I remember the first abortion I ever saw. A young woman was brought into the emergency department complaining of abdominal pain and vaginal bleeding. She was about 8 weeks along in her fourth pregnancy. On further examination, it was found that the extent of her bleeding was so severe, that she would either need to abort the pregnancy, or bleed to death. No surgical options were available. No amount of blood transfusions would fix the underlying problem, which would only grow worse. The fetus was not near viable at 8 weeks. If she died, so would the fetus. She needed the abortion or she would die. And she needed it quick.

The procedure was explained, as well as the reasons why it was necessary, the woman consented and the abortion was performed. And as they sent the products of conception off to the laboratory in little plastic bottles to ensure that all was completely removed, I saw the woman's vital signs stabilize and knew she would live. And I was not disgusted at it. In fact, I felt that feeling sweep over me that I always get when someone is near death and we health professionals manage to help them hang on. We saved her life. Rather than three children losing their mother and a potential sibling, they still had a mother. The woman wept in sorrow alone in her room as she waited for the family to arrive from work and school where the social worker had called them, they hadn't arrived yet because the whole thing had taken less than an hour.

I remember this experience so well because later that same day, another woman came into the emergency department, also a few weeks pregnant. Her reason, as near as I can remember was "I found out I was pregnant a few days ago, so I went to Planned Parenthood for an abortion" and then she explained that they had wanted her to come in for an evaluation of some symptoms she had been having. I almost wanted to slap her. (Of course, I didn't.) Her attitude wasn't shocking by what she had said. It was the manner in which she said it. She said it so casually and with such a lack of emotion, as if calling Planned Parenthood for an abortion was the only natural thing to do when pregnant. This stood out in my mind so strongly because of the contrasting experience I had seen earlier that day. While one woman lay crying down the hallway at the loss of a pregnancy, this woman acted as if getting an abortion was the solution to a mere inconvenience.

And these two women demonstrated the true core of the abortion debate. While a myriad of arguments are set forth by those on both sides of this debate, conservatives have done a rather pitiful job of attacking the moral roots of those supporting abortion. Instead, conservatives have used a variety of arguments against abortion that, while quite persuasive, are laughed at by leftists who think their moral ground is higher.

This article will cover some of the more common arguments put forth for or against abortion on both sides, as well as the reasons behind those arguments lack of profundity. Then I will show how it truly was that these two women epitomize the core of the debate on abortion. I apologize in advance for all the parentheticals, I hate having to quote sources as I feel that they distract from the flow of reading, but I recognize that on this subject, having the same resources available to draw conclusions as I used will be helpful.

WHY ABORTION?

Let us start with the immediate appeal to morality that is most often made. "We need exceptions for the life and health of the mother, as well as for conditions of rape or incest." This argument to a higher moral ground than those who oppose abortion assumes two things, both of which are not true. First, it assumes that those who don't support abortion will do so even at the expense of the health of the mother or rape or incest. I oppose abortion, yet when I had to help with one to save a life I felt no moral shortcomings.

Secondly, the nature of the argument persuades that somehow these are actually common occurrences. My single experience aside, abortions for the life and health of the mother are rare. Annually, over 848,163 abortions were performed in 2003 (according to CDC reports. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm) This is over 2300 abortions per day, yet the same political philosophy that decries the war in Iraq as too costly because of the number of deaths doesn’t seem to care that every 2 days that number is surpassed in the unborn. 1.5 abortions every minute are not “to protect the life or health of the mother,” nor “cases of rape or incest.” The US Bureau of justice reports that 72,240 rapes were committed in the United States in 2003, far less than the number of abortions performed (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvus/number_of_incidents745.htm). In fact, the FDA states that pregnancy only occurs in 85% of women who use no birth control OVER AN ENTIRE YEAR (http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html). A year is a long time, and pregnancy is not likely to result from a single criminal sexual assault. Yet even if 100% of rapes resulted in a pregnancy, would still leave over 750,000 abortions per year in America unaccounted for. To claim to support abortion in the interests of the mother for rape or incest, or for her health is a blatant disregard of the facts. Furthermore, the mental health of the mother is often sited as a reason, as if bearing a child and giving it up for adoption would be to dramatic for a woman’s psyche to bear. The hypocrisy is evident, for those that support this argument usually simultaneously reject claims that abortion actually causes more mental health problems than giving a child for abortion would (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4520576.stm). Most abortions are performed for what can only be disgustingly called reasons of “convenience.”

Yet those who support abortion profess reverence for human life. They claim that people die daily because we lack government health insurance. It is the same inconsistency apparent when they support a death row inmate to protest the death penalty, yet will turn a blind eye at the daily deaths of innocents.

Sometimes abortion is claimed to be essential to prevent the overpopulation of the earth. If that were truly a concern, than wouldn’t it be better to avoid the pregnancy in the first place? Yet arguments for abstinence programs are scant, even though it is the best proven way to avoid pregnancy. If the issue is addressed at all, it is to promote more birth control methods, which are never 100% effective.

Abortion is claimed to be useful in preventing genetic or developmental problems. Birth defects are common causing physical and mental handicap. But if abortion is needed to prevent such individuals from being born, then consistency would dictate that anyone who doesn’t live up to an arbitrary level of perfectness should also be denied the right to live. Such irreverence for life is atrocious. It is not dissimilar to Nazi ideology.

