When I was 17, a younger friend of mine had an abortion. I was the only one she told. We were both pro-life, but her family was traditionally Mexican and she probably would have been disowned if they had found out. Despite my disgust with abortion, I was her confidant throughout the experience. I told her that it was a baby, it may very well be a person and that it would be morally irreprehensible to chance a murderous act instead of taking responsibility for her actions. When she got back from the clinic, I gave her a hug and told her that everything would be okay. It was.
Where I stand on the abortion issue is completely represented by the story above. I think abortion is wrong. I think people who have sex should take responsibility for their actions and that when they don't they are behaving selfishly. I think that it is possible that a person comes into existence at conception and that this possibility, however slight, renders abortion immoral. I also think abortion is a choice.
While libertarians fall on both sides of the argument, I am pro-choice because I do not think that it is the government's place to legislate morality. Abortion, especially when viewed from a pro-life perspective, is a moral issue. Pro-life activists generally argue that life and personhood begin at conception, and that to prevent a potential person from reaching its potentiality is immoral, or that the possibility of life beginning at conception is enough to render abortion immoral.
The most prominent pro-life argument is that life begins at conception. This statement is misleading. Of course life begins at conception. This is a scientifically proven fact.
The important question is not when life begins, but when human life begins. In some cases, pro-lifers really mean that a human being is created at conception. This is not scientifically based; it is morally based. Conception creates nothing more than a few cells that have been thrown together and are growing. Eventually, these cells will become a human being, but in the first few weeks there is neither a body, nor brain, much less consciousness. It is illogical to call a few cells that lack every human attribute imaginable besides a few strands of DNA a complete human being, unless you believe in the soul, which is a moral concept. Legislation should not be based upon the moral conviction that people have souls.
The second argument that emerges from the pro-life movement is that to stop a human being from developing, once the process has begun, is immoral. Depending upon the fervor of one's religious beliefs, they may deem condoms or even the rhythm method of birth control immoral as well. Obviously, this type of reasoning has nothing to do with science or logic and should not be the basis for legislation.
The third argument is the one I personally buy into. To kill someone is such a moral abomination that a woman shouldn't take the chance, no matter how small. However, this is also a moral argument. I'm agnostic; I make allowances for the possibility of a god and for human souls that may enter little zygotes at conception. If, however, one is using only science, abortion early in a pregnancy is clearly not murder. To ban abortion in its entirety would be to legislate morality, and is not a legitimate use of government.
Given that the procedure in its entirety shouldn't be banned, there are some scientific signals throughout the fetal development process that may be used to legitimize legislation of abortion. Just as those who believe that condom use should be banned make the pro-life movement seem foolish, those who support abortions late in a pregnancy discredit the pro-choice movement. At 26 weeks, higher brain activities are activated and the fetus gains consciousness. Any valid argument for when legislation should begin must exist within the gray spectrum of when human life scientifically begins - from six weeks when brain activity begins to 26 weeks when higher brain functioning kicks in. I can respect any opinion that falls within this spectrum, but people who argue for legislation outside of this timeframe strike me as unreasonable.
Personally, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of the government choosing where to draw the line. If the issue is too complicated for science to resolve, then the government certainly doesn't know any better than individuals do.
Erin Wildermuth is a senior in the School
of International Service and a libertarian columnist for The Eagle.
