Abortion and Reproductive Rights Abortion

¶ … Abortion and Reproductive Rights

Abortion is one of the most divisive and controversial political and social issues in the United States. For many decades, elective abortion was prohibited in most American states. As a result, most women who wished to terminate an unwanted pregnancy typically had only two choices: to travel to remote states for a legal medical procedure or to obtain an illegal abortion performed (usually) by non-physicians under unsafe conditions.

Wealthier women were more likely to have family support and resources, including the money to travel if necessary and the professional connections and the social relationships necessary to obtain a formal medical certification of "necessity" required under state statutes to satisfy the legal criteria for medically necessary abortion procedures (Mappes & Zembaty, 2008). Conversely, poor women could not readily travel to distant states or obtain formal authorization from family physicians; they either endured "back-alley" abortions or they gave birth to infants whether they could afford to feed and care for them properly or not. To a certain extent, their plight in this regard was responsible for perpetuating poverty and social reliance of many minority individuals and families, particularly in the southern states (Mappes & Zembaty, 2008).

In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, deciding that states could no longer prohibit elective abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy (Mappes & Zembaty, 2008). That decision still permitted states to regulate specific medical aspects of elective abortion during the second trimester and it allowed state prohibition of elective abortion during the third trimester except for cases of medical necessity (Mappes & Zembaty, 2008). Since then, a strong opposition lobby has continually worked to undermine the Roe decision politically, supporting various laws attempting to limit the dispensation of informational literature or require mandatory waiting periods and parental notification by law. Anti-abortion groups routinely disrupt business operations at medical facilities by picketing immediately in front of their property and exploiting their First Amendment right to free speech to harass and shame patients exercising their constitutional rights to obtain elective abortions if they so choose (Mappes & Zembaty, 2008).

Legal Issues:

In theory, the legal basis of the opposition to abortion is that the unborn fetus is a person within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution and therefore, entitled to the full protection of law as any other person. More particularly, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the equal protection of every person, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments require the due process of law in order to deprive any person of "life and liberty" (Mappes & Zembaty, 2008).

The principal legal argument against abortion is simply that the unborn fetus is entitled to life and liberty and that it is equally criminal to harm or kill a person who is still unborn and to harm or kill a person in general. To a certain extent, that rationale makes perfect sense, particularly in the third trimester of pregnancy. There is no doubt that a fetus is entitled to the protection of law as a person one hour or one day before birth; on the other hand, it is equally obvious that there is no such basis for applying ordinary concepts of personhood or legal rights and protections to the unborn all the way back to conception.

The only genuine philosophical and ethical dilemma arises in connection with identifying the transition of a fetus that is insufficiently developed to be considered a person into an individual with the same rights as all other persons under the law (Mappes & Zembaty, 2008). While even those most supportive of a woman's right to choose understand that a fetus does acquire fundamental human rights at some point relatively early in the third trimester, opponents of autonomous reproductive rights hold the position that personhood begins at the moment of conception (Mappes & Zembaty, 2008).

This is the main source of legal controversy precisely because it reflects a religious belief defining human life as being created at the moment of fertilization (Mappes & Zembaty, 2008). While that is a perfectly acceptable belief within the framework of religious philosophy, it is a fundamental violation of the concept of separation of church and state to impose that belief on secular laws.

The First constitutional amendment prohibits both the establishment and the prohibition of religion by the government. Going back even further, religious freedom was one of the principle motivations of the original Settlers who left British rule, precisely because of their experiences under mandatory religious affiliation for centuries. Under modern Constitutional concepts and interpretations of the Supreme Court, the imposition of religious definitions of the beginning of life violates those fundamental principles where they influence laws that determined the rights of individuals who subscribe to different religious beliefs (Mappes & Zembaty, 2008).

Ethical Issues:

There are legitimate ethical issues completely outside of any religious beliefs or values. The fully developed fetus and nearly fully developed fetus are clearly entitled to basic human rights by virtue of (1) their ability to sense pain and discomfort, and (2) their capacity to survive outside the womb. Prior to the stage where a fetus becomes sentient or capable of survival, there is no objectively valid basis for objecting to elective abortion (Mappes & Zembaty, 2008).

Contrary to religious beliefs, the mere act of fertilization has absolutely no objective moral significance simply because the zygote produced consists of only a small number of undifferentiated cells without any human form or function whatsoever. They merely have potential to develop further, very much like human sperm and unfertilized ova. Admittedly, the fertilized zygote does contain the full set of DNA required to define a complete human being, but so does every flake of dandruff or hair follicle that falls from a living person (Mappes & Zembaty, 2008).