- Ayn Rand
“We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.”[1]
The above quoted sentiment is expressed in the second paragraph of Justice Blackmum’s opinion in the 1973 seminal court case Roe v. Wade. Roe, deemed by some Americans as the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to safeguard women’s rights and regarded by others as the Court’s most dangerous opinion since the Dred Scott decision, is undoubtedly one of the most controversial court decisions to ever come from the bench of the United States Supreme Court. Roe and its progeny have served to foment the intensely emotional political and social commentaries regarding one of the most divisive subjects in history: abortion. Because of its complexities and the emotional responses with which Americans respond to debate of abortion, our judgments have been clouded and our reason obscured and replaced with ardent feelings instead of reasoned logic. But given the numerous venues of American society abortion touches, we can no longer allow emotion to rule the day or the debate. Abortion is spoken of from both the pulpit and the presidential podium, it influences both political and personal decisions, it is used (inappropriately) as a litmus test for dividing the Right from the Left, to have one is an extremely difficult choice to make and to debate it from a logical and reasonable point of view is an extremely difficult feat to accomplish.
In short, abortion is a contentious subject about which it has been extraordinarily difficult, bordering on the impossible, to have a reasonable conversation. The need for such a conversation is urgently needed once we examine the current state of abortion and abortion dialogue in the United States. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit research and policy institute upon which both pro-choice and pro-life groups rely for statistical information, 1.21 million abortions were performed in 2005 (the most recent year available.)[2] Annually, of the women who elect to have an abortion, 47% of them are making the choice for the second time.[3] Additionally, where a candidate stands regarding abortion is always a top priority for voters in presidential races, representative races and judicial nominations. There are hundreds of pro-life and pro-choice groups including NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Action League), Emily’s List, NRLC (National Right to Life Committee), Democrats For Life of America, National Organization for Women and the Pro-Life Action League just to name a few. As evidenced by their catch phrases “life” and “choice”, both sides of the issue attempt to build their platforms upon one simple word. However, by siphoning away the complexities that surround the abortion issue, both sides of the debate have only exacerbated the problems involved with the discussion and resolution of the issue.
In order to effect change regarding abortion, the pro-life and pro-choice groups have engaged in various campaigns, made loud and occasionally violent demonstrations, lobbied Congress and the court system, marched in parades, handed out pamphlets, made speeches, planned conventions and accomplished nothing. By forcing Americans to choose between the ideals the groups have hijacked, “life” or “choice”, both groups are doing an enormous disservice to those who honestly desire to put an end to this debate as well as this practice.
I do not wish to mislead the reader. I am pro-life. I do not condone or approve of the abortion procedure in any situation. However, I align myself with the pro-life community’s in goal only – I completely disagree with their methods. Currently, the vast majority of the rhetoric the pro-life community utilizes revolves around a theological belief that life begins at conception, that abortion is murder and hence abortion is wrong. The inefficacy of their approach speaks for itself. Millions of abortions are performed in this country every year. It is time for a new approach to abortion study and discourse, an approach that is centered on reason, logic and yes, personal choice.
The above quoted sentiment is expressed in the second paragraph of Justice Blackmum’s opinion in the 1973 seminal court case Roe v. Wade. Roe, deemed by some Americans as the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to safeguard women’s rights and regarded by others as the Court’s most dangerous opinion since the Dred Scott decision, is undoubtedly one of the most controversial court decisions to ever come from the bench of the United States Supreme Court. Roe and its progeny have served to foment the intensely emotional political and social commentaries regarding one of the most divisive subjects in history: abortion. Because of its complexities and the emotional responses with which Americans respond to debate of abortion, our judgments have been clouded and our reason obscured and replaced with ardent feelings instead of reasoned logic. But given the numerous venues of American society abortion touches, we can no longer allow emotion to rule the day or the debate. Abortion is spoken of from both the pulpit and the presidential podium, it influences both political and personal decisions, it is used (inappropriately) as a litmus test for dividing the Right from the Left, to have one is an extremely difficult choice to make and to debate it from a logical and reasonable point of view is an extremely difficult feat to accomplish.
In short, abortion is a contentious subject about which it has been extraordinarily difficult, bordering on the impossible, to have a reasonable conversation. The need for such a conversation is urgently needed once we examine the current state of abortion and abortion dialogue in the United States. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit research and policy institute upon which both pro-choice and pro-life groups rely for statistical information, 1.21 million abortions were performed in 2005 (the most recent year available.)[2] Annually, of the women who elect to have an abortion, 47% of them are making the choice for the second time.[3] Additionally, where a candidate stands regarding abortion is always a top priority for voters in presidential races, representative races and judicial nominations. There are hundreds of pro-life and pro-choice groups including NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Action League), Emily’s List, NRLC (National Right to Life Committee), Democrats For Life of America, National Organization for Women and the Pro-Life Action League just to name a few. As evidenced by their catch phrases “life” and “choice”, both sides of the issue attempt to build their platforms upon one simple word. However, by siphoning away the complexities that surround the abortion issue, both sides of the debate have only exacerbated the problems involved with the discussion and resolution of the issue.
In order to effect change regarding abortion, the pro-life and pro-choice groups have engaged in various campaigns, made loud and occasionally violent demonstrations, lobbied Congress and the court system, marched in parades, handed out pamphlets, made speeches, planned conventions and accomplished nothing. By forcing Americans to choose between the ideals the groups have hijacked, “life” or “choice”, both groups are doing an enormous disservice to those who honestly desire to put an end to this debate as well as this practice.
I do not wish to mislead the reader. I am pro-life. I do not condone or approve of the abortion procedure in any situation. However, I align myself with the pro-life community’s in goal only – I completely disagree with their methods. Currently, the vast majority of the rhetoric the pro-life community utilizes revolves around a theological belief that life begins at conception, that abortion is murder and hence abortion is wrong. The inefficacy of their approach speaks for itself. Millions of abortions are performed in this country every year. It is time for a new approach to abortion study and discourse, an approach that is centered on reason, logic and yes, personal choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment