Abortion forces choice between liberty, life

Thursday, January 28, 1999

Abortion forces choice between liberty, life

ABORTION: Current ruling gives women control, raises ethical
questions

By Shawn Peterson

Indiana Daily Student

University Wire

The anniversary of Roe vs. Wade and its annual hoopla have again
brought the abortion issue to our attention. Though you might not
agree with my particular stance, I would encourage you to read this
article to help understand the logic and passion behind the
pro-life movement.

When a person believes life begins usually dictates his or her
view on abortion. Most abortionists believe that after a baby exits
the womb it is a person because it can act independently. (Try
putting a 1- year-old on the street to see if it is really
independent enough to live.)

Bloomington Hospital considers a person alive until brain waves
can no longer be detected. (According to an Indiana obstetrician,
brain waves should be detectable in a fetus around the 12th week of
a pregnancy.) Most pro-lifers argue that the fetus has a chemical
makeup at conception that holds its inherent physical, mental and
human attributes and begins to grow and develop; therefore, life
begins.

Here are some pro-abortion arguments with pro-life
rebuttals:

"Abortions save the lives of mothers." Most pro-lifers argue
that doctors should do whatever possible to prevent the imminent
death of the mother. Psychological and possible future
complications concerning the mother are not included because they
are not certain.

If the only effective treatments for a mother cause the baby to
die, the baby’s death is unfortunate but necessary. But killing the
baby through an abortion is not needed. An abortion in that
situation is like trying to save two people from a fire by
unloading your revolver into one and carrying the other out instead
of trying for one and then the other.

"Without abortions, women will be oppressed by men." I won’t
even go into how badly men in general treat women – that’s another
column. The abortion movement was basically an issue to drive the
modern feminist movement so women could walk away from a sexual
encounter without extra consequences and could stay in the
workplace if they "accidentally" got pregnant.

For pro-lifers, running from responsibility, planning
inadequately or having a great career are not sufficient reasons to
take a life. Would taking the life of a first grader for the same
reasons be acceptable? It is also important to note that the
founding "mothers" of feminism, Susan Anthony, Victoria Woodhall
and Elizabeth Stanton, all opposed abortion because they felt it
was another way men could oppress women.

"Without legalized abortions, thousands of women would die
during illegal abortions." Bernard Nathanson, M.D., who co-founded
the National Abortion Rights Action League and is now pro-life,
admitted that the "5,000-10,000 deaths a year" figure used during
abortion debates in the early 1970s was a lie. In 1972, only 24
women died from illegal abortions. From 1973 through 1987 though,
215 women died from legal abortions.

"Without abortions, the government would have control over my
body and would invade my privacy." I agree that the government
should not need to know if you are pregnant. Nonetheless, the
government’s role is to protect "life and liberty."

In other words, the government’s duty is to balance liberties
(make sure that one’s acts do not infringe upon another’s ability
to act) and to protect rights. One right that everyone has is the
right to live, and usually a person’s rights trump another’s
liberty (ability to act).

The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe vs. Wade made the right to
have privacy – as given by the Constitution – and the liberty to
control one’s body more important than the right to "life" (also
protected by the Constitution, but given by God). Do you really
think that this is how it should be?

Abortion has so desensitized our society that now I don’t even
know what would happen if innocent lives of slightly older children
were taken on a regular basis. Suppose 15 kindergartners were
placed in front of a firing squad each Thursday; I’m not even sure
who would stop it.

Of course some parents and friends would be there, but would you
risk your life for it? Would you even go to stop it if it didn’t
affect your lifestyle or future plans? Or would you just watch the
news and say, "Wow, what a terrible world. So what’s on ESPN?"

I mean, really, what are kindergartners anyway? Society should
not consider a human to be a person until he or she can go to
college. That way we can be protected! Right?

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]