Abortion considered objectively*

In the discussion on abortion, when we ask what contextual issues orbit (or rather, center) the differing positions, we can identify them as:

Pro-abortion rights: Arguments from this position concern the following:

1. The fundamental right to govern one’s own body is implicit in constitutional guarantees to the pursuit of life, liberty, etc. The denial of these rights is blatantly unconstitutional, so much being stated in the 1973 decision Roe v Wade.

2.  Women have historically been denied rights and to this day face scrutiny unique to them as a gender distinct from Men. That males and females enjoy equal rights of self-governance is compromised by an enforced ban on abortions; that men face no equitable cost should women lose the right to govern their bodies arguably constitutes a fundamental injustice and unfair treatment, i.e. discrimination.

Anti-abortion rights: Arguments from this position concern the following:

1. That the right of the unborn child is being infringed upon. Namely, the right to life which has not been explicitly sanctioned by law to the unborn child. The right to “life” has by precedent been interpreted as a right to persist or continue a life already in motion. 

2. That abortion is an unlawful form of homicide. The legitimacy of this claim hinges on whether an unborn child (necessitating definitions of extents of unborn-ness, e.g. “after 4 weeks; upon successful conception,” et al.) may qualify as a citizen protected by the constitution. Proponents of this claim aspire to either a court decision interpreting an unborn child as such or a congressional amendment to the constitution including language to that extent.

Were either an interpretation or amendment to be enacted to the aforementioned extent – thus legitimizing the claim of unborn-child-citizenship – the banning of elected abortion would protect the rights of one class of citizen at the expense of the rights of a different class of citizen. Anti-abortion activists prefer this outcome because of the benefit that fewer lawful homicides against unborn children could occur. As historical survey has shown, however, unlawful homicides against unborn children would very likely persist since the primary determining factors of most elected abortions, e.g. lack of access to birth control, sex-education, rape; would continue if not addressed by further legislative efforts.

With regard to the conflict of measuring one class’ rights against a different class’ rights, i.e. unborn child’s right to life versus woman’s right to life/self-governance, the contexts surrounding one class’ right to life and another class’ right to life are distinct: Right to life in the context of perpetuity implies significantly different circumstances from the right to life in the context of an unborn child’s -- the right to attain a life from the point of, not un-life but not yet born – which cannot be easily defined as a singular point.

The question of how to settle the priority of one class’ right above a different class’ right necessitates a legal discussion that has never before taken place. The unborn-child, if granted legal standing, does not possess a characteristic defined within the special protections of the 14^th amendment. A discussion that would follow in such a case would hypothetically ask the representation of Woman to argue the superiority of its class over the class of unborn child. What details of such an argument could the judges lawfully consider in determining their decision? Have details of such nature been granted legal sway in prior cases?

One is forced to ask if the alleged homicide of unborn child is equal, more, or less grave than the imposition of society’s will on a woman to experience child-birth against her own right to self-determination. Especially relevant is the inherent risk of death in childbirth which, to this day prevails only in lesser frequency than in the past. To simplify the question: What is the ratio of forced homicide of unborn child to forced torture with possibility of homicide of woman? If the court considered the question in these terms alone, it might likely conclude that the combination of homicide and torture is graver than homicide by itself. It follows, then, that many who are pro-abortion rights see the issue in these terms, also; that the cold facts present a clear inequality, and that one class must sacrifice for the other. 

This sits well with nobody, but nobody could mount an argument disproving the above-termed inequality. The implication – which would be hard for anyone to accept – is that one inequality is less unfavorable than the other; that is, the difference of gravity between a homicide and a non-crime is less than the difference between a non-crime and a homicide/torture combination.

For many in the anti-abortion rights camp, the merit of this logical reduction does not outstand the emotional significance attached to homicide of unborn child. People attach qualitative traits to an unborn child such as absolute innocence; the implicit assumption in this, however, is that the pregnant woman must inevitably be less innocent – and more culpable – than the unborn child. This assumption is de facto unfair. One reason why many hold it nonetheless – either knowingly or unknowingly – is that in the most prominently represented religion of the American anti-abortion rights demographic – Christianity – sex is an inherent sin, thus influencing an adherent’s view of who is culpable and who is innocent. Contrary to this perception, it has been recognized through law, science, and common understanding that the basic exercise of sexuality is a guaranteed right to all humans, interpreted through court decisions to be protected under the law in the United States.

In the context of one class sacrificing for another, the perception from the anti-abortion rights position claims that sacrificing the right to elected abortion on the part of the woman is a sacrifice for the greater good -- i.e. the unborn child and its associated qualities: potential, beauty, innocence, etc. Prioritizing human values and defining what "greater good" really means in the context of humanity is not a conversation easily circumscribed by plain logic. Understanding how the law applies to daily life depends on reason as facilitator, and thus, if we choose to live in a country where law rules supreme, we choose to accede to logic where it yields a clearer course toward justice as defined by our legal documents and precedents.