An Unpopular Topic

It has been a long time since I even thought about discussing the issue of abortion with anyone. The last time was probably in college when I was told by my then-girlfriend that because I was a man, I didn’t deserve to have an opinion. She said this before I even had a chance to tell her what my opinion was.

Anyway, quite recently, in the course of discussing the Presidential campaign, I witnessed reasonable people arguing the merits of the abortion issue. It was strange. Out of habit I declined to participate in the discussion. One side argued a woman’s right to privacy and the ability to determine what happens with her body. The other side argued the preciousness of life and a moral duty handed down from a higher power.

Both arguments have compelling points that can be made, which is why the topic seems so pointless to discuss. I am not going to tell you my opinion on the matter, either – that would be equally pointless. But as I listened to the argument (actually, as I read – it was on an internet message board), it occurred to me that the anti-abortion activists have taken the wrong approach if they truly want to change laws. If they really want abortion to go away (which is debatable, since this is a great wedge issue for conservatives) here is a two step plan for what they should do:

1. Drop the religious overtones to the argument. The problem is that your God is not necessarily my God and why should what your God says govern the way that I live my life? This is probably a tough one to swallow, since many anti-abortionists believe their cause is mandated by God. But a better angle would be to pursue the cause from a social contract point of view, or better yet: a constitutional view. Everyone in this country is bound by the constitution, so if your argument is couched in those terms it is more applicable to the general population.

2. Embrace Roe v. Wade. Anti-abortionists have spend the last thirty-five years working to get Roe v. Wade overturned, but it is a well written and well reasoned opinion. Have you actually read it? It is right here: http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/. Even better for anti-abortionists, it has the tools that you need to chip away at abortion and (eventually perhaps) eliminate it almost completely.

Roe v. Wade states unequivocally that the State has a compelling interest in protecting a fetus after it has become viable. That should be the strongest point in any anti-abortion argument. In fact, Roe v. Wade specifically allows a state to prohibit abortion (except to protect a woman’s life or health) after viability. According to Roe v. Wade, viability occurs at about 28 weeks into the pregnancy and as early as 24 weeks. Of course, Roe v. Wade was written thirty five years ago. I’m no expert, but I have to believe that medical advances over the last thirty five years ago have to have made viability occur earlier in a pregnancy. If not, perhaps that is where anti-abortionists should spend their money: on medical advances that would lead to earlier viability.

No matter what you believe in the abortion argument, there is always a line to be drawn. The line determines at what time the fetus/child has its own set of rights under the constitution. Some would argue that the line should be drawn at birth, others say at conception. The court in Roe v. Wade drew the line at viability. It seems to me that the best way to reduce abortions would be to accept this line and then work on having viability be declared to be earlier and earlier in a pregnancy. (By the way, Wikipedia has this to say about the current state of fetus viability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Viability)