After some 46 years of political game playing it appears that there is some movement on the issue of abortion. The goal has been to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision of the Supreme Court which established abortion as a right. This has been a political football that politicians have tossed around for decades to get votes but about which there has been little serious effort to see realized. It is likely that the only effective way to overturn Roe v. Wade is for the Supreme Court to do so in deciding another case. The current composition of the Supreme Court, given the political and philosophical leanings of its members at present, brings this into the realm of possibility. In the past few weeks several state legislatures have passed laws imposing significant restrictions on the performance of abortion in those states. These laws have been passed not to test the boundaries of Roe v. Wade but to provide a vehicle for the Court to overturn the landmark decision.
It is unclear whether the Supreme Court wants to deal with the issue now. At least one decision on a case related to the issue has come out in recent weeks and it is characterized more by its dancing around the issue that dealing with it directly. While the political philosophy of the individual judges certainly has an influence on how they vote on the cases before them, they work within a structure built on precedent and can vote only on the questions raised in the case before them. There is a great deal of case law that has built up over the 46 years since the Roe v. Wade decision. To overturn Roe v. Wade would upset a great deal of case law and open a legal can of worms that would create headaches for decades. Also, while a majority of the Supreme Court members are Catholic, their judicial decisions must be determined by American jurisprudence and not their religious beliefs, even if those religious beliefs help shape their interpretation of the jurisprudence.
Abortion has been a politically divisive issue for decades and tensions among political parties and factions are the worst they have been in a long time. The primary issues in the abortion debate deal with fundamental questions about the nature of humanity and society. These are issues about which there are strongly divergent thought in American society. While politicians would like to be able to settle the matter through sophisticated political maneuvering that is not about to happen, even if Roe v. Wade gets overturned. The issues at play are too complex and contentious. Any decision, pro or con abortion by the Supreme Court will only add to the tensions.
What does it mean to be a human being? Most people will agree that all human beings have a right to life, even if some argue an exception for war or capital punishment. So, when does that right come into effect? When does a human being come into existence? That has been defined differently by different cultures. Some see birth as the beginning of one’s humanity, since the infant can be separate from the mother. Others argue that one’s humanity begins after one’s first birthday, as reaching a year old is a key marker that the infant will survive in societies with high infant mortality rates. Conception has been taken as the beginning of one’s humanity by many today because at this point the person’s unique DNA signature is created. Still others argue that when the baby is developed enough to be perceived by the mother as moving within her (quickening) that is when he or she is human. Each of these definitions of when a human being comes into existence reflects various religious or philosophical perspectives. While there are objective events in a person’s development that can be taken as indicators of being human, and thus having rights, none of these events are definitive.
Those who support the right to choose to abort or not argue that abortion is a medical decision. It is between the woman and her physician. Ultimately, it is only the decision of the woman because she must have decision making power over her own body. This seems to be a reasonable argument, except that one of the functions of society is to protect the lives of its members. That is why there are laws that regulate human behavior. If I were to go out and kill an innocent adult in cold blood, society would have me arrested. If I did something like this to a two-year-old playing in his yard, the result would be the same. If I take the life of another human being, any society worth its salt would punish such behavior. Now, how is this different from abortion? If society defines humanity in terms that include those citizens still in the womb, then there is a value conflict between one’s absolute right over one’s body and the right to life.
A complicating problem is that the abortion debate doesn’t occur in a vacuum but is caught up in the cultural, historical, ideological and political conflicts of the era. Abortion isn’t just about the right to control one’s body. It is an integral component of the attempt to improve the political, social and economic position of women in a profoundly patriarchal society. On the other hand, the anti-abortion, isn’t always a pro-life political position. Often those who are most vocally against abortion and pro-capital punishment and have political philosophies that have little concern for the poor, marginalized, and ideologies different from their own.
Recent polls show that the vast majority of Americans do not feel that abortion should be an on-demand service and that some restrictions are reasonable. However, similar majority doesn’t support an absolute ban on abortion, as they feel that in certain limited circumstances it may be a necessary evil; as with a life-threatening pregnancy or as the result of rape or incest. These polls suggest that most people perceive the issue of abortion as an ethical grey area. They are unwilling to take the pure pro or con positions on the issue. Rather, they reflect a post-modern mindset that is suspicious of absolutes (both religious and ideological) and strives for practical compromise.
One of the oldest and most consistent moral teachings of the Catholic Church has been its opposition to abortion. There is a short book called the “Didache” that was written around 120AD and was used by the early Church to instruct those preparing for baptism. One of the moral teachings contained in this ancient compendium of Christian moral teaching is a prohibition on abortion. So, the present opposition of the Church to abortion perceived as a constitutional right is not some new development in Catholic teaching.
However, there have been variations on the related issues. For example, Aquinas argued that the unborn became human at quickening, as that was perceived as the time when the person’s soul entered the body. Even the contemporary argument that human life begins at conception is not absolute but is based on the argument that since the individual’s DNA signature begins at that point, they are human. If one’s humanity begins at quickening or birth or one’s 13th birthday, counting people as human from conception includes all possibilities, while selecting any later time may exclude some humans. It must also be noted that not all Christian denominations oppose abortion.
So, is the current hoopla over abortion a good thing or just more fuel for the fire of an already divisive society. It has the potential of being a good development if the various factions can stop shouting meaningless slogans at each other and begin a real dialogue. Dialogue requires that the parties to a conflict listen to one another respectfully and attempt to see the problem from their perspective. Such dialogue leads to a search for common ground and working together from this common ground can better lead to workable solutions to the problem that is the cause of the conflict. If we remain at the level of slogan shouting, then the politicians can manipulate the issue for their benefit, society becomes more divided and no progress on the issue of abortion is made.
