U.S. abortion debate requires reasoning for both lives
Photo credit: Josh Stein
Murder, torture, baby-killing. These are only some of the epithets used by self-righteous pro-lifers to intimidate and guilt those with a conscience away from abortion. On the flip side, pro-choicers often claim abortion is really just getting rid of a bundle of unwanted cells. How can our society justify abortion or make it illegal?
There are two clear sides of the issue. It’s difficult not to think of a pregnancy as creating a human being, if nothing else because it has the potential to become one. But I can also see how a girl who didn’t want the pregnancy would have difficulty viewing the fetus in its early stages as a person - it doesn’t look like one and hasn’t reached the stage where you can feel it moving inside you. It’s hard to honestly tell someone who terminated a five-week pregnancy she murdered a human being.
But at five months, it’s difficult not to accuse. At that point, human characteristics are definitely present; you can see it, you can feel it move. So what happened between five weeks and five months that made the difference? Where do we draw the line?
College students have been catapulted into the heart of this issue. Many have had sex, and unfortunately, many more have no concrete understanding of birth control methods. Some don’t use birth control at all; others use it improperly. In either case, there’s a risk of pregnancy, which presents a remarkable set of changes in your future. Young adults plan on having careers, and their prospects would be dimmed with pregnancy. Many simply can’t afford the time and money commitment that a child would require.
Few options are left if these revelations come too late.
As a nation, the United States must take a definitive stance on abortion. This issue gets a great deal of publicity but not a great deal of practicality and objectivity, which is what it desperately needs. Murder is criminal in most circumstances, but there are exceptions, and punishment varies for different kinds of murder. Mercy killing is handled differently than accidental killing, killing through neglect or serial killing. Since we have definitive stances on those, citizens can operate in relation to that stance with certainty.
A similarly definitive policy is what abortion needs. Since abortion is a hot-button issue with uncompromisingly vocal opinions, the policy resulting from collaboration would undoubtedly be unsatisfactory to extremists on both sides but would make enough allowances to settle the issue.
There are two distinctive “sides” of the abortion conflict and both focus on the value of human life, just different definitions of what is human, to each group. The pro-choice side places greater value on the quality of life of the mother, and the pro-life side places greater value on the potential life of the unborn child. Any policy, therefore, should reflect a balance between these two.
One of the foundational tenets of the U.S. Constitution is the thought that Americans have a right to freedom - freedom limited by law only when the exercise of any freedom impedes upon the rights of others. We must draw the line where the rights of the mother end and the rights of the child begin.
This is also a question of life. When does a fetus become a human being? There isn’t a distinguishable line; no exact moment you can point to and say, “Look! That bundle of cells just became a person!” There are so many different criteria we could use to decide: Does it have a brain? Does it have a heartbeat? Does it feel pain? Could it survive on its own outside of the mother’s womb?
And even if we use the above criteria, there’s still no definitive line. For example, the human brain develops in a series of stages, becoming more complex and conscious with time. It begins developing between one and two months and does not come to completion until around seven months. The process is similar with nerves and the spinal column, and it takes time for the heart to develop individual chambers, as well.
Some babies born prematurely at four months have been known to survive with intensive care; some babies born in their sixth month have died. There is no prototype because every situation is different.
So how can we form a static law in a world of gray areas?
The answer lies in the same way we formed laws on murder, despite the immense variety of ways people have managed to kill each other. Murder is illegal, and whether it’s done on purpose or by accident the punishments will vary. Neglecting someone when you should have taken care of, or rescued him or her is also murder. And your level of responsibility in the person’s death - which is determined by the court - directly affects your level of guilt and punishment.
Let’s try to define when life begins and, therefore, when an abortion would be killing a human child, rather than eliminating an unwanted pregnancy.
In order to look at the definition of life, it may help to examine the definition of death. According to the Oxford American Dictionary, clinical death - death as judged by medical observation - is the “cessation of vital functions, typically identified with the cessation of heartbeat and respiration, though modern resuscitation methods and life-support systems have required the introduction of the alternative concept of brain death.”
Logically speaking, then, it seems reasonable to establish the beginning of life as relative to heart function, brain function and respiration - not breathing, which occurs after birth, but the process of oxygenating the blood, which in a fetus occurs through the spinal cord. So when a fetus has a heartbeat and a certain amount of brain function, it can be identified as a human being.
However, it should be noted that there is - not surprisingly - some debate about when the above functions begin, ranging from as early as 12 weeks, to between 18 and 24 weeks. And often, such numbers may reflect the doctors’ or researchers’ personal beliefs regarding the beginning of life. Therefore, in order for the definition I suggest to be the foundation of any abortion legislation, there would need to be an impartial analysis of these functions by a majority consensus of American scientists and doctors.
The next step in defining American abortion law should consider the rights of the mother. Women should have a say in the use of their body and her future. Women who were raped or women whose unborn children have severe deformities should receive special considerations. Also, the needs of women who want careers but accidentally became pregnant or women who are not financially or emotionally capable of raising a child - for whatever reason - should be addressed. Should all of these women not be able to have a say about their bodies, their futures, the quality of life they want for themselves and any children they may choose to have in the future?
As an aside, rape is a special case. If I was raped and became pregnant, I would choose to have the child. But that is my personal choice, based on my own morals. I would never presume to make the choice for a woman who had been raped, nor would I make the victim of another trauma such as carrying her rapist’s child to term. And we should not legislate as such.
As to the rest, my immediate response is that if a woman wants her career over a baby, or is that poor, she should be even more motivated to use contraceptive methods. But I recognize - as should everyone - that these methods, even when used properly, sometimes fail. It still becomes important to address the possibility of abortion in these cases.
Legislatively, abortion should reflect the views of as many Americans as possible - not only the extreme left or the conservative right. Moreover, minority issues and special exceptions must be taken into consideration.
The solution is not simple, but requires a national law - not a constitutional law - so that it can be changed if necessary to reflect further scientific or social developments.
The law should also restrict abortions to the first trimester of pregnancy, or when a level of heart and brain activity equal to that of a 12-week-old baby is noted, with the exceptions being in the cases of rape, incest, or if continuing the pregnancy physically endangers the life of the mother.
Three months is enough time for a woman to notice she’s pregnant, make a decision and take action.
In this way, women still have the option to control their futures and their lives and ensure they are ready, by whatever means they deem appropriate, to parent a child.
I think even the most staunch pro-choice advocates, if confronted with the image of a four-month developed fetus, would have difficulty convincingly arguing against its humanity, and babies developed to that stage that are born prematurely have been known to survive. On the other hand, hard-line pro-lifers should also respect the majority opinion of the American medical community about when life begins - if and when such a distinction is made.
We can only dream of a day when sexual and social responsibility create an environment in which unwanted pregnancies aren’t even an issue. This proposal seems to be the best fit to cater to both pro-choice and pro-life interests: it still leaves women the option of choice, while protecting the life of what is definitively a human child.
Read my original column here.
