[Vision2020] A Woman's Right to Choose Hangs in the Balance

[Nick Gier]

Greetings:

Before this goes out to the usual venues, I wanted Visionaries to have a 
first read if they wish.  If you find typos or more substantial points to 
debate, let me know.  I'm glad that I can spell that last phrase better 
than Doug Farris.

A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE HANGS IN THE BALANCE

By Nick Gier

         During his confirmation hearings many Americans were relieved to 
hear that John Roberts believes that the Constitution contains a right to 
privacy.  He also considers Roe vs. Wade to be "settled law."  In recent 
hearings to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito 
agreed with Roberts on the first point but not on the second.

O'Connor is the author of the significant proviso "no undue burden," which 
limits the state's power to restrict a woman's right to choose.  In one 
decision O'Connor ruled that it was indeed an "undue burden" that a woman 
must get her husband's permission to have an abortion.  In a dissent in the 
3rd District Court of Appeals Judge Alito argued that any state has a right 
to require a woman to do just that.

A right of privacy is not specifically granted in the Constitution, but it 
is strongly implied therein.  Americans have an inalienable right to hold 
their own beliefs, to act according to the dictates of their own 
consciences, and the "right . . . to be secure in their persons, houses, 
papers, and effects. . . " (4th Amendment). The right of privacy follows 
from the basic American belief that people are autonomous beings, which 
means that they have a right to determine their own lives without 
government interference.

During the Alito hearings there was grandstanding from both sides of the 
aisle, but the worst offender was Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.  Coburn 
repeatedly said that the science of fetal development should compel the 
Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. To bolster his argument Coburn 
added he had delivered 4,000 babies in his career as an obstetrician.

I've taught over 6,000 students and I hope that they have better reasoning 
skills than the good senator.  Coburn stated that the early fetus has brain 
waves and a heart beat, but animal fetuses have these as well.  What makes 
humans morally and legally different from animals is that they are persons, 
not just biological entities.

Our moral, religious, and legal tradition has held that persons are 
rational beings, who are able to determine their own lives significantly 
different from the ways they guide their children or control their 
animals.  Several footnotes to Roe vs. Wade reference this long tradition, 
and I believe that the justices had sufficient reason to rule that the 
early fetus is not a person.

At the beginning of the third trimester, the fetal brain undergoes 
explosive brain development. At 25 weeks the brain cells are very poorly 
connected and the neocortex, the center of higher brain function, is 
undeveloped.  At 33 weeks those same cells have thousands of connections 
and the neocortex has the six layers of the mature brain.

This brain is significantly different from most animal brains, which can 
form the physical basis for protecting the legal rights of a "beginning 
person," a being with a serious moral right to life.  This argument is far 
superior to fetal viability, a criterion that, as Senator Coburn pointed 
out, is vulnerable to technological advances in preserving the lives of 
premature fetuses. Fetal brain development will not change except for major 
and immoral genetic engineering.

My argument gives expectant mothers the same six months' freedom from state 
interference but with a stronger legal foundation. The is also a nice 
logical symmetry between starting a person's life at this point and then 
legally ending it when the brain no longer functions. It's also imperative 
to note that 88 percent of all American abortions occur within 13 weeks of 
conception, long before any major elements of a person's life develops.

Anti-abortionists claim that abortion causes health problems for women who 
submit to them.  These same people, however, do very little to support the 
social services and accurate information that would make abortions safer, 
earlier, and rarer, as is the case in most other industrialized 
countries.  For example, in Belgium and the Netherlands there are 7 
abortions per 1,000 women as opposed to 23 per 1,000 in the U.S.

The most horrendous effects on female health are found in countries that do 
not allow reproductive freedom, and the Bush administration's restrictions 
on family planning in foreign aid are making this problem worse.  With a 
little over half the population, Brazilian women have more abortions than 
American women do. Eastern Europe has the highest rate in the world: a 
staggering 90 unsafe abortions per 1,000 women.  Generally speaking, the 
rate of abortion appears to be directly proportional to the restrictions 
placed on sex education and reproductive freedom.

As we acknowledge the 33rd anniversary of Roe vs. Wade on January 22, we 
should heed the heed the results of a recent Harris Poll: 70 percent said 
that they would oppose Alito if he intends to overturn this landmark 
decision. The choice for America is clear.  We can continue to protect a 
woman's right to determine her own life, or we can deny her this right and 
force her to face unhealthy and sometimes deadly alternatives to safe, 
legal abortions.

Nick Gier taught religion and philosophy at the University of Idaho for 31 
years.  For more on the topic see www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/abortion.htm.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060118/6735161f/attachment.htm