One of the things I find most frustrating about the abortion debate is how little 'debate' actually occurs. I'm sure we've all seen the news clips from rallies and protests of people shouting "abortion is murder" and "a woman's right to choose," as though they're going to convince anyone by hurling cliched phrases at one another. Neither side generally tries very hard to understand the other's perspective, and here we are, 28 years after Roe v. Wade, a country still divided by this issue.
This week I challenge all of you who are pro-choice to try to understand the pro-life perspective and not to dismiss it as so much religious conservatism; for myself, I can only tell you that I'm a fairly liberal feminist, a Catholic who doesn't blindly accept teachings of the church that conflict with what my reason says, and a voter who is not responsible for helping George W. into office (antiabortion doesn't make you pro-life, kiddo). Here is my attempt, then, to provide answers to a couple of pro-choice arguments.
1) A fetus is not a child.
Biologically speaking, it makes no sense to insist that life begins at some point other than conception. A fertilized embryo has the full range of the human genome, one uniquely different from its mother, and the potential to grow from there. From that point, development proceeds rapidly -- in less than a month, the baby's heart is beating. Two and a half weeks later, brain waves can be detected. Children in utero feel pain, move and can now even have surgery performed on them safely.
If there's anything about human life that makes it valuable, it's something that is with us from conception -- at no other point is there any sort of radical change that can be said to mark a transition from tissue to individual. Unless, of course, you believe that there's a magical power associated with the inhalation of air. Some philosophies argue that personhood is distinct from humanity and depends on some standard of awareness; these run into problems, though, when it comes to the mentally disabled and even periods of unconsciousness or coma in the lives of ordinary people. If you think that human life is without value, then it is illogical to condemn infanticide, euthanasia, the death penalty or any other murder of inconvenient people.
If you do think that life has philosophical, religious, or political value, however, I would suggest that you think closely about whether it makes logical sense to say that it begins at some point other than conception.
2) Abortion is a women's rights issue.
I support a woman's right to choose as far as it applies to her own body, but only that far. Her daughter has an equal right to life that I must defend according to my belief that she is a separate person.
All this aside, though, I'm still perplexed by those who celebrate abortion as a wonderful thing for women. At best, abortion is a highly invasive, somewhat dangerous, surgical procedure with potential for physical and psychological trauma. If you are pro-choice, how much do you really know about the actual process of abortion?
Pro-lifers are often attacked for showing graphic pictures and talking about very unpleasant things, but how can you defend abortion without acknowledging its harsh realities? I'm also not convinced that women have any more of a "free choice" than they did before 1973. A woman who keeps her child must now be aware that she will get no special treatment since she chose not to take the option of abortion.
I could go on about the difficulties of having a child at Dartmouth, but that would be another editorial in and of itself, and a simple comparison of the number of women here who are sexually active, compared to those with children, tells the story well enough.
I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, but if President Bush chooses to move in that direction, he will also have to address the social problems to which abortion provided a convenient solution. Increased medical coverage and greater social support for working mothers would go a long way to furthering the "culture of life."
Also, feminist organizations such as NOW currently focus on abortion to the detriment of other important social issues, to which I, for one, would like to see them devote more time: discrimination, unequal pay, and domestic violence, for example. Similarly, they should acknowledge that abortion is not a happy, wonderful thing -- a post-abortive woman is as much, or more, of a hormonal mess as a post-partum woman, but to provide widespread counseling services would be to "give ground" to the other side.
In the current rhetorical battleground, women lose as often as their children do, and no one wins except those who actually provide abortions -- a $400,000,000+ per year industry. It's like trusting cigarette companies to be looking out for your best interests -- I just don't tend to have much faith in those who are out for my money.
I've probably strayed a bit from the problem at hand, but it is impossible to address Roe v. Wade without taking into account the wide variety of issues which have made abortion so divisive for so long. The idealist in me hopes that both women and children might benefit in the next four years, and that society will change so that the welfare of each should not depend on the suffering of the other. And the realist in me? Well, I said I didn't vote for Bush...
