On Abortion, Pro-Choice is the Compromise Position

The Bush administration is scrambling to issue a number of anti-abortion rights executive orders before leaving office. This is of course just a tip of the iceberg when it comes to all the hostile actions that the current administration has taken to make choice and family planning harder for women and families throughout the country.

The mainstream media and politicians -- including President Elect Barack Obama -- have presented abortion as an issue on which the country is evenly divided between two camps -- pro-life and pro-choice -- and the only way to deal with the issue is to come up with a grand compromise. However, a thorough analysis of the two platforms demonstrates that the pro-choice stance is the compromise position and the next administration must not negotiate away abortion rights.

One can explore this reality by looking at the specific list of choice-related issues that the Obama administration will face, and why he must support the pro-choice stance on them. The questions that the next administration has to answer are as follows:

-Whether to reverse Bush's newly implemented "Right of Conscience" view.
-Whether to overturn regulations such as one that makes fetuses eligible for health-care coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program.
-Whether to cut funding for sexual abstinence programs, and whether to increase funding for comprehensive sex education programs that include discussion of birth control.
-Whether to allow federal health plans to pay for abortions.

But at the heart of these questions and the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade that started this 3-decade long debate on abortion is a central question: Is a fetus a human being?

If it is, it must possess all the characteristics of a human being, not the least of which is independent biological viability. Merriam-Webster defines viable as "capable of existence and development as an independent unit." According to The Endowment for Human Development, by 21-22 weeks (5 months and one week) after fertilization, the fetus's lungs gain some ability to breathe air, and this is considered the age of viability as "survival outside of the womb becomes possible for some fetuses." However, the fetus's dependence on the umbilical cord continues well into the third trimester of the pregnancy. While there may be other elements on which one can rely to determine the viability of a fetus, the concept of independent viability remains the central characteristic of any living organism, including human beings.

Science clearly establishes that an unborn or unhatched vertebrate cannot be considered to be a human even after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind - hence the term "fetus" to refer to all vertebrates at this stage. However, there continue to be millions of American who -- because of their church's teachings, genuine belief or as an excuse to control women's health decisions - matter-of-factly claim that a fetus is a human being while relying on no scientific or empirical arguments.

But even if one allows for some subjective discretion in defining the point at which a fetus turns into a human, the pro-choice position (one taken by the Supreme Court during Roe v. Wade in 1973) presents itself not as the liberal position, but the compromise position. What's important to note about the ruling is that while it did not declare abortion unconstitutional or force the viewpoint of the anti-choice camp over the pro-choice camp, it also did not force anti-choice Americans to accept the biological and scientific definition of what constitutes a human being. The ruling rather allowed those who believe a fetus is a human being to keep their fetuses and carry their offspring and those who believe a fetus is not a human being to choose whether they are socially, economically and emotionally ready to have a child.

But that was not good enough for most ardent anti-choice advocates. Since 1973, they have organized themselves around the ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade and force their nonscientific and subjective definition of human being on everyone else. But in the mean time, they have also done what they could to make getting abortion as difficult as possible for women. Their efforts have ranged from violent means -- including bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors that perform abortions (ironic since the criminals commit this in the name of saving "life") -- to lobbying state and federal governments to take legislative and executive action to limit the accessibility of abortion. They use sensational language in making their arguments - such as calling pro-choice citizens "murders" and showing graphic images of abortion procedures to appeal to people's emotions so they no longer have to argue their point based on logic.

So how should President Elect Obama address the questions above in the context of existing national debate on abortion? Let's review the questions in greater detail.

