Sanctity of Choice

Suzanne Miller

The issue of abortion is inarguably one of the most intense debates of our time. The Constitution, the Supreme Court, and God itself have all been used to justify or oppose the right to an abortion. This controversy has thrust itself into the political spotlight, and campaigns almost always run on opposing sides of the issue. Thus presents the most difficult aspect of understanding this debate: [to be] pro-choice or pro-life? Such terminology has been used by both sides to manipulate, justify, and shape their argument. Matters of freedom and life are fundamental values that few want to oppose, and subsequently present us with a complex dilemma. Essentially, being pro-choice contrasts you from being pro-life, therefore you could be charged with being anti-life by the other side. Equally, being pro-life as opposed to pro-choice, also makes an assumption that you are anti-freedom. The media has given us the “pro-life/pro-choice” controversy, but the two warring camps choose more effective terms for their cause: pro-choice organizations refer to the opposition as “anti-choice” and the pro-life side does not use the term pro-choice, but “pro-abortion.” The central argument of the pro-choice movement is that the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be left up to the woman, without government interference, and is essentially in line with the stipulations of Roe V. Wade. The opposition argues that human life begins at conception and the termination of a pregnancy at any point of development is equivalent to murder. In addition, legislative action should be taken to ensure “the sanctity of human life.” This is merely the first, most basic step in breaking down the issue.

Abortion is not simply a debate of opposing ideologies; it is inherently political. Both sides seek to gain legislative leverage to protect their cause; be it for the sanctity of life or freedom. The legislation and court cases relating to abortion are innumerable, and there is militant, unrelenting aggression and organized support from both ends of the argument. Herein lies its significance. The emergence of abortion as a political debate was in 1973 with the Supreme Court case Roe V. Wade, which legalized abortion on a federal level (no longer up to individual states) until the sixth month, or end of the second trimester, of a pregnancy. The Court ruled that the right to an abortion under these terms is fundamental, and protected under the Right to Privacy amendment in the Constitution. The pro-choice/pro-life debate had now become a serious political issue. Roe V. Wade was just the first of many abortion-related Court decisions and the catalyst for the passage of many state laws concerning abortion. The most important of these being Webster V. Reproductive Health Services in 1989, which gave individual states the right to put restrictions on abortion.

Due to Webster, the specifics on abortion law vary from state to state. According to a 2001 survey, eighteen states have laws banning “partial-birth” (or D&X-Dilation and Extraction) abortions (The Abortion Law Homepage). These are situations in which the fetus has been developing into approximately the twentieth week, when it becomes viable: able to survive outside the mother’s womb. This is the point where most people from the pro-choice camp draw their line. Eight states have laws declaring their intent to ban abortion to the fullest extent of the Constitution if Roe V. Wade is ever overturned (The Abortion Law Homepage). A whopping thirty-eight states have parental consent laws that prevent minors from obtaining an abortion without parental consent or notification (The Abortion Law Homepage). However, nine states (CA included) have these laws on the books, but they are not enforced (The Abortion Law Homepage). Five states have so called “gag rules” that prevent state funded personnel from giving abortion counseling or referrals, and an additional five states have laws prohibiting the use of public facilities for abortions (The Abortion Law Homepage). Public (taxpayer) funding for abortion is a current hot topic in the political spotlight. Twenty-seven states fund abortion in cases of life endangerment to the mother, rape, or incest (The Abortion Law Homepage). Sixteen states (CA included) fund in most or all circumstances (The Abortion Law Homepage). Clearly, the abortion debate was not settled with Roe V. Wade. To varying degrees, there are many obstacles a woman must go through in order to obtain an abortion.

Although there are strong, conflicting arguments on either side, common ground can be found between them. Both sides recognize and acknowledge abortion to be a significant social problem, and seek an overall decrease in the number of abortions per year. Neither side is “pro-abortion;” but one accepts the procedure to sometimes be the best solution to a complicated situation. So, we must examine the contributing factors that cause the necessity for abortion. The primary reason abortions are performed is unwanted pregnancy. In rare occasions, the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, and for this many pro-lifers make a concession. Even more rare than rape/incest is life endangerment to the mother, in which nearly all pro-lifers can make an exception for. However, the majority of unwanted or unplanned pregnancies are directly the result of a failure or absence of contraceptives. There are two solutions to this problem: 1) contraceptives must be made available, and 2) used correctly. In an ideal world, people would not have sex without the intent, or acceptance of a possible pregnancy. But most of us believe the idea of abstinence would be unrealistic for the general population to accept. Thus, we are left with basically one defense against unwanted pregnancies: effective birth control methods. This can be achieved through education and availability. Thorough, comprehensive sexuality education is severely lacking in this country. We are far behind many other nations when it comes to sex education in the public schools. “Abstinence only” education simply will not work. Teenagers will not all of a sudden decide to become sexually inactive because they were told to do so in school. However, plain sex education without any moral guidance would be an irresponsible approach as well. There must be a comprehensive sexuality education program that is thorough, honest, realistic, and designed to convey the message that sex can be risky and dangerous, but the use of protection is vital if two people decide to engage in sexual behavior. I believe we should teach-not preach-that sex is an all-encompassing physical and emotional experience; ideally shared by two committed, monogamous individuals. Abstinence must be presented as a safe alternative, but should not be the ultimate goal of a sex education.

