The situation in the United States, two and a half decades after
abortion became legal throughout the nation, seems to be at an impasse. Canada, presented
with abortion (now on demand) throughout that nation four years earlier, is not that much
different. One thing that is completely obvious is that the issue will not go away.
The other obvious fact is that the two sides remain completely
polarized. There seems to be no middle ground, no chance for compromise. When one strips
the issue to its bare bones, the reason for the lack of middle ground is only too obvious.
This either is or is not a living human from conception. This living human either
continues to live or is killed. It is obvious that this being can’t be just a little
human, or perhaps not human at one point and then human at another. He or she either is or
is not. Just as simply there is either life or death. There is no middle ground.
Compromise?
Pro-abortion advocates, who call themselves pro-choice, are
unwilling to concede any ground at all. Would they allow passage of laws in either nation
for-bidding abortion in the third trimester for sex selection, to pick an extreme
position? No! they have fought any such attempt.
Would true blue pro-lifers, if they had their choice, allow abortion
for pregnancy resultant from assault rape and incest, or for pregnancies when the
developing baby is severely handicapped? No, they might be forced into this as a political
compromise, and as a temporary measure. But ethically speaking, no real pro-lifer would
consent to this. It would seem then that the chance for compromise simply does not exist.
On the other hand, it is obvious that people of goodwill must continue to try for a
solution.
Ultimate Pro-Abortion Goals:
Many of the ultimate goals of those who favor abortion already
exist. Abortion is legal in both of our nations until birth for social and economic
reasons. Many areas use tax money to pay for elective abortions. What pro-abortion forces
have not achieved has been to mainstream this procedure into the day to day practice of
medicine. They also have not achieved a status of respectability, as the word
"abortionist" still is one of low esteem, or even condemnation. Also, abortion
is still strongly condemned by substantial segments of the cultures of both U.S. and
Canada.
The Ultimate Pro-Life Goals:
The ultimate pro-life goal is quite direct and very simple.
Pro-lifers want an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to the Canadian Charter of Rights
that will give equal protection under the law, to all living humans from the time their
biologic life begins at conception until natural death. Understanding that such a goal
remains yet in the future, pro-life people have an intermediate goal. It is a
Constitutional Amendment returning the right to make decisions about abortion to each
individual state in the U.S. and the equivalent in Canada to each individual province.
This would take federal judges out of the mix completely, and make legislating on abortion
a state’s issue. States and provinces could then allow abortion, forbid it, or
anything in between.
Since the above intermediate goals also remain yet unattainable,
pro-life forces today are seeking more immediate goals, particularly so in the United
States.
These include parental notification and consent for abortion for
minor daughters; specific public health regulation of free-standing abortion facilities;
women’s right to know, or informed consent laws; forbidding of certain types of
abortions (such as brain suction or partial birth abortions); forbidding of abortions for
certain reasons, such as sex selection and after a certain age of fetal development.
Certain allied issues can also be legislated such as forbidding
destructive live fetal experimentation. Freedom of conscience can be guaranteed, both for
individuals and for institutions. Laws to ban the use of tax monies for elective abortions
have been the first line of attack for pro-lifers, but much yet can still be done. There
are many avenues where federal monies have been given to pro-abortion organizations. A
major ex-ample is family planning which includes abortion as a method of family planning.
Government support for institutions that have encouraged and referred for abortions could
be terminated and such monies redirected to those that support women before, during, and
after birth.
Adoption:
There are certain constructive areas that can be encouraged that
should be non-controversial. An obvious one is adoption. Certainly, the pro-life side has
been warmly supportive of this. Tragically, the pro-abortion side, while giving lip
service to adoption, nevertheless, has in practice strongly discouraged adoption to the
point of not so subtly condemning it. The typical
Planned Parenthood type of advice to an unmarried teenager
contemplating adoption is to hold it up as a fate worst than death for her unfortunate
child. Sadly, adoption should be, but has not been common ground.
Contraception:
A major thrust of pro-abortion rhetoric has been the assumption that
if only young people were given adequate education in how to use contraceptives, and then
adequate access to them, the problem would be solved.
A portion of the pro-life side has serious moral reservations about
contraception per-se. Many other pro-lifers do not share this. Almost universally,
however, pro-lifers feel that pushing contraceptives onto teenagers encourages fornication
and at younger ages. Most pro-lifers oppose contraceptives for premarital sex, for
adultery, and for homosexual liaisons.
Title X, the U.S. federal family planning program which has expended
billions of dollars giving contraceptives to teenagers over the last three decades, has
proven to be a colossal failure. Wherever its clinics have been established, an intense
campaign has been launched to teach contraceptive use to unmarried teens. The result? The
pregnancy rate has gone up. The sexually transmitted disease has gone up. The abortion
rate has gone up. The age of first sexual encounter is younger. Planned Parenthood has
reported that 60% of women getting abortions had used contraceptives the month they became
pregnant (Chapter 35). This evidence, along with other studies, has convinced many that
the siren song of "give them contraceptives and the problem will be solved," is
not part of the solution, but rather part of the problem.
Love Them Both:
Your authors have been teaching, writing, and lecturing in the field
of human sexuality for forty years, and have been in the thick of the struggle over
abortion for twenty-five years. Is there any common ground?
We certainly can take sides, and many do with great passion, and
dedication. We, however, see one glimmer of light, that hopefully would appeal to both
sides, and certainly would to those in the middle. It is the recent emphasis on the simple
question, "Why can’t we love them both?"
Why can’t we all stand with the pregnant woman? Why can’t
we tell her that we share the agony of her decision? That we really know of no
"convenience" abortions? Why can’t we tell her that we stand with her, not
against her? Why can’t we begin to discuss constructive alternatives to abortion,
adoption being an alternative par excellence?
