Updated on: 5/03/2022
Some 49 years after Roe v. Wade became law, it now looks like that landmark decision on abortion law may be reversed. Yesterday, a 98-page preliminary draft of the decision in the case of Dobbs. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was leaked to the press, and it looks as if the decision will uphold a Mississippi law prohibiting abortion after only 15 weeks of pregnancy. This morning I was already hearing some very passionate responses in opposition to the possibility that this decision will indeed become law. But, as is typical of what I’ve heard for many years, a great deal of the argument is, in fact, pure rhetoric, classic mis-characterization, and completely illogical bias. What I will argue below is not the details of this most recent court case, but the illogic of much of the pro-abortion stance. Under the guise of being progressive, a great deal of pro-abortion logic is, in fact, the inability to draw the line between personal rights and personal responsibility. Freedom is not absolute. It ends where personal responsibility begins.
Is “freedom of choice” an accurate description of the right all women claim to have when seeking an abortion? I propose that no one who agrees to consensual sex and is “forced” to carry a child to term is being denied freedom of choice. Indeed, what is desired is to be free from the consequences of a choice freely exercised, to be free from the risk of an activity they chose to engage in. The only individuals denied such a choice would be those women who are victims of rape or incest, since they gave no consent to engage in a sexual act. And, contrary to our grossly immature society’s assertions, sex is not an essential activity, or a need that one must engage in. Granted, sex is an extremely powerful desire, but not a need. Since consensual sex is neither compulsory or necessary and choice is always involved, shouldn’t the persons responsible for the pregnancy be responsible for the result?
To gain further insight to Roe protecting an essential “right” for women, imagine the following scenario: What if a poll were taken of every woman in this country who’d raised a child to at least the age of 18yrs. The poll questioned each woman as to which was more difficult for her, carrying the child for nine months, or raising the child for the ensuing, say 18 years. I would venture to say an overwhelming majority of women would say the latter. Now imagine a young man willing to take on this burden of raising his child with or without his pregnant girlfriend’s assistance. She, however, is insistent upon having an abortion. Both freely consented to sex, but she has absolute power over the destiny of the child. Now the man must bear responsibility for his actions and pay child support (which he should) if she wants the child. But if he wants the child, she conversely does not have to bear responsibility for her actions! Legally, I would contend that 40 years ago the pendulum concerning women’s rights on this specific issue swung way too far. Roe v. Wade granted women not equal rights, but special rights. Special rights – rights that a particular group gets that others don’t. Special rights are rights reserved for a privileged group. In the example above, women get to be free from the consequences of their sexual encounters, but men don’t. Further, this freedom gives them license (permission) to encroach upon the life, liberty, and happiness of another individual, in this case, the life of the not yet born.
Now some of you reading this might cede the idea that ‘freedom of choice’ is not an accurate description of this desired ‘right’, but might object by saying that the argument is immaterial, since a woman has a ‘right’ to do what she wants with her own body (claiming the fetus to be a part of her body). But think about it. For many years now, women have been able to have their eggs harvested, fertilized outside the womb (via in-vitro fertilization) and implanted in another woman’s uterus (a “gestational surrogate”). The surrogate of course has no genetic connection to the fetus. Are those who say the fetus is a part of the woman’s body saying the life of the fetus is now fully a part of, and property of the surrogate woman? This scenario clearly shreds the notion of the fetus being part of a woman’s body. Completely dependent yes, but then so is every newborn. (Incidentally, state law varies on even permitting gestational surrogacy, but in many states, and rightly I would think, the gestational surrogate has no rights to the child once born). Isn’t every woman who claims that she has a right to abort her child really viewing that life as a piece of property….something she possesses, not an independent life?
Others, while conceding the fact that the fetus is an independent life, will object by asserting that the fetus is not yet fully conscious, and therefore not ‘qualitatively’ human. On what basis could this assessment be made, and should it be made at all? The presence of brain wave activity was posited many years ago as a possible basis for determining when the fetus is ‘truly human’. Brain wave activity is present quite early in gestation, but is obviously not as developed as a newborns’, which is not nearly as developed as an adults’. So where should the line be drawn on what level of brain activity constitutes ‘human-hood’? Brain wave activity in those who have experienced traumatic brain injury is often looked at as an indication of whether to withdraw life support from the individual. Many such persons, depending on the degree of injury will never come back into an even partially conscious state. But the difference here is the fact that, left to simple, adequate self-care on the part of the mother, it is most probable that the fetus will develop into a fully conscious human being. So should even a certain level of brain activity be the decisive condition for determining whether a fetus is fully human? Unfortunately, Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court Justice writing the majority opinion in Roe v Wade forty-nine years ago, decided himself when in utero human life begins. He stated, “We need not resolve the question of when human life begins”. Yet in prohibiting abortion only after the second trimester, he defacto (and dejure) defined that life in the womb wasn’t qualitatively human until then. (Otherwise, it would enjoy equal protection under the law). But in a humane society, shouldn’t the biggest determining factor be the allowance for the greatest possible safety factor for when life begins, as opposed to the greatest possible allowance for a person to escape personal responsibility for their actions?
If Roe were overturned, and women were ‘forced’ to be responsible for their actions, where would or should this lead us? Not to a place where abortion is unconditionally restricted. It seems obvious that the life of the mother must always be protected. This is a case of one life verses another. Who is government to decide between the lives involved? Rape and incest victims, since they had no choice in the matter should be free to opt for an abortion, even if it is not the best answer. And there are cases of severe fetal abnormality, where the parents should be given the freedom to choose. In my opinion, any serious health risk to the mother should also qualify as an exemption from having to carry the child to term. But should vague exemptions, like the health of the mother, where health can be almost anything, be permitted? One example of this is when a child is viewed as an inconvenience by the mother and is thus unwanted. On the basis that the child poses a danger to a woman’s “psychological health”, should a physician be able to sign-off on an abortion? If danger to a woman’s health is to be an exemption from having to carry a child to term, the dangers which would qualify for such an exemption should be specified much more definitively. And let’s not pretend that there aren’t other options. A woman doesn’t have to care for the child for the rest of her life, she just has to carry it to term. As for the rest of the burden, the option is there – adoption!
The right to privacy is often advanced as a justification for the right to abort a child. “We don’t want the government in our bedrooms” so the line goes. But yes, the government has the right to be in your bedroom if you’re beating your child or abusing your infant. The legitimacy of government intervention again returns to the question of whether the entity in the womb is a human being. If it is indeed human (as I would contend it is), it must enjoy the full protection of the law. You can kill yourself if you want to….but not another human being.
It’s been 49 years since the Roe v Wade decision was announced. Let’s finally face the reality of the ill-logic behind the characterization of Roe as guaranteeing ‘freedom of choice’. The right to an abortion can be described as ‘freedom of choice’ only to those who were denied the choice to have sex in the first place. For the rest, it is freedom from the consequences of their actions. Roe v. Wade may soon now be overturned. But that will only bring it back to the states to decide the nature and extent of the restrictions on abortion. But as those arguments begin, can we at least describe the nature of abortion more accurately. At least let’s not pretend that it’s simply “freedom of choice”.