Joe Jarboe

Introduction

From a pro-life perspective, I attempt to lay out both sides of the arguments of the abortion debate.  I tried to do this respectfully.  Further,  I have stated a principle that I believe underlies each position on each issue.

Some pro-choice advocates claim that a pro-life stance is an effort to subjugate or bash women.  The bearing of a child does pose more risk for the mother than for the father.  My mother took that risk for me.  I am here today because a large web of women took the necessary risks and effort.  Throughout history, women have borne these burdens in order to bring the next generation into the world.  It is one of the noble traits of womanhood.  I am in no position, nor do I have any desire, to bash women.

Definition of Terms.  Some intelligent man said, “If you would converse with me, define your terms.”  So I attempt that here. 

Principle.  I chose a few from Webster.  A fundamental truth, law, doctrine, or motivating force, upon which others are based.  A rule of conduct, especially of right conduct.  Uprightness.  Like most definitions, this one is not self-contained.  If I find a better way to say it, I will add it.

Abortion.  Webster defines this as to give birth before the fetus is viable.  This would include miscarriage.  In this piece, we are talking about the intentional termination of pregnancy by removal of the fetus.

Contraception.  From Webster, the artificial prevention of the fertilization of the human ovum.

Pro-life.  The label primarily used by those opposed to legalized abortion on demand.  The pro-life movement is also involved in the contraception debate, but I will limit this piece to the abortion discussion.

Pro-choice.  The label primarily used by those promoting abortion on demand.

Reproductive rights.  A term used by those in the pro-choice movement, referring to a woman’s supposed right to control her own body.  This applies especially to the “right” to prevent or end a pregnancy by any means available.

Use of Propaganda.  When I hear this word, two ideas come to mind: political elections and Communist revolution tactics.  Politicians use words like “change” and “liberty” to convince the voter that they have his best interests at heart.  Communists use terms such as “peoples liberation front” and “equality”, when their intention is to enslave the people and set themselves up as an elite ruling class.  I am not saying that the “abortion rights” movement is Communist, but it uses some of the same tactics.  Pro: sounds like it is for something, when it is against the birth of unwanted children.  Choice: sounds like it is giving a choice, when it removes all choice from the unborn.  Reproductive: sounds like it is interested in reproduction, when it wants to prevent reproduction.  Rights: sounds like somebody will gain a new freedom, when the unborn are having all their rights snuffed out.

Relevant Biology.  I include a simple discussion of biology, for it is necessary to an understanding of what we are talking about.  It bears on the nature of the fetus, which will be central in arguments that follow.

The Cell.  The cell is the basic unit of human life.  The adult human body has about 100 trillion cells.  A membrane encloses the cell.  Genetic material is contained in the nucleus and in mitochondria.  In the human cell nucleus, the genetic material (DNA) is contained in 23 pairs of chromosomes.  The mitochondria, separate from the nucleus, contain additional genetic material.

Growth of the Organism.  The organism grows when individual cells divide in two.  Each individual cell duplicates its genetic material, and then divides into two separate cells.

Reproduction.  A new organism is formed when the sperm cell of the male combines with the ovum of the female.  In human reproduction, the sperm cell provides 23 chromosomes and the ovum provides a matching 23, to form the required 23 pairs for the functioning cell.  In addition, the ovum provides the cell membrane, the mitochondria (containing mitochondrial genetic material), and the bulk of the machinery of the cell.

Spiritual Considerations.  The spiritual implications around the pro-life/pro-choice controversy are numerous and complicated.  They lead to religion, on which there is wide disagreement.  I hope to confine this article to logic and the spiritual considerations that are inherent in any principles stated, which is sometimes called natural law.  We’ll see how it goes.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court (Roe v. Wade) ruled that a woman has a right to an abortion.  Pertinent excerpts from the decision introduce each argument contained here.  Additional excerpts from the court decision are near the end of this document.

Danger to Mother’s Life.

