SOYOUWANNA KNOW ABOUT THE ABORTION CONTROVERSY?

More than any other contemporary issue, the debate over abortion illustrates the potential for conflict in American society. The fierce and public discourse about abortion leaves our country bitterly divided, with reasonable people weighing in strongly on both sides of the issue. In an era when public apathy has been well chronicled and lamented, the issue of abortion remains highly salient; studies show that almost everyone has a firm belief about abortion. Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that effectively guaranteed the right of women to have abortions, was rendered back in 1973, but the years since have done little to weaken the resolve of those opposed to the procedure. In fact, some historians assert that the Court, in surprising the nation with the Roe decision, polarized both camps and mobilized widespread support for the pro-life movement. Whereas before, the debate could be carried on locally, after Roe, the issue was thrust upon the nation as a whole.

1. LEARN SOME BACKGROUND ON THE ISSUE

It would seem that abortion is one issue where little compromise is possible. At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental difference in premises - about when human life begins and where government jurisdiction ends - with the result that even a well-intentioned debate often degenerates into vehement and inflammatory rhetoric. The framing of the argument raises the stakes for both sides. For those who view abortion as tantamount to murder, its continued presence in our society is depraved and intolerable. On the other hand, for those who see abortion as a decision a woman makes about her own body, any government interference is brazenly intrusive and a violation of a woman's right to privacy and autonomy. Without the possibility for a meaningful compromise, abortion is an issue over which reasonable people "agree to disagree" leaving the battle to be fought by the more extreme proponents of both positions. Recently, the tensions have led to violence and confrontation. Most dramatically, a few pro-life extremists have shot abortion doctors in the name of saving the lives of the unborn. More commonly, groups on both sides hold protests and counter-protests outside abortion clinics that often lead to bitter clashes.

The controversy affects the two most influential political parties differently. For the most part, there is a pro-choice consensus among the political base of the Democrats, allowing the party to maintain a consistent platform in affirming a woman's right to have an abortion. Within the Republican Party, the issue has proved far more contentious - many of the more moderate and independent Republicans lean toward a pro-choice position, while the more conservative wing of the party is vehemently pro-life. This divide within the party was made clear by the events of this past year's Republican Presidential primary. In contrast to the pro-life positions of Alan Keyes and Steve Forbes, Governor George W. Bush of Texas and Senator John McCain maintained more moderate and conciliatory stances on abortion. They did not call for the overturn of Roe and they condoned abortion in cases of rape and those where the mother's life is in jeopardy. Although Bush emerged with his party's nomination, he still feels pressure from the right to toughen his stance against abortion. Many on the right have tried to force Bush to make abortion more of an issue in the campaign by promising that he would only appoint Supreme Court Justices who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The debate over abortion has manifested itself in many ways. Among the most bitter points of contention are whether government funds should be used to pay for abortions for the poor, how far into a woman's term abortion should be permitted, and what type of parental consent should be required for minors.

Although, for now, these issues are largely settled on an individual state-by-state basis, there is mounting pressure for the Supreme Court, Congress, or both to step in and set a consistent national policy on abortion.

We will now look at the specific arguments raised by those on both sides of this issue.

2. HEAR SOME "PRO-LIFE" ARGUMENTS

"Abortion is the murder of an unborn child. It must stop."

The Argument: What is a fetus if not alive? And what is it if not human? A human life cannot be taken without justification. Tragically, in such cases, the victim is blameless, helpless, and defenseless. Abortion is societally endorsed murder. One day, future generations will look back on our society's practice of abortion with horror, disdain, and shame in much the same way that we now view our nation's history of slavery and racial oppression.

The Response: The question over what constitutes a legally and morally protected life is a subtle one without a clear answer. Although unborn children harbor the potential to become human lives, they are not, at present, generally capable of surviving outside their mothers until the third trimester. Many women in this country conceive and, for natural reasons, fail to carry the baby to term, but we do not regard these "natural abortions" as anywhere near as tragic as the death of an autonomous person.

"Minors are not mature enough to make an informed decision about abortion. Parental approval should be required for all abortions."

The Argument: Our country recognizes the diminished decision-making capacities of minors in many areas. Those under 21 are prohibited from consuming alcohol. Before they turn 18, children are unable to vote, join the army, or even dial a psychic hotline without their parents' permission. Minors who commit crimes are treated specially and given penalties designed to rehabilitate. How then can we allow (as some states do) children to make the decision to have an abortion, to end a life, without allowing their parents to oversee the process. Such flawed policy condones recklessness in our children and undermines the moral authority of parents.

The Response: The debate over abortion is a fierce and contentious one. Many parents of pregnant minors are intolerant of those who wish to have abortions and would be unwilling to allow abortions in any case, regardless of the interests of the child and mother. Furthermore, any teenager that is unfit to make the decision about abortion is even less equipped to be a parent.

The reality of our times is that young people are having sex, often without their parents' consent or approval. The inclusion of a parent late in the process could have traumatic effects on a parent-child relationship. Those states which allow minors to have abortions without parental consent require that consent be given by a judge who has the teen's best interests in mind.

"Citizens have a right not to see their tax dollars go to pay for an act they deem evil. There should be no government funded abortions."

The Argument: The only thing worse than a society that turns a blind eye to state-sanctioned murder of its next generation is one that forces those who are opposed to abortion literally to pay for these crimes. Why should Americans who are morally opposed to the idea of abortion financially support its proliferation? Why should our government pick up the tab for this kind of highly controversial procedure? The answer is that they should not.

The Response: Our country has taken the position that abortion is legally permissible. Since that is so, why should we limit women's access to the medical treatment to which they are entitled? Why should a poor woman have any fewer options at her disposal than a wealthier woman? If a woman is at the point where money is the only obstacle preventing her from having an abortion, she is clearly neither prepared nor equipped to take care of a child.

3. HEAR SOME "PRO-CHOICE" ARGUMENTS

"A woman has a right to make decisions that involve her body."

The Argument: Our government has always respected the individual's right to privacy. A woman's reproductive system should not be subject to government regulation. The Supreme Court used this reasoning as the premise for its decision in Roe v. Wade. In addition, those who assert that the government has a right to intrude (figuratively) into a woman's uterus are subscribing to the antiquated notion that a woman's most important function is to produce children.

The Response: We tolerate government regulation of many parts of the body. One cannot, for example, sell a kidney or take unsafe substances. In any event, the issue here is not the pregnant woman's body as much as it is the individual life that grows inside it. Don't we owe that life the same rights we afford everyone else? Former Presidential candidate Alan Keyes summed up this position when he stated that the Declaration of Independence banned abortion through its assertion that "all men are created equal ... [and] are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights."

"Outlawing abortion would not eliminate the practice, and doing so would have unacceptable consequences. If abortion were banned, women would simply find other illegal and unsafe means of aborting pregnancies."

The Argument: Before Roe, many pregnant women in this country were forced to weigh their respect for the law against their certainty that they were not prepared to be mothers. Many women chose to break the law, putting their own futures at risk, and often settled for unsafe and expensive procedures. Only the wealthiest women could afford to fly to another country where abortion was legal. Do we really want to return to those days?

The Response: Laws on weighty issues like murder are not supposed to be tainted by logistical difficulties. If abortion is murder then we should outlaw it. Period. Although illegal abortions were available prior to Roe v. Wade, the effect of legalizing abortions was dramatic and horrific. Within five years after abortions were made legal in California, they increased over 2000%. The banning of abortions would save the lives of thousands of unborn babies each year.