The second necessity for effective birth control is availability. Contraceptives must be made free, or of low cost, to high school and college students, and made available on school campuses. This is the most effective location for the highest at-risk group for unplanned pregnancies: teenaged and college-aged women. Insurance companies also need to cover contraceptives in health plans; women’s health needs must be met in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. This is my proposal to decrease the need for abortion. But until we live in a country where every adolescent and adult obtains a quality, comprehensive sex education; deciding either to have safe sex or to not have sex at all, and contraceptives are made widely available and affordable, the need for abortion will continue to exist. Abortion, although arguably not the right answer, must remain a viable option for all women to have access to. In short, abortion must remain legal, safe, and affordable.

Pro-life advocates have waged a relentless crusade to defend “the sanctity of life.” They do not accept what is in their view, the shameless slaughtering of innocent human life. Many stand behind religious institutions, which condemn abortion as going against God’s will, and invoke the Bible to be anti-abortion, despite the absence of any abortion-related passages. None-the-less, the crux of the argument is that life begins at the point of conception, and terminating a pregnancy at any point of development is destroying a human life.

There are several holes and contradictions in the aforementioned argument. Most importantly, the “sanctity of life” point is one of the most hypocritical statements I’ve ever heard. We do not place a very high value on life in this culture. We wage wars with astronomical death tolls; bomb indiscriminately, causing disease and death for innocent civilians. We destroy their homes, and then deny them food and medical aid through trade embargoes; causing countless avoidable deaths. And these are just the humans. We slaughter animals for food, fur, and other commodities; shamelessly destroying ecosystems in the process.

The “sanctity of life” argument is also flawed in the sphere of public policy. One would assume that a pro-life politician would also support and encourage programs and policies that enable all women to have access to quality pre-natal care, childcare, and other programs that would make an unplanned pregnancy possible to cope with. But this is not the reality. States with the most conservative, rigid abortion policy are the same states that spend the least on education, and have the highest numbers of children without health care and living in poverty. According to these facts, life is only worth preserving while in the womb. Politicians do not seek to aide mothers in giving their “would be aborted” children a good quality of life.

Contrary to pro-life assertions, life does not begin at conception. It is not until the sixteenth week that human characteristics become visible, but even then the fetus cannot yet move on its own, nor survive outside the womb. The lungs do not begin developing until the sixth month, and brain waves are not detectable until the seventh or eighth month. In his essay “Abortion: Is It Possible to Be Both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice?”, Carl Sagan explains the trouble with this life-detecting criteria. According to Sagan, none of these are uniquely human characteristics. All animals respond to stimuli and move freely. Many are able to breathe, but that doesn’t stop up us from slaughtering them by the masses; reflexes, motion, and respiration are not what make us human (175). This is precisely what makes the issue so complicated; we are unable to agree on a single definitive stage of pregnancy in which the fetus becomes “life.”

Abortion is one of the most impassioned, sensitive, political and moral debates of our time. It is unlikely that either side will concede its fundamental beliefs: life and freedom. I believe it should be the goal of both sides to work together to reduce the number of abortions by embracing the solution of birth control and quality sex education. The philosophy that I live by is this: While individually we might be opposed to abortion, we must respect that this is an agonizing, deeply personal decision that ultimately must be decided by the woman. We cannot live in a world of government mandated pregnancies; personal reproductive freedom must prevail. Abortion is a complicated moral issue, but it is one in which government should have minimal involvement. I respect the pro-life argument and believe it is mostly founded on genuine love and concern; not the desire to control women’s bodies. But it is my conviction that for the welfare of society--abortion must remain legal, safe, and affordable to all women.

Works Cited

Sagan, Carl. “Abortion: Is It Possible to Be Both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice?” Billions
and Billions. New York: Random House, Inc., 1997. (163-179)
The Abortion Law Homepage. State Abortion Laws: A Survey. 2 Oct. 2001.
<http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abtrbrns/stablw.htm?mtbrand=AOL_US

Suzanne Miller is a Santa Monica College student.