The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision and abortion debate in America

¶ … Abortion Debate

In 1973, through the landmark case of Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court made first trimester abortions legal in the United States. The decision struck down a host of state anti-abortion statutes and was hailed as a landmark of women's reproductive rights. It also gave birth to a vocal umbrella movement of anti-abortion groups which continue to challenge Roe vs. Wade both on moral and legal grounds.

Almost three decades later, the issue of abortion remains the greatest moral flashpoint facing America today. More than any other moral issue, the question of abortion has divided communities, determined the outcome of many elections and incited quiet citizens to become activists.

Perhaps the only point both pro- and anti-abortion activists agree upon is that the battle over abortion rights has caused needless deaths. People who are against abortion, the self-labeled "Pro-Life Movement," point to the 46 million births that are terminated worldwide each year ("Induced Abortions Factsheet"). Pro-Abortion activists, on the other hand, point out the physicians who have been murdered by snipers and clinic workers who have been killed in clinic bombings.

This paper examines the arguments of both sides of the abortion debate. It evaluates the ethical issues underlying the anti-abortion crusade, with particular emphasis on the rights of the fetus. The paper then looks at the pro-abortion movement, focusing on the constitutional underpinnings of reproductive rights. In the conclusion, the paper argues against criminalizing abortion once again, because making abortion a crime will not stop abortions from occurring. Instead, making abortion illegal will only serve to hurt women's reproductive rights without adequately addressing the central concerns of the pro-life movement.

Anti-abortion arguments

The anti-abortion movement is a diverse group of people who all share one belief - that a fetus is a person and is therefore entitled to protection under the law.

The idea that a fetus is a person rests on several religious and legal principles. Christian theology believes that personhood begins from conception, based on several biblical theories. Jean Schroedel traces this Christian-based principle to the 1869 edict of Pope Pius IX, who decreed that "the fetus, although not ensouled, is directed to the forming of a man. Therefore, its ejection is anticipated homicide" (19-20).

Appeals to religious theology, however, are the weakest part of anti-abortion arguments because religious beliefs differ. Even interpretations of Christian doctrine vary among different theologians. For example, while most Christians believe that the Bible prohibits abortion, members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice maintain that a fetus is not a person and that the Bible remains silent on the issue of abortion (Ward).

Recent court rulings, however, have given the anti-abortion movement greater legal standing on the question of fetal personhood. In July 2002, the House voted to outlaw third trimester abortions. The bill would allow the procedure only when it is necessary to save a woman's life. Those who performed the procedure for other reasons -- including to avoid adverse health consequences to the woman -- would face fines and up to two years in prison (Dlouhy 2055). In April 2001, a bill allowing homicide charges against some people responsible for the deaths of unborn babies, passed in the Senate (Eilperin A1).

Both measures do not directly attempt to the overturn Roe vs. Wade. However, the extension of legal protection towards fetuses is a step towards recognizing personhood rights for a fetus. These measures have therefore been hailed as a victory by people who lobby for anti-abortion laws.

Aside from Biblical and legal arguments, there is also compelling medical evidence of fetal personhood that contributes to the continued strength of the anti-abortion movement. For example, at conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. It has 23 pairs of chromosomes, its own fingerprints and its own distinct DNA (Alcorn 56).

In addition, fetuses have heartbeats by the 18th day of conception. They have brainwaves by their 40th day. Heartbeats and brainwaves are routinely used to determine medical death. Therefore, anti-abortion advocates argue that the inverse should also be true - the presence of brainwaves and a heartbeat should be recognized as signs of life (Page 3).

In summary, anti-abortion activists base their stand on a combination of religious, moral and medical arguments that confer personhood on a fetus. Since a fetus is a person, abortion is thus viewed as the taking of a life, akin to murder.

Conclusion

Both sides of the abortion debate have managed to frame their stands based on moral principles. For anti-abortion advocates, the highest moral principle is the personhood of a fetus. Because a fetus is alive and is a person, the termination of a pregnancy is automatically equated with killing.

Abortion advocates, however, present a more nuanced view of morality, one that is grounded on both individual and societal rights. First, a woman's personhood is viewed as paramount. To impose a law defining a fetus as a "person," granting it rights equal to or superior to a woman - diminishes women. Second, to bear an unwanted child would most likely contribute to greater social ills.

In addition to the abstract debate, however, only the pro-choice side has presented an argument based on real, tangible social needs. Abortions will continue, whether or not Roe vs. Wade is overturned. The only question is the safety of the women involved. There are no easy answers in this debate, but, as Roiphe observes, "the morality of abortion lies in our capacity to make distinctions of quality, to balance one good against another, one evil against another" (144).

Because the individual and social evils of an unwanted pregnancy clearly outbalance vague definitions of fetal personhood, a woman's right to abortion must thus be protected.