After hearing that John McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade1, Randall Balmer posted an opinion piece for the Washington Post today that's given me a lot to think about:
Let me put it succinctly: I have no interest in making abortion illegal; I would like to make it unthinkable.
In terms of morality, I have no problem saying that abortion is always regrettable - even though it may be justifiable in some cases, especially in instances of incest or rape. In many other circumstances, abortion rises to the level of moral abomination. As a legal matter, however, I am decidedly pro-choice. I believe that the government should have no jurisdiction whatsoever over gestation.
The only point of agreement between both sides of the abortion debate is that making abortion illegal will not significantly reduce the number of abortions. It will only endanger the lives of women. But the larger question here is how those who favor making abortion illegal would enforce those laws.
After examining the deeply unsettling idea of every miscarriage becoming a potential criminal investigation, Balmer proposes combination of public service campaigns against abortion, sex education (teaching about both abstinence and contraceptives), encouraging adoption, and improving the economy to reduce abortions.
This, I think, is the wisest path. First, leave the Partial Birth Abortion ban in place, as there is no possible moral ambiguity there. We can argue over when life begins and whether abortion is acceptable or not earlier in the process, when we're talking about a nearly microscopic cluster of cells. But partial birth abortions deal with viable children; at that point, the mother should be signing adoption papers instead.
Second, promote the idea that abortions are wrong, rather than that they should be made illegal. When it comes to the law, I prefer a pragmatic approach over moral grandstanding. An out-right ban would only prevent a handful of abortions; the majority would still be carried out, but without medical supervision. This doctor describes how before Roe v. Wade his hospital would see 10-30 cases a day of people with severe complications as a result of botched abortions. After Roe v. Wade, these cases stopped.
In terms of a moral calculation, if you save a handful of lives while causing the torment and (in some cases) death of many other people, have you really gained anything?
I do not favor abortions; I think that in most cases they are immoral. But I think that an outright ban does more harm than good.
1. McCain's position is that abortion should be illegal except in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. He co-sponsored the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Act, along with 42 other senators. This law was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007. He is for embryonic stem cell research.
Obama, on the other hand, voted against a partial birth abortion ban in the Illinois Senate. (However, according to the link above, the bill's wording would have criminalized all abortion and included no provision for the health of the mother.) His position is clear: NARAL (the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) rates him at 100% Pro-Choice, while the National Right to Life Committee rates him at 0%. Naturally, Obama also supports embryonic stem cell research.
There are currently no comments