Perhaps the most powerful argument in the abortionist arsenal is that a woman should be free to chose what she does with her own body. But from the moment of conception, the fertilized egg has a different genetic makeup than the mother. It is a different organism in the most fundamental way. The principle at stake here is that while the woman may indeed choose to terminate a pregnancy, that is how it applies to her body. Termination of a pregnancy for her is termination of a life for another. This is true regardless of musings about viability of the fetus, for if no action were taken, the fetus will one day be viable. To say there is no life is to deny reality.

 WHY NOT?

Conservatives, on the other hand, have made a valiant yet pitiful effort themselves against the war on the unborn. Valiant in their unceasing efforts to curb the plague of abortion that has swept our times; pitiful in the fact that none of the argument commonly put forth by conservatives will sway anyone who has already made up their mind.

There is a concept proposed by philosopher Karl Duncker called “patterns of situational meanings.” It purports that the only real reason that people disagree about things is because they don’t agree on the facts. If the facts could be known by all parties involved, then there would be no disagreement. Abortion is given as the classic example. Does life begin at birth? At conception? It is asserted that if we simply knew when “life began,” that both sides would agree that abortion after that point would be wrong. Conservatives often argue from this stand point. By seeking to establish a common ground out of respect for life, it is assumed that once others see the light that they will come to the correct side. But how can a society which cannot agree on partial birth abortions ever hope to come to a consensus about stem cell research?

Because the potential for a human child exists from conception, and abortion activists are eager to continue the practice, it is not about defining when life begins. If they were, it seems they would err on the side of caution and seek to have abortion as a less common occurrence. When conservatives try to state that life begins at conception, it is not a moral argument, nor one which will convince “pro-choice” advocates who already have their mind made up. It is essentially a theological argument. And theological arguments are mostly wasted on those who have already made up their mind that there is no God. To continually try to define when life begins, as conservatives have done, is to undermine their own position.

Theologically, God has never revealed when such a time is. When people discuss this, I have the distinct impression that it is about as useless as the ancient heated discussions as to how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.

Imagine how this looks to those who don’t believe in God. While many lost pregnancies (non induced abortions…) are the result of drug or alcohol use, it is estimated that 30-50% of ALL fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus, never result in a pregnancy (Salat- Baroux J : Recurrent Spontaneous Abortions, Reproductive Nutritional Development 1988 28 (6b):1555-68). Furthermore, many fertilized eggs have chromosomal abnormalities. Some like Down Syndrome are well known, but many are incompatible with life and never result in a live birth. Mothers themselves can have physiologic or anatomic abnormalities that prevent fertilized eggs from implanting. So it seems God himself may be responsible for a large amount of abortions performed if life truly does begin at conception.

How about identical twins? They result when a single egg divides into separate fetuses. But at conception, they are one cell. Do twins share a soul? Does the egg become alive after it divides only in twins?

I do not propose to argue against God and his designs, my point is that it simply hasn’t been revealed one way or the other, and no amount of biblical verse twisting will shed light on it. It surely won’t convince anyone. The abortion debate is not going to be won by a theoretical musing of “when life begins.”

The principle at stake here is even deeper. By trying to set up developmental milestones to try and use emotional responses as kindling against abortion is ineffective. Some try to say that abortions shouldn’t be done because the fetus can feel pain. Does that mean if the doctor premedicates with some potent opioids that it would be acceptable, since the fetus would feel no pain in that case?

It is put forth sometimes that abortion should be limited to anytime the fetus is non-viable. Fetuses are viable with a 90% success rate at 29 weeks. 10% still don’t make it, though. At what point is the line to be drawn allowing termination of the fetus? What if technology progressed to allow fetuses to survive outside the uterus at 22 weeks? 18? 4?

When life begins is irrelevant, because the fact is that if the abortion was not performed, there would be a life eventually. To end it before hand, if nothing else, is an ending of potential life. We as a society will prosecute those who know about crimes before commission. We do this because they had the potential to prevent it, and their inaction in reporting is an indirect cause of the crime. Abortion, on the other hand, the cause is by action rather than inaction. Fundamentally, how is that any different?

 THE CORE OF THE MATTER

I have covered many argument here for both sides, and there are probably many more. But none of these address the core of the contention present in the abortion debate. Nobody gets outraged at the moral implications of an appendectomy.

This is made apparent with the following. Many proponents of abortion are adamantly opposed to parental notification of minor girls prior to receiving the procedure. Regardless of the reasons why, the crux of the matter is that the girl has the maturity to make that decision by herself. However, if the pregnancy happened to result from a boyfriend who had his 18^th birthday the day before, he has committed statutory rape: a felony.  It is a crime because minors lack the maturity to be able to consent to adult intimate relationships… or so our laws dictate. So the girl has the maturity to end a pregnancy, but lacks the maturity to get that way in the first place. Am I the only one who sees inconsistency in this?

As I pondered the implications of that, and everything else I have put forth here, I have come to a realization. The abortion debate is, as the left has quite properly framed it, about choice.

All people are free to think how they wish. All people are free to act how they wish. What we are not free to do is to select the consequences of our choices. Most women considering abortions of convenience have already exercised certain choices. Abortion is an effort to erase the consequences of that behavior.

“To clarify this concept, we can learn from the astronaut. Any time during the selection process, planning, and preparation, he is free to withdraw. But once the powerful rocket fuel is ignited, he is no longer free to choose. Now he is bound by the consequences of his choice. Even if difficulties develop and he might wish otherwise, the choice made was sealed by action… The woman’s choice for her own body does not validate choice for the body of another.” –Russell M. Nelson.