RSS
Home
The abortion controversy and why it will never end
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Janet FitzGerald holds a sign during a candlelight vigil
for Dr. George Tiller. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
The murder of abortion doctor George Tiller while he was at church has reignited the flames of the pro-choice versus pro-life debate. However, if we are to be honest, the flame has never died out; the embers of the debate may die down at times but this is one conflict that is eternal.
Most of the pro-life community denounce drastic actions such as that taken against Dr. Tiller, but there are still many who may not condone the killing but do not condemn it either, seeing it as justified in the eyes of God. Most people in either the pro-choice or pro-life community, however, cannot reconcile the ideology of the reverence for life being used to support the taking of a life.
From the day Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973, pro-life groups have been seeking to overturn it. Every Supreme Court nomination ultimately becomes centered around the nominee’s abortion stance, and the discussion regarding recent nominee Sonia Sotomayor is no different.
As noted by the justices in the Roe v. Wade decision, abortion laws were only enacted in the United States in the latter 19th century, at a time when the medical procedure was dangerous, especially before doctors began to regularly employ antiseptic techniques. At that time, abortions (along with many medical procedures) were dangerous. They continued to be so until they became legal, regulated, and performed by licensed doctors.
The Roe v. Wade decision came down to a right to privacy. The Constitution does not explicitly state a citizen’s right to privacy, but based on the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Court has recognized privacy as a constitutional right. The State’s intrusion by denying a woman this right to privacy during the beginning of a pregnancy, therefore, was unconstitutional. Visions of a theoretical policeman asking a woman to take a pregnancy test along with a Breathalyzer bring home this privacy right that we take for granted.
The procedure was, and is, still illegal after a fetus’s viability, or the ability to stay alive outside of the womb. The Supreme Court took into account the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, including “psychological harm” and “mental and physical health” for the child as well as the mother:
There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.
The court’s decision was either liberation or iniquity, depending on which side is speaking. Women’s rights groups hailed the ability to make personal pregnancy decisions without the government’s intervention. Christian groups were shocked that an unborn fetus’s life was no longer protected under the law.
And herein lies the problem. Both sides are fervent and avid in their positions. Yet neither side accepts the other’s premise.
Unresolvable conflict #1:
When does life begin?
Pro-choice position: Scientific developments have allowed us to determine the intricate stages of a fetus as it develops into a baby. Most scientists reject embryos as live beings. (Bill Maher recently made the point that one distinction between humans and embryos is that you can freeze and unfreeze embryos with no detriment.) Even a beating heart, though metaphorically powerful, does not an alive, thinking human make. Many scientists gauge the presence of life as the time when a baby’s EEG shows a recognizable pattern, usually at 24-27 weeks. This marker is also used in reverse, as a person is determined to be brain-dead when he or she no longer has a recognizable EEG pattern.
Pro-life position: Most anti-abortion activists believe that life begins at conception. Once an egg is fertilized, there is a life that must be protected. There are some medical experts who support this view. More often, “right to life” proponents will turn to Biblical evidence: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.” Psalm 139:13 or “This is what the LORD says—he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you...” (Isaiah 44:2).
The problem, from a political standpoint, is that Biblical texts are not constitutional or governmental authority. The separation of church and state means that the two sides of this issue have very different authorities for their positions.
Unresolvable conflict #2:
The criminalization of abortion puts women’s lives in danger.
Although accurate records of “back-alley abortions” don’t exist, experts estimate that thousands of women were injured or died while undergoing illegal abortions. If they could not find a doctor willing to perform the illegal procedure, women would often try to self-induce abortions, which often led to medical emergencies or death.
The legalization of abortion is state-sanctioned murder.
Those who wish to overturn Roe view it as a governmental authorization to take innocent lives. This principle, of course, relies on the tenuous assumption that life begins at conception. Most of the women wanting abortions, pro-life advocates assert, are doing it for convenience sake. Thus, an abortion shows a disregard for the sanctity of human life by both the mother and the nation.
And then there are the extremists who violently enforce their views by killing abortion doctors like Dr. Tiller or bombing abortion clinics. The right to choose is not one of convenience these days. Abortion seekers are escorted into clinics by employees in flak jackets, a daily reminder for these employees of the danger they face.
Yet even the violence will not deter a woman from weighing her options when an unwanted pregnancy forces her to reconsider everything she has known. Indeed, forcing a woman to have an unwanted child only increases the likelihood that the child will be abused, at an age where he or she can cognitively understand and feel such abuse.
Conversely, the threat of back-alley abortions and parents with unwanted children will not deter those who oppose abortion. Giving the baby up for adoption is touted as not only saving the baby’s life, but brightening the lives of parents who cannot conceive.
Whether Roe v. Wade is overturned or not, the debate will continue with the same vigor and vitriol and, tragically, sometimes violence.
Related Articles:
Comments
