Abortion (Pro Life) Not Many

Abortion (Pro Life)

Not many people disagree when a law is passed that is objective and does not impact religious beliefs and value systems. For example, some individuals protested the speed limit of 55 mph on many federal highways. However, the situation changes significantly when people view the law, or intended law, as acceptable or unacceptable due to different ethical considerations. The abortion issue falls into this second category. Abortion has most likely been the most heated issue in American society for the past half of a century. Relating to all aspects of social, political, philosophical and religious areas of life, the issue has divided the country when it needs most to be united. America was founded on the principals of democracy, or middle ground and compromise. Democratic government succeeds when elected officials recognize that complex issues rarely have solutions that are black-and-white, "right" or "wrong," and that different interpretations of democratic principles and social priorities exist. The question, then, is whether or not there can be a middle ground with the issue of abortion.

More than any other modern-day issue, the debate over abortion demonstrates the reality of ongoing, long-term conflict in American society. Actually, the debate goes back to the times of Susan B. Anthony, an early feminist who -- surprising to many people -- wrote against abortion. People such as Anthony opposed abortion because the medical procedure at that time was unsafe and endangered women's health and life. They felt that only the gains for women's equality and freedom would end the need for abortion. For example, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote in the women's rights newspaper, the Revolution, "But where shall it be found, at least begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of woman?"

These women wrote that prevention was more important than punishment, and blamed the times, laws and men they believed drove women to abortions. As Matilda Joslyn Gage wrote in 1868, "I hesitate not to assert that most of this crime of child murder, abortion, infanticide, lies at the door of the male sex..."

Feminists in the 20th century defended the development of safe and effective birth control as another means to prevent abortion. By 1965, all fifty states banned the procedure with some exceptions that varied by state: to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape or incest, or with a deformed fetus. Meanwhile, groups like the National Abortion Rights Action League and the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion worked to liberalize anti-abortion laws. In 1973, the Supreme Court reversed the situation in the case of Roe v. Wade, declared most existing state abortion laws unconstitutional. This decision ruled out any legislative interference in the first trimester of pregnancy and placed limits on the type of restrictions that could be passed on abortions in later stages of pregnancy (Graber 23). Although numerous groups applauded the Court's decision, many others, especially in the Roman Catholic Church and the theologically conservative Christian groups, opposed the change. The conflict continues.

The fierce public dialogues about this issue have divided many in this country, with others trying to find a way to appease everyone and reduce the ill feeling and misunderstandings. At a time when the country, more than ever needs to be strong and united, the issue of abortion remains significantly prominent. Studies find that almost everyone has a firm belief about abortion. Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that effectively guaranteed the right of women to have abortions, was rendered back in 1973, but the years since have done little to decrease the divergence between those who favor and those who oppose the procedure.

Pro-choice" and "pro-life" evolved, especially by the media, as the most common self-chosen names of the two movements. Despite the numerous points-of-view on this subject, it appears to be much easier to label people as part one of these two camps. According to this dichotomy, pro-choicers believe that to abort a pregnancy is to be made only by the woman; the state, through legislation, has no right to interfere. Pro-lifers, instead, hold that since the embryo is alive from the moment of conception, there is a moral obligation for preservation and abortion is murder. Labeling people into one of these two categories may be easier, but it distorts the picture. Agreement or disagreement with abortion is not an "either/or," black-and-white issue. Rather, it is a spectrum of beliefs.

Further, over the years, it has become the norm to peg people into different categories on the issue, depending upon their religion, political affiliation or even occupation. Human beings, however, cannot be pegged in this fashion. For example, not all Catholics support the Church's stance on abortion; not all feminists are pro-choice.

Among religions there exist considerable demarcations along the spectrum of "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as defined above. Judaism offers an example. In a Jewish joke, a rabbi is asked to settle a dispute. After listening to one side of the argument, he declares, "You're right!" After listening to the other side, the rabbi also nods and says, "You're right, too." His wife declares, exasperated, "Rabbi, this is absurd! They can't both be right!" The rabbi sighs and replies sadly, "You're also right!"

