40 Years Later...(are we better off)?

This week we commemorate the 40th Anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that made abortion on demand legal. This moment has been described as a watershed moment for the United States, and in many ways it was.  But the question might be asked, "are we better off because of this decision?"

The Center for Reproductive Rights (www.reproductiverights.org) definitely want the country to celebrate this moment, as this advertisement suggests.  The ad hints that Roe v. Wade was a good decision because it gives freedom to pursue relationships without consequences.

Abortion can be a sensitive issue for many people, so before we begin to discuss this, we should take a look at the facts.

The Facts

• There have been over 50,000,000 legal abortions in this country since 1973.  By comparison, there have been 2,722,291 US deaths in all wars from 1775-to the present. (Guttmacher Institute)
• The abortion rate has been declining for the last several years (CDC)
• The highest number of abortions occur in New York, Florida and Texas, the least number in Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota (CDC)
• Top reasons for considering abortion are birth control failure, inability to care for a child, unwanted pregnancy, fear of defect, and pregnancy resulting from rape. (www.webmd.com) 
• 1% of reporting women claim they were having an abortion because of rape; 12% report a physical problem with a pregnancy (National Abortion Federation)
• In 2009, 85% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women
• 57% of abortions were performed on women between the ages of 20-29

The Meaning of Abortion
Keeping these facts in mind, the main question about abortion is whether or not abortion is the killing of a human being.  Or to put it another ways, does abortion 'mean anything?' Is abortion killing...or is it simply the removal of unwanted tissue?

Many suggest that an unborn fetus is not technically a human life and therefore is not entitled to the rights of other humans.  Others, like Peter Singer, feel that is a fiction.  Writing in Rethinking Life and Death, he writes,

[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life...

Singer is restating a fact recorded in the 1979 pro-choice publication, California Medicine, which states:

Since the old ethic (the traditional Christian viewpoint has not been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent   The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra uterine until death.  The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking human life would be ludicrous if they were often put forth under socially impeccable auspices.

Whether we want to admit it or not, it seems plainly clear that abortion requires the taking of a human life.  At just five weeks, the baby's heart begins to beat and its internal organs are developing.  At 6 weeks, facial features are beginning to develop. By 10 weeks, all of the major organs including the brain are beginning to function, and at 11 weeks, the baby is almost fully formed. You can see the development here. Because of this, we have to conclude that abortion is killing.

But what about the argument of the abortion issue being about a women's "right to choose?"

1. With regards to Roe's decision that a woman has a right to privacy, including medical decisions concerning her womb, we should note that this issue is highly irregular.  Either we all have a right regarding our bodies (our body, our choice) and the government has no right to regulate it...or the government does indeed have some right to regulate our bodies.  If the government has no right and our right to privacy is absolute, then government can make no law commanding us how we should take care of our body (i.e. then illegal drugs should be legal and medical insurance cannot be mandatory), or the government does have a right to regulate, in which case abortion falls under that category.
2. There needs to be further work to do on what happens when rights conflict with one another.  Does a women's right to make medical decisions super-cede an individual's right to existence?  If so, under what circumstances?  

Are we better off?
Do I think we are better off in a world with Roe? No...I do not.  And here is why.

1. From a political point of view, Roe is not a good decision.  By placing the rights of the mother over the rights of the unborn, you have created a class that now no longer has an intrinsic right to life.  Their right to life depends on another's choice to grant them this right.  If that right is deemed inconvenient to the right giver, then it is to be denied.

2. From a medical point of view abortion is not a safe procedure.  Women report bleeding, pain, discomfort, and serious infection.  Abortions increase the risks of tubal pregnancy, risks of miscarriage and may increase the probability of breast cancer.   Psychologically, women who have abortions also report problems.  These problems may be feelings of guilt, bad dreams, or may emerge into Post Abortion Syndrome.

3. From a Cultural point of view, abortion has proven to be a disaster.  We live in the first generation of survivors, whose life was only worth something because their parents chose to have them.  Because of abortion (and other cultural phenomena), life is less sacred then it used to be.  Generations X and Y are marked by an increasing indifference to life. This, in turn, has led to what Pope John Paul II has coined, "the culture of death".

Abortion and the Church
The Church, as witnesses to God's creative purpose, has no choice but to oppose abortion on demand.  Historically, the Church has always been in opposition to abortion.

In Roman times, the method of abortion was called 'exposure', where an unwanted child was left to die in a field.  Early Christians were known as people who would go into the field to take these unwanted children into their homes to raise them.  Perhaps the reason for this was the Old Testament image of an aborted child as the people of God (Ezekiel 16:6).

Today, the church again has a duty to stand for the "Gospel of Life."  In this regard, I suggest the following:

1. The Church has a duty to minister compassionately to everyone whose life has been touched by abortion.  Casting stones and calling people "murderer" and similar epigraphs has no place in the church of Christ or in the ministry of the gospel.
2. The Church should be at the foregrounds of providing for pregnant women who feel overwhelmed by their circumstances.  They should be assisting those who are pregnant during and after their pregnancy. 
3. The Church needs to be leaders in the areas of adoption.  The church needs to promote adoption, encourage their members to adopt and help fund adoptions. 
4. The Church needs to lead by example in the area of sexuality.  Unfortunately, the behavior of the church matches the world in this area.  

In short, the anniversary of Roe v Wade should not be celebrated.  It should be mourned and we should strive to overturn it with acts of life.  By doing this, we can turn our culture of death in a culture of hope.