Should Obama reverse Bush's newly implemented "Right of Conscience" view?
In the eleventh hour of his lame duck presidency, George Bush is trying to establish a "Right of Conscience," allowing medical practitioners and staff to refuse to participate in any practice they object to on moral grounds, including abortion, birth control and other health care as well. But think about the implication of opening the door of having the doctors decide what operations to conduct and what not to conduct based on personal moral beliefs; where would it stop? What if a doctor decides that heart transplants are immoral? Should she be allowed to willfully allow the patient to die? What if a doctor believes delivering a child is immoral because the world is over-populated, or that as long as gays do not have the right to marry and adopt children, justice is best served by preventing everyone from having children? Would these anti-choice advocates be willing to accept the risk that this doctor may be the only doctor on call when they take their pregnant loved one to hospital? The fact is that anti-choice advocates only wish to defend a doctor's "right" to refuse service based on moral objections if those objections fall in line with their anti-choice agenda.

The United States is a country of laws. One cannot drive through a red light if one morally opposes traffic lights because the laws are not written only to protect she who must follow it, but protect others from her actions. For the same reason, doctors are not legislators and have no right to impose their subjective moral view on everyone else. If a physician believes that his career choice forces him to compromise his moral beliefs, they are free to pursue other career options. Or alternatively, he can try to lobby the Congress or the American public to change the laws he opposes. But those physicians who decide to remain in the field must be legally obligated to follow the laws, whether they like it or not. The "Right of Conscience" view is an action that President Elect Obama needs to reverse immediately after taking office.

Should Obama overturn regulations such as one that makes fetuses eligible for health-care coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program?
In order for one to be a child, one has to be a human being, and human beings are biologically independent and viable organisms, which fetuses are not. Therefore based on the discussion above, a fetus cannot be considered a child, and therefore should not be eligible for coverage under federal health insurance programs. And it is quite ironic that the Bush administration is interested in simultaneously blocking the passage of Children's Health Insurance Program and advocate for coverage of fetuses under the program. President Elect Obama cannot allow anti-choice advocates to play politics with important programs and reignite the social culture wars of the past in order to make statements and advance their narrow agenda.

Men's Rights in Abortion
It is important to discuss one aspect of abortion that President Elect Obama must bring into the national dialogue, and that involves a situation in which the right of a man must be protected. Pro-choice advocates rightly point out that as long as a fetus is not biologically viable, the woman carrying the fetus must have the exclusive right to decide whether or not to carry her pregnancy. If both the man and woman agree on whether to have the baby, there is complication in the decision-making. If the man wants the baby but the woman does not, the man must respect the decision of the woman. But what if a married woman decides to have the baby after finding out about her pregnancy, but her husband does not? Should a man be forced to fulfill child support and maintenance obligations for the child as required under Family Law? While the right to decide whether or not to have a baby exclusively belongs to the woman, the man should have the legal right within the first few months of the woman's pregnancy to choose and declare whether or not he accepts the financial obligations as they are required of the father under Family Law.

Should Obama cut funding for sexual abstinence programs and increase funding for comprehensive sex education programs that include discussion of birth control?
The goal of sexual abstinence program is to educate young people about how to prevent unwanted pregnancy and avoid sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). For that reason, teachers cannot teach their students that abstinence is the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancy, because it is not. There are many ways to have control over whether and when to have a child, including contraception, safe sex practices, sexual orientation and abortion. While the most comprehensive research done on the impact of abstinence-only programs showed that they had no visible impact in terms of delaying a teenager's sexual activities, latest data shows that nearly $175 million of federal spending continue to go into these programs every year. In comparison, teen pregnancy in the United States continues to be twice that in many European countries that advocate comprehensive sex education. In the meantime, more than 8 out of 10 Americans support education of both abstinence and other methods to prevent unwanted pregnancy and STDs. As part of his short-term agenda, President Elect Obama must push for the channeling of nearly all abstinence-only education funding to comprehensive programs that have both the support of the American public and have proven to be more effective.

