Advocates for and against abortion rights are anxiously awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which requires it to rule on a Mississippi law prohibiting abortion after a gestation age of 15 weeks. The law is presently unconstitutional, and upholding it would require the Court to modify or overturn earlier decisions.
The essence of the abortion problem and other public controversies involving regulation of conduct is determining where personal freedom must yield to government coercion “to…promote the general Welfare.” At the liberal extreme is insistence that a woman’s freedom extends to the end of gestation and that even late abortions should be permitted. At the conservative extreme is the belief that abortion at any stage is murder, requiring state intervention from the moment of conception (or even before).
The extreme views are held by small minorities. Resolution requires compromise between the extremes, the only path in a democracy to a stable society and sustainable public policy.
The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade (1973) and later decisions, ruled that prior to fetal viability, at a gestation age of 22-24 weeks, unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. That 70% of Americans oppose the overturning of Roe suggests that a broadly acceptable, implicit compromise may already have been reached and needn’t be disturbed.
Pro-lifers remind us, however, that an induced abortion involves the deliberate taking of a life, presenting a complex ethical problem, one to be taken seriously but that pro-choicers are often silent on.
A promising approach to the problem is to consider when the possibility of consciousness first arises in the developing human brain. It seems to be the consensus among neuroscientists that this does not occur until about week 24, when the requisite structures in the brain have developed. Prior to that, there is no self-awareness, no ability to reason, no preferences or desires, no guilt or innocence, no ability to experience pleasure or suffering. It is reasonable to conclude that, up until this point, it is ethical for a woman’s personal judgment to take precedence over any presumed fetal rights.
There are some whose sincere religious beliefs allow no compromise. Their concerns deserve respect, but religious dogma, while it may provide valuable guidance to us privately in governing our own conduct, should not be imposed on society through overly-restrictive laws. We live in a pluralistic democracy that must tolerate a diversity of beliefs.
Many believe that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Critics have argued that, for rights not clearly enumerated in the Constitution, regulation of conduct is best decided by the legislative process lest the Court become all-powerful. It is hard to deny that the argument has merit.
Whatever the Court decides, the abortion war is likely to continue, though we are all tired of it. Can we ever end it?
Peace negotiations could start with the combatants stipulating that pro-choicers do not want to kill babies and pro-lifers do not want to put women in chains. Then pro-lifers could encourage easy access to reliable contraception (a surer way than laws to prevent abortion) and universal sex education in schools (to teach responsibility). Pro-choicers could encourage mandatory counseling for women seeking an abortion, emphasizing the advantages of adoption (including the benefits to society), and public assistance for women who want to keep their babies but lack adequate resources.
Compromise never yields perfection, but it should be possible to achieve a great reduction in the number of abortions. (Ninety-five percent of unplanned pregnancies are from neglect or misuse of contraception.) Abortion would be chosen only in special circumstances: medical necessity, rape, incest or failure of contraception (uncommon). It would be possible to eliminate unnecessary taking of fetal life while still preserving choice up to a certain stage (to be negotiated) of pregnancy. It would not be perfect, but mightn’t it be good enough to bring peace?
— Special to the Press Herald
Copy the Story LinkComments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
