Democrats For Life is a group of Democrats seeking to persuade their party to support a pro-life position. Recently they have introduced a signature piece of proposed legislation called The 95-10 Initiative. Its goal is to reduce the number of abortions in the US by 95% in the next ten years. They seek to accomplish this task not by a Constitutional ban, but by incremental legislation, education, and economic support. The proposed legislation contains 17 concrete policy initiatives. 

It is probably the most vilified and celebrated legal decision of our time. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, by a 7 to 2 majority, the privacy right of a woman to choose an abortion without interference from the state. Thirty three years hence, it is estimated that over 40 million abortions have been performed in the United States.

I am not a lawyer or a scholar, and I do not play one on t-Blog. But I am an interested observer. I have read through the decision several times. Here are some of my thoughts:

(1) The heart of the ruling is the right to privacy.
Interestingly, I understand this to be a fundamental matter of conservative political philosophy. The conservative believes the best government is one that stays out of your life; "...provide for the common defense, provide an infrastructure, and leave me alone!" It sounds to me like Roe v. Wade is agreeable to this point of view. It is saying that what a woman chooses to do with her own body should not be the concern of the government.

Many oppose abortion for religious reasons. I guess my question would be: Do we really want the law to force compliance to religious views? For instance, some feel that Saturday is the sabbath- to be a day of rest from labor. For myself and many others, Saturday is a day of work; I seriously doubt that a substantial number of Americans desire for the law to force a sabbath rest.

I have a philosophical kinship with those who do not like legalized abortion. Surely we can preach, teach, and try to persuade others. But we cannot use the law to force compliance to our religion.

(2) Nowhere does Roe v. Wade address the unborn fetus as a "person".
It goes to great length to question it as a legitimate life deserving the protection of the state. Contrary views of history and even religion are presented.

(3) Interestingly, the ruling does state that the right of the woman to an abortion is not absolute.
The concern of the state becomes more compelling as the pregnancy develops.
*Thus, the state is not to interfere during the first trimester- it is strictly a matter between the woman and her physician.
*During the second trimester, the interest of the state is limited to the assurance of quality and safe health care.
*But, at the point of viability, when the fetus could potentially live outside the womb, then the government could potentially step in to prevent an abortion.

(4) A most troublesome caveat, to me, is the effective limitation of the state in preventing an abortion during the third trimester.
If a woman and her physician believe an abortion to be in the best interest of her health, then it is to be allowed. The matter does not need to be life-threatening, and can include her "mental health".

To me, this appears to allow abortions at any time during the pregnancy for any reason, including extremely late-term, as long as the woman and the physician agree.

-------------------

Like I have said, I do not like Roe v. Wade. With my next post, I want to share what I would like to see happen with this current matter of law.
You may be surprised.

Mr. Sperm meets Ms. Egg; it happens all the time. Much of the time it is an act of passion. Lust, if you will. And it does not take much intellectual fortitude to have sex. Just lust. I know what is on the mind of a teenage boy, a lot, and it is not love. I have a pretty good idea that teenage girls are not quite as sex-driven, but they too share the challenge. When you combine the raging hormones of teenagers with the tantalizing media and our permissive society, you end up with lots of kids having sex. I do not justify it, but I do recognize it. And while I as a church worker wrestle with this dilemma, I find it frustrating that so many of my fellow conservative Christians absolutely oppose the distribution of contraceptives to teenagers. And my words about such inconsistent behavior are in another blog.

When Joey and Judy do the “love tango” in the backseat of the car (or, more likely, in the house while the parents are oblivious), and Mr. Sperm burrows into Ms. Egg, do they immediately conceive a human being? It is a most important question, because I think abortion transfers from a surgical procedure into killing the moment the ending of a human life takes place. So, the question I ponder, is “When does human life begin?”

I find it hard to equate a fertilized egg with a human being. Potential- yes, but not yet.

For the first week the cells divide and multiply, and finally implant into the uturus.

