Comments on Roe v. Wade, 34 Years Later

The words "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" immediately bring images of divisiveness and angry confrontation to mind. Both sides of the debate often see the other as evil, or at least irritatingly incompetent. I admit that I often look down on the "other side" with fierce opposition. Yet, I think everyone can step back for a moment and analyze what both groups have in common, and what leads to our differences. Then we can better understand the real issues. That is the goal of what follows here.

We do actually have a lot in common. First, both groups do believe murder is wrong. Both recognize that it is right for the government to be involved in punishing those who take human life. Suppose we knew that an innocent child was brutally murdered and that the murderer was clearly identified. Wouldn't everyone be outraged if the police refused to do anything about it?

Second, we both believe that the government should not treat one gender as inferior to the other. Women should not be treated as second-class citizens, with fewer rights and harsher laws controlling their behavior.

Third, we both value liberty and freedom. We don't want the government meddling in things that are "none of their business." We all want a measure of privacy and liberty, while at the same time recognizing that certain criminal activity must be restricted.

These three points really are held by virtually everyone on both sides of the discussion. So where do the differences come in? The difference is simply the amount of value each side places on two competing interests: women's freedom in reproductive decisions and the value of pre-born human life. Note that each side may put a lot of value on both. But which one you consider the most valuable will ultimately determine which side of the debate you are on.

A pro-choice person puts a high value on women's right to reproductive freedom. Some in the pro-choice movement think that pre-born human life has very little value worth protecting until after birth (or perhaps after a certain stage in a pregnancy). Therefore, the choice is easy, women should have a right to an abortion. Other pro-choice people think that pre-born human life is very valuable, but not quite as valuable as women's reproductive freedom. Therefore, they may say something like, "while I personally think abortion is wrong, I think such a decision should be left up to each individual woman and her doctor." However, if you think the value of pre-born human life is more valuable than a women's right to reproductive freedom, you will fall down on the pro-life side, period.

Why are there different values? One explanation is the type of argument different people find compelling. For instance, Pro-choice people tend to be driven by emotional arguments. They would find the following argument compelling:

This girl named Rosie gave in to peer pressure and pressure from her boyfriend to have sex. Now she is pregnant and her boyfriend is gone. She was afraid to tell her parents because she thought they would kick her out of the house and never speak to her again. She felt all alone and had no idea what to do. She decided to have an abortion. Because this was before Roe v. Wade she went to some guy's house her friend recommended. By the next day, she had died from internal bleeding. What a sad story! And if only she had been able to have a doctor perform the procedure, she could be alive today.

Since a pro-choice person values human life, women's rights, and personal liberty, a story like this will be very persuasive. Women like Rosie must have the freedom to choose to have an abortion. Something like what happened to Rosie must not happen again.

Pro-life people, on the other hand, tend to follow logical arguments better. Not that either side exclusively uses one or the other, but they tend to be more convinced by one than the other. A pro-life argument might go something like this:

We all agree that it is wrong to kill a newborn baby. We all agree that the government should prosecute someone who kills a baby. But what is the difference between a newborn baby and the same baby a few days earlier? The only real difference is the location of the baby. Why should one be given citizenship and full constitutional rights, and the other no rights at all? Certainly a mother who kills her newborn baby would horrify all of us. Why then should we find it acceptable
for her to have her baby killed a few days before birth? If it is then wrong to kill a pre-born baby just before birth, isn't it also wrong to kill a few weeks before birth? What about a few months? How do we draw the line?

Such an argument uses logic to try to point out inconsistencies in the pro-choice position. Notice the appeal given to the value of pre-born human life. "Since a born baby is so valuable, isn't a pre-born baby also very valuable? In fact, isn't it more valuable than the right for Rosie to have an abortion, for none of us would think it would be acceptable to kill her baby after it was born." A pro-life person may also use images of a pre-born baby, or medical facts, such as "did you know a baby has it's own unique heartbeat just six weeks after conception?" These arguments also use logic to point to the value of pre-born human life.

At this point, if you are pro-choice, you are probably thinking, but what about poor Rosie? And if you are pro-life you may be thinking, it's only logical, no matter how sad the story, the government do something to stop abortion.

But which side is right? That of course depends on which is really more valuable, the pre-born human life or women's reproductive freedom. We might discuss all sorts of legal, historical, medical, or religious arguments to reach a conclusion. Here is my belief. The images and medical facts, as well as simple logic point to a high value for pre-born human life. (If you believe the Bible, the case is even stronger, but it is not necessary to appeal to any religion to see the value.)

Is the value of women's reproductive freedom even greater? While I believe it is very valuable, I do not think it is so valuable as to permit the destruction of pre-born human life. Emotional arguments like the Rosie argument are problematic because they only focus on one side of the story. We all feel bad for Rosie, and any decent human being should. But the story puts all the focus on Rosie and none on the pre-born baby. If abortion had been legal and Rosie had a safer abortion, should we not also feel bad for the baby that was destroyed? We certainly would if we gave the baby a name and attached it to an emotional story of all the baby would have accomplished in life if only Rosie had the baby and raised it or gave it up for adoption. I think that these emotional arguments, while helpful in drawing attention to the importance of the subject, ultimately lead us to inconsistent positions. In other words, positions we ourselves would not want to hold if we thought through all sides of the issue and had all the facts available.

There is one more objection a pro-choice person may use. You may say, that sounds logical, but if abortion is illegal, Rosie and her baby die. Isn't the lesser of two evils to permit abortion? This question is beyond the scope of what I want to address here. However, I will simply say that when abortion is illegal, the number of abortions is dramatically less. When including pre-born human life, there are fewer lives lost. Although a world in which some women like Rosie and their babies tragically die, it is more valuable to me that we save the most human lives possible. Comments? I'd love to hear from you.