Respecting Differences
Laws regarding abortion must reflect a concern for two different values. Because we value the human potential of the unborn, we must try to minimize the number of abortions performed. At the same time, public measures must be taken to prevent the tragic dilemma posed by unwanted pregnancy. As members of a pluralistic society, we are obliged to acknowledge that individuals differ about the status of the fetus. For this reason, and because outlawing abortion would be impracticable, thus undermining respect for the law, abortion should be permitted early in pregnancy. After that, it should be sharply restricted.
What Should be Done?
Pass laws that acknowledge respect for human life as a basic principle. Pass laws that permit abortion only during the first trimester. After the first ten to twelve weeks, abortion should be permitted only when medically necessary for the mother's health. Expand efforts to inform women about alternatives to abortion, such as adoption. Require a one-week waiting period -- except in medical emergencies -- to encourage a carefully considered decision. Significantly expand efforts to prevent unintended pregnancy, including programs for sex education and the provision of contraceptives to sexually active women. Pass laws to ensure that abortions for low-income women are provided at government expense, and that medical facilities performing abortions are licensed to meet high standards of care. Prevent harassment or intimidation intended to dissuade women from abortion who have a right to it.
Arguments For This Approach
Public policy often balances several legitimate interests. A prudent law on abortion would seek to minimize the number of abortions performed, while respecting differenct views about fetal life. There is nothing contradictory about laws that combine compassion for pregnant women with concern for the fetus, a concern that increases as pregnancy continues. In a pluralist society, most matters of personal morality -- particularly when there is no consensus about them -- should be kept out of the public realm. When abortion takes place early in the pregnancy, the status of the fetus is morally ambiguous, and for that reason discretion ought to be left to the woman. While a fetus is obviously not a complete human being, the potentiality of human life is there -- increasingly so as the pregnancy continues. So the right to abortion cannot be unconditional, and the decision cannot be left entirely to the pregnant woman. Some nations, France included, have settled the issue by allowing abortion up to the tenth week, but thereafter permitting only abortions that are medically necessary.
Arguments Against This Approach
Agreeing to such an approach would mean permitting abortion on demand during the phase of pregnancy -- the first ten weeks -- in which most abortions take place. Therefore, it would do little to reduce the number of abortions. This amounts to a moral middle ground, which is unacceptable both to those who are convinced that human life begins at conception, and to those who are convinced that a woman's right to choose must take precedence. If there is no consensus about the status of a fetus, why should we go to such lengths to restrict abortion after the first ten weeks? This kind of abortion policy would create a legal straitjacket: When an unwed, pregnant 17-year old discovers in the thirteenth week that she is pregnant, are we prepared to say she must give birth, regardless of her ability to raise the child? This denies the central principle affirmed in Roe, that as a society we affirm individual privacy as well as the right to choose. Because it infringes on a woman's right to privacy, this approach would be a giant step backward.
Tags: 
Comments
Post new comment