Yes

by Emily Wickersham

Created on: August 13, 2007   Last Updated: October 02, 2007

Perhaps the reason the abortion debate has generated so much more heat than light is that everyone is so caught up in their emotional reactions that the real issues are seldom dealt with. The prochoice side, which I support, is equally guilty of this. Over and over, I have heard arguments about when life begins answered with the word "choice" repeated over and over like a mantra and sidestepping some real issues. The fact is that the abortion debate cannot be resolved without deciding when life begins, and whether life in the womb is entitled to as much protection as life outside of it. No matter how much we support the right of women to decide their own fates we would never argue that it is acceptable to kill a 3-year-old because he interferes with our freedom.

The prolife side also has its tendency to sidestep issues. Those who support a ban on all abortions are incredibly hard to pin down on the issue of why a woman who has been raped should be forced to bear a child. The arguments I've heard range from "It takes a saintly woman to do it" to "Its not the baby's fault" (sidestepping the obvious argument that its not the woman's fault either.)

We need to start with the admission that we don't know when life begins. Those who define life as beginning at fertilization reach an absurd result that allows fetuses to sue for false imprisonment when their mother goes to jail, and ignores all other definitions of "life" enshrined in law and medical ethics, such as the presence of meaningful brain activity. In the absence of a true dividing line between life and nonlife, the only reasonable thing to do is to ask what type of policy will do the least harm to society and give rise to the most good.

Several principles can guide us in that regard. First, I believe we must give up the notion that more births is always a good thing. We are all sentimental about babies but the world can hold only so many people. We must ensure good care for those children already in existence before we concern ourselves with those not born. The rights of a child already living trump those of a fetus for two reasons. To deprive the world of a child already outside the womb hurts everyone who knew that child and interacted with it, as well as the child itself. Regardless of how much someone might be disappointed by an abortion, no one can form a meaningful relationship with a fetus, except an imaginary one. Moreover, the capacity of a fetus to feel pain is nonexistent before the brain and nervous system form, and arguable after that point. The capacity of a child outside the womb in that regard is obvious. Ideally, the answer to this dilemma is to use foolproof birth control, but until that option exists we must deal with reality.

Second, we must acknowledge that half of the human race can never be more than second class citizens without the ability to control their reproductive capacities. The benefit to society from the influx of women into all walks of life is immeasurable. The needs of women and children have been addressed far more since women have become part of Congress, and women's contributions to all areas of endeavor are huge. Employers would be far less likely to hire women if they had no way to plan their pregnancies.

Third, we must acknowledge that there is a slippery slope that leads from the outlawing of abortion to the outlawing of most forms of birth control. Few people are aware that birth control pills act as an abortifacient, meaning that they not only tend to prevent ovulation, but also tend to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Thus, if you truly believe that life begins at the meeting of a sperm and an egg, you must forego not only abortion, but birth control pills, IUDS, and morning after pills. I have no doubt that the abortion debate would shape up differently if more of the general public understood the mechanism by which so many types of birth control function. How many of us would really want to go back to the bad old day before "the pill?" For most people, reliable birth control has immeasurably improved life and opened up a world of career possibilities to women.

Fourth, we must admit the harm that unwanted births bring to our society. Adoption is a wonderful option for those women strong enough to choose it, and who give birth to in-demand healthy, white children. I have heard women say over and over again, however, that they could not go through a pregnancy and then give the baby up. This is true even of women who have no problem with abortion. Even those who believe that life begins at conception must admit that for most of us life gets livelier as birth approaches. The result of the limited availability of abortion is a huge number of unwanted infants being raised by single mothers and teenage mothers in conditions of horrible poverty and deprivation. Those who argue that legalized abortion might result in the abortion of Beethovan should realize that its far more likely to result in the abortion of Ted Bundy (who, I am told, grew up believing that his mother was his sister, due to the need to hide an unplanned pregnancy)

Three possible solutions present themselves. One is to define life as beginning with viability, but that results in a constantly shifting target. A second is to define life as beginning with non-random brain waves, but this would change from case to case. The third, and most realistic, possibility is to define life as beginning at birth, and to do everything in our power to make abortion the choice of last resort, but still a choice.

Learn more about this author, Emily Wickersham.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.