As with most issues in Judaism, there is not just a single rabbinic position on abortion. The Old Testament does not specifically mention this topic. Exodus 21:22-25, seems to address the topic of a miscarriage that accidentally occurs during a fight. This passage prescribes monetary damages when someone harms a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage. Some have interpreted this passage as condoning a fine if the fight leads to a premature live birth and a more stringent punishment if either the child or mother dies (Beckwith 142). However, most translators have instead seen this passage as permitting a fine if a miscarriage occurs and a more serious punishment if the woman is harmed or killed.

By the time of the New Testament, most Jewish rabbis interpreted in this secondary fashion (Gorman 41). This does not necessarily mean Jews accepted abortion, since Exodus 21 concerns accidental miscarriage, not premeditated abortion. As a result of this, Orthodox Judaism generally discourages abortion except to save the life of the mother. Later authorities differ on the extent one goes to define the harm to the mother to justify abortion.

The Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards for Conservative Judaism believes that abortion is justifiable if a continuation of pregnancy may cause the mother serious physical or psychological injury or when medical opinions deem the fetus very defective. The fetus is a life in the process of development, and the mother should consult with the father, other family members, rabbi, and other specialists to assess the legal and ethical issues. The Jewish Reform movement goes beyond this closely delineated period and gives sanction to choose to end a pregnancy when confronting other circumstances: as a result of rape or incest; when through genetic testing, it is determined that the child to be born will have a disease that will cause death or severe disability, and the parents believe that the impending birth will be an impossible situation for them; and other personal circumstances. "Judaism...does not equate abortion with murder. To the contrary, in Judaism, a fetus is not considered a full human being," notes Rabbi Balfour Brickner of the Federation of Reformed Synagogues (Rubin 194).

Likewise, disagreement occurs between Catholicism and Protestants, as well as among the different Christian sects. Within the Christian Church there is normally a strong wish to follow and relate the teachings of the Bible. However this is easier said than done, and a number of different interpretations of Scripture have lead to a variety of viewpoints about the moral implications of abortion. Generally, the Catholic Church is united in its condemnation of abortion. The Catholic Church teaches that ensoulment takes place at the moment of conception. This has thus been a key reason for its refusal to condone the practice: "By the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors, and in communion with the bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral" (Papal Encyclical 1995).

Although those of the Catholic faith do not believe that abortion is an acceptable solution to undesired pregnancies, they do accept that there may be situations when an abortion takes place as the outcome of trying to deal with another medical issue. For example, the Church would allow "the doctrine of double effect" if the mother requires a life-saving operation that may possibly end the pregnancy, since it is the first priority to save the woman's life rather than end the pregnancy.

Many Protestant denominations including the Anglicans, Methodists and Quakers have been disinclined to be as strict as the Catholic Church. Frequently, they accept that there are certain occasions when abortion is an unavoidable result of deciding between the "lesser of two evils" (Ellingson 13).

To further complicate the issue, explains Ellingson, there is even disagreement among the Catholics and among the Protestants. "It is not just a Catholic and Protestant Debate"(13).

Some Catholic statements, like the 1968 papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, condemn the practice on grounds of the created order, which is thought to be structured in such a way that all sexual expression must be open to procreation. Other statements, notably various declarations issued from 1969 to 1989 by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) in the U.S. appeal instead to the nature of the human person and the idea that life begins at conception. Abortion must be rejected, such statements argue, because it terminates a human life. Yet a third subgroup can be identified. Statements like the NCCB's well-known 1983 pastoral on peace and the Catholic bishops of France's 1979 declaration do not emphasize the doctrines of creation and human persons but argue against abortion by granting priority to the gospel.

In addition, in the Protestant Church, several statements -- for example, declarations by the Mennonite General Conference in 1977, the Church of the Brethren's in 1984 declaration and the Lutheran Free Church in Norway in1979 declaration -- have condemned abortion. However, these statements do not unequivocally reject abortion in all circumstances (Ellingson 14).