Now, as I understand it, the “morning after pill” (RU486) prevents the cells from continuing to divide, and then a sister drug is administered to expel the cells. This seems to me to be a reasonable form of birth control for the person who messed up by having sex without proper protection. To me, when this is applied in the first few weeks of pregnancy, it is simply preventing the forming of a baby, akin to using a spermicide or IUD device.

------------------------- ---------------- 

So, when does human life begin?

My wife believes it is the moment a heartbeat begins, which I am told is around 3 weeks. But I wonder if the presence of this one pumping organ, especially in rudimentary form, equates to life? I do know that some are ethically quite prepared to “pull the plug” on a terminally ill person whose heart continues to beat.

Does the presence of distinct brainwaves indicate the beginning of a human life? Such occurs at 6 weeks, and accompanies reflexes and a complete skeleton. I think this to be a compelling point for consideration. It seems to me that someone whose mind is working deserves to have his life valued.

I understand, in years past, the point of “quickening” was when a baby was considered to be a real person. The mother begins to feel her baby moving inside of her body at around 18 weeks.

The point of viability, when the fetus has the possibility of surviving outside the womb, is around 23 weeks.

And, according to interpretation of the law, the fetus only becomes a human being, with individual right to life, after it is born. Not just theoretically, but actually, a 9-month-old fetus can be aborted with support of the law. This seems unreasonable to me.

It is not reasonable to me that a newly fertilized egg is a human being. Neither is it reasonable to me that an 8 ½-month-old fetus is only a potential person. Somewhere between these two extremes, life happens. In my opinion, brainwaves are a key indicator.

What do you think?

I do a lot of thinking, and struggling,, concerning this matter of abortion.

While still in college, I was friends with a pastor who shared with me a dark secret.  As a juvenile, he got his girlfriend pregnant.  He did not love her or want to marry; heck, he was still dealing with pimples and High School band.  The families of both parties, good church-going highly respected folk, got together and chose to have an abortion.  My friend struggled with the matter.  The physician told these kids the fetus had an abnormality, but I suspected from the gist of the story that it was suspect but sympathetic opinion loaned for the sake of conscience.

This man has gone on to marry a fine woman and be what I would deem a successful minister and missionary.  One time he tried to tell the story to his current wife, but she ran out of the room holding her ears, refusing to listen.   Obviously his life would have been significantly altered if he had fathered a child as a teen.  Educational opportunities would have been harder to pursue, and opportunities for church leadership less available.  I’m not saying he would have taken a different course of life, but it is highly likely.  A life-course not worse or better, but different.

And I have a friend, whom I highly respect, who had an abortion as a college student.  The unplanned pregnancy left her deeply distressed.  At the time, she did not think her religious friends would be very understanding of her situation.  She felt overwhelmed.  So, while still in the early stages of pregnancy, she took a private trip to an abortionist.  The procedure was quick. 

She is now deeply involved in Christian ministry.  I can honestly say this lady is wise and kind, and a wonderful influence upon others.  Interestingly, she is pro-life in her politics.  Still, she agonizes over a decision made years ago, as a scared little College freshman.

I share the former to say this: for most people the decision to have an abortion is a gut-wrenching matter.  There are exceptions.  I do hold suspect those who use abortion as a form of birth control, who can have this awful procedure with seemingly no conscience.  But, even those with repeated abortions need to have their story heard, before we paint them all with a broad brush.

We are not talking about sub-par human beings.  We are talking about folks who are a whole lot like you and I. 

A life-shattering crisis is now before you:

Your maturity and wisdom must help you deal with this matter

Chances are most likely that you are still in need of development in these areas

You need help, support, wise counsel

These may be present, but most probably are lacking

Or, at least you think no one can help

So, given the person you are at this moment

And the magnitude of the crisis before you

You make a choice

Wise or unwise, good or bad, you make a choice

And you live with that choice

And whether or not you and I agree with the choice, I think we owe it to that person to respect the heart and soul that has gone into the decision.

---------------------