Going There - Part I

abortion laws in the U.S.I always try to follow Ernest Hemingway's advice to "write what you know."  And I know very little about abortion: I will never know what it is like to have a human growing inside me; I will never have to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy; I will never have to choose between bringing a child into the world in unfavorable circumstances and not allowing that child to exist.  But, that doesn't mean that I can't have a position on abortion.  It doesn't mean Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, and Tim Pawlenty all can't have positions on abortion.  Just because I'm not a soldier doesn't make my position on the Iraq War less valid.  Just because I'm not a medical researcher doesn't nullify my opinion on stem-cell research.  And just because I'm not a woman doesn't mean I have nothing to say on the topic of abortion, which I'm going to attempt to tackle as neutrally and fairly as possible:  

Let's get the objective analysis out of the way first: the issue at the heart of the abortion debate is ultimately the question of when human life begins.  Anti-abortion advocates believe that life begins at conception.  Pro-abortion advocates believe human life begins sometime after conception.

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court concluded based on an inferred right to privacy that the states may not restrict the right of abortion in any way up until the fetus becomes capable of living outside the womb, usually between 24 and 28 weeks.  From the point where the fetus becomes viable up until the start of the third trimester, states may regulate the right of abortion only "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health".  In the third trimester, the states may choose to regulate abortion in any way, except in cases when an abortion may be necessary to save the life of the mother.  

In this way, Roe v. Wade has made abortion a matter of personal choice up until a child is born.  Legally speaking, human life definitely begins at birth.  Whether life begins between viability and birth is up to each individual state to determine in conjunction with individuals in a way to be determined by that state's legislature; and whether life begins between conception and viability is up to the individual to determine.  In this way, the Supreme Court has transfered the burden/right of choice from states to individuals and mandated that there be no criminal consequences for choosing to have an abortion.  

Justices Byron White and Willian Rehnquist wrote notable dissents to Roe.  From White:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.   

Due to such dubious legal justification, and the inability of medicine to answer the question of when life begins, abortion rights remains one of the most intractable issues in America today; and for that reason it is often the subject of heated debate and passionate argument from advocates on both sides.  

Those who see life as beginning at conception style themselves "pro-life" as though abortion rights advocates lack any and all respect for human life, as though to get an abortion is definitely tantamount to murder.  Anything besides the legal establishment of life's beginning at conception is considered government-sanctioned murder, and we can't have civil society if we permit a holocaust of the unborn.  

Those whom these pro-lifers oppose style themselves "pro-choice" as if those who believe life begins at conception hate freedom and want to control the bodies of women.  They imagine any attempts to discourage or restrict abortion as authoritarian manifestations of aggressive hatred.

All in all, these terms of debate are dishonest and distracting, privileging rhetoric over reason, and attempts to discredit the honest opinions of the other side.  It's time America had a serious conversation about abortion.  Pro-lifers must realize that the best ways to reduce the number of abortions are to encourage sex-education, condom use, contraceptives, and adoption as an alternative to abortion.  Pro-choicers need to realize that Roe is the best they could ever hope for, and instead of complaining about protesters, "guilt-tripping", and high costs for medical procedures, support measures aimed to inform women about the details of prenatal development and encourage informed, ethical decision making.

Comments

[M. Simmons]

You have the wisest post I have ever read on the subject of abortion. Where are the moderate voices in this debate?