Pro-Choice, Pro-Freedom
Abortion and Politics
Margaret Wright - October 8, 2004

The upcoming Presidential election is the most important election we’ve had in years. Hopefully we’ve already learned how important it is to vote, but over and above that, this election holds so many issues in the balance: the fate of the war, homosexual marriage, and the one I will go on to discuss – abortion. Abortion is always a hot topic, but at the moment it should be considered a pivotal campaign issue.

Before getting wrapped up in an ethical discussion of abortion, I’d like to remind us of a major principle America was founded on: separation of church and state. Christians may not approve of abortion, but religious doctrine has no place in government. Should we use those justifications to ban abortion, we would have to be prepared to apply them to other issues as well. The repercussions would be tremendous. President Bush’s emphasis on religion is also being inappropriately used in his attempt to ban gay marriages. While the Bible may forbid homosexual unions and insist they are unnatural, this argument cannot be used in our legal system. If abortion is banned it has to be for secular reasons and not regarded as a religious issue. Dare we infringe upon our own principles?

The other important concept to remember is freedom. To ban abortion takes away a woman’s right to choose, which has deeper implications concerning citizens’ freedom and civil liberties. As it stands, a person can choose whether or not to have an abortion. Without a ban, every person retains the freedom of exercise – the freedom between acting and not acting. A person can always choose not to act, unless compelled by external forces. Freedom is the absence of these forces; it is the absence of external coercion or restraint. To overturn Roe v. Wade fetters women with these constraints and inhibits their freedom of choice.

I’m a big proponent of freedom and the preservation of rights. We need examine the goals of our country and what kind of life we want to provide to our people. Ronald Reagan was also devoted to maximizing rights, and supported the notion of negative rights. Most notably, Reagan espoused the right to be left alone. That principle is incredibly valuable and extremely appropriate to the current campaign issues and to the question of abortion. In terms of law and justice, there are two types of rights. Negative rights are rights from certain things, usually freedom from abuse or coercion, as opposed to positive rights which are the rights to certain things. For example, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is a negative right since it prevents free speech from being reduced by laws. In this way, we assume we already have certain rights and we are taking steps to protect them. We always have the freedom NOT to exercise a right, so it is prudent to have it in the first place. It is better to rid a country of that which would infringe upon our rights rather than write out each privilege we wish to keep as a law. For this reason the Constitution was based upon traditional negative rights, which are all similar to the idea of being left alone in its various forms. Our founding fathers wanted to limit the government’s power, concerned more about the government doing too much to the people than too little. This way we are guaranteed our freedom. For instance we have the right to bear arms, but we also can choose whether to use that right or not.

Positive rights cannot be achieved without limiting the liberty of individuals. For instance, during the Cold War totalitarian regimes justified their actions by stressing how they achieved positive rights the West had not*. They decided what rights they wanted to allow, and poorly. We can see the potential for the tyranny of the majority, which is essentially what is happening now. If the majority thinks one thing, the freedom of individuals to act differently is constrained. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the freedom of individuals is taken away.

This important distinction should be applied to the issue of abortion. We always have the freedom NOT to act, but we have a right to the choice. No one can decide for you what to do or believe or think, yet Bush wants to force his opinions on the entire nation, outlawing abortion, gay marriage, and persisting in this sham of a war that is sinking our nation deeper into debt. Negative liberty is the most beneficial; while abortion is legal one can still decide not have one, whereas if it were illegal the choice, and our freedom, would be taken away from everyone. The idea of law was devised to protect us from oppression and aggression, and to ensure liberty in the sense of negative liberty – freedom as the absence of restraints. This is what the Constitution aimed to do, and we should continue to adhere to this ideal.

It seems in the past people were more interested in philosophy and trying to discover the best way to live our lives and the nature of ethics. There is something to be said for this quest, which seems to be sadly lacking in contemporary society. Maybe we feel as if we’ve already exhausted these topics and there is nothing new to be said, but even so we shouldn’t dismiss the field. These ideas help us look out of the present and into the past and the future. We need to survey our behavior in a broad sense: what will be the long-term effects and benefits, and are we repeating past mistakes? The legal theory of utilitarianism advocates the “greatest happiness of the greatest number.” Our nation is thinking too particularly; we aren’t considering the general interests of the country or its citizens. In order to prudently consider a law, we have consider all its repercussions and what else it could possibly affect. Bush is being selfish and close-minded; he wants to make his opinion law without taking into consideration what everyone wants and how it will detrimentally affect our country and corrode the integrity of our legal system.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned we are taking a step backward by repealing liberty instead of granting it. The move would eliminate freedom of choice and would only serve a fraction of the population rather than the greatest number. Banning abortion puts a restraint on our liberty, and forces a person to have a child that they didn’t want. An unwanted child is even more tragic than an aborted fetus. It is reckless to have a child when you don’t want one or can’t handle the responsibility. You cannot force someone to have a child; if we do, what then? Commit the children to foster homes? Put the mother on welfare? The system is already flooded, inadequate, and a touchy issue in and of itself. What about providing health care? There are too many children not receiving sufficient treatment as it is. Bush would insist that these children are brought into the world, but is not ready to meet the accompanying demands. He is fostering neglect. Many of these newborns will not be well provided for, and that is a more serious problem. At this stage, they clearly are a life, but what life are we giving them?

