THE IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING ROE V. WADE

(sigh)
I don't know why I'm bothering to write about this subject since it is such a controversial issue involving religious, political, medical and personal viewpoints that most likely will never find accordance in my lifetime. I do, however, feel strongly about the survival of Roe v. Wade and hope, in fact, that in the near term there will be further clarification of women's right to choose so as to diminish some of the controversy surrounding
it.
This blog is not the place to debate the religious aspects of abortion, and I'm not going to. While I concede that reverent viewpoints are paramount in many individuals' opinion on the subject, this post is not going to touch on that. Some of the controversy could be put to rest if there could be agreement on one or two points, which I'll discuss shortly. The bumper stickers that exclaim, "It's a child, not a choice," or "Abortion -- the hand that robs the cradle,"offer simplistic offerings of a highly volatile issue. So, too, do the divergent ones which state, "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?" or "U.S., out of my uterus!" So, with that in mind, here goes.
The issue of when "human personhood" begins is the root of the abortion debate. If there could be consensus on the definition of this, more clarity could be afforded to legislation and to those amorphous terms surrounding abortion. Pro-lifers generally feel "human personhood" occurs at conception, and pro-choicers generally feel the occurrence is at a much later stage of pregnancy. Therein lies the problem. Even medical doctors and ethicists do not agree here; and that is primarily because their own personal upbringing, viewpoints, and religious teachings have a way of creeping into their thought processes and influencing even the most practical scientific minds. And because of this, Justice Blackmun in 1973 wrote, "...We need to resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate." That was 32 years ago, and we are no closer to consensus today than we were then.
Therefore, since it appears we are still eons away from a LEGAL definition of "human personhood," let's examine a few of the more practical sides of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. A woman -- whether married or unmarried, young or older, healthy or sick, pious or not -- still faces enormous emotion when learning she is carrying a child. Indifference usually is not a factor here. Pregnancy and child rearing are major events in the life of any woman, fostering intense emotional, financial, and physical demands for many years. For those women whose religion does not allow the employment of birth control or for those who are remiss or just uninformed in the use of contraceptives, an unwanted pregnancy may wreak havoc on that individual's ability to provide appropriate nurturing (at all levels) to the child.
It is somehow unthinkable that legislators' opinions, which have been formulated by their own upbringing and environment, should be rendered law to an individual who is not capable emotionally, physically and/or financially to provide for a child. To force parenthood on someone unable or unwilling to adequately deal with raising a child, who may even eventually neglect or abuse that child, seems more a crime than the termination of the pregnancy. Yes, I know the argument....There is always adoption. But the reality of it is that less than 2% of individuals faced with unwanted pregnancy actually place the child up for adoption, and "those who relinquish tend to have higher education and income levels, higher future career and educational aspirations" (National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, 2005). This suggests that those women least likely to have the means financially to obtain adequate pre-natal and post-natal care and to provide essential provisions for that child are the ones who are opting to ignore the adoption option. My daughter is adopted, and I am grateful for her biological mother's decision to give birth and allow me to have had another child to love and care for. But there are some who don't have the insight and a view of the bigger picture to propel them toward making that decision. While they may personally not be able or willing to provide for the child, they may be equally unwilling to allow it to be placed for adoption.
Our learned family values, perceptions, personal circumstances all mirror to some extent our views on issues of substance. Abortion is no exception. We may be able to understand another side to an issue, but our final judgment will be reflective of our own life experiences. That's what makes the right-to-choose issue so controversial and so very, very personal. We can apply principles to some degree from other times, but we cannot always measure their impact on today's issues. Times change. People change. And, unfortunately, core values are often eroded. Things that were so very important when I was a child are no longer viewed as necessary. There really isn't such a thing as "polite society" any longer...we rage on the road; we curse at our neighbor; we want it all at the expense of our children, who are rude, loud and out of control. Do we want more of this? I don't think so. We need to examine carefully our roles as parents and our ability to raise children of character, children who have integrity and who are possessed with self esteem. To do that and to be successful at it, we need to WANT to be parents.
Should we be concerned about the fate of Roe v. Wade? Should we be pro-active in defending women's right to choose? A resounding YES to both.

****************************

After I wrote the above piece, I emailed it to a friend whose opinion I respect completely. I asked him to comment on it.............and comment, he did. I knew what his views were on this subject going in, and I knew I would receive a literate, thought-provoking rebuttal. His arguments are so compelling that I had to include them for balance. And while he has not changed my mind about the importance of preserving Roe v. Wade, I believe the scales tip in his favor here. Used with his permission.

*******************************

I think you have made a good case that some women want abortions or are comforted by the thought that abortion is available. Both facts are undeniably true. However, just because something is wanted does not mean that it is right or that it is "a" right, enshrined in the Constitution. Muslims want to kill infidels, children want to subsist on candy. However,I will put aside the debate on whether abortion is right or not and focus instead on whether there is a right to abortion in the Constitution. Of course, there is not. The "right" was found in the emanations and penumbra of the 14th and 4th amendments. How wonderfully expansive, unless you try to make that argument with the second amendment, but I digress. There is no "right" to abortion, the Supreme Court arrogated to themselves the power to force all States to permit the practice. If Roe is overturned, it does not mean women can never have abortions. Abortion will be regulated, like any other medical procedure, by the states. Would that mean abortion would suddenly be declared illegal by every state in the union with women and doctors locked up everywhere? No. Prior to Roe, many states had already moved to permit abortions, many others have since written the right to privacy into their own constitutions. Of course, some states might severely restrict or even eliminate the practice. In a representative democracy, that is the right of the people and their representatives. If the prospect of Utah or Kentucky restricting abortion completely, or of Texas restricting access to abortions to women over 18 or girls under 18 with parental consent frightens women, they have several recourses. Someone can propose a constitutional amendment EXPLICITLY permitting abortion at all times for females of any age. Others can elect legislators who will pass expansive abortion legislation. Put the issue directly in front of the voters. Let the people decide. If your arguments are good, people will be convinced, and abortion will be as available as you desire. There are some good pro-abortion arguments. Abortions are disproportionately performed on women of lower economic stature, so there are fewer children on the welfare rolls, and fewer teenagers committing crime in the future. Essentially, you can pre-emptively exterminate societal problems. Abortions are also performed in higher numbers among politically liberal individuals and in more politically liberal states. Anything that eliminates liberals gives proportionally more power to conservatives and to conservative states and is by definition a good thing. This is known as the"Roe effect" on political balance. Women are a majority in this country. You represent upwards of 75% of college graduates and 60% of law school. Surely, collectively, you can come up with some compelling arguments beyond the feeble justifications of Blackmun in his Roe decision for abortion which convince a majority of your fellow citizens to permit abortion legislatively. If you think this task impossible, then by all means, hold to Roe and do your best to beg 5 justices to continue imposing policy on a resentful public. That is certainly a recipe for good relations across the political aisle.