June 18, 2009

President Obama, in his commencement address at Catholic university Notre Dame, noted that good people may disagree on such a contentious issue as abortion. He conceded that differences in this polarizing issue are irreconcilable, although he pleaded for the end of demonizing and mutual hostility.

I think that the most extreme positions on abortion are irreconcilable, but perhaps there is an area of accord possible. But first—we need to explore the positions of contending activists.

• No Abortions Under Any Circumstances. The most extreme position is that of some churches, primarily the Catholic Church and some very conservative Protestant denominations. Their position is that any pregnancy is a gift of God and the life of the baby is sacred. One spokeswoman for the Vatican went so far as to say that “abortion is the murder of a family member.” They make the point that tolerance of those who want a live-and-let-live policy about abortion is as specious as during the time of slavery, when part of the nation rejected the institution and others practiced it legally. They say that slavery had to be banned totally, not partially, because it was morally wrong, even though legal in the South.

• Abortion Rights are the Rights of Women. Advocates say because women must endure a 9-month pregnancy and go through the rigors of childbirth, they must be free to make the decision of keeping or ending the pregnancy. To force them to carry to term, no matter how the pregnancy occurred, is tantamount to enforced servitude (slavery), which is against the law and is immoral. They further believe that an early abortion is not “murdering a baby,” but is excising a few cells that do not yet have personhood.

These two positions obviously pit the human rights of an unborn child against that of an adult woman. Trying to reconcile this difference is irreconcilable. However, there is a middle position here that might be amenable to reasonable people.

• Problems with Right to Life. The Right To Life adherents do not address the issue of “God’s Gift” when the pregnancy is the result of incest on a child, rape, or the brutality of an uncaring husband. They also fail to address spontaneous abortions, in which a pregnancy is ended by nature because there was something amiss with it. If nature does not permit every pregnancy to come to term, how can they say that God always gives pregnancy as a gift?

The economic issue is also one not recognized by the Right to Life adherents. When a pregnancy occurs in a family with already too many children to support and educate, is it moral to add one more child by force? Many abortions fall into this category. In the lesser developed world, particularly in Africa, overpopulation is taking a horrible toll on women, on the environment, and on the economy. These are not small issues for the quality, rather than quantity, of life.

If a pregnancy endangers the life of a woman, is it still her duty to sacrifice her life to bring a new life into the world? There are those who believe this, but this again falls into the category of conflicting rights to life—hers or the baby’s.

• Problems with Choice. It is very cavalier to consider a fetus “a mass of cells.” The issue of when does life begin has been settled by science: the moment of conception. In addition, the claim that abortion must be available at all times and for all reasons can brutalize a population that should resort to contraception rather than abortion as population control. The former Soviet Union compelled women to have multiple abortions because contraception was not provided and this was how women resolved an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion must be recognized as a distressing, sad, procedure—even when there is genuine cause. As both Presidents Clinton and Obama have said, abortion must be legal, safe, and rare.

659 words Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian, lecturer, and author. You may contact her at Lfarhat102@aol.com or www.globalthink.net. www.globalthink.net.