Even Pro-Lifers are willing to make exceptions in some cases, like legalizing abortion in instances of rape or incest. Nevertheless, the issue goes beyond rape. Accidents happen to the best of us. What if you’re a college student trying to get through school or pay off loans and not in a position to afford a child? One answer is adoption, but a woman shouldn’t have to carry a child she isn’t going to keep. Health concerns could also be a compelling factor. What if you are not in any physical condition to carry a child, such as a thirteen year old girl? Not everyone is brought up with solid principles or is being watched enough. A ban could not accommodate all these circumstances. Every individual case is different, so it is unjust to make a general rule that no one can abort their pregnancy. It is acceptable to offer an opinion, but the ultimate decision is up to the woman.

This is not to say abortion is appropriate for all cases; it is still a serious matter. Abortion is not birth control; it is a last resort after birth control has failed. Measures (within reason) to ensure abortion is not abused are sensible. For instance, the government should instate a time limit after which abortions cannot be performed. It’s outrageous to decide to have an abortion when you’ve already been pregnant for four months. People may argue that since abortion is legal, women will abuse the privilege and think nothing of eliminating a pregnancy. I don’t feel that this is currently the case, but it is true that people are irresponsible. Not everyone is careful and some people will get pregnant when it could have been easily prevented. We can’t make people perfect, and I’m sure in some cases this will happen. However, if abortion was illegal people would do it anyway. When it was prohibited, people paid quack doctors to perform illegal abortions and many ended up with serious health damage. People are still going to have abortions, so we might as well guarantee the process is as safe as possible. By keeping them legal, abortions can at least be monitored.

Let’s step away from morals, ethics, and abstract ideas for a moment, and into some even more controversial territory. One core of the issue is whether or not a fetus is a life, or rather a person. Technically it may be a life, just as a plant is a life, but I don’t consider a small mass of cells a baby. I do not think abortion is murder. You are not destroying a life by stopping cells from turning into a child. The term “pro-life” is flawed because you are choosing the life of cells that are unable to think or feel or function over the life of an adult woman. You are taking away the rights of the mother to preserve the imagined rights of a primitive organism at best, handing over rights to something that can’t think for itself. I do not intend to sound insensitive or heartless, but if the choice to give rights is between a fetus and a human, the choice is clear to me. A fetus has only the potential to be a child, but it isn’t a life yet in the same sense as a fully developed baby. Is the potential of a person a person? I admit I don’t know where the line is drawn, but in the early stages of pregnancy I cannot see the fetus as anything more than a minute group cells.

So why am I addressing this issue now, surely exposing myself to criticism for my strong opinions? Because the next president gets to appoint TWO Supreme Court justices and Roe v. Wade is only one dissenter away from being overturned. As a woman, the issue is very close to my heart. Whether or not I would choose to have an abortion personally, I am grateful for the liberty to make that choice. The subject is full of fine lines and gray areas: it’s hard to define what a person is or when the life of a child begins, and it’s hard to evaluate what is morally correct amidst so many different positions. That’s why I think it is better to have choice; sometimes it is better to give more freedom than less, because the one thing that is clear-cut is that it’s wrong to make someone else’s choice for them. I decided to attack the subject in terms of freedom because I wanted to avoid regurgitating the arguments most people are already familiar with. I feel as if those points have been beaten to death and don’t seem to be resolving the issue, so I attempted a new tactic. When drafting law, we must always be aware of consequences, and that every decision must reflect the interests of our country.

We need to stay true to our principles - the protection of certain inalienable rights - and maintain the integrity of our legal system by not using it as a tool. We fought hard for the separation of church and state and for freedom against oppression, and it would be a shame to lose sight of those goals now. We have to consider these concepts as we handle each issue. We should also bear in mind that we are setting an example and a precedent for the future. What do we want our country to represent? We cannot make current opinion law. Attitudes change with the times and we have to be prepared for that. A major goal of the constitution was to allow it to be flexible so it would be relevant in the future. We need to maintain this flexibility. We need to be concerned with what is most beneficial for the greatest number. In one sense, abortion is a question of freedom of choice, and we should allow for freedom whenever possible.