The differences among and between the religious groups shows another inconsistency with the abortion issue -- That is, the reasons if and when abortions are acceptable. As noted above, many believe that abortions can only be considered when the life of the mother is at stake. However, shades of grey enter into the picture when other reasons are offered as well. That is, a number of individuals may be pro-choice only in certain situations. For example, as noted above, most of those who are considered pro-life believe that abortion can be acceptable in the case of the mother's health. Similarly, there are other people who are against abortion in some instances, such as for a means of birth control, but see its relevance in other circumstances such as rape.

The idea that some exceptions are necessary for abortion is not new. Long before this procedure was widely permitted, state legislatures permitted abortion in a few unusual cases. The American Law Institute's 1959 model statute allowed abortion in only three cases: 1) if continuation of pregnancy "would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother"; if the doctor believed that "the child would be born with grave physical or mental defects," or 3) if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest (Francome 102).

A number of states, such as Maryland, Kansas and New Mexico, adopted these guidelines, often with little or no debate. Although most of these legislatures were pro-life, individual legislators recognized that permitting abortion in these three situations was not at all the same a voting for abortion on demand (Currie 45).

These views have a significant background as well. The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, for instance, rarely allows abortion, but does make an exception to "prevent the birth of a severely crippled, deformed or abnormal infant" (Hilgers et. al 401). Similarly, the Southern Baptist Church is one of the many religious institutions that recognizes a justification for permitting abortion in cases of rape and incest, without giving women carte blanche to have abortions whenever and for whatever reason they wish (Currie 45).

However, individuals such as Dr. Sloan question how one can be against abortion in some cases and not in others. "One fascinating dilemma in the abortion debate is the right to abortion in cases of rape or incest. If an embryo is a person and abortion is murder, and no one has the constitutional right to kill another person, how can it be OK to kill only at certain times -- as in rape and incest?" (109)

He continues: "It seems that people who say they are against abortion except in cases of rape or incest are basing their judgment on something other than whether or not abortion is killing. Clearly their feelings about abortion do not have to do with the 'innocent life' of the embryo or fetus, but with the mother" (109). The idea of forcing a female to carry the result of rape to term is horrible to most people. When pushed, they will say they are against abortion for "birth control," but not in these other situations of rape and incest, since the women did not plan on becoming pregnant.

Another question that confuses the abortion issue is the conflict of religion and science. Some people believe that the two are completely compatible and others somewhat to totally incompatible. As Bertrand Russell once said: "When two men of science disagree, they do not invoke the secular arm; they wait for further evidence to decide the issue, because, as men of science, they know that neither is infallible. But when two theologians differ, since there is no criteria to which either can appeal, there is nothing for it but mutual hatred and an open or covert appeal to force.

One thing commonly promoted as a strong point of science is the idea of "falsifiability." A genuinely scientific theory is supposed to be "falsifiable," or meaning that there exists some theoretical state of affairs that would prove the theory wrong. As long as this situation does not exist then it is possible to have some confidence that the theory is probably true. If it is found, then the theory should be disregarded.

Based on this idea, then, it would appear that all scientists would be in favor of abortion, since it is impossible to recognize the soul in the fetus at conception. However, prior to the controversy about stem-cell research, and especially since then, a number of pro-life scientists have made themselves heard. According to their website, the "Do No Harm" group of scientists state, "Obtaining stem cells from people without seriously harming people in the process can be ethical. However, obtaining stem cells from human embryos cannot be ethical because it necessarily involves destroying those embryos." According to this group, human embryonic stem cell research is unethical because it alienates human rights; the good ends (for example, health) do not justify the use of unethical means (that is, killing human beings); and scientifically, the international consensus of embryologists is that human beings begin at fertilization or cloning -- that is, when their genetic code is complete and operative; even before implantation, they are far more than a "bunch of cells" or merely "potential human beings."

One would think that the term "pro-life feminist" was an oxymoron, but that is not the case. On their website, a group calling themselves Feminists for Life proudly state that women such as Susan B. Anthony were pro-life. They report that, using the term "feminist" in this day and age is tricky. Many women who are independent, support equal opportunity and fight against the injustices of rape and abuse would consider themselves feminists. The definitions of the word "feminism" as defined by groups such as National Organization of Women, they say, reject women who do not fit into their specific and radical idea of feminism. They cite individuals such as Sue Purrington, executive director of NOW's Chicago chapter, who said the following regarding Feminists for Life: "Either they misunderstand the whole issue of feminism, or they are using it for purposes I disagree with. Their philosophy is irrelevant."

