reasons, was never published. Surprise, surprise.

Enjoy...

The Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, N.Y. 100036

Dear Sir:
The fifteenth anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision of the Supreme Court seems as good an occasion as any to call attention to an aspect of the abortion issue which is generally overlooked.

The battle lines between the "pro-life" and the "pro-choice" advocates are so fixed, the arguments so well known, indeed so often repeated, that it hardly seems worth the time to enter the controversy on the present terms. Thus, while it may indeed be argued that in terms of Judeo-Christian values individual human life is sacred and may not be destroyed, and while it is also true that modern medical evidence shows ever more clearly that there is no qualitative difference between an unborn human infant and a born human infant, the argument is persuasive only to those who accept such values and such evidence. Absent these latter, one can at least understand the familiar arguments for a "woman's rights over her own body," including "the products of conception."

The issue, then, seems presently frozen between the "religious" and the "secular" positions, with the latter apparently prevailing in the opinion polls and the media.

Rather than enter the fray with one or another argument, which, whether true or not, seems to be unavailing, I should like to call attention to certain social and historical consequences which may be less well known--call the attention, that is, of certain well-known and honorable institutions such as The New York Times, the United States Supreme Court, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization of Women, and suchlike who, while distinguished in their defense of human rights, may not accept the premise of the sacred provenance of human life.

In a word, certain consequences, perhaps unforeseen, follow upon the acceptance of the principle of the destruction of human life for what may appear to be the most admirable social reasons.

One does not have to look back very far in history for an example of such consequences. Take democratic Germany in the 1920s. Perhaps the most influential book published in German in the first quarter of this century was entitled The Justification of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value. Its co-authors were the distinguished jurist Karl Binding and the prominent psychiatrist Alfred Hoche. Neither Binding nor Hoche had ever heard of Hitler or the Nazis. Nor, in all likelihood, did Hitler ever read the book. He didn't have to.

The point is that the ideas expressed in the book and the policies advocated were the product not of Nazi ideology but rather of the best minds of the pre-Nazi Weimar Republic--physicians, social scientists, jurists and the like, who with the best secular intentions wished to improve the lot, socially and genetically, of the German people--by getting rid of the unfit and the unwanted.

It is hardly necessary to say what use the Nazis made of these ideas.

I would not wish to be understood as implying that the respected American institutions I have named are similar to corresponding pre-Nazi institutions.

But I do suggest that once the line is crossed, once the principle gains acceptance--juridically, medically, socially--innocent human life can be destroyed for whatever reason, for the most admirable socioeconomic, medical, or social reasons--then it does not take a prophet to predict what will happen next, or if not next, then sooner or later. At any rate, a warning is in order. Depending on the disposition of the majority and the opinion polls--now in favor of allowing women to get rid of unborn and unwanted babies--it is not difficult to imagine an electorate or a court ten years, fifty years from now, who would favor getting rid of useless old people, retarded children, anti-social blacks, illegal Hispanics, gypsies, Jews...

Why not?--if that is what is wanted by the majority, the polled opinion, the polity of the time.

Sincerely Yours,
Walker Percy

[Postscript: This letter did not appear in the Times. Nor was it acknowledged. On February 15, Dr. Percy wrote again.]

I am sorry that you have evidently not seen fit to publish my letter of January 22 in your Letters-to-Editor section. I should have thought that you would want to publish it, since it addresses what is a very controversial issue these days--even though the letter may run counter to your editorial policy. You are not known for suppressing dissent. In the unlikely circumstance that you somehow did not receive the letter, I would be glad to furnish you with a copy. The purpose of this letter is to establish for the record that you did in fact receive the first letter. For, if I do not receive an answer to this letter, it is fair to assume that you did.

[Dr. Percy received no reply.]

Rest in Peace, Dr. Percy.