Should Obama allow federal health plans to pay for abortions?
Even President Clinton who supported the right to choose did not allow any federal funds to be used to cover abortion costs. His argument was that he did not want to use federal funds that had come not just from pro-choice citizens, but anti-choice ones as well, toward an operation that did not have the moral support of all citizens. While the argument sounds reasonable, one cannot help but wonder why Presidents who use these arguments do not apply the same logic to other policies of the federal government. It is safe to say that most of the tax-paying citizens in this country have a moral objection to the continuation of the Iraq War. So why should they be forced to continue to support this war through their taxes (which by the way is leading to the killing of actual human beings)? The notion that anti-choice citizens should have the right not to have their taxes used under state and federal programs for an operation that is as legal and legitimate as any has no logical justification. President Elect Obama must make sure that as long as abortion remains legal, women have access to it. But as for any other operation, limits should be placed to prevent abuse.

President Elect Obama has presented himself as a president ready to compromise on important issues. But as he proceeds through the first few months of his presidency, he cannot treat abortion as another issue on which to negotiate. Instead, he has a unique opportunity to use his political capital to fundamentally reframe the debate and permanently establish one important fact: abortion is as legal and legitimate of a medical operation as any, and the government needs to do what it can to help women get educated about it and have easy and safe access to it.

This piece has been republished by RH Reality Check, A United Nations Foundation Blog, with the author's permission.

Follow Sam Sedaei on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamSedaei

Comments

[marksleen]

"If it is, it must possess all the characteristics of a human being, not the least of which is independent biological viability. Merriam-Webster defines viable as 'capable of existence and development as an independent unit.'"

So, I take it that a person who needs artificial life support is not a "human being" because they are not viable? Also, most infants will die if left alone and need someone to feed them, does this make them "not a human being." Here is a hypothetical: If science could create an artificial womb in which a "pre-viable" baby could be placed and it could survive, would it then become a human being?

[Eclectic Radical]

Exactly right.

I consider myself to be 'Pro-Life.' I believe that killing is wrong, whether that killing result from murder, war, or abortion. I believe that while there is a measurable scientific point at which the fetus can survive without the mother and be considered 'human', the fetus is undeniably 'life'.

That said, some wars have historically been necessary. For all my pacifism, not to fight a war against Hitler would have been worse than killing another human being in that war. For the entire world.

Legal, medically safe, available abortion is the only alternative to the nightmare that is illegal abortion by quacks. There will always be women or girls who will feel that they have no alternative to abortion. Poverty, crime, and concern for the quality of life of an unborn child can all make a compelling argument that abortion may be a lesser evil than forcing a woman unable or unwilling to be a parent to do so, or force her to carry a child to term solely so it can be given up for adoption. In a free society, there must be freedom to make a wrong but necessary choice.

[dcpoff]

the rich need poor kids to fill prisons and/or join the military so their kids don't have to.

[ifihadahammer]

Excellent post and thanks for including the points on the father's rights. I think you're spot on as to where Obama needs to be!

[adamsmith3]

"If it is, it must possess all the characteristics of a human being, not the least of which is independent biological viability. Merriam-Webster defines viable as "capable of existence and development as an independent unit."

What difference does it make whether a baby is being sustained by a mother's nutrients through the umbilical cord or by baby food or breast milk? In both scenarios the baby is completely and utterly dependent on the mother (or caregiver) for survival. The baby cannot further develop or continue to exist without food, and left to its own devices, the baby will die. So what's the difference between a mother supporting the fetus in the body and supporting the baby outside the body? By using the twisted logic above, the baby still isn't viable as a newborn, so why not be able to kill it then?

[LeftRight]

The primary difference being that in the case of the fetus life would last mere minutes outside the womb, whereas the baby will likely survive days without the mother.

[ProgressiveVoice]

A fetus cannot survive without its host. A baby can be kept alive by anyone with access to food and water.

[mrfreeze]

1) There is some sort of uber-control instinct that father's have about their daughters. "You will not have sex until I say it's ok." As a result males dominate the females by making sex taboo (unless, of course, they want to dominate the females BY having sex with the......that's ok!)
2) Because all societies are male dominated, the idiotic-simplistic solution to daughters having sex is: ABSTINENCE. By all means, don't protect yourself. Having sex breaks my rules. Break the rules and....
3) Have an unwanted pregnancy.­..........­thus proving
4) As a female, you're so luck, we give you choices: you can remain a virgin until we dictate how you will have sex; you can breed, or you can go to hell for taking responsibility for your own life by practicing birth control. Any way you look at it, you lose! Deal with it!