Pro-choice argument.   Pro-choice advocates use this as the strongest fall-back position, claiming that pro-life advocates would deny a mother the right to preserve her life when it is threatened by the fetus.  Principle: A woman has a right to defend her life when it is threatened by another.

Pro-life argument.  First, this is a rare occurrence and accounts for a very small percentage of abortions (about 1%, based on statistics I have found).  When the two lives actually hang in the balance, it does seem reasonable to preserve the mother’s life at the expense of the child.  If the mother dies before the fetus is independently viable, both will die anyway.  Principle: A woman has a right to defend her life when it is threatened by another.

Rape and Incest.

Pro-choice argument.  This is the second strongest argument for abortion and is not as rare as the danger-of-death condition.  The rape and incest pregnancy are similar in that they both begin with a violation.  The pro-choice argument hinges on the belief that the fetus is an extension of the violator, thus prolonging and intensifying the violation.  Principle: Removing one of the consequences of a crime will ease the effect of the crime.  In stronger terms, killing one of the victims of a crime will help the surviving victim to heal.

Pro-life argument.  Now to the masculine analytical approach, which may seem insensitive.  Being a male, I have never carried a child, so I have not experienced the emotional/physical/spiritual connection between mother and child in the womb.  I do not know the feeling of carrying an unwanted child.  However, I am surrounded by women.  One of them, who bore four children and lost one to early mortality, phased it this way, “She was violated once; why violate her again?” A woman who is raped or incested is a victim.  A resultant child is a victim also, being unwanted and unloved, and carrying the stigma of the crime which it did not commit.  Looking at the biology, the fetus carries 23 chromosomes belonging to the perpetrator.  Since the developed human body contains 100 trillion cells, with all but 23 chromosomes being material provided by the mother, the fetus is primarily a product of the mother (though the father provides almost half of the pattern).  Physically, the fetus is far more a product of the mother than the father; attaching any stigma of the rapist to the fetus seems unreasonable.  Principle: Punish the criminal; protect the victims.

Excerpt from Roe v. Wade Decision. The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Pro-choice Argument.  A woman’s right to privacy gives her control over what happens to her own body, including the right to terminate a pregnancy.  Principle: An adult’s right to privacy trumps any rights the unborn may have.

Pro-life Argument.  The unborn have rights to privacy also.  They should not be disturbed by suction tubes and surgical instruments and caustic liquids.  Principle: The right to life trumps a right to privacy.

When Life Begins. 

Excerpts from Roe v. Wade Decision.

An AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed in May 1857. It presented its report… to the Twelfth Annual Meeting… It deplored abortion and its frequency and it listed three causes of "this general demoralization"…The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime - a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening…The Committee then offered, and the Association adopted, resolutions protesting "against such unwarrantable destruction of human life," calling upon state legislatures to revise their abortion laws, and requesting the cooperation of state medical societies "in pressing the subject…In 1871 a long and vivid report was submitted by the Committee on Criminal Abortion. It ended with the observation, "We had to deal with human life. In a matter of less importance we could entertain no compromise. An honest judge on the bench would call things by their proper names. We could do no less."

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Pro-choice argument.  Following the lead of the Supreme Court, the pro-choice camp refuses to enter a principled discussion on this, attempts to avoid it all together.  Principle: if you have no valid argument, deny the importance of the issue.

Pro-life argument.  In an ethical discussion, this is the central question, on which so much else hangs.  The U. S. Supreme Court, in the Roe v. Wade decision, dodged this question and hung their decision on “personhood”.    This is elaborated on below.  At conception, a cell is formed which contains the complete genetic code that will control the development of the person.  It is an undifferentiated cell, but it contains the potential for development of all the diverse cells of the body.  If it implants in the uterus and is left undisturbed for 9 months, a baby will result (barring miscarriage, mortality, and outside interference).  It is clearly life, but is it human life?  It may not have the appearance of a human.  Appearance varies widely (from person to person and within the same person at different ages) but they can all be identified as human by their DNA.  A full-term baby is an individual human, a “person”.  If we track the development of the fetus in reverse, we can find no distinct event which demarks the beginning of individuality, other than conception.  Individual human life clearly begins at conception.  Principle: Human rights are inherent to the human (endowed by their creator), not based on legal jargon or the desires of those in power.

