I am writing in response to Ellen Wight '97's column in The Dartmouth "Being Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion" (May 3 ). She brings up a number of insightful observations, and it is only necessary to clarify a few of her underlying assumptions to better unravel the quandary of abortion.
The first problem centers on the condition of viability. She realizes that many see "a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy before viability as essential to liberty under the Constitution." Yet this admits viability as at least one characterization of human life in its earliest stages, and this need not apply simply to a child ex utero.
The author must have realized the questions such an argument raises. Where can the line be drawn? At what point does the "blob of tissue" become a human person? Clearly there is no such point, and Wight admits that the fetus is consequently human, and more particularly, a human person. Yet if the fetus in utero really is a human person, and she herself admits that it is, how can killing it be justified? It cannot, and she admits that abortion is thus immoral.
In defense of her pro-choice position, however, she argues that the pro-life movement often dehumanizes the woman in defense of the fetus -- and she has a point. The pro-life movement cannot stand idly by championing the rights of the unborn and not at the same time offer their assistance to women.
What the pro-choice movement will not admit, however, is just how much work the pro-life movement does do to this end. Countless pregnancy crisis centers and houses for single-parent mothers across the country are run by pro-lifers on a volunteer basis. Women are clearly not being ignored by the pro-life movement; they have thousands of places to turn to for help.
Wight next claims that "women must be free to choose themselves over a child." If we admit, though, that the fetus in utero is a child, as we have already done, how can this statement be justified? Would we allow those same women the right to kill their one-year old infants because they had few economic choices? Certainly not. Yet we would not abandon them either. We would help them to cope with their difficult situations.
We would not condemn either the woman or the infant to death even in the worst of circumstance. The same must hold true for a woman and her unborn child.
Wight then claims that women can't lie to themselves about their "right" to kill their children, and she urges them to take responsibility for such actions. The confusion comes in when we recall that (1) the fetus in utero is a child and (2) killing it is immoral. If the woman (and I would add the man and the rest of society as well), are really to take responsibility for their actions as she claims, they would work to make the woman's period of pregnancy and subsequent child-rearing as painless as possible. Wight claims that "abortion rights will be safest when we're willing to bring morality into the picture," but this is clearly not the case. If we bring morality into the picture, and we have just said that we have the responsibility to do so, then abortion rights are not safe at all.
But the demise of abortion rights should not bring with it the demise of a woman's freedom. A woman forced to have an abortion is sadly less free than one who is able to fulfill her moral responsibility and bring the child to term. And that option, due largely to the work of the pro-life movement, is readily available.
Her next argument is understandable, especially given the prevalent stereotype of the pro-life movement.
She hearkens back to illegal abortion and the "crowded back alleys of the years before the Roe v. Wade decision." She assumes in her argument that the pro-life movement wants abortion illegal and that is the end of it.
But she forgets once again all the work that is being done to help women today -- even in the face of legal abortion. Isn't it reasonable to assume that these same people, given the knowledge that abortion were no longer a legal option, would work even harder to assist troubled women in bringing their children to term? Why would they devote so much energy to helping women through pregnancies when the option to abort is perfectly legal, and then turn their backs on them when abortion is made illegal?
Finally, Wight concludes her thoughtful article by saying we as a society should work to make abortion "a rare and grievous event." She is so close to realizing fully the position of the pro-life movement. Abortion should be rare, and we as a society should work to ensure that.
But to have such noble goals under the premise that abortion is a right does not make sense. We do not work as a society to eliminate rape and make it as rare as possible, while at the same time working against our own efforts by claiming rape is a right.
And this example is ridiculous as well as illogical because we know that rape is immoral. The same is true of abortion. We know that it is wrong. We know that it is immoral. We cannot hope to combat its frequent occurrence by clinging to abortion as a right. It is illogical to do so, and it is also ridiculous.
Wight, as with so many other pro-choicers who are against abortion, has taken the first step by realizing that the child is a human person and that abortion is consequently immoral. It is only necessary for them to look a bit closer before they will find that their proverbial small step was in fact a giant leap.
