In 1973, the idea of "viability" was a key element in the Supreme Court's decision and for years the debate centered around discovering the moment a fetus can survive outside of the womb. While I believe that this discussion, coupled with the debate over "person-hood," is a vital element to the pro-life movement's argument, I think that it is important to recognize that these arguments play a fairly minor role in the philosophy of the Pro-Choice movement.When trying to understand the Pro-Choice platform, the name says it all. In matters of abortion, the decision regarding whether or not to proceed with the pregnancy is entirely up to the woman. This was apparent in 1973 when Justice Byron White wrote the dissenting opinion for Roe. In his opening statement he noted:
At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons -- convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that, for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical adviser willing to undertake the procedure.
Justice Byron White
Furthermore, Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who argued Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court, was interviewed recently by the Huffington Post and as she recounted an exchange she had with Clarence Thomas, she confirmed Justice White's concerns:
He [Thomas] had made some comments that were so outrageous and controversial, and I was trying to say that if he had ever been in the position to be pregnant, he would have much more sympathy and understanding of the way women feel when they're pregnant and don't want to be. There are so many in such dire economic straits--many couples who both have to work to take care of their families, and there is no day care. If Thomas could appreciate the position so many are in, he would understand why it should not be his decision, it should not be the government's decision.These quotes reveal that for the pro-choice adherent, the argument really has less to do with the fetus and more to do with the preference of the woman. Historically, this reality was often disguised to the larger public by focusing on the need to protect abortion rights in the case of rape and incest. However, the truth is that prior to 1973, many states had legalized abortion if rape or incest were the cause of the pregnancy. A testament to this is the story of Norma L. McCorvey, the woman eventually known as Jane Roe. When Norma, a single and destitute mother, realized that she was pregnant for the third time, she was convinced by friends to claim that she was raped so that she could have an abortion. Texas law allowed for abortion in the cases of rape or incest, but authorities found no evidence of a rape, and therefore refused the abortion. This makes the argument that Roe v. Wade was decided primarily to protect women who were victims of violent abuse highly problematic. Furthermore, abortions in the case of rape or incest make up only 1% of abortions performed in the United States. The majority of abortions, 93%, are performed because the child is unwanted in one way or another.
At this point I would like to say that I truly believe that most women who choose abortion are not choosing that option because of their devotion to a political ideal. Instead, they are genuinely convinced that this is the best option for them and for the child. However, this is where the abortion debate has heavy implications. We must understand that for the Pro-Choice movement, the viability, humanness, or person-hood of the fetus is not up for debate. It is a generally accepted truth that fetuses are human. In an article written for Vanity Fair, Christopher Hitchens wrote:
There was a time when the feminist movement replied to this with militant indignation. What "individual"? What "person"? The most famous title of the period--Our Bodies, Ourselves--captures the tone to perfection. If we need to remove an appendix or a tumor from our own personal spaces, then it's nobody else's business. I used to cringe when I heard this, not so much because in the moral sense fetuses aren't to be compared to appendixes, let alone tumors, but because it is obvious nonsense from the biological and embryological points of view. Babies come from where they come from. The diagram of a vacuum-suction abortion in Our Bodies, Ourselves gave the female anatomy in some detail but showed only a void inside the uterus. This perhaps unintended concession to queasiness has since become more noticeable as a consequence of advances in embryology, and by the simple experience of the enhanced sonogram. Women who have gazed at the early heartbeat inside themselves now have some difficulty, shall we say, in ranking the experience with the planned excision of a polyp.The Pro-Choice platform isn't denying the baby it's humanness or person-hood, it's denying the baby its personal liberties in deference to the liberties of the mother. They are placing one person's right to pursue happiness over another person's right to life.
Sources and Recommended Reading
Abortion Statistics
Al Mohler- "Abortion is as American as Apple Pie"
Desiring God- "Racial Slavery and Abortion in America: How History Repeats Itself"
Young, Evangelical, and Catholic- "An Unwanted Change in the Abortion Debate?"