What a wonderful scenario.

Any idiot knows that NO ONE wants abortions to happen. Unfortunately, stupid people manufacture abortion (the thing they hate) by taking away a woman's fundamental right to choose. Because "daddy" doesn't what his daughter impregnated, we have created a nightmare. And because we allow stupid people to make public policy based on ridiculous notions of religion, fake science and an almost pathological disgust with sex, we have millions of unwanted, destitute and unhappy people in the world. There is no compassion in this.

As a good friend of mine says (a lot these days): You can't fix stupid........

[StonedThrower]

Sorry . . . but women play as much a part as men in trying to keep their daughters from having sex at an early age.

[MsAttitude]

Some mother's have that control too! The young girl is not taught about self-respect and self-control nor is she taught birth-control. She then finds herself pregnant while her parents are telling everyone that their daughter is perfect and doesn't have sex! So the young girl then resorts to an abortion to keep mom and dad from freaking out. Now she has emotional scars that she can't talk about and must keep a secret. She is also caught in a vicious cycle of jumping from one lover to another looking for self-fulfilment and getting a pretty bad reputation in the process!

[mrfreeze]

MsAttitude - You're absolutely right. My point is that women are definitely at a cultural disadvantage around the world due to male domination. The strange thing to me is why it's so difficult for parents to understand that they can't stop kids from having sex. Understanding this, it seems so utterly simple to tell them how to practice safe sex and birth control. Isn't life about making life easier, not more difficult. Yikes, there are a lot of stupid people out there.

[Shotgun Mary]

When I was a teenager, my mother told me I could talk to her about anything. When I went to her with the news that I was having sex with my boyfriend and needed birth control, she freaked out. She announced that she wasn't going to do it because she didn't want to give me permission to have sex. Turns out I was already having sex because whadduya know, it was my body. I didn't need her permission. What I needed was her support to help me protect myself. I ended up going to a friends mom for my birth control. I've had people explain to me that my friend's mom didn't do me any favors by condoning my teenage sex drive. I think she did the best thing she could have. We had a long talk about sex and responsibility and in the end I was more informed and protected. Pro-lifers will continue to "manufacture" abortions by preventing women and girls from accessing birth control, until we overcome the number of abortions will not decrease.

[mrfreeze]

Shotgun Mary - You need shout out your story from the roof tops to all young women. You need to shout it out so loudly that it drowns out the lunacy that has become the public "debate" about abortion. Abortion exists because we fail to recognize that life is complicated: people make mistakes, humans have a strong sexual drive, adults have some strange idea that they can stop young people from having sex (or drink, or drive fast or whatever), women are abused, etc... Worse yet, there are people who obsess about what other concrete, existing individuals do with their bodies. These folks need some dressing-down.

[4everdem]

Great post!

[LeftRight]

And your mother was DEFINITELY wrong! When my then 14 year old came up to her mother and informed her that she was sexually active, we went out and got her BC and condoms. Neither of us supported her choice to have sex at that age, but we would MUCH rather not be grandparents yet!!

The fact of the matter is that you are ENTIRELY correct, providing alternatives to unprotected sexual activity other than simply "just say no" is VITAL!

[VJ2008]

If all the money spent trying to overturn Roe v. Wade since 1973 was and is instead spent on preventing unwanted pregancy with education, support, information, and programs (like adoption), then we could all but eliminate abortion without outlawing it. Why can't that be the compromise? The religious among us would be living the faith instead of hitting people over the head with it.

[wagadog]

If all the money spent trying to overturn Roe v. Wade since 1973 was and is instead spent on SUPPORTING the pregnant women and their (soon to be) child rather than VILIFYING them, abortion simply wouldn't be NECESSARY.

