TODAY IS THE 40th anniversary of the shot that launched the fetus wars; that is to say, Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal.
My friends back home in Texas may know the Wade in this case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, who argued on the state's behalf that the state's laws making abortion illegal for essentially anything except documented rape. Roe was "Jane Roe", later identified as Norma McCorvey, who was unable to obtain an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy and even made a false rape claim in order to gain access to a legal abortion clinic. (Incidentally, McCovey never actually had an abortion; she gave birth before the case was resolved and later went on to be an anti-abortion activist.) You can find excellent summaries of the case here and here.
Unlike the same-sex marriage debate, which seems to be gaining growing acceptance on behalf of those seeking equal rights for same-sex couples, I doubt the abortion battle in this country will be resolved in my lifetime. There is one basic, irreconcilable difference between abortion rights supporters and abortion opponents: those who want abortion banned do so almost entirely upon a basis of religious faith, which leaves no room for ambiguity or reasoned discussion. If one believes that life begins at conception, one cannot be expected to reconcile that belief with the allowance of terminating a pregnancy under any circumstances.
This is a very difficult concept for most people to get their heads around. Recent surveys show a majority of Americans support keeping abortion legal in at least some circumstances. And things got ugly for some Republican candidates during last year's elections when they said they want abortion banned in all cases, with no exceptions. There was understandable outrage and acrimony toward anyone who would say that abortion should never be permitted, even if it meant saving the life of the mother, or preventing a victim of rape or incest from being forced to carry their baby to term.
If you're going to say you believe life begins at conception, you'd better be prepared to deal with the consequences. You have to be able to face Praveen Halappanavar, whose wife Savita died last October when she was denied a life-saving abortion in Ireland, where abortion is illegal, and tell him, "Yes, your wife's life and livelihood was less-important than that of her unborn baby, because life begins at conception and we have to uphold that belief in all cases."
You also need to put your hand on the shoulder of the mourning mother in the Dominican Republic, whose 16-year-old daughter died of cancer last year when doctors refused to offer treatment over concerns they would kill her fetus in violation of the country's strict abortion ban; you need to tell this mother, "Your daughter's death could have been prevented, but we had to be absolutely sure that we wouldn't end her pregnancy, too."
If you can do those things, and also agree to sit down with rape survivors in the hospital or at the police station and remind them that they need to carry their pregnancies to term, because that's what you believe concerning the nature of egg fertilization, then I'd say you have the moral high ground.
On the other side of the coin is a troubling ethical question: when, exactly, does life begin in the legal sense deserving of protection? Is it, as the Court decided in Roe v. Wade, when the fetus becomes "viable" (i.e. able to survive outside the womb)? If so, who determines viability? My cousin's first child was born several weeks premature (just barely into the third trimester), and is now a more or less healthy six-year-old (with some developmental challenges). In most cases, that little boy would not have been considered "viable" on the day doctors pulled him out of his mother, and yet here he is.
There is another troubling perspective: if we can justify an abortion for, say, a fetus that clearly has no chance at survival after birth, or which will have severe abnormalities that will lead to a brief or extraordinarily difficult and painful life; what's to stop us from killing a newborn whose deformities are only discovered at birth? Horrifying as that sounds, it was the contention in a paper published last year in the Journal of Medical Ethics, advocating "after-birth abortion" in what can only be described as a godsend (pardon the pun) for abortion foes. Nonetheless, this concept poses a perplexing ethical dilemma for which I have not yet read a satisfying argument.
Regardless of how you feel about the abortion debate, you should probably realize it's very likely you know someone who has been confronted with this incredibly difficult and private decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy. (I do.) And remember, nature (or God, if you prefer) is the biggest abortionist of all.
STORIES I WORKED ON TODAY
- Ikea is bringing its flat-pack, inexpensive designer modern furniture to India. BUT WHO WILL EAT THE SWEDISH MEATBALLS
- A volcano is erupting in New Zealand. But this is not your ordinary volcanic eruption.
- It's election day in Israel; Benjamin Netanyahu's conservative Likud Party coalition is widely expected to remain in power.
- Blockbuster Video is closing about half of its remaining stores. Wait, Blockbuster still had stores??!?
TODAY'S OBSCURE MOMENT IN HISTORY
On January 22, 1779, the Americans get even with a pro-British tormentor.
TV TUESDAY
I have the entire DVD box set because of course I do.
