I'll concede right now that this is a debate that cannot be won, no matter the side, no matter the argument. When it comes to questions of morality and how large a part it should play in the political process, no one can ever agree. That said, I'm going to convince you that I'm right anyway.
Abortion is a tough and very tricky subject to breach, but there is one common religious-right "contention" that is very easy to dispel, and once this sad attempt at debate is out of the way, a real conversation about a woman's right to choose is plausible:
PRO-CHOICE DOES NOT MEAN PRO-ABORTION. Do I need to say it again? No, I think the majority of people (meaning those not on Attorney General Ashcroft's payroll) are smart enough to understand this distinction.
Believe me, democrats are not for abortion as a form of birth control - we just see the world minus the rose-tinted glasses and know that rape, incest and pregnancy complications do exist. We do not think everyone should run out for one, but we certainly don't support any legislation that does not take into account the health of the mother. A perfect example of this would be the recent vote from future-president John F. Kerry on the Senate floor regarding partial-birth abortions. The procedure, which gives a woman the opportunity to end the pregnancy after the usual time frame for abortions, is very rarely done. And it's almost always performed after a complication is detected that could be fatal or damaging to either the child or the mother. When Kerry vetoed this bill, he did so on the grounds that there was no mention of the woman's health in such cases. What's the good in letting a pregnancy continue when the mother and/or the child could die at birth? Do pro-lifers just not care about a grown woman's life as much as an unborn infant's? It's funny how the pro-life base is vocal about giving every human being the right to life, and then denies it to part of the population. Oh, also keep in mind that the Supreme Court ruled the Bush late-term abortion legislation (without the regard of the health of the mother) unconstitutional.
There are too many extenuating circumstances to make abortion a yes-or-no issue. A pregnancy, even without birth defects, can harm the life of the mother. A 16-year-old girl has sex with her boyfriend, gets pregnant, and suddenly her 4.0 GPA is pointless because she has to stay home with the baby. Even if adoption is an option, the pregnancy itself is damaging. Rarely do teenage mothers stay in school, and even less than that continue to do well in their studies. For all you out there who say she shouldn't be having sex anyway, that abstinence is the best policy, let me remind you of this: The highest teen-pregnancy rate in the country is in the great state of Texas, where good ol' Dubya made it law that schools teach abstinence only. Yes, that plan is working out real well.
Or there's rape and incest. Do you really think a woman should be forced to carry the child of her rapist, or worse, her father? Since life is in Technicolor, our laws shouldn't be black and white. This is the same stance as Kerry, who, even as a devout Catholic, does not think government should have power over the individual. On a personal and moral level, he opposes abortions, but feels it is wrong to impose his religious beliefs on the United States. The church has no say in the state, and the state has no say in the church; if we all agreed to live this way, we wouldn't be arguing about this at all.
It's simple: A woman's right to choose, to make her own choices about her own body, is a fundamental right of privacy. There's a reason Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned in the 30-some years since its decree: it makes sense. A woman is the keeper of her own body, and no governmental official should have the power to tell her how to live. Imagine a day if abortions were illegal again, where girls try to do it themselves with knitting needles. If you think this is a good idea, then you clearly are not for the right to life.
It's an important law, one that under the Bush administration is being threatened. But have no fear; on Nov. 2 all that can change with a vote for John Kerry. On www.johnkerry.com, he promises "only to nominate individuals to the federal bench whose records demonstrate a respect for the full range of constitutional rights, including right to privacy and the right to choose," and at least for me, this helps me sleep at night.
Lisa Petak is a freshman in the School of Communication and School of Public Affairs.