Girls wouldn't have to QUIT SCHOOL QUIT THEIR JOBS QUIT THEIR FAMILIES upon giving birth. They'd have enough Support - -INCLUDING CHILD CARE -- to continue their lives without it having to be such a huge life-changing decision to have a child. It isn't such a huge life changing decision for MEN, you know. They get to just keep doing whatever they're doing. Keep their jobs. Get a promotion even. Get handed complete control of the poor woman's LIFE in marriage.

WTF is THAT about.

It's the misogyny of our society -- hatred of women and the need to reduce us to domestic servants and brood sows IN THE SERVICE OF MEN rather than honored as human beings capable of producing other human beings -- that has brought us to this "pro-choice" vs "pro-life" false dichotomy in the first place.

[LeftRight]

For the same reason that allowing gay marriage rather than fighting against it doesn't happen! They INSIST that their way is the ONLY way, and thus no compromise is acceptable!

[texasrodeoqueen]

Hitler outlawed abortion

[rektruax]

He also initiated strict gun control... He also had a mustache...

[caterpol]

I agree with much of this, but you lost me with the Men's Rights. Is it your opinion that there aren't enough dead beat Dads in society, that we tax payers need another boat load of them?

Not to mention that there would be a lot of men changing their minds through the years as they mature and want a relationship with their offspring.

In any case, your solution punishes the child and society while letting the man off scot free. So, as a taxpayer, I demand the same rights as the Dad under your system. I want to sign that same piece of paper denying my consent and letting me off the hook financially.

[VJ2008]

This issue takes being able to keep things in context. I am a Lutheran, and I've found that most of us do not keep things in context on this issue. I do not support abortion. However, I do support the United States Constitution's right to privacy and the right to choose. I won't vote for a tyrant just because he says he is against abortion, especially when that tyrant is murdering people in a war for profit and letting poor people die, which is contradictory to his stated purpose. I believe that we can all but eliminate abortions with programs, education, etc., without taking away the privacy and right to choose. If all the money being spent on fighting Roe v. Wade since 1973 was instead used to prevent, educate, etc. and giving people more opportunity like adoption, then that would be real compromise. That would also be living the faith.

[caterpol]

Bravo!

[Ibis3]

I have to disagree with your notion that men should be able to choose to refuse to support their children. It is the right of the child to have the support of both parents. Period. It is not fair that a child should suffer want because his father decided to spread his seed around without regard for the consequences. Whenever two fertile/virile people of the opposite sex have intercourse, there is the potential for a pregnancy to result. The man's choice comes at that point, not after a baby is born.

[sdskelton03]

But I thought it was a fetus, not a child?

[LauraD2]

Post-birth it's a child. As was stated in the article. Nice try though.

[LauraD2]

I disagree.

Already on the books are laws that allow one parent to give up their parental rights.

If one parent doesn't want the child, why should any law force them to support and take care of that right? Especially when the entire situation could have been resolved in a 2 hour trip to town if they were in agreement. If the woman can decide to abort without the man's consent, then there is no reason that the man shouldn't be able to refuse to care for the child that the woman chose to keep.

Equality works in both directions.

[rlb2]

There is such a thing as failure of birth control, which is often no one's fault, so why should a boy or a young man who is in favor of an abortion have to throw away his dreams because his partner chooses to keep the pregnancy which results as a failure of birth control, used correctly? The pill is not 100% effective, and I speak as a female who had an abortion because the pill failed me. Men, like women, should not be penalized by someone else's choice. This has nothing to do with "spreading his seed around without regard for the consequences." Parenthood for both men and women should be a choice, not a consequence. As the mother of a responsible son, this lack of choice for men disturbs me, although I do not believe that a man should be able to force a woman to continue with a pregnancy she does not want. It is her body, after all.

