Student Publications
University of Houston
151C Communications Bldg
Houston, TX 77204-4015
713.743.5350

©1991-2007
Student Publications,
All rights reserved.

Last modified:

Contact:
ktruitt@uh.edu

Opinion

Abortion ban opens can of worms

David Salinas
Opinion Columnist

Last week, a bill passed by the South Dakota legislature to ban abortion has been seen as the first step in setting up a legal battle in the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 1973, the Supreme Court 7-2 decision ruled that, through the right to privacy, women could terminate pregnancies. Since then, an active movement of mostly conservatives led by their Christian beliefs has been determined to undo this ruling. 

As it stands today, South Dakota has one abortion clinic in its entire state and women have to rely on doctors from Minnesota because no South Dakotan physician will perform the procedure. Despite that, lawmakers from the state would like to make all abortion illegal except in protecting the life of the mother. Women who were raped would be forced to have the rapist's offspring.

Roger Hunt, a Republican sponsor of the bill, said "special circumstances," would have diluted the importance of the bill and its national impact. 

When ABC news aired this story, it illustrated the controversy behind the abortion issue by showing two opposing organizations involved in a shouting match. One side had a chant that went something like, "Pro-life, that's a lie, you don't care if women die," while the other side retorted, "Pro-choice, that's a lie, babies never choose to die."

It was disconcerting, to say the least, to see one of the most important moral questions of our time reduced to the equivalent of a high school football crowd "we have spirit" contest. But that is the problem with a lot of the activists on either side of this issue: They pick sides as if it were a football game. 

Abortion is a complex subject. Abortions have existed since at least the time Athens became the first democracy in the world. From the Hippocratic Oath to England's Lord Ellenborough's Act in 1803, the ethics behind the procedure have been debated, including the question of when human life begins. 

Many people in the "pro-life" movement believe life begins at conception. In Roe v. Wade, the majority opinion was because "until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth," the physician and his or her patient are the sole arbiters in the outcome of the pregnancy. The state can only involve itself in the pregnancy after the fetus "has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb." 

Embryonic development varies, however, so the exact determinacy of when the fetus is "viable" does not exist. But it is certainly some time after the first trimester. This isn't the only question, however.

Many people who consider themselves "pro-choice" use the mantra, "It's a woman's right to choose." As a man, it's hard to argue with this. It's easy to see how a woman might feel having what happens to her body left in the hands of rich, elderly men. Men have no idea what pregnancy is like, and to be able to encumber women with all the pain involved in the nine-month process does seem like they would be taking a little too much liberty. But does that mean women should be allowed to have abortions at any time because they control their own bodies? 

That doesn't seem right, either. Abortion shouldn't be used as another form of contraception, but if for whatever reason it is, it should only take place within the first trimester. When the fetus does become viable, there is another person involved who the woman cannot be allowed to control the fate of, at least in regard to whether it lives or not. 

A woman who was raped would have her procedure taken care of immediately, one would presume, so that wouldn't be a problem. All of this still seems to fall under Roe v. Wade, however. Although there are those in the "pro-choice" movement with extreme positions, if their only purpose is to preserve the decision, the entire "pro-life" movement is, in itself, extreme, and in some ways, extremely hypocritical. 

The Catholic Church believes life begins at conception, and therefore is against abortion. As a Catholic I can understand the position, even though I disagree with the absoluteness of it, but I don't have a problem when someone like the Pope espouses this belief because he is also against the death penalty and for charitable means that protect children after they are born. 

Many Republicans have a much tougher argument to make when they say they are "pro-life," not only because they are for the death penalty, but also because of the callous attitude they have toward the poor. If they have their way and Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion is not going to be banned in every state -- just those that choose to ban it. 

People who have enough money can either go to another state or country to have the procedure done. This would only affect poor women who are ridiculed and generalized as "welfare queens" because they have trouble keeping jobs and taking care of their children as single parents.

Although Republicans are in favor of billion-dollar tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest members of society, they have cut funding for the Women, Infants and Children program in many states and have even proposed a national cut to save money. How can you say you care about the children affected by abortion when you ignore them after they're born? 

Those lawmakers must believe in the easy version of Christianity -- the version that ignores sacrifice and helping others, and focuses on self-righteousness and scorn.

They probably deleted the passage from their copies of the Old Testament, Proverbs 22:16, that says, "He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want."

Salinas, an opinion columnist for The Daily Cougar, 
can be reached at davidcsalinas@yahoo.com.