<html>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times">Greetings:<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<div align="center"><b>A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE HANGS IN THE
BALANCE<br><br>
By Nick Gier<br><br>
</div>
<x-tab> </x-tab></b>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 <i>Roe vs. Wade</i> 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.<br><br>
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
3</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=1><sup>rd</sup></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
District Court of Appeals Judge Alito argued that any state has a right
to require a woman to do just that.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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 <i>Roe vs. Wade</i>. To bolster his
argument Coburn added he had delivered 4,000 babies in his career as an
obstetrician.<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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 <i>Roe</i> <i>vs. Wade</i> reference
this long tradition, and I believe that the justices had sufficient
reason to rule that the early fetus is not a person.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
As we acknowledge the
33</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=1><sup>rd</sup></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
anniversary of <i>Roe vs. Wade</i> 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. <br><br>
Nick Gier taught religion and philosophy at the University of Idaho for
31 years. For more on the topic see
<a href="http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/abortion.htm" eudora="autourl">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/abortion.htm</a>.<br><br>
</font></html>