According to Pat Goltz, of another group, Feminists Against Abortion, "Each time a woman resorts to abortion...she allows some part of the male power structure to force her into a destructive act" (U.S. Congress 108). Such anti-abortion feminists are not arguing against feminist ideals or practices, but against the claims they make to support their view of abortion.

The task of feminist ethics on the topic of abortion is "to begin with a look at the role of abortion in women's lives." (Soifer 261). Feminist ethics view society as patriarchal, or in other words, man centered or man dominant. The majority of feminists feel that the ethics presently used to evaluate issues such as abortion are based on principles generated out of male interests and are unable to recognize female needs and experiences (Kymlicka 238). The traditional feminist approach towards abortion can thus be summarized as a focus on the consequences of pregnancy for women in all areas of their lives. The pregnant woman is the subject of principal concern in abortion decisions. These feminist groups resent the fact that any individuals who call themselves by this term are lumped into a certain ideology or philosophy of life. They stress that feminists, just as any other group of people, can also have different points-of-view.

The pro-life feminists reject the claim that the social situation of women justifies the view that individual females must be the only persons to determine whether their pregnancies should end or continue. This claim, they state, pays no attention to the responsibility of men over fetuses. They also reject the claim that the personhood of a fetus is a function of the social relation that exists, or does not exist. This claim ignores the need for moral status to be applied universally to fetuses or not at all. The feminist interpretations of society are correct but the arguments against abortion are flawed (Soifer 270).

As described above, it is recognized that the issue of abortion is extremely complex. An answer to resolve this issue is never going to appease everyone, or even most everyone -- as the 55 mph. On the highways. Can a middle ground be found? Before he died, the scientist Carl Sagan wrote an essay on this topic. He worries about the fight that continues on this issue: "Opinions are polarized. Minds are closed," and wonders, "Is it wrong to abort a pregnancy? Always? Sometimes? Never? How do we decide?"

In an essay on abortion, Sagan argues that the fetus's capacity for rudimentary thought -- measured by electrical activity in the brain -- is the proper criterion of its personhood. Since fetal brain activity does not occur until the third trimester, this criterion would allow abortions during the first six months -- and thus the position of Roe v. Wade is arrived at on completely different grounds. While this argument does not agree with pro-life activists or supporters of late-term abortions, it is an attempt to look at this issue from another viewpoint.

And why, exactly, should breathing (or kidney function, or the ability to resist disease) justify legal protection? If a fetus can be shown to think and feel but not be able to breathe, would it be all right to kill it? Do we value breathing more than thinking and feeling? Viability arguments cannot, it seems to us, coherently determine when abortions are permissible. Some other criterion is needed. Again, we offer for consideration the earliest onset of human thinking as that criterion.

Since, on average, fetal thinking occurs even later than fetal lung development, we find Roe v. Wade to be a good and prudent decision addressing a complex and difficult issue. With prohibitions on abortion in the last trimester -- except in cases of grave medical necessity -- it strikes a fair balance between the conflicting claims of freedom and life. (180)

McKenna, who teaches political science at the City College of New York, looked at Lincoln's speech about slavery in terms of abortion. He states that "Lincoln's stand on slavery offers a basis for a new politics of civility that is at once anti-abortion and pro-choice."

It is modeled on Lincoln's position on slavery from 1854 until well into the Civil War: tolerate, restrict, discourage. Like Lincoln's, its touchstone is the common good of the nation, not the sovereign self. Like Lincoln's position, it accepts the legality, but not the moral legitimacy of the institution that it seeks to contain. Abortion, a tragedy in everyone's estimation, will continue to darken our prospects until we find practical ways of dealing with it in order to make it rare. But before we can even hope to do that, we have to start talking with one another honestly, in honest language.