Personhood.

Excerpts from the Roe v. Wade decision: The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment…. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment…. All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

Pro-choice Argument.  Pro-choice advocates rejoice in the “reproductive rights” and “right to choose” established by the Roe v. Wade decision.  They do not discuss the fact that the case rests on the non-personhood of the unborn.  Principle: The ends justify the means.

Pro-life Argument.  When the medical and philosophical and theological professions cannot agree on when life begins, the court will fall back on legalese (the meaning of the word “person”). The U. S. Supreme Court is unsure of the definition of “person”, but it is quite sure that the unborn are excluded.  The United States has a constitution that bases many rights on the word “person”, an undefined term.  At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, I believe that those men defined a “person” as a white male, over age twenty-one, who owned property.  I don’t want to return to that original definition, and I doubt if many other people do either, so it is time to get that word defined, before other segments of the population lose their rights.  At present, our rights are those clearly identified in the constitution, in opposition to the Declaration of Independence which states that we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights.  Principle: Our rights are inherent to our humanity.  If we are to keep them, the Constitution and Courts must honor that basic principle, not hang decisions on the meaning of a single (undefined) term. 

Pro-choice Argument.  Prior to birth, the fetus draws its nourishment and oxygen from the mother’s body via the placenta.  The mother’s body also shelters the fetus.  Pro-choice advocates often argue that this dependency gives the mother life-and-death authority over the fetus, an authority she loses when the child is born.  Principle: A dependent person hands over his right to life to the caregiver.

Pro-life Argument.  Let us look at what changes at birth, from the baby’s perspective.  The baby’s blood ceases to circulate through the placenta.  The baby draws breath and secures its own oxygen and expels its own carbon dioxide and takes nourishment orally.  However, it cannot maintain its body temperature without clothing, which it has no means of securing.  It cannot protect itself from harm.  It cannot secure food for itself.  With the exceptions of breathing and eating, nothing has changed, from the perspective of the baby.  For the mother, the required effort increases.  Principle:  The minor change in dependency level of the child at birth is no basis for granting or denying rights.

Medical Risks.

Pro-choice Argument.  Pregnancy presents nine months, or more, of risks to the woman’s health.  The pregnancy can produce high blood pressure, sugar diabetes, and other ailments.   A woman should have a right to avoid these risks when she has not chosen them (in the cases of rape and incest and failure of conception-prevention methods).  An abortion is an effective method of avoiding these risks.  The risks inherent to abortion are seldom discussed.  Principle: Consider only the risks of the alternative you want to avoid.

Pro-life Argument.  Pregnancy does present medical risks to the mother.  Abortion also presents a set of medical risks.  Principle: When making a decision, consider the risks of each alternative.

Emotional Risks.

Pro-choice Argument.  Carrying the child of a rapist will impose an extreme emotional stress upon the victim.  The same applies to the incest victim.  The presence of the fetus will be a constant reminder of the violation, and will intensify the long-term emotional trauma of the victim.  Ridding her body of any trace of the perpetrator will aid the woman in emotional healing.  To a lesser degree, any unwanted pregnancy will traumatize the woman.  Bringing an unwanted child into the world is unfair to both mother and child; aborting the child solves the problem for both mother and child.  Principle: Carrying an unwanted child to term presents severe emotional risks to the mother, abortion presents no emotional risk.

