While I support a reasoned debate on the issue of abortion, I think that the most ridiculous argument of pro-choicers has to be the "coat hanger" argument. In reaction to AU Students for Life's Cemetery of the Innocents last week, some people started passing out coat hangers on the Quad with quarter-sheets that said: "Cause when women use their hangers, it should be for their coats!" I don't think anyone can argue with this statement. Coat hangers are for coats only. What the statement implies is very different: if abortion is illegal, women will be forced to perform abortions with coat hangers.
The problem with this argument is that it does not even address the central issue in the abortion debate. The issue is not whether people will still perform abortions even if they are illegal; I have no doubt they will. The issue is whether abortion is morally right and should be endorsed by our society and government.
The key question in the abortion debate is this: are the unborn human beings? The logical implication of this question is that if they are, the government has a place to protect them from other humans, even from their own mothers. Biology shows that, at conception, one sperm and one egg come together to form an individual, unique human being that is much more than just a part of her mother's body. Life is a continuum that starts at conception, not birth.
If a child is killed moments before birth, it is called abortion and is legal. If that same child is killed moments after delivery, it is called infanticide and is one of the most deplorable crimes imaginable. This is both inconsistent and illogical. The child is nearly identical in these two situations; the only difference is her location. The same child exists before and after her journey down the birth canal, and thus ought to ensure the same protection of her life, regardless of her physical relationship with her mother.
The "coat hanger" argument centers on the premise that abortion is necessary. However, it cannot be disputed that a vast majority of abortions take place not for medical reasons but for reasons of convenience. Only about 7 percent of all abortions can be considered "hard cases," such as cases of rape and incest or where the mother's life may be at stake. Fully 93 percent of abortions in the United States are performed on healthy mothers and children.
The "coat hanger" argument says that if legal abortions are not available, then women will have to resort to dire measures such as performing abortions on themselves with coat hangers. The implication of this is that abortions will become illegal and dangerous, and women will be forced to use coat hangers as was done in ages past. The fact that abortions will become more difficult and less safe if they are made illegal has no relevance in the debate over whether they should be legal or not.
To illustrate this point, take the issue of bank robberies. Many bank robbers are injured when committing their crimes. If we were to make bank robberies legal, then these people wouldn't face the same risk of injury. Legal bank robbery would be much safer than illegal bank robbery. Just because making bank robbery legal would make it safer for bank robbers does not justify its legalization. Just because something is safer when it is legal does not justify it being so.
In the case of abortion, a coat hanger serves the same purpose as an abortion clinic doctor: namely, killing an unborn child. It is just as wrong and should be just as deplored by society if an unborn child is killed in an abortion clinic by a licensed physician rather than in a bathroom by her mother. One's safety in performing the acts in question is not the determining factor in our legal system. Rather, certain values, one of which is the protection of innocent human life, direct that system. Abortion is wrong because it kills innocent humans, and the only way to justify abortion is to deny the humanity of these very persons.
