SPILLING INK about abortion should come easy to me. I've taken a philosophy class inbioethics, stayed abreast of the political developments within the life debate and have always cared passionately about the issue. It likely comes as no great surprise that I am thoroughly pro-life and exalt the moral status of a nascent human life over the private choice of a pregnant woman.
But, abortion involves more than the moral status of a human fetus. Passionate advocates on either side regularly throw around arguments about quality of life, the private sphere and the law's role in upholding both. Lacking in the debate though, is a strong commitment to logical and moral consistency. The definition of life is a moral question of the highest consequence and should be decided with a consistent, precise framework that either denies or confirms fetal rights in all cases.
In my latest attempt to follow the debate, I attended a lecture hosted by Hoos for Life featuring Dr. Karen Poehailos, a local family physician and graduate of the University Medical School. During the entire speech and especially during the question and answer period, which was punctuated by intense audience participation, I could not help but wander back to fundamental inconsistencies in the legality and social acceptability of abortion.
Think about it. If a woman decides to keep her child, family members, friends and strangers pepper the mother-to-be with questions about the child's sex, prospective names and nursery details. From decorations, diaper supplies, clothing and strollers, there is an entire industry dedicated to preparing for the birth of an expected child.
We can infer then that there is an obvious cultural recognition that healthy pregnancy, birth and preparation for child rearing are social goods. And yet, celebrating and preparing for the birth of a child only becomes elevated based on a choice that can often be selfish and scientifically uninformed. In this country, throughout an entire pregnancy, the desire (or whim) to bear a fetus to term determines whether people assign moral weight to the fetus.
If a woman decides to keep her pregnancy, her growing stomach turns into a cute "baby bump" and warrants societal congratulations. If she decides to abort her pregnancy, her growing stomach becomes an unsightly burden in need of an immediate (and "safe") medical procedure involving a vacuum or pills. Few want to hear about her abortion, and chances are she doesn't want to tell anyone. In all these cases, the mother's decision defines the moral status of the nascent human life.
This disconnect goes beyond the decisions and social interactions of private citizens. Scott Peterson -- of national media and California courtroom fame -- was convicted of murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn child, Connor. Had Laci Peterson decided to have an abortion at anytime throughout her pregnancy though, there would have been no criminal charges for Connor's death. Fetal homicide laws vary from state to state, further exacerbating the law's definitive and moral inconsistency.
Mind blowing contradictions surface when examining abortion rates among the poor and uneducated in this country. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research and policy think tank, "The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level is more than four times that of women above 300 percent of the poverty level (44 versus 10 abortions per 1,000 women)."
It is one thing for a pregnant woman to decide she doesn't have the resources -- financial or emotional -- to properly raise her child. It is a perversion of our "humane" society to decide whether she is a fit mother and influence her -- spoken or unspoken -- to obtain an abortion because the mother and aborted fetus are supposedly better off. I don't think anyone wants to say a child's life is worth more or less based on the socioeconomic standing of its parents. And yet, when abortion becomes the easy answer for women in crisis pregnancies, our social messages indicate otherwise.
People make mistakes. Unexpected children derail plans and strip parents of their autonomy; and in many aspects of modern life we compromise moral frameworks to fit present circumstances. Through this moral quagmire, we must commit ourselves to logical consistency. I am just optimistic enough to believe that a precise moral framework that values nascent human life will bring us closer to honoring the dignity of parents and their children.
Christa Byker is a Cavalier Dailyassociate editor. She can be reached at cbyker@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