Pro-life Argument.  Again, carrying a child to term and abortion each carry their emotional risks.  Memory of rape or incest will last a lifetime, whether the child is aborted or not.  Pregnancy is a temporary condition, whether intervention occurs or not.  If ending the pregnancy ends the trauma, the variable is the length of the carry.  Memory is what will linger.  Adoption can take the child out of sight of the mother at birth; she need not be burdened with rearing an unwanted child.  The real issue here is the long-term effects of the two alternatives.  In the cases of rape and incest of a minor, the mother is not responsible for the initiating the pregnancy.  In the case of failed or non-existent birth control, she shares responsibility for the pregnancy; she is not an innocent victim of biology.  Abortion requires another decision/action on the part of the mother.  She is most likely depressed, distraught, and pressured by family, friends, and a dead-beat boyfriend.  I will not judge her.  Still, abortion requires a decision/action on her part.  By adding abortion to the situation, she adds a new source of guilt/regret that may haunt her the rest of her life.  Principle: When making a decision, consider the long-term consequences of each alternative.

Legal.  Do we want our rights resting on the changeable definition of the term “person”, or do we want them to rest on the fact of our humanity?  Do we wish our legal system to recognize human rights as inalienable, endowed by our creator instead of legislated by the government?

Moral.  Under what circumstances do we have a right to end the life of another?

Survival.  Under what conditions does another person (or a government entity) have a right to end our lives?

Jane Roe, a single woman who was residing in Dallas County, Texas, instituted this federal action in March 1970 against the District Attorney of the county. She sought a declaratory judgment that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were unconstitutional on their face, and an injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the statutes.

Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion "performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions"; that she was unable to get a "legal" abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions. She claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. By an amendment to her complaint Roe purported to sue "on behalf of herself and all other women" similarly situated.

The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras … or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment….

It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy.

6. The position of the American Medical Association. The anti-abortion mood prevalent in this country in the late 19th century was shared by the medical profession. Indeed, the attitude of the profession may have played a significant role in the enactment of stringent criminal abortion legislation during that period.

An AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed in May 1857. It presented its report, 12 Trans. of the Am. Med. Assn. 73-78 (1859), to the Twelfth Annual Meeting. That report observed that the Committee had been appointed to investigate criminal abortion "with a view to its general suppression." It deplored abortion and its frequency and it listed three causes of "this general demoralization":

• "The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime - a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.

• "The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of foetal life . . . .

• "The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas. With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, [410 U.S. 113, 142] and to its life as yet denies all protection." Id., at 75-76.

The Committee then offered, and the Association adopted, resolutions protesting "against such unwarrantable destruction of human life," calling upon state legislatures to revise their abortion laws, and requesting the cooperation of state medical societies "in pressing the subject."  In 1871 a long and vivid report was submitted by the Committee on Criminal Abortion. It ended with the observation, "We had to deal with human life. In a matter of less importance we could entertain no compromise. An honest judge on the bench would call things by their proper names. We could do no less."

7. The position of the American Public Health Association. In October 1970, the Executive Board of the APHA adopted Standards for Abortion Services. These were five in number:

• "a. Rapid and simple abortion referral must be readily available through state and local public [410 U.S. 113, 145] health departments, medical societies, or other nonprofit organizations.

• "b. An important function of counselling should be to simplify and expedite the provision of abortion services; it should not delay the obtaining of these services.

• "c. Psychiatric consultation should not be mandatory. As in the case of other specialized medical services, psychiatric consultation should be sought for definite indications and not on a routine basis.

• "d. A wide range of individuals from appropriately trained, sympathetic volunteers to highly skilled physicians may qualify as abortion counselors.

• "e. Contraception and/or sterilization should be discussed with each abortion patient." Recommended Standards for Abortion Services, 61 Am. J. Pub. Health 396 (1971).

8. The position of the American Bar Association. At its meeting in February 1972 the ABA House of Delegates approved, with 17 opposing votes, the Uniform Abortion Act that had been drafted and approved the preceding August by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

Appellants and various amici refer to medical data indicating that abortion in early pregnancy, that is, prior to the end of the first trimester, although not without its risk, is now relatively safe. Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth.

The third reason is the State's interest - some phrase it in terms of duty - in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone.

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses,  for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.