[Bluedrgn]

"the man should have the legal right within the first few months of the woman's pregnancy to choose and declare whether or not he accepts the financial obligations as they are required of the father under Family Law"

WOW that's an interesting can of worms. I agree with you privately but fear I would be ostracized from society if I were to support this position publicly. I believe it is commonly accepted that the man made this decision the moment he "put it in", but by that logic, so did the woman.

[texasrodeoqueen]

I looked on Sarah Palin's website last night and she says is is modeling herself after Susan B Anthony, and her cause of prolife, antislavery, and the right of women to vote.??!!!
I googled and googled the achievements and bio of S. B. Anthony and I was right- not one place does she say a word or fight for "pro life" or anything near. Palin just added that in there!
And the subtle but sick racism Palin ranted during the campaign about Obama was no where near equality Susan B Anthony stood for. Palin's website is full of racist anti-Obama rants.
Susan B Anthony would roll over in her grave if she knew Sarah was using her to promote her own agenda.

[lingonberry]

Yeah it is pretty sick when people use these great female role-models when they don't stand for anything thing pro-women. I could never understand why women supported Palin in the first place.

[texasrodeoqueen]

well, the GOP thought women would of course support her just because she is a woman. And some do. The vast majority of us saw through that manipulation and figured out she was just being used as a female but is really George Bush with lipstick, Ann Coulter with brown hair, Hitler in heels. She is a slap in the face to educated women.

[Rick in Arizona]

"But at the heart of these questions and the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade that started this 3-decade long debate on abortion is a central question: Is a fetus a human being?"

Wrong! At the heart is the question "Who has jurisdiction on the fetus? The mother or the Government.

[sdskelton03]

Should the government stop a mother from killing her born children as well?

[adamsmith3]

No, actually the big question is whether or not a fetus is a human being. Because if it IS, then why would the mother have the right to kill it and why would the government not have the same responsibility in protecting that human being from harm as it does in prosecuting a murder of a 2 year old baby. So the question of whether the fetus is a human being makes all the difference in the world on this issue.

[LeftRight]

You are incorrect Rick. The question IS about whether the fetus is human or not, because if it IS human, then the laws against murder would apply, and there would be no choice. If it's NOT a human then the woman has a choice until such time as society determines that the fetus is a human.

[ProgressiveVoice]

No, in this debate the central question is NOT "Is the fetus a human being?" In this debate, the fetus is ALWAYS human. That is, if left to develop to full term, it will produce a human. To the best of my knowledge, it cannot ever become anything but a human.

The central question is "Do the rights of a potential person supersede the rights of an existing person?"

[LeftRight]

But in the meantime it is NOT a human being. It CAN BECOME a human being, but that's where the debate is....

[texasrodeoqueen]

funny how zealots are "pro- life" but don't say anything about all the US homeless children, millions of US kids without health care, all the wars, torture, etc. This is all a Rovian wedge issue.
Why not create an environment favorable to having children. If I had it to do now (i am a grandmother) I would NO WAY have a kid in the USA now. Women need to be able to house, feed, clothe, and spend time with their kids. We need to know they will have the best in health care and insurance and education and security. That has all been given away to corporations and the very rich in America. We need to make it a kid and woman friendly country like our European counterparts, who have a much lower teen pregnancy, single parent, maternal death, and infant mortality rate than the USA. Hypocrites need to worry about that instead of controlling our bodies.

[sdskelton03]

I am sure all of those homeless children would much rather have been aborted.

[adamsmith3]

I'd rather have an existence as a homeless child and have a chance to make a life for myself than not have an existence at all.

[LeftRight]

That's GREAT adam! So now you can go out in the world and never have an abortion (if you're a woman) or ensure that you never get a woman pregnant who would abort it (if you are a man)!!! On the other hand, when my (then) thirteen year old daughter was raped, I was damn glad to have abortion available as an option were the unthinkable to happen!!!!

Blanket statements about how people would rather be alive than aborted don't work. That's why the pro-choice argument is the only reasonable argument about it!