The Abortion Debate: Pro-Choice

By Broadside Opinion Columnist Scott Mason
Video by Connect Mason Reporter Edwin Mora

• To see the Pro-Life perspective, click here
• For coverage of this week's Pro-Life Forum, click here
• VIDEO: View student opinions below.

The idea that someone who is Pro-Choice is against the life of an un-born child is possibly the most common misconception in today’s society, especially with those who have a Pro-Life position. It is, however, false to think that because one side is titled in so biased a way as Pro-Life that any opposition is automatically “pro-death.” Pro-Choice is not pro-death. Pro-Choice is an ideology that believes that a woman has the right to choose what will happen to her body, and that the government has no place in making that decision for her.

.

My goal is not even to attempt to define where life begins. Is it when the first heartbeat is heard? Is it when the cells first begin to divide? Is it at the exact moment of conception? Even some of the best biologists do not know. What is known is that there already exists a life of a woman, which must be lived by the choices of nobody other than that woman. Every person has the right to make decisions for themselves, no matter how productive or destructive the decision may be.

Since the decision of Roe v. Wade, the idea that a woman has the right to choose has been held sacrosanct to the realm of civil liberties, libertarianism and American liberalism. It maintains that laws against abortion violate a woman’s right to privacy, as it implies exists in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Many champions of Pro-Life may state that because there is no explicit guarantee in the U.S. Constitution, or Bill of Rights, or any Amendment so far, to privacy, liberty and independence as there is in the non-law Declaration of Independence. Yet, while the Declaration of Independence may not be law, the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) is law, within the Commonwealth of Virginia. The first article outlines the basis for privacy, with the rights to “the enjoyment of life and liberty” and “pursuing happiness and safety.” This statement reaches beyond the “Due Process” clause in the 14th amendment cited in Roe v. Wade, as it ensures the “enjoyment of life and liberty,” not just the possession.

Conversely, many Pro-Life advocates also use the Declaration of Independence and Virginia Declaration of Rights to support their views that life must be protected. This argument seems invalid as you cannot possibly burn the structure of another argument and try to build your own with the ashes.

America was created in an atmosphere of newfound freedom and liberty to do things as they saw fit under democracy. Although there does exist the notion of America as a Christian nation, America is a Christian nation because it chooses to be so, not because other religions are limited and legally restricted from the public arena. America thrives because it allows its citizens to choose their own faith, ideology and lifestyle. If these choices were to be abridged by the law, then they would continue to happen, although in secret and underground ways. Abortion, a medical procedure, would absolutely occur in possibly the most dangerous manner if it were outlawed or restricted beyond its current levels.

To all of these issues I offer just a few solutions. For those who are unhappy with the ability for a woman to choose, increase the funding to alternative programs that can curb abortion rates. Increase safe sex education, create a system that will keep children given up for adoption out of foster homes or orphanages and put them loving homes, provide good wholesome after-school programs that keep kids productive during spare time; these are just to name a few. Time and money could be saved by simply finding alternatives for those considering abortion and for preventing the need for it to begin with, instead of attempting to prevent abortion through restrictive legal means.

Human rights and civil liberties are what we cling to in a democratic society that protects us from mob rule. What good would it do to begin to limit others’ personal liberties in lieu of our religious beliefs? It would set a precedent for the future that would allow all types of discrimination and the eliminating of rights for anybody considered to be in the minority or the loosing side of an election. Limiting the right for a woman to choose whether to have an abortion would set us on a slippery slope towards a restrictive and penalizing rule of law that will threaten the basic American principle of liberty. If we do not protect this right, then we may lose everything that makes America a great nation.