ABORTION. It is a word that has been on the lips of many individuals in the last few weeks, both at the University and throughout the nation as a whole. As different groups in America celebrate and mourn the recently passed 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade -- the pivotal 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion -- all must grasp that there is a distinct possibility that with a Congress and Presidency controlled by the Republican party, this controversial decision could be overturned in the somewhat near future.
As we all know, both the pro-choice and pro-life movements have reasoned and deep rooted arguments in favor of their own opinions. Unfortunately, as we should all also know, the reason they can never reach any common ground is that their arguments stem from entirely different beliefs, values and foundations. Neither group has mastered the full picture, -- the pro-choice movement has some flaws in its theoretical foundations and the pro-life movement in it's logical rationale -- but a clear understanding can be attained by drawing on the better points made by both groups.
The women's movement and parts of the political left view abortion primarily as a question of women's rights. Should a woman be prevented from aborting a fetus when it is her desire to do so, her right to bodily integrity is violated. The pro-life movement however, sees abortion as a violation of the rights of the fetus, and -- as some would argue -- of moral law. What it all comes down to on both sides of the debate is a question of human rights: a woman's right to choose versus a fetus' right to live.
What is often forgotten in pro-choice arguments is that -- barring cases of rape which are an entirely different story -- a woman always has a right to choose: She makes a choice to put herself in a position where she can become pregnant. Sophocles' funnel theory of human existence reminds us that each decision we make has the potential to further limit our options in the future. If a women makes a decision to have sex at a time when pregnancy is not an option, then she must accept at the time she makes that decision that this could potentially have very disruptive repercussions in her life. The fact that the threat of pregnancy is a constraint that women exclusively have to take into account in their interactions is unfortunate and certainly unfair, but like many things in this world it is reality that needs to be accepted, for the alternative -- abortion as increasingly common and casual practice -- is unacceptable.
However, the pro-life movement doesn't exactly have it figured out either. In a perfect world, we would not have to worry about people acting recklessly in their personal self-interest. However, this is hardly the case. Our society is increasingly one that hates nothing more than the idea of personal responsibility and "oppressive" notions that actions have consequences. To outlaw abortion in a social environment dominated more and more by social and economic programs which teach us that personal responsibility is politically incorrect and a thing of the past would be counter-productive. Before the passage of Roe v. Wade, abortions might have been illegal but they certainly weren't absent from society. If we outlaw abortion, they will still happen -- arguably more, due to the general shift in ideology since 1973. The only difference will be that the fetus will no longer be the only casualty. Unsafe abortions have killed innumerable women throughout the centuries; it is time to accept that abortion is here to stay and to deal with the situation as best we can. Sending rich women overseas and poor women into the back-allies hardly seems an appropriate policy for a group claiming to place compassion for human life above all else. Something the right (particularly the Christian right) needs to realize it that it cannot force people to make what it deems as moral decisions. All it can do is lead by the example it thinks to be right, and -- most importantly and in keeping with its philosophy -- love people in whatever decisions they decide to make.
There can be little doubt that all individuals on both sides of the abortion debate have their eye on one thing: the greatest good as they see it. Despite their mutual criticisms, no one involved is a misogynist or a baby-killer. What needs to be realized by all is this: embracing policies that allow for the termination of pregnancies and deny personal responsibility are far from ideal, but legislating black and white morality in a nation full of gray will do nothing but establish a superficial mask of public virtue. Furthermore, this policy would in fact aggravate the sufferings of our nations individuals -- something that can hardly be considered moral. On this, the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we should all sit back and breath a sigh of relief that this legislation was passed, and a sigh of sorrow that we live in a world where it had to be.
(Laura Parcells is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. She can be reached at lparcells@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 6 hours agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 21 hours agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | YesterdayMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
