Before I begin, let me put my cards on the table. Although I believe that Roe v. Wade was badly decided, I want abortion to remain legal. As a conservative, I am convinced it should be restricted, but I do not wish to see it outlawed.
My reason for this is different than most. Having worked as a helping professional for decades, I got to observe the damage perpetrated against unwanted children. Many go through a lifetime of hell because of the rejection they experience from cradle to grave.
If this agony can be short-circuited before they are genuinely human, I consider it a form of mercy. It not only relieves the distress of those who experience this mistreatment, but that of the many others upon whom they visit their anguish.
But let me get to my main point. When I teach social change, I explain why abortion has become such a contentious issue. There was a time, just a few hundred years ago, when no one was troubled by ending the lives of the unborn. This was because their circumstances differed so greatly from ours.
Not until the last century could parents be certain that their children would grow to adulthood. Before modern medicine, the problem was keeping the young alive, as opposed to having too many of them. My favorite example was Queen Ann of England who, three centuries ago, had seventeen pregnancies, but not a single child who made it past the teens.
With industrialization also came the need to devote more resources to preparing children for complicated occupational demands. Large families became a hindrance to significant achievement. Children, who per force received less parental attention, were less motivated to strive for success.
Another lesson I impart to my students is that when social circumstances change, our values do as well. These are renegotiated to adjust to unprecedented conditions. Although many people believe that morality is unchangeable, history demonstrates that it is not. Witness our changing attitudes towards dueling and gays.
In any event, our modified outlooks develop out of quarrelsome social dialogues. Typically what happens is that two sides of partisans propose inconsistent alternatives to a nettlesome problem. Each is certain that it is in the right and therefore that the other is in league with the devil.
In the case of abortion, these two factions are the pro-life and pro-choice parties. One insists that all life is sacred; hence even a fertilized egg deserves to be protected. Meanwhile the other concentrates on the health of the mother and maintains that she has an absolute right to decide what happens to her body.
Generally speaking, the most active supporters in these debates tend toward the extremes. For them, it is all or nothing. Thus the radical pro-life folks eschew all abortion, even to save the life of the mother; whereas at the opposite pole, the militant pro-choicers champion abortion right up to the moment of birth.
Most onlookers, in contrast, are less extreme. They are prepared to tolerate exceptions in both directions. In fact, in the long run the more moderate positions usually prevail. Those favoring them make less noise, but in the end compromise wins out over fanaticism.
My guess—and it is only a guess—is that the abortion controversy will be settled by an agreement that the procedure should be legal, yet rare. Instead of regarding it as a normal form of birth control, it will be deemed a last ditch option.
I also suspect that there will ultimately be divergent state restrictions. This will enable communities with contradictory attitudes to adjust the laws as they see fit. If so, the coastal states are liable to be more permissive than those in the heartland.
Which brings me to the hullabaloo about confirming Brett Cavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Liberals are screaming that this would mean the death of millions. They insist that any tinkering with Roe v. Wade would result in the wholesale slaughter of vulnerable young women.
This, however, is a radical talking point. It is intended to scare voters into siding with the pro-choice faction. The other side, of course, does the same when it trots out successful adults who might otherwise never have had a chance to live.
I suggest that it is the moderates who will be victorious. Roe v. Wade will not be totally excised. Yet it will probably be modified. It could, for instance, be sent back to the states for their separate consideration. The fact is that both sides of the argument are too strong for either to be totally defeated. Eventually, there will have to be some kind of truce.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment