Tiny White Crosses

On the front lawn of the Catholic church my family and I attend, 50 tiny white crosses sprout like flowers from the ground.  A sign proclaims the crosses representative of the fifty million infants aborted since 1973, the year of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.  Not surprisingly, there is no mention of the number of infants aborted before 1973, the implication, of course, being that Roe v. Wade kills infants.

The use of the incendiary word infant is no accident.  Pro-life folks, including church clergy, have long sensationalized through the misuse of words such as infants, babies, and murder in the condemnation of abortion.  In the interest of truth, Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with infanticide, the practice of which is highly illegal and certainly not prevalent in the U.S.

Nonetheless, all of this got me thinking:  How old do you have to be to remember life before Roe v. Wade and to objectively weigh (assuming objectivity is possible) the pros and cons of legalized abortion?  Well, in 1973, I was 28 years old and a news junkie; back then, I made a habit of reading the daily newspaper front to back.  (Today, I refuse to bombard my psyche with so much negativity.)  So, yes, I remember the many media reports surrounding the abortion issue.  Would I have remembered at 23?  Probably.  At 18?  Probably not.  

Based on this inexact and admittedly convoluted logic, I have concluded that someone born after 1950, meaning someone less than 62 years of age today, has not experienced the world before Roe v. Wade as a mature, thinking person.  This does not mean that the issue can not be studied and comprehended retrospectively; as with any historical period of time, it certainly can and my hat goes off to those who have made the effort.  However, I suspect many young (less than 62) pro-life folks have not done so and are guided far more by emotion than first-hand knowledge or intellect.      

If my suspicion is correct, those (at least those who are young) who advocate for the illegalization of abortion, fail to understand the associated implications: the return of back alley clinics, where women suffer sterility and death from infection; discrimination against the poor, as women who can afford the cost travel to other countries for the procedure; teenage girls unable to escape the wrath of abusive parents; the imprisonment of doctors who, guided by conscience, act on their training and save lives; women who die in hospitals pending an attorney's opinion; and women forced to endure legal battles to prove rape.  These are just some of the negative repercussions reported in the media before 1973; yet, these things, as bad as they are, only scratch the surface with regards to the complexity of the abortion issue.  

In order to objectively weigh the pros and cons, a person must form an intellectual answer to some difficult questions:  At what point, if any, is the life of a pregnant woman less important than the life of the embryo or fetus?  (I'll refrain from using the biologically correct terms of host and parasite.)  Under what circumstances, if any, should an abortion not be an option?  When is the life of the fetus viable?  If a woman decides to abort, does she have a legal and moral right to a medically safe procedure?  Does societal interest supersede the individual right of a woman to exert control over her body?  Whew!  It is little wonder that as a country we are almost equally split along the pro-life, pro-choice great divide.

I recognize the very valid arguments made for both points of view; however, I staunchly oppose the efforts of the pro-life camp to illegalize abortion.  As we learned from the Roaring Twenties, prohibition can be a very bad idea.  The price of illegalization (prohibition), and even highly restricted legalization, from both a societal and individual perspective is simply too great, whether applicable to alcohol or abortion.  Often, even in the face of something distasteful, a pragmatic approach works best.  Unfortunately, the issue is so emotionally charged for many that this perspective is often lost, replaced by well intended